XXIX.
A. The CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR shall conduct, at a minimum, one annual meeting to discuss issues concerning the TOW ROTATION LIST. All meetings shall be mandatory for the TOW OPERATOR or TOW OPERATOR's designee wishing to remain on rotation.
XXX. DEMEANOR AND CONDUCT
A. While involved in RPD TOW ROTATION LIST or related business, the TOW OPERATOR and/or em ployees shall refrain from any acts of misconduct including, but not limited to, any of the following:
1. Rude or discourteous behavior.
2. Lack of service, selective service, or refusal to provide service which the operator is/should be capable of performing.
ANNUAL MEETING
645
26 3. Any act of sexual harassment or sexual impropriety.
4. U
nsafe driving practices.
5. E
xhibiting any objective symptoms of alcohol and/or drug use.
6. A
ppearing at the scene of a RPD rotation tow call with the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the driver's breath or person.
B. The TOW OPERATOR/tow truck driver with the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the driver's breath or person shall submit to a preliminary alcohol screening test upon demand of the RPD.
C. All RPD related service complaints received by the RPD against a TOW OPERATOR or a TOW OPERATOR'S employee will be accepted and investigated in a fair and impartial manner. As a result of the investigation, the RPD shall take any action necessary in the CITY's sole discretion. In any event, the TOW OPERATOR will be notified if the allegations are deemed founded or unfounded.
1. Should the filing of a criminal charges be a possibility, the RPD will conduct the investigation to conclusion or assist the lead investigation agency and, if warranted, request prosecution.
XXXI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW
A. The TOW OPERATOR and its employees and agents shall, at all times, comply with federal, state and local laws and ordinances, which include, but are not limited to, those laws which are applicable to the TOW OPERATOR. (refer to Attachment B for selected Vehicle Code and Civil Code Sections).
1. In t
he event of a minor traffic violation by a TOW OPERATOR which is known by the RPD, the TOW OPERATOR shall be advised of the violation by the RPD. The TOW OPERATOR will be required to the opportunity to take necessary steps to ensure that the drive complies with the law.
B. Any conviction of the TOW OPERATOR involving a stolen or embezzled vehicle, fraud related to the towing business, stolen or embezzled property, a crime of violence, a drug related offense, felony driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or a drug while involved in a RPD rotation tow call, or moral turpitude shall be cause of termination of the AGREEMENT. 646
27 C. Any conviction of an TOW OPERATOR and it's drivers or agents, involving a stolen or embezzled vehicle, fraud related to the towing business, stolen or embezzled property, a crime of violation, a drug, misdemeanor driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or a drug while participating on the RPD ROTATION TOW LIST, or moral turpitude shall be cause for the immediate removal of the employee, driver or agent from the list of current RPD rotation tow truck drivers.
D. A TOW OPERATOR or its drivers or agents, arrested or charged for a violation involving any of the above crimes shall be prohibited from driving under this contract until the case is adjudicated.
XXXII. COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall, as a condition of inclusion in the ROTATION TOW LIST, comply with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT.
XXXIII. ADVERSTISING
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall not display any sign or engage in any advertisement indicating an official or unofficial connection with the RPD or the Department of Motor Vehicles.
1. Ex
amples include: "Official Police Department Tow," "Approved by RPD," etc.
2. Thi
s will not preclude the RPD supervisor from implementing a system to mark and identify particular tow trucks as having passed the RPD inspection.
XXXIV. CANCELLATION
A. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party upon giving thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party.
XXXV. ASSIGNMENTS: SUBCONTRACTORS: EMPLOYEES
A. Assignment. Both parties shall faithfully perform the provisions of this AGREEMENT and shall not assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this AGREEMENT or any right, title, or interest to any part thereof, unless otherwise specified in the AGREEMENT without the prior written consent of the other party and then only subject to such terms and conditions as the other party may require. Any assignment without such approval shall be null and void and, at the option of the other party, shall terminate this AGREEMENT and any permits, licenses, or privileges granted herein. This AGREEMENT and any interest herein 647
28 shall not be assignable by operation of law without the prior written consent of the other party.
B. Subcontractors: Em ployees. The TOW OPERATOR may, for this AGREEMENT, subcontract for dispatching services only.
XXXVI. NO
N-INTERFERENCE
A. The TOW OP ERATOR and/or employees, subcontractors or other representatives of TOW OPERATOR, shall not deliberately disrupt or interfere in any matter with the operations of other TOW OPERATORS within the CITY. Evidence of deliberate interference by the TOW OPERATOR with the operations of other TOW OPERATORS shall result in the immediate termination of the AGREEMENT.
XXXVII. FORCE MAJEURE
A. Neither party her eto 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 any cause, existing or future, which is beyond the reasonable control of such party.
XXXII
I. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS STATUS
A. For purposes of th is AGREEMENT, the TOW OPERATOR is an independent contractor and this AGREEMENT is not intended to and shall not be construed to create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association.
XXXIX. INSPECTION
A. The TOW OPERATOR's performance, place of business and records pertaining to this AGREEMENT are subject to monitoring, inspection, review and audit by authorized representatives of the CITY, the State of California, and the United States Government.
B. The RPD may inspect all TOW OPERATOR records without notice during normal business hours.
C. Failure o f the TOW OPERATOR to comply with the inspection requirements may in the CONTRACT ADMINISTRATORS sole discretion, result in immediate termination of this AGREEMENT.
648
29 XL. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
A. This AGREEMENT contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. Except as expressly provided herein, no other understanding, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this AGREEMENT shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto.
XLI. MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS
A. General amendments. This AGREEMENT may be modified or amended by a written document executed by the TOW OPERATOR and at the direction of the City of Richmond City Council.
XLII. CHOICE OF LAW AND JURISDICTION
A. This AGREEMENT is made in Contra Costa County and shall be governed and construed in accordance with laws of the State of California.
B. Any action relating to this AGREEMENT shall be instituted and prosecuted in the courts of Contra Costa County, State of California.
XLIII. CONFORMATION WITH FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS A. Should Federal or state regulations touching upon the subject of this AGREEMENT be adopted or revised during the term hereof, this AGREEMENT may be amended to assure conformance with such Federal or State requirements.
XLIV. NO WAIVER BY CITY
A. Inspections or approvals, or statements by any REQUESTING OFFICER, agent or employee of the CITY relating to the TOW OPERATOR'S performance, or payments therefore, or any combination of these acts, shall not relieve the TOW OPERATOR'S obligation to fulfill this AGREEMENT 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 A
GREEMENT.
XLV. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
A. The TOW OPERATOR promises and attests that the TOW OPERATOR and any members of its governing body shall avoid and actual or potential conflicts of interest. If the TOW OPERATOR is a corporation, the TOW OPERATOR agrees to furnish to the CITY upon demand a valid copy of its most recently adopted bylaws and also a complete and accurate list of its governing body (Board of Directors or Trustees) and to timely update said bylaws or the list of its governing body as changes in such governance occur.
649
30 XLVI. CONFIDENTIALITY
A. The TOW OPERATOR agrees to comply with, and to require its employees, officers, 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 AGREEMENT, their records, or services provided them, and assures that:
1. All applications and records concerning any individual made or kept by the TOW
OPERATOR or any public officer or agency in connection with the administration of or relating to services provided under this
AGREEMENT
will be confidential, and will not be open to examination for any purposes not directly connected with administration of such service or
as required by law.
2. 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 services or as required by law.
B. The
TOW OPERATOR shall inform all employees, agents, officers and partners of
the above provisions, and that any person knowingly and intentionally disclosing such information other than as authorized by law may be subject to legal action.
XLVII. NON-D ISCRIMINATION - CONTRACTOR
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall abide by the provisions of Section 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond, obligating every contractor under a contract 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, religious
creed, national origin or ancestry of any employees, any applicant for employment for any potential subcontractors.
XLVI
II. NON-R ENEW AL
A. There is no representation, implication, or understanding that the services provided by the TOW
OPERATOR under this AGREEMENT will be renewed by the CITY upon expiration or termination of this AGREEMENT and TOW OPERATOR waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any determination by the CITY to terminate or discontinue any services
from the TOW OPERATOR.
650
31 XLIX. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES
A. Notwithstanding mutual recognition that services under this AGREEMENT may provide
some aid or assistance to members of the CITY'S population, it is not the intention
of either the CITY or the TOW OPERATOR that such individuals occupy the position of intended third-party beneficiaries of the obligations assumed by either party to this AGREEMENT.
L. SURVIVAL
A. The right and obligations of the parties which by their nature survive termination or
completion of the services covered by this AGREEMENT shall remain in full force
and effect after termination or completion.
LI. SEVERABILITY
A. In
the event that any of the provision or portions or applications thereof of this AGREEMENT are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction,
the CITY and the TOW OPERATOR shall negotiate an equitable adjustment
in the provisions of the AGREEMENT with a view toward effecting the
purpose of this AGREEMENT, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining
provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.
LII. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES
A. The
CITY and the TOW OPERATOR shall each designate, below, an Authorized Representative
who has authority to act on its behalf in the administration of this AGREEMENT.
B. Written
notification to the other party shall be provided, in advance, or charges in name or address of such Authorized Representatives.
C. Notices
provided for under this AGREEMENT shall be in writing, and shall be served on the Authorized Representative of the receiving party, either personally or at
the party's offices, or by registered or certified mail to its office address.
D. The
CITY hereby designates as its Authorized Representative the CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATOR
whose name and address are as follows:
CHIEF
OF POLICE OR DESIGNEE
CHIEF BISA FRENCH
1701 REGATTA BLVD
RICHMOND CA 94804
651
32 E. The TOW OPERATOR hereby designates as its Authorized Representative whose name and address are as follows:
TOW OPERATOR
ADDR
ESS
CIT
Y
Z
IP CODE
LIII. RICHMOND BUSINESS LICENSE
A. Pursuant t o Richmond Municipal Code Section 7.04.030, the TOW OPERATOR must have or must obtain a CITY Business License before any provisions of this A
GREEMENT will be deemed to take effect.
652
1 EXHIBIT A-2
A. MAXIMUM BASIC CHARGE:
Beginning January 1, 2026, for each motor vehicle (including abandoned or stolen vehicles) towed at the request of the Richmond Police Department from a location within the City of Richmond to the nearest storage facility, the maximum basic charge shall be two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per hour.
B. MAXI
MUM ADDITIONAL CHARGES:
1. In any instance where the vehicle is towed outside the City limits and the distance between the location from which the motor vehicle is towed and the location to which it is delivered exceeds the distance between the location from which it is towed and the nearest storage facility operating under Chapter 7.74 of the Richmond Municipal Code, the following maximum additional charge may be made: $5.00 per mile.
2. Emergency road service at the location of the motor vehicle when the vehicle is not towed shall not exceed:
a. Flat tire repair or changing tires: One hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00). b. Fuel, start batteries, lockout: One hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00). c. Recovery and/or towing of a motor vehicle from off the roadway where special equipment or winches must be used: one hundred seventy-two dollars and fifty cents ($172.50) per hour prorated for each (one) 1- minute increment. This charge may be made whether or not all or just a portion of the vehicle is off the roadway, so long as the situation actually necessitates the use of special equipment or winches. As used herein, the term "roadway" shall mean that portion of a street, road, or highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. d. In any instance where a tow truck having a rated capacity in excess of one ton and two axles is required for towing and/or recovery the charge for the first hour or any portion thereof shall not exceed three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00). If the towing or recovery shall exceed one hour, the charges for the time in excess of one hour shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed one hundred fifty-five dollars ($155.00) per hour prorated for each (one) 1-minute increment.
653
2 e. In any instance where a tow truck having three axles is required for towing and/or recovery, the charge for the first hour, or any portion thereof, shall not exceed four hundred eighty-five dollars ($485.00) per hour prorated for each (one) 1-minute increment.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES:
1. The owner of any vehicle towed away under the direction of the RPO pursuant to Chapter 11.76 shall be required to pay an administrative fee of four hundred and twenty-four dollars ($424.00) to the City for the release of said owner's vehicle.
2. The owner of any vehicle towed away under the direction of the RPO pursuant to Section 14.40.050 of the Richmond Municipal Code, or Sections 14602.6, 14607.6, 22651(o) or 22651(p) of the California Vehicle Code, shall be required to pay an administrative fee of two hundred and forty dollars ($240.00) to t he
C
ity for the release of said owner's vehicle.
D. GATE FEE:
The owner of a vehicle towed away under the direction of the RPO shall be required to pay an after-hours gate fee of one hundred thirty -five dollars ($135.00) when r
equesting release of a vehicle after hours, during holiday or on weekends.
E. EVIDENCE TOWING:
For each vehicle towed as evidence in a criminal matter, the charge for towi ng s
hall not exceed seventy-seven dollars and fifty cents ($77.50).
F. STORAGE FEES:
1. For each towed vehicle stored as evidence in a criminal matter, the storage fee shall not exceed twenty dollars ($20.00) per day for the first seven (7) days, and five dollars ($5.00) per day thereafter.
2. For all other vehicles, daily storage fee rates shall not exceed:
a. Vehicles designed for use of six or fewer passengers, including cars, light-duty pickup trucks, taxicabs, minibuses and minivans: one hundred and thirty-five dollars ($135.00) per day.
654
3 b. Local-use commercial vehicles, other than buses, including delivery vans, passenger vans, and two axle flatbed trucks: one hundred fifty -five dollars ($155.00) per day.
c. Long-distance commercial vehicles and all buses: one hundred fifty -five dol
lars ($155.00) per day.
655
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT PROVISIONS
1. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:
a. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated in the manner set forth herein.
b. All payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photocopying, meals and travel, etc.). Invoices shall be adequately detailed, based on accurate records, and be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. Contractor may be required to provide back-up material upon request. c. All City vendors receiving new contracts shall sign up to receive electronic payments through the City’s Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) payments service/provider.
2. SUBMISSION OF INVOICES:
Contractor shall submit timely invoices by email to
[email protected] and/or to the following address:
Attention: City of Richmond Finance/Account Payable
Project Manager: _______________________
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804
3. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City Project Manager, _______________________, before payments shall be authorized.
a. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days after completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.
b. All appropriate permits, certificates, and licenses, including a City business license shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of this Contract before any payment is authorized.
4. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract is executed by the City. The insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be maintained by Contractor for the duration of this Contract and must be in place before any payment is authorized.
Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
656
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT C
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES
1. All required written notices shall be delivered: (i) by hand; or (ii) sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service; or (iii) sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective address listed in this Section.
2. Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of:
actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused; or three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above (Sundays and City holidays excepted).
3. Either party may, at any time, change its notice address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party three (3) days prior written notice of the new address.
4. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to the City shall be addressed to the City at:
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Email: ________________________________________________
5. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at:
Attn:
Email: ________________________________________________ [email protected]
Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
P.O. Box 1145
El Cerrito, CA 94530
[email protected]
657
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT D
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
Contractor hereby declares that Contractor is engaged as an independent business and Contractor agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor.
The manner and means of conducting the services and tasks are under the control of Contractor except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Contract. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Contractor’s services. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from any compensation due to Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.
2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Contractor and the City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Contract.
3. STANDARD OF CARE:
Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service Contractors, as applicable, in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City.
4. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Contractor assumes all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.
5. NON-DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with the City’s policy and state and federal law that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Contractor and its employees, contractors, and agents shall not harass or discriminate against any job applicant, City employee, or any other person on the basis of any kind of any statutorily (federal, state or local) protected class, including but not limited to: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
658
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
disability (both mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, medical condition (e.g. cancer), genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, political affiliation, military and veteran status or legitimate union activities. Contractor agrees that any violation of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.
6. CITY PROPERTY:
a. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, applicable plans, drawings, calculation, data, specification, video, graphic, or any other material or document produced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the City.
b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 11 below, indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data.
c. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval of the City Manager or their designee.
d. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City Manager or their designee may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services and tasks required under this Contract.
7. RECORDS:
a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services, tasks, work, documents and data in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Contractor’s performance under the Contract, as well as maintain books and records related to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of the services and tasks under this Contract (collectively the “Records”).
b. All Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the Records to the representatives of the City or its designees during regular business hours upon reasonable prior notice. The City has the right to examine and audit the Records, and to make copies or transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all proceedings and activities related to this Contract. Such Records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained by Contractor for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment.
Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
659
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. If supplemental examination or audit of the Records is necessary due to concerns raised by the City’s preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City’s supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of this Contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.
8. PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City business license, required in connection with the performance of the services and tasks hereunder.
The failure to obtain such permits and licenses shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.
9. TERMINATION:
a. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder immediately upon transmission of written notice to Contractor as provided in Exhibit C “Authorized Representatives and Notices”.
b. Termination in the Event of Default. Should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Contract, City may immediately terminate this Contract by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination. Contractor shall be compensated as provided in Exhibit B; provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, if any, sustained by City by virtue of Contractor's breach of this Contract. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.
10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest (as defined under any federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation, or at common law) with respect to this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges, represents and warrants that no City official or employee has any economic interest, as defined in Title 2, California Code of Regulations §§ 18703.1 through 18703.5, with Contractor that would invalidate this Contract. Contractor acknowledges that in the event that Contractor shall be found by any judicial or administrative body to have any conflict of interest (as defined above) with respect to this Contract, all consideration received under Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
660
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.
11. HOLD HARMLESS:
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, obligations, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses whatsoever, including attorney’s fees and costs of litigation (“Claims”), arising from or in any manner connected to Contractor’s performance of its obligations under this Contract or failure to comply with any of its obligations under this Contract or out of the operations conducted by Contractor even if the City is found to have been negligent. If the Claims filed against Indemnitees allege negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct on the part of Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct is not found on the part of Contractor. Contractor shall not have any obligations to indemnify Indemnitees if the loss or damage is found to have resulted solely from the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract.
b. This indemnification obligation shall survive this Contract and shall not be limited by any term of any insurance policy required under this Contract; provided however, that if this Contract is for design professional services, this indemnity provision is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional (as defined in California Civil Code section 2782.8).
12. LIMITATIONS UPON SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT:
a. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee.
b. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Contract, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of the City Manager. Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to transfer to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the desired transfer.
The City Manager or their designee may consent or reject such request in their sole and absolute discretion. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
661
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
money against the City under this Contract may be assigned by Contractor to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent.
c. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor (if applicable), or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member if Contractor is a partnership or joint- venture or syndicate, which shall result in a change of control of Contractor, shall be deemed an assignment. For this purpose, control shall mean fifty percent or more of the voting power or twenty-five percent or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture.
d. Only those persons and/or businesses whose names and resumés are attached to this Contract shall be used in the performance of this Contract. However, if after the start of this Contract, Contractor wishes to use sub-contractors, at no additional costs to the City, then Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to add sub- contractors including the names of the sub-contractors and the reasons for the request to the City Manager at least five (5) days in advance. The City Manager may consent or reject such requests in their sole and absolute discretion.
e. Each sub-contractor shall be required to furnish proof of workers’ compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance (as applicable) in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor.
f. In addition, any tasks or services performed by sub-contractors shall be subject to each provision of this Contract. Contractor shall include the following language in their Contract with any sub-contractor: “Sub-Contractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to the City.”
g. The requirements in this Section 12 shall not apply to persons who are merely providing materials, supplies, data or information that Contractor then analyzes and incorporates into its work product.
13. SAFETY:
a. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of all vehicles owned or operated by Contractor, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the services and tasks under this Contract.
Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any of subcontractor's employees This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. In addition, Contractor will comply with all safety provisions in conformance with U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Act, any equivalent state law, and all other applicable Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
662
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, codes, and any regulations that may be detailed in other parts of the Contract. Where any of these are in conflict, the more stringent requirements will be followed. Contractor’s failure to thoroughly familiarize itself with the aforementioned safety provisions will not relieve it from compliance with the obligations and penalties set forth herein.
b. Contractor will immediately notify the City (in no event less than 24 hours) of any incident of death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage that occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract. Contractor will promptly submit to the City a written report of all incidents that occur in connection with this Contract. This report must include the following information: (i) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); (ii) name and address of Contractor’s employee(s) involved in the incident; (iii) name and address of Contractor’s liability insurance carrier; (iv) a detailed description of the incident; and (v) a police report.
c. Contractor acknowledges that the City shall have the right to impose, at the City’s sole discretion, requirements that it deems are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City employees, residents, and visitors. Contractor agrees to comply with all such requirements, including, but not limited to, mandatory vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. masks), physical distancing, and health screenings.
Contractor also agrees to make available to the City, at the City’s request, records to demonstrate Contractor’s compliance with this Section.
14. INSURANCE:
Insurance requirements are set forth in Exhibit F to this Contract. Contractor shall abide by the insurance requirements set forth in said Exhibit F.
15. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS:
a. During the term of this Contract, Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future state and federal laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Richmond which affect the manner in which the services or tasks are to be performed by Contractor, as well as all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, state and federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50,
2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable.
b. Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor is required to provide the City with documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall notify each of its affected employees with regards to the wages that are required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance as prescribed in § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code.
Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
663
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or sub-Contractor under an agreement or sub-agreement with the City for public works, goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential sub-contractor.
d. Contractor acknowledges that the City’s Drug Free Workplace Policy, Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the City’s website at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/workplacepolicies.
Contractor agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of said policies.
16. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
The Recitals and exhibits are a material part of this Contract and are expressly incorporated herein. This Contract represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only by written execution signed by both the City and Contractor.
17. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS:
In the event of a conflict between these General Conditions and those of any Exhibit or attachment hereto, these General Conditions shall prevail; provided, however, that any Special Condition as set forth in Exhibit E shall prevail over these General Conditions. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any two or more Exhibits or attachments hereto, those prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by the Contractor, and the terms and conditions preferred by the City shall prevail over those preferred by the Contractor.
18. FORCE MAJEURE:
Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of such an obligation is prevented or delayed by reason of acts of God, strikes, boycotts, lock-outs, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, failure of power, restrictive governmental laws and regulations enacted after the date of this Contract, riots, civil unrest, acts of terrorism, insurrection, war, declaration of a state or national emergency or other reasons of a like nature not within the reasonable control of such party.
19. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Contract shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
664
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
California without regard to any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Contract and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Contract (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Contract shall be filed with the courts of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.
20. CLAIMS:
Any claim by Contractor against City hereunder shall be subject to Government Code §§ 800 et seq. The claims presentation provisions of said Act are hereby modified such that the presentation of all claims hereunder to the City shall be waived if not made within six months after accrual of the cause of action.
21. INTERPRETATION:
This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.
22. WARRANTY:
If any product is be provided to the City as part of this Contract, Contractor warrants as follows: Contractor possesses good title to the product and the right to transfer the product to City; the product shall be delivered to the City free from any security interest or other lien; the product meets any specifications contained herein; the product shall be free from material defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of one (1) year from the date of delivery; and the product shall be fit for its intended purpose(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, consumable and maintenance items (such as light bulbs and batteries) shall be warranted for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of delivery. All repairs during the warranty period shall be promptly performed by Contractor, at Contractor's expense, including shipping.
23. SEVERABILITY:
In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.
24. AUTHORITY:
City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that they are duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
665
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
and shall be personally liable to City if they are not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.
25. WAIVER:
The waiver by City of any breach of any term or provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. Inspections or approvals, or statements by any officer, agent or employee of the City relating to the Contractor’s performance, or payment therefore, or any combination of these acts, shall not relieve the Contractor’s obligation to fulfill this Contract as prescribed; nor shall the City be thereby stopped from bringing any action for damages or enforcement arising from any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Contract.
26. COUNTERPARTS:
This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts (including by fax, PDF, DocuSign, or other electronic means), each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
27. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE (SCCO):
The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G.
Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
666
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT E
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable, otherwise please state “NONE”):
Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
None.
667
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT F
INSURANCE PROVISIONS
☐ CHECK HERE IF RISK MANAGEMENT HAS APPROVED WAIVING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CONTRACT.
1. CERTIFICATES: Before the commencement of the terms of this Contract, and during the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, Contractor shall furnish the City’s Risk Manager with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with coverage requirements set forth by the City and incorporated herein.
Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor’s indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement:
“Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of Richmond.
Attention: Risk Manager.”
Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Contract all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Contract with an insurance company licensed to offer insurance business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII or Standard & Poor’s Rating (if rated) of at least BBB unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Contractor shall deliver updated insurance certificates to the City at the address set forth in Exhibit C prior to the expiration of the existing insurance certificate for the duration of the term of Contract.
Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.
2. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS: The City’s insurance requirements depend upon the type of service being provided and/or the provider. The City’s insurance requirements will fall into one of the following categories (unless otherwise provided by the City):
Consultants and Contractors – Type 1
Professional Services – Type 2
Environmental Risk/Hazardous Waste Material – Type 3
Lease of City Property – Type 4
Vendors, Suppliers, Small Grant Recipients & Nonprofit Organizations – Type 5 Transportation Providers – Type 6
Professional Services Pyrotechnics – Type 7
Cyber and I.T. Risks – Type 8
Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
668
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
The insurance requirements classification applicable to this Contract shall be attached to this Exhibit F and made a part hereof.
3. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or
maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in Contractor’s name or as an agent of Contractor and shall be compensated by Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
4. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor’s insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Contractor. The coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Contract; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of the coverage carried by or available to Contractor; whichever is greater.
INSERT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CLASSIFICATION APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT: (IF NECESSARY, CONFIRM WITH RISK MANAGER)
Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
669
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT G
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”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:
a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:
i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies;
ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.
b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.
Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.
By executing this statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Printed Name: Title:
Signed: Date:
Business Entity:
Checker's Group, Inc. dba Checker's Towing
670
CITY OF RICHMOND
STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: City Project Manager:
City Project Manager E-mail: City Project Manager Phone No:
Vendor No: Contract No:
Description of Services:
The parties to this STANDARD CONTRACT do mutually agree and promise as follows:
1. Parties. The parties to this Contract are the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation (“the City”), and the following named Contractor:
Contractor Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Contact Person:
Telephone: Email:
Business License No:
☐ 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 terminates _________________ unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $______________ (“Contract Payment Limit”) unless a Contract Amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager. If this amount includes a contingency, Contractor acknowledges that any use of such contingency shall be for work beyond the original scope of services and requires prior written authorization by the City. If noted below, Compensation for work done under this Contract, shall not exceed as follows:
FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________ FY _________ total compensation shall not exceed $_________________
4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor agrees to perform all work at its own cost and expense, to furnish all labor, tools, equipment, materials, except as otherwise specified, in accordance with the Service Plan set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
5. City Obligations. City shall make payments to the Contractor in accordance with the Payment Provisions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Police & Public Works
[email protected]
(510) 965-4917
12095
Rotational tow and automotive services.
Bay Area Tow Inc.
525 S. 12th Street
Richmond, CA 94804
Jaswinder Singh
(510) 237-9009
[email protected]
40007530
January 1, 2026
December 31, 2028
250,000.00
671
6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C), attached hereto and incorporated herein.
7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
10. Sanctuary City Compliance Statement. This Contract is subject to the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement (Exhibit G), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
11. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto:
CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation [BUSINESS NAME]
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice President should sign below)
By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ Title: ________________________ Title: __________________________ Date Signed: _________________ Date Signed: ___________________ I hereby certify that this Contract (* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer or Assistant has been approved by City Council Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant Secretary should or the City Manager. sign below)
By: _________________________ By: ___________________________ City Clerk Title: __________________________
Date Signed: ____________________
Approved as to form:
(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations Code Section By: _________________________ 313, if Contractor is a corporation or nonprofit organization, City Attorney this Contract (1) must be signed by (a) the Chairperson of the Board, President, or Vice-President and (b) the
Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Treasurer, or
Secretary or Assistant Secretary)
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Exhibit G
Bay Area Tow Inc.
672
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT A
SERVICE PLAN
Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the Project Manager ( set forth in Exhibit B) , perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below [or attach service plan if necessary]:
Bay Area Tow Inc.
The TOW VENDOR will follow the Towing Services Agreement attached herein as Exhibit A-1 and Fee Schedule attached herein as Exhibit A-2.
673
2026 - 2028
CITY OF RICHMOND
Service Agreement
EXHIBIT A-1
674
1 TOW SERVICE AGREEMENT
I. GENERAL DEFINITIONS, CONDITIONS AND TERMS
A. This Tow Services Agreement (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") contains terms and conditions that all contracting tow companies shall comply with in order to be part of the City of Richmond's Police Department rotational tow program ("ROTATION TOW LIST").
B. No tow company ("TOW OPERATOR") shall be placed or retained on the ROTATION TOW LIST unless t he tow company has a valid contract with the City of Richmond ("CITY"). T he Richmond Police Department ("RPD") Officer, Parking E nforcement Representative, RPD Cadet or Code Enforcement Officer ("REQUESTING OFFICER") on scene shall direct all towing service requests and has the sole discretion, i n conformity with RPD tow policy, to call for and/or cancel tows.
C. The CITY'S Chief of Police is hereby designated as the Administrator for the AGREEMENT. The Chief of Police or his/her designee shall supervise the progress and execution of this AGREEMENT through the term of the AGREEMENT.
D. TOW OPERATOR hereby names and designates
(name) as its
agent/representative ("AGENT") having sole responsibility for the overall responsibility for the performance of the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The designated AGENT is required to pass the limited background investigation as set forth below.
II. TERM OF AGREEMENT
A. This AGREEMENT shall not exceed t hirty-s ix (36) months from the date of execution unless extended by written amendment executed by the CITY and TOW OPERATOR. In no event shall the total term of the AGRE EMENT exceed sixty (60) months.
B. The total annual amount payable by the CITY to the TOW OPERATOR under this AGREEMENT shall not exceed a total amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25 0,000), except by contract amendment.
III ROTATION TOW LIST
A. Within the CITY , the RPD shall maintain the ROTATION TOW LIST for each class of tow truck to ensure equitable distribution of calls. 675
2 B. Nothing i n this AGREEMENT shall prohibit an RPD supervisor from requesting a specific TOW OPERATOR when, in the supervisor's opinion, the necessary resources to clear a hazard as expeditiously as possible are not available from the T
OW OPERATOR next on the ROTATION TOW LIST.
C. In suc h an instance, the TOW OPERATOR who had been passed over shall be retained at the top of the ROTATION TOW LIST. Regardless of the class of tow truck utilized for the call, charges shall not be more than for the class of vehicl e t
owed or serviced, except with vehicle recovery operations that require a larger class of tow truck.
D. More t han one TOW OPERATOR may be dispatched to a location requiring m
ultiple vehicle tows. Distribution of the vehicles to be towed shall be at the d
iscretion of the REQUESTING OFFICER
E. A R EQUESTING OFFICER may direct a TOW OPERATOR to move vehicles to cl
ear a roadway or for emergency lifesaving operations. TOW OPERATOR sha ll p
rovide such assistance as directed and there shall be no charge for this assistance.
The assistance provided shall not change the TOW OPERATOR'S place on the TO
W ROTATION LIST.
F. The TOW OPERATOR shall participate in t he Contra Costa County Victim Assistance Program, which will offer a 15% discount to crime victims that have met the requirements of the program. Payments made by Contra Costa County Victim Assistance Program will be made by check only. TOW OPERATOR sha ll ag
ree to accept checks from the Contra Costa County Victim Assistance Program.
G. The t ow operator shall waive the first 48 hours of vehicle storage fees for City of R
ichmond residents that are victims of crime or whose vehicle was towed as a result of being involved with a crime. Verification of crime victims will be verified by Richmond Police Department.
IV. CANCELLED TOW REQUESTS/FEES
A. If vehicle to be towed is gone when the TOW OPERATOR arrives to perform the tow, the REQUESTING OFFICER shall be responsible for insuring that the TOW OPERATOR is placed back on top of the ROTATION TOW LIST.
B. A tow request may only be cancelled by the RPD Dispatcher or the REQUESTING OFFICER. The TOW OPERATOR does not have the authorization to cancel calls for service. The REQUESTING OFFICER may cancel tows at their sole discretion and in conformity with Departmental Policy.
1. An R PD Dispatch call to a TOW OPERATOR shall constitute one turn on the list and that TOW OPERATOR shall be moved to the bottom of the ROTATION TOW LIST unless the TOW OPERATOR is cancelled while
676
3 in route and up to arrival at the tow location solely because the tow is no longer required. Displacement from the top of the ROTATION TOW LIST shall also occur when the TOW OPERATOR fails to answer the phone, is unable to respond, is unable to perform the required service, refuses to respond or provide service, or is canceled due to excessive response time. If the TOW OPERATOR is cancelled prior to and up to arrival at the scene, there shall be no charges. For the purpose of the AGREEMENT "arrival" is defined as the time the tow truck physically stops at the location and the tow truck's wheels are no longer moving. The REQUESTING OFFICER shall have the sole discretion to make the determination if the tow truck has arrived under the above definition
2. The City shall not reimburse any t ow company for any reimbursable tow services that are canceled while enroute and up to arrival to the tow location. Therefore, no fees or charges billed by the TOW OPERATOR, will be accepted or paid by the CITY, as this practice is considered "a cost o
f doing business" in the towing industry
V. DROP FEES
A. When a vehicle is being towed due to a parking violation and the vehicle owner or authorized driver returns to the vehicle after the tow truck's arrival but before the tow truck is in motion, he/she shall be informed of his/her right to have the vehicl e released upon payment of a Drop Fee. The Drop Fee in this c ircumstance shall be one half (1/2) of cost of the AGREEMENT tow fee. The Drop Fee shall be paid at that time to the TOW OPERATOR with consent of the REQUESTING OFFICER. The Drop Fee release does not apply when the REQUESTING OFFICER is impounding the vehicle.
B. If the attachment process i s complete and the tow truck is in motion, the vehicle owner or authorized driver shall pay the full AGREEMENT tow fee to the TOW OPERATOR, with consent of the REQUESTING OFFICER. The TOW OPERATOR is required to ensure that all tow truck drivers have the necessary equipment to accept Drop Fee payment by credit card and the necessary receipts for ac cepting cash payment.
VI. TOWING, RECOVERY, LOAD SALVAGE, IMPOUND SERVICES AND
STORAGE FACILITY
A. Services required to be provided under this AGREEMENT include the following:
1. Towing of vehicles from the REQUESTING OFFICER's l ocation to the TOW OPERATOR's storage/impound facility or, upon direction of the REQUESTING OFFICER, to a designated dismantling facility. 677
4 2. The ability to conduct Vehicle Recovery Operations. Vehicle recovery operation means an operation requiring the up-righting of an overturned vehicle or returning a vehicle to a normal position on the roadway any may require the use of auxiliary equipment due to the size or location of the vehicle. This will generally be limited to operations requiring a Class B, C, or D tow truck.
3. The ability to conduct Load Salvage Operations. Load savage operation means any operation involving the recovery of a load which has been spilled, or the off-loading of a load from an overturned vehicle necessary to upright the vehicle.
4. TOW OPERATOR shall respond RPD calls 24 hours a day, 7-days a week and within the maximum response times set herein. The TOW OPERATOR shall respond with the appropriate class tow truck required to tow the vehicle specified by the REQUESTING OFFICER. The TOW OPERATOR shall advise RPD Dispatch, at the time of notification, if they are either unable to respond or unable to meet the maximum response time. If, after accepting the call, the TOW OPERATOR is unable to respond or will be delayed in responding, the TOW OPERATOR shall immediately notify the appropriate RPD Dispatch Center. The TOW OPERATOR shall not assign initial calls to any other TOW OPERATOR.
5. The maximum response times for RPD tows shall be as follows:
• For normal tow requests - 30 minutes;
• For "expedited" tow requests - 20 minutes;
• For "big rig" tow requests - 60 minutes.
6. A failure to respond and/or repeated failure to meet the maximum response time requirements shall constitute failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT.
7. When a TOW OPERATOR will be temporarily unavailable to provide services due to pre-planned or scheduled activity, e.g., vacation, maintenance, medical leave, etc., the TOW OPERATOR shall notify the RPD Dispatch supervisor at least 24 hours prior to the date that services will be unavailable, noting the times and dates of the unavailability.
8. Only the tow truck personnel and equipment requested shall respond to a RPD call. Additional tow truck personnel and equipment shall be at the approval of the RPD Watch Commander. This shall not preclude the TOW OPERATOR from responding to an incident to ascertain if additional assistance or equipment is requested. There shall be no additional charge for any personnel or equipment that is not necessary to perform the required service.
678
5 9. TOW OPERATOR shall have a business office and storage facility located within the CITY or within three (3) miles of the CITY limits throughout the term of the AGREEMENT.
VII. TOW TRUCK CLASSIFICATIONS
A. An operator shall equip and maintain tow trucks covered under this AGREEMENT in accordance with the provisions set forth in the California Vehicle Code (CVC), Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 13), the specifications contained in this AGREEMENT, and in a manner consistent with industry standards and practices.
B. All tow trucks shall have recovery and wheel lift capabilities meeting the specifications contained in this AGREEMENT.
1. Class D tow trucks used exclusively for recovery operations are not required to possess wheel lift capabilities.
2. An operator who has a car carrier is exempted from the recovery, wheel lift, and boom capability requirements. However, the car carrier must be an additional unit and shall not be used for recovery.
C. A violation of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and/or safe loading requirements of a tow truck will result in termination of AGREEMENT. This includes exceeding the tow truck's GVWR, front axle weight rating, rear axle weight rating, maximum tire weight ratings, or not maintaining 50 percent of the tow truck's unladen front axle weight on the front axle when towing.
D.
Each Tow Operator must have at least three tow trucks capable of towing Cl
ass A, and at least one tow truck capable of towing Class B, Class C, or Cl
ass D at all times during the term of the AGREEMENT.
1. Class A-Light Duty
• TOW OPERATOR shall maintain a minimum of one tow truck which has a manufacturer's GVWR of at least 14,000 pounds.
• After June 30, 2006, Class A 4-wheel drive tow trucks with a GVWR of less than 14,000 pounds may be listed as special equipment on the CHP 234A, Rotation Tow Listing Application. These tow trucks shall be used only for recoveries requiring the use of 4-wheel drive.
2. Class B -Medium Duty
• TOW OPERATOR shall maintain a minimum of one tow truck with a GVWR of at least 26,001 pounds. The truck shall be equipped with air 679
6 brakes and a tractor protection valve or device, and be capable of providing and maintaining continuous air to the towed vehicle.
3. Class C -Heavy Duty
• TOW OPERATOR shall maintain at least one three-axle tow truck with a GVWR of at least 48,000 pounds. The truck shall be equipped with air brakes and must be capable of providing and maintaining continuous air to the towed vehicle.
4. Class D -Super Heavy
• TOW OPERATOR shall maintain at least one three-axle tow truck with a GVWR of at least 52,000 pounds. The truck shall be equipped with air brakes and must be capable of providing and maintaining continuous air to the towed vehicle.
VIII. TOW TRUCK DRIVERS
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall maintain a current list of drivers at all times.
1. The TOW OPERATOR shall provide a current list of drivers to the RPD upon implementation of this AGREEMENT. The TOW OPERATOR shall notify the RPD upon any change in driver status, including the addition of any new drivers, or the deletion of any drivers. An updated list shall be provided to the RPD within seven (7) calendar days of any change in driver status.
2. All drivers are required to complete and sign the Tow Operator/Driver Information Sheet. If a driver refuses to complete and sign the form, he/she shall not be permitted respond to calls from the TOW ROTATION LIST
3. TOW OPERATORS shall, as a minimum, maintain the following information for each employee:
• Full name
• Date of birth
• California driver's license number
• Copy of valid medical certificate (if required)
• Job title/description
• Current home address
• Current home phone number
• Types of truck the driver is trained, instructed, and qualified to operate.
B. All tow truck drivers shall obtain a Tow Driver Permit prior to responding to any RPD towing calls. The TOW OPERATOR is responsible for scheduling the required Live Scan at the RPD for each of its drivers. The TOW OPERATOR 680
7 shall ensure that each of its drivers has applied for and obtained a Tow Driver Permit from RPD prior to allowing the driver to respond to any RPD tow request.
C. A
ll tow truck drivers and TOW OPERATOR managers are required to successfully complete the CITY sponsored Customer Service Training program within 90-days of their employment with any TOW OPERATOR. The TOW OPERATOR shall pay the cost of the training to the CITY.
D. All tow truck drivers will be required to wear an approved "mechanic style" uniform including a shirt with the operator's name and company name embossed and will be required to maintain acceptable standards of dress and cleanliness while in the field.
E. Al
l tow truck drivers engaged in performing their duties under the provisions of this AGREEEMT will take direction in performing such duties from the REQUESTING OFFICER at the scene.
IX. SERVICE REQUEST TYPES
A. In addition to light duty, medium duty and heavy-duty tows, the TOW OPERATOR will be required to respond to the following types of tows commonly requested by the PD Tow Dispatcher:
1. Abandoned Vehicle Tow (private property tows): Any tow designated by the CITY as part of its abandoned vehicle abatement program, which must be taken to the contracted tow dismantler.
2. CITY Vehicle Tow: Any tow of a City-owned vehicle.
3. CITY Vehicle Road Service: A request for road service on a City owned vehicle, limited to tire changes, jump starts, lock outs, and winch outs.
4. Courtesy Tow: Requests to have a legally parked vehicle moved to another legal parking place for emergency purposes, at no charge to the citizen.
5. Motorcycle Tow: Request to tow a motorcycle not requiring use of a motorcycle trailer.
6. Scheduled Tow: A tow that is scheduled in advance and does not require a specific arrival time.
7. Tows that are assigned a DMV 462 form: All tows given a DMV 462 must be taken to the contracted salvage/dismantlers that have a valid contract with the CITY for such services.
681
8 , X. CANCELLED TOW REQUESTS
A. Tows Gone On Arrival (GOA) - If a tow request vehicle is gone when the TOW OPERATOR arrives to perform a tow the REQUESTING OFFICER will be responsible for insuring that the TOW OPERATOR be placed back on top of the rotation tow list.
B. Cancelled Calls - A tow request may only be cancelled by the RPD Dispatcher or the REQUESTING OFFICER. The TOW OPERATOR or its employees do not have the authorization to cancel calls for service. The REQUESTING OFFICER may cancel tows at his or her sole discretion and in conformity with Departmental Policy.
XI. BACKGROUND EXAMINATIONS
A. All persons performing or causing towing services to be performed pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall submit to a limited background examination and shall pay the required fees as established by City Council resolution. Each first-time tow driver applicant must undergo a live scan examination as part of the limited background process and pay the tow drivers permit fee as set in the Master Fee Schedule (currently $31). The CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR may deny an application and may summarily revoke a previously approved tow driver permit when he or she determines, at his or her sole discretion, which said application or tow driver permit would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. A temporary tow driver's permit to begin providing services on behalf of the TOW OPERATOR may be issued upon determination of the following:
1. The fees for the live scan exam (if required) and tow truck driver permit, as established by resolution of the City Council have been paid (cash or check required); currently $89.00 and subject to change.
2. The applicant has submitted a complete and truthful application, including photographs and all required evidence of identity and right to work in the United States. Incomplete applications or applications containing omissions or misrepresentations of any sort will be rejected. Applications will be deemed untruthful if they contain material omissions and material misstatements of fact.
3. Within the past seven (7) years, the applicant has not been convicted of a felony or any crime involving vehicles or vehicle parts; burglary, theft or stolen property; assault, battery or any similar violent crime; any criminal conviction under State Narcotic Law; any sex crime; any crime involving fraud or deceit; or any crime involving moral turpitude. 682
9 4. Within the past five (5) years, the applicant has not been convicted of any serious driving offense, including but not limited to driving under the influence of intoxicants, reckless driving, attempt to evade/elude a peace officer, or hit and run.
5. Th
e applicant's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) driving record for the five- year period prior to the date of application does not contain more than:
• Five (5) traffic infractions or,
• Five (5) serious traffic violations, or
• Five (5) motor vehicle accidents which are required to be reported to the DMV, or
• Greater than five (5) of any combination of infractions, serious traffic violations or motor vehicle accidents, as defined above.
B. The TOW OPERATOR shall be responsible for scheduling tow truck drivers for their background check appointments and for ensuring that the drivers arrive on time, with all required documents and fees. The TOW OPERATOR may incur a billing deduction when any driver fails to arrive on time and/or is not adequately prepared.
C. The TOW OPERATOR must procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by state and local law.
XII. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR SERVICE
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall respond to a minimum of eighty percent (80%) of all standard requests for service, and a minimum of eighty percent (80%) of all flatbed requests for service, over any given monthly billing period. A TOW OPERATOR cannot refuse response for vehicles that contain refuse, trash and debris.
B. It shall be the TOW OPERATOR responsibility to perform as follows:
1. V
ehicle tows as requested by the RPD, including, but not limited to, vehicles impounded for evidence or taken into custody by the RPD, vehicles involved in accidents or disabled for other causes (when alternative towing is either not appropriate or not requested by the owner or operator of the vehicle), and vehicles which for other reasons are within the jurisdiction of the RPD.
2. Remove debris from public streets resulting from accidents. Debris does not include personal property of the owner or operator of the vehicle.
Failure to remove accident debris will result in a $150.00 penalty to be deducted from the payment of the invoice.
683
3. Perform the necessary work preliminary to towing such as removal of vehicles from ditches, righting said vehicles, separating entangled vehicles, disconnecting drive shafts, and other such work in connection with the towing operations performed under the AGREEMENT.
4. R
eview the CHP 180 form and ensure that all damages and items located in the car have been noted by the REPORTING OFFICER and only then sign the CHP 180 form.
5. C
lear the location specified in the originating dispatch sufficiently to restore normal traffic movement. In the event that the TOW OPERATOR receives an additional tow request to remove a disabled vehicle that is interrupting traffic flow, park the first tow request in a safe location, then immediately proceed to the site specified for the additional tow request.
Any disabled vehicle deposited or parked by the TOW OPERATOR at the site specified in any tow request shall be towed at the earliest opportunity after the TOW OPERATOR has complied with the above provisions for restoring traffic movements at all specified locations.
6. Write the RPD case number and the date of tow on the front and rear windows of the towed vehicle in a legible manner, excluding plastic windows.
7. Transport all towed vehicles directly to the TOW OPERATOR's tow yard or to the location designated by the impounding REQUESTING OFFICER requesting towing service or the vehicle owner.
8. Tow vehicles that do not have any wheels.
9. E
nsure that the tow driver/operators shall not interfere with a REQUESTING OFFICERS decision to impound or release a vehicle
10. N
otify RPD Dispatch operator when a tow truck arrives on the scene of a requested response for tow service.
11. Communicate directly and at all times, with Dispatch when providing tow services for the CITY.
12. Tow all vehicles including vehicle that are abandoned and filled with trash and debris.
684
11 XIII. FORBIDDEN ACTIVITIES
A. The following activities are forbidden:
1. D
riving "code" by operating overhead emergency lights while enroute to or from a tow scene.
2. Disobeying traffic control devices (traffic lights, stop signs, etc.).
3. M
onitoring police radio dispatches for gain or profit.
4. S
oliciting preferential dispatches to accident locations by payment, of any form or favor or gratuity, to a party of this AGREEMENT.
5. S
oliciting those at the scene of an accident or disabled vehicle for personal profit.
6. Soliciting performance of repair work on a vehicle involved in an accident or breakdown in connection with providing towing service for such vehicle.
7. Making any repairs or alterations to a vehicle, without first being authorized by the owner or an authorized insurance company or other authorized agent of the vehicle owner, with the exception of emergency alterations necessary to permit the safe towing of a vehicle.
8. No
t taking private property tows and tows given a DMV 462 form to a CITY contracted dismantler.
9. Towing any vehicle that is occupied by any person, except as specifically directed by the REQUESTING OFFICER.
10. C
harging for services not performed, creating duplicate charges for the same service or charging any fee in excess of those permitted under the AGREEMENT.
11. Causing damage to the persons or property of others while performing under the AGREEMENT.
12. Making false statements of fact or omitting disclosure of material fact.
13. P
ossession of any firearm or weapon in a tow truck during performance of this AGREEMENT.
14. Use of profane or obscene language, which offends a customer or any other person; or being verbally or physically offensive, abusive, 685
12 disrespectful, or discourteous to any customer, motorist, agency employee or any other person.
15. T
ouching any customer, motorist, agency employee or any other person in any inappropriate manner, except in self-defense when threatened with imminent physical harm.
16. R
emoving any parts, property, personal affects or any other items from a vehicle, except as specifically permitted in the AGREEMENT or at the explicit request of the vehicle owner/owner's agent.
17. Driving under the influence of alcohol, prescription or over the counter drugs if such drugs impair the tow operator's ability to safely perform all functions necessary to the fulfillment of the AGREEMENT.
18. O
perating any vehicle or other equipment in a careless, reckless or negligent manner, or operating a towing vehicle during the commission of a crime.
19. Refusing to issue a clearly legible receipt, if necessary, in addition the standard tow bill, to any owner/ owner's agent who requests a detailed listing of all charges.
20. Requiring any vehicle owner/owner's agent to make any statement or sign any document relieving the TOW OPERATOR from responsibility for the condition of the vehicle or its personal effects prior to the owner/owner's agent inspection of the vehicle.
21. O
perating any towed vehicle, except as directed by a REQUESTING OFFICER or other agent of the CITY.
22. All TOW OPERATORS shall refrain from recommending or promoting their tow business or other business services when performing tow requests for the CITY and its agents. The act of soliciting and/ or recommending a business or service for personal financial gain or when acting as an agent for a body shop, repair shop, or legal service is strictly forbidden.
23. Refusing to tow ANY vehicle, trailer or vessel that is filled with trash, refuse and debris.
XIV. RATES AND STORAGE FEES
A. Fees charged for response to calls originating from the RPD shall not exceed those rates which have been established by resolution by the City Council of the City of Richmond.
686
13 B. In an effort to remain competitive in the open market, the TOW OPERATOR may lower retail rates at any time by notifying the RPD in writing. When a TOW OPERATOR lowers the retail rate, that retail rate becomes the new approved RPD rates. A TOW OPERATOR may only raise previously lowered rates for RPD calls through a written contract amendment approved by the CITY.
C. Any TOW OPERATOR who charges rates above the TOW OPERATOR'S retail hourly rates or submitted rates for a RPD call shall be in violation of this AGREEMENT.
D. The fees charged by a TOW OPERATOR for storage of vehicles towed in response to calls originating from the RPD shall not exceed those rates which have been established by resolution by the City Council of the City of Richmond.
E. The TOW OPERATOR shall display in plain view at all cashiers' stations, a sign as described in Section 3070 of the Civil Code, disclosing all storage fees and charges in forced, including the maximum storage rate.
F. Vehicles stored 24 hours or less shall be charged nor more than one day storage.
Each day thereafter or less shall be calculated by calendar day.
G. The approved scheduled of rates charges by the TOW OPERATOR shall be available in the tow truck, and shall be presented upon demand to the person(s) whom the tow services were provided, their agent, or any RPD officer at the scene.
H. Rate requirements represent the maximum a TOW OPERATOR may charge on a RPD call. The TOW OPERATOR is not precluded from charging less when deemed appropriate by the TOW OPERATOR. These requirements shall not be construed as requiring a charge when the TOW OPERATOR would not normally charge for such service.
I. No TOW OPERATOR or any employee of the TOW OPERATOR shall refer to any rate as the" minimum required" or as a rate set by the RPD.
J. Whenever the Chief of Police, or his/her designee, determines that a vehicle was towed improperly or in error or that fairness requires that towed vehicle be released to the owner and orders the TOW OPERATOR to release the towed vehicle to its owner without charging him/her for the tow or storage thereof, the CITY shall pay the cost of the tow and one day storage only. The TOW OPERATOR shall waive all other storage costs and release the vehicle. 687
14 XV. INSPECTION, REPAIR & MAINTAINENCE
A. Tow trucks used in the performance of this AGREEMENT shall display evidence of having passed a semi-annual safety inspection. The CITY's Maintenance Division, the California Highway Patrol, or other acceptable and equivalent organizations may conduct this inspection. No tow truck shall be approved for operation under the conditions of this AGREEMENT unless such truck meets the equipment standards set forth in this AGREEMENT and is owned by or is under the exclusive control of the TOW OPERATOR by means of a lease. All tow trucks used in the performance of this AGREEMENT shall be maintained in good condition, which includes:
1. To
w truck bodies shall be adequately painted and the paint shall be maintained in good condition
2. To
w trucks shall be marked and conform to all requirements of the California Vehicle Code.
3. T
ow trucks shall be marked with the name/identification for this AGREEMENT and shall be the same name as the name shown as "Firm Name"
4. To
w trucks must be registered with the DMV for this AGREEMENT and shall be same as the name shown as "Firm Name'' on the first page of this AGREEMENT.
5. To
w truck bodies shall be kept in good repair, clean and free of major damage or dents.
6. To
w truck wrecker bed interiors shall have all equipment properly mounted and properly maintained...
7. To
w truck cab interiors shall be kept clean and free of dirt and grease, shall have complete instrumentation, including manufacturer's interior panels, shall have passenger seatbelts, and shall have clean upholstery surfaces and floor.
XVI. SERVICE COST ADJUSTMENTS
A. The time required to complete a standard tow request should not exceed one (1) hour including response time. Any charges for additional tow trucks or extra persons used during a vehicle recovery will require approval from the REQUESTING OFFICER or RPD SUPERVISOR, and the times of arrival and departure of the additional equipment or person. The TOW OPERATOR shall notify RPD Dispatch if there is any delay or extension of billable hours and 688
15 provide a written justification for the extra charges on the Impound Storage Report.
XVII. AUTHORITY OF THE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
A. The Contract Administrator reviews and regulates the performance of the TOW O
PERATOR. For the purpose of the AGREEMENT, the CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR shall:
1. Determine if the TOW OPERATOR is in compliance with the AGREEMENT, and shall hear and investigate complaints regarding the performance of the TOW OPERATOR.
2. Determine and apply appropriate remedies for violations of the A
GREEMENT.
3. Determine the terms and content of the AGREEMENT between the CITY and the TOW OPERATOR.
4. Oversee inspections of all equipment, facilities, and personnel for c
ompliance with this AGREEMENT.
5. Investigate the appropriate use of specialized equipment and the rates charged, and take any action deemed appropriate if it is determined that the use of specialized equipment was unnecessary or the charges excessive.
6. During the term of this AGREEMENT, the CITY, acting through the CONTRACT ADMTNTSTRATOR, may issue new policies or directives not included in the original AGREEMENT in the form of an amendment.
The TOW OPERATOR will be furnished with copies of such policies and directives. Such policies and directives will become part of and incorporated into this AGREEMENT and shall become effective as provided.
XVIII. DEDUCTIONS
Any violation of the AGREEMENT may cause extreme inconvenience and hardship to the City, and failure to abide by all rules, directives, laws, and terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT may result in the CITY, at its sole discretion terminating the AGREEMENT and/or imposing deductions as enumerated above.
689
16 1 Insufficient staffing or tow trucks in service - $25.00 per occurrence without cause. 2 Improperly equipped truck - $25.00 per occurrence, per item, per truck. 3 Failure to mark invoice numbers on a vehicle - $25.00 per occurrence without cause. 5 Tow driver does not meet minimum qualifications $100.00 per occurrence without cause. 6 Late call-in of information to Dispatch-(if applicable) $25.00 per occurrence without cause. 7 Tow driver out of uniform or unkempt $25.00 per occurrence without cause. 8 Failure to itemized billing - $25.00 per occurrence without cause. 9 Failure to submit a Tow Storage Report - $25.00 per occurrence without cause. 10 Failure to provide stored vehicles protection from weather - $25.00 per occurrence without cause. 11 Unprepared or late for a background investigation - $25.00 per occurrence without cause. 12 Late response (3) times within a 30-day period - $100.00 per occurrence without cause. 13 Failure to perform a vehicle recovery - $50.00 per occurrence without cause. 14 Failure to clean up at accident scene - $150.00 per occurrence without cause.
XIX. NOTIFICATION
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall inform the CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR within twenty-four (24) hours of the arrest, criminal charges, conviction or sentencing of any owner, part -owner, partner, business associate, principal party, officer, director, agent, employee or any other person associated with the TOW O
PERATOR's performance of this AGREEMENT for any criminal offenses including, but not limited to, theft, robbery, burglary, assault, drugs, prostitution, weapons, fraud, trafficking in stolen goods or any traffic crime, driving under the influence of intoxicants, reckless driving, attempt to elude a police officer, leaving the scene of an injury accident or hit and run or any other offense related to the protection of the public interest.
XX. TOW TRUCK PERMIT
A. All tow truck drivers perfo1ming towing services on behalf of the TOW OPERATOR must obtain and maintain a valid "Tow Truck Driver Pe1mit" issued b
y the RPD, while performing services under this AGREEMENT. The "Tow Truck Driver Permit" must be in the driver's possession at all times, and must be presented upon demand for inspection by any employee of the CITY. Any TOW OPERATOR whose driver arrives at a call for service without the required Permit m
ay incur a billing deduction.
XXI. PAYMENT PROVISIONS FOR ABATEMENT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY TOWS.
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall tow only vehicles towed under RMC 11.76, CVC 2 2651(k) & CVC 22669(d) to those dismantlers that have a current contract with th
e CITY. Failure to tow such vehicle to the designated auto salvage/dismantler will result in termination of the AGREEMENT.
690
17 XXII. COLLUSION
A. No TOW OPERATOR shall conspire, or attempt to conspire, or commit any other act of collusion or comingling of services, with any other TOW OPERATOR for the purpose of secretly, or otherwise, establishing an unfair understanding regarding rates or conditions to the agreement that would bring about any unfair c
ondition which could be prejudicial to the RPD, the motoring public or other TOW OPERATOR or violate any condition or term of this AGREEMENT.
B. Examples of "collusion" include, but are not limited to: conspiracy by any TOW OPERATOR to establish artificially low rates for services performed pursuant to t
his AGREEMENT; conspiracy or attempts, by any TOW OPERATOR to circumvent any term of this AGREEMENT including rotation list placement.
C. A dete1mination by the RPD that any TOW OPERATOR has been involved in collusion shall result in termination of the AGREEMENT at the sole discretion of the CITY. Any TOW OPERATOR found to be involved in any act, or attempted a
ct of collusion or comingling of two or more TOW OPERATOR businesses, shall be removed from participation on the RPD ROTATION TOW LIST.
XXIII. STORAGE FACILITY
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall be responsible for the security of vehicles and property at the place of storage. The TOW OPERATOR shall comply with all zoning and building code provisions applicable to the location but, at a minimum, a f
enced or enclosed area shall be provided. The fence shall be of sufficient height to screen from the view of the adjacent street levels all vehicles, parts, materials and equipment stored on the subject property and in no event, shall any vehicles, parts, materials or equipment be stored or stacked in such a way as to be visible over the fence from any adjacent street level public right -of-way or from adjoining street level public or private prope1iy. Additionally, the TOW O
PERATOR is responsible for the reasonable care, custody, and control of any property contained in towed or stored vehicles.
B. The TOW OPERATOR shall, at all times during the term of this AGREEMENT, and at its sole cost and expense, maintain or cause to be maintained in good condition and repair the interior of the properties, including windows, and any systems and fixtures installed by the TOW OPERATOR. The TOW OPERATOR shall, at all times, keep the properties in a neat, clean and sanitary condition or public nuisance thereon. All refuse, including non -salvageable vehicle parts and litter, shall be removed from the premises on a r egular basis by an authorized refuse collection company. All refuse areas shall be effectively screened from view and maintained in an orderly manner. All refuse containers shall be maintained in enclosures approved by the RPD. In the event that damage to any of th
e improvements which are TOW OPERATOR'S obligation to maintain, by 691
18 reason of ordinary wear and tear or deterioration results in such improvements not meeting the standard of maintenance required by the RPD for such uses as operator is making of the properties, then the operator shall have the independent responsibility for, and shall promptly undertake such maintenance or repair and complete the same with due diligence. If the storage facility is located within the CITY limits, and if the TOW OPERATOR fails to make the necessary maintenance or repairs within ten (10) days after receiving notice in writing from the CITY, then the CITY may make such maintenance or repairs and the TOW OPERATOR shall reimburse the CITY.
C. The TOW OPERATOR, in constructing and operating the facilities, shall satisfy all hazardous materials handling and storage requirements imposed by local, state, and federal governments. Additionally, if the storage facility is located within the CITY, the TOW OPERATOR shall comply with the following fire prevention measures:
1. Welding and torch cutting shall be in conformance with the requirements of the California Fire Code as adopted by the CITY;
2. No s
moking shall be allowed on the premises except in designated areas consistent with applicable local ordinances;
3. No bur
ning of wrecked or discarded motor vehicles or waste materials shall be allowed;
4. Motor vehicles, discarded parts of motor vehicles, junk, waste, or other materials shall not be stored, displayed, or kept in a manner that could hinder or endanger firefighting efforts and operations; D. In the area where the vehicles are stored, vehicles must be arranged to meet the following minimum requirements, to allow the Richmond Fire Department access in the event of fire:
1. Entrances and exists to the area must be at least fifteen (15) feet in width and there must be access for the entrances and exits to all parts of the storage area by way of aisles of at least fifteen (15) feet in width;
2. There must be thirty (30) inches separation between the side, front and rear of any one vehicle and the side, front or rear of any other adjacent vehicle;
3. For every five cars stored lengthwise (end to end), there must be an aisle at least fifteen (15) feet in width. The requirements for aisles are based on the storage of passenger cars of an average width or length. If vehicles exceeding the length or width of an average passenger car are store, the 692
19 number of vehicles which may be stored between the required fifteen (15) foot aisles is decreased accordingly.
4. F
or every ten (10) vehicles stored side-by-side, there must be an aisle at least fifteen (15) feet in width. The requirements for aisles are based on the storage of passenger cars of an average width or length. If vehicles exceeding the length or width of an average passenger car are stored, the number of vehicles which may be stored between the required fifteen (15) foot aisles is decreased accordingly.
E. The TOW OPERATOR shall obtain approval from the RPD prior to the removal of any property from a stored or impounded vehicle and shall provide a receipt, with a copy placed in the stored vehicle. The requirement to obtain approval from the RPD prior to the removal of property may be excused by the RPD supervisor if it is determined that proper safeguards and procedure are utilized by the TOW OPERATOR.
1. This requirement may not be waived in cases where a vehicle has been impounded for evidence or investigation.
2. Upon approval from the RPD, the TOW OPERATOR shall release personal property from an impounded vehicle at the request of the vehicle owner or agent.
3. T
here shall be no charge for the release of personal property during normal business hours. TOW OPERATORS may charge an after-hours release fee for property released after normal business hours, consistent with the after-hours vehicle release provisions.
4. P
ersonal property is considered to be items which are not affixed to the vehicle.
• Personal property includes papers, transportable cellular telephones, pull-out radios, portable radios and/or portable stereo equipment, clothes, luggage, tools, etc.
• Personal property from a stored vehicle shall be released upon the request of the vehicle owner or agent.
5. C
argo shall be released upon the demand of the carrier or pursuant to a court order.
F. The TOW OPERATOR shall store all towed vehicles at a location which is within the CITY limits or not more than five (3) miles from the exterior boundary of the CITY limits. The primary storage facility shall normally be at the same location as the business address. If not at the same location, there shall be no charge for any additional distance traveled to and from a secondary location. The vehicle 693
20 and/or personal property shall be released at the primary storage facility or place of business (when the primary storage facility and the place of business are not at the same location) upon request of the owner or a person having a legal entitlement to the vehicle and/or property.
1. Prior to the utilization of new storage facilities that were not listed on the application for rotation tow listing, the TOW OPERATOR shall furnish the address and obtain the CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR's approval.
2. Secondary storage facilities shall be located reasonably close to the main business office.
G. TOW OPERATORS shall maintain sufficient storage spaces. At all times, the TOW OPERATOR shall provide sufficient space at the approved location(s) to store all vehicles towed and stored pursuant to this AGREEMENT. At a minimum, there shall be available at the approved location(s), space sufficient to store 150 vehicles, when stored in a manner consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements and with all requirements of this AGREEMENT. In the event all available space at the approved location(s) is utilized, the TOW OPERATOR shall be removed by RPD from the ROTATION TOW LIST unless and until there is available space at said location or until another suitable location is obtained by the TOW OPERATOR and approved by the RPD in the manner provided for herein.
H. A TOW OPERATOR'S place of business shall have a sign that clearly identifies it to the public as a towing service. T he sign shall have letters that are clearly visible to the public from the street. The sign shall be visible at night.
I. For the purpose of this AGREEMENT, "normal business hours" shall not be less than 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for the following State holidays:
New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents' Day, Cesar Chavez Day, Memorial Day, Juneteenth, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, day after Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. • J. Business
hours shall be posted in plain view to the public.
K. Employees shall be properly trained to conduct business transactions related to towing, storage, and release of vehicles/property.
L. No motor vehicle towed at the direction of the RPD shall be released by the TOW OPERATOR to the owner of the vehicle, or any other enumerated person, except with the prior written authorization of the RPD.
694
21 XXIV. INDEMENIFICATION
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall defend, save harmless and indemnify the CITY and its office, agents and employees from any and all claims, costs and liability for any damages, sickness, death or injury to persons or property arising from, or connected with, the operations of services of the TOW OPERATOR or its agents, servants, employees or subcontractors hereunder, save and except claims or litigation arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY or its officers or employees. The TOW OPERATOR shall reimburse the CITY for any expenditure, including reasonable attorney' s fees incurred by the CITY i n pursuit or defense of matters that are the subject of this indemnification. If requested by the CITY, the TOW OPERATOR shall defend any claims or litigation to which this i ndemnification provision applies at the sole cost and expense of the TOW OPERATOR.
XXV. INSURANCE
The TOW OPERATOR shall maintain the following minimum levels of insurance from an insurance carrier that is authorized to do business in California:
The insurance provisions in the Contract -General Conditions shall be supplemented with the following:
Without limiting the TOW OPERATORS indemnification of the City, the TOW OPERATOR shall provide and maintain at its own expense, during the term of the AGREEMENT, or as may be further required herein, the following insurance coverages and provisions:
A. Evidence of Coverage
Prior to commencement of any contract awarded under this AGREEMENT the TOW OPERATOR shall provide a Certificate of Insurance certifying that coverage as required herein has been obtained. Individual endorsements executed by the insurance carrier shall accompany the certificate. In addition, a certified copy of the policy or policies shall be provided by the TOW OPERATOR upon request.
This verification of coverage shall be sent to the CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR, unless otherwise directed. The TOW OPERATOR shall not be awarded a contract until it has obtained all insurance required and such insurance has been approved by the CITY. This approval of insurance shall neither relieve nor decrease the liability of the TOW OPERATOR.
B. Qualifying Insurers
All coverage shall be issued by U. S. domiciled companies which hold a current AIM. Best rating of not less than A: VII, unless otherwise approved by the CITY's Risk Manager.
695
22 C. Notice of Cancellation
All coverage as required herein shall provide that no cancellation, major change in coverage, expiration, or nonrenewal (except for non-payment of premium) will be made during the term of the AGREEMENT, without thirty (30) days written notice (10 days for non-payment of premium) to the Police Chief prior to the effective date of such cancellation, or change in coverage. Upon cancellation of coverage without evidence of replacement coverage, the TOW OPERATOR shall not
engage in any services under any contract awarded pursuant to this AGREEMENT until replacement coverage is obtained and approved by CITY.
D. Insurance Required
1. Garage Liability
Insurance - for bodily injury (including death) and
property damage which
provides limits of not less than two million dollars
($2,000,000) combined single limit (CSL) per occurrence, $4,000,000 aggregate.
2. Commercial
General Liability Insurance (if not provided under Garage liability) - shall have coverage equivalent to or greater than Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) Form number CG 00010798 and include bodily injury
(including death) and property damage coverage and have limits
as follows:
a. Each occurrence $2,000,000
b. General aggregate $4,000,000
c. Products/completed operations aggregate $4,000,000
d. Personal Injury $2,000,000
3. Garage an
d General liability coverage shall include:
a. Premis
es and Operations
b. Products/Completed
c. Personal Injury liability
d. Severability of interest
4. Garage an
d General liability coverage shall include the following endorsement, a copy of which shall be provided to the CITY:
• Additiona
l Insured Endorsement shall be equivalent to or greater than ISO form number CG 20261185, and shall read:
"City of R
ichmond, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insured"
696
23 Insurance afforded by the additional insured endorsement shall apply as primary insurance, and other insurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, agents, and employees shall be excess only and not contributing with insurance provided under this policy.
5. Automobile Liability Insurance - For bodily injury (including death) and property damage which provides total limits of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence applicable to all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles. The CITY, its officers, agents, and employees
shall be named as additional insured by endorsement for this coverage.
6. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance • Statutory California Workers' Compensation coverage.
•
Employer's Liability coverage for not less than one million dollars ($,000,000) per occurrence.
7. Garage keepers Legal Liability- with a minimum limit of five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000) per occurrence.
On Hook Coverage/Cargo - insuring the vehicle in tow with limits based on the size of the tow truck.
• Class A tow truck
• Class B tow truck
• Class C tow truck
• Class D tow truck
$ 50,000
$100,000
$200,000
$250,000
E. Special Provisions
1. The
following provisions shall apply to this AGREEMENT:
• The
foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance • coverage to be maintained by the TOW OPERATOR and any approval of said insurance by the CITY or its insurance consultant(s) are not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the TOW OPERATOR as part of any contract awarded pursuant to this AGREEMENT, including but not limited to the provisions concerning indemnification.
• The
CITY reserves the right to withhold payments of any contract awarded to a TOW OPERATOR in conjunction with this AGREEMENT in the event of material noncompliance with the insurance requirements outlined above.
697
24 2. Proof of insurance shall be in the form of a certification of insurance. Policy expiration or cancellation will immediately nullify the AGREEMENT. The TOW OPERATOR'S insurance policy shall provide in no less than 30 days a written notice to the RPD in the event that the insurance policy is canceled or is due to expire. Additionally, the TOW OPERATOR shall notify the RPD in advance of the expiration, or cancellation of the TOW OPERATOR'S insurance policy.
XXVI. VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
A. All TOW OPERATORS shall participate and qualify for the annual CHP Tow Truck Inspections. The results will be forwarded to RPD, by the TOW OPERATOR, for review and inclusion in the TOW OPERATOR'S service file.
RPD maintains the right to conduct additional inspections, without prior notice, during normal business hours.
B. Any TOW OPERATOR who fails an inspection is entitled to only one re- i
nspection. Failure to pass the re-inspection shall be cause for the disqualification of the tow truck from use on RPD rotation.
XX.VII. BUSINESS RECORDS
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall maintain records of all tow service furnished. The records will be maintained at the TOW OPERATOR'S place of business.
1. I
nvoices shall, at a minimum include: a description of each vehicle, the nature of service, the start time, the end time, the location of call, and an itemized cost of towing and storage.
2. R
ecords for each call shall indicate the tow truck driver's name and truck used.
B. The TOW OPERATOR shall also maintain business records relating personnel, insurance, personnel taxes, payroll, applicable operating authorities, local operating authorities, lien sale actions, FCC licensing, and non-RPD tows.
C. The RPD may inspect all TOW OPERATOR records without notice during normal business hours.
D. TOW OPERATOR shall permit the RPD to make copies of business records at their place of business, or to remove business records for the purpose of reproduction.
1. Th
e RPD shall provide a receipt for any records removed from the place of business.
698
25 E. Records shall be maintained and available for inspection for a period of two years after the term of this AGREEMENT expires or is terminated.
F. Failure of the TOW OPERATOR to comply with the inspection requirements may in the CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR's sole discretion, result in immediate termination of this AGREEMENT.
XXVIII. SINGLE BUSINESS
A. No TOW OPERATOR shall own (in wh ole or part), manage, exercise dominion or control over, or have any legal, financial or beneficial in, or have any affiliation with any other towing company that has been awarded a contract with the CITY. This i ncludes, but is not limited to, any form of ownership, either as a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, shareholder, sole proprietor, employee, agent or representative, or any other business form or agreement. TOW OPERATOR shall not use or share the storage yard or any facility or any equipment of any other TOW OPERATOR that has a contract with the CITY. Any TOW OPERATOR who violates this clause shall have this AGREEMENT terminated if the CITY, in its sole discretion has cause to believe that any information in the sworn Single Business Declaration was incorrect, inaccurate or misleading. If TOW OPERATOR, subsequent to being awarded a tow contract enters into any arrangement or affiliation, formal or informal, that violates or may violate this clause, the TOW OPERATOR shall have three (3) business days to notify CITY in writing of the possible conflict and provide any information or documentation requested by the CITY to assist in making a determination whether the change in position creates a conflict and violates this section. The City's determination shall be final.
XXIX.
A. The CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR shall conduct, at a minimum, one annual meeting to discuss issues concerning the TOW ROTATION LIST. All meetings shall be mandatory for the TOW OPERATOR or TOW OPERATOR's designee wishing to remain on rotation.
XXX. DEMEANOR AND CONDUCT
A. While involved in RPD TOW ROTATION LIST or related business, the TOW OPERATOR and/or em ployees shall refrain from any acts of misconduct including, but not limited to, any of the following:
1. Rude or discourteous behavior.
2. Lack of service, selective service, or refusal to provide service which the operator is/should be capable of performing.
ANNUAL MEETING
699
26 3. Any act of sexual harassment or sexual impropriety.
4. U
nsafe driving practices.
5. E
xhibiting any objective symptoms of alcohol and/or drug use.
6. A
ppearing at the scene of a RPD rotation tow call with the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the driver's breath or person.
B. The TOW OPERATOR/tow truck driver with the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the driver's breath or person shall submit to a preliminary alcohol screening test upon demand of the RPD.
C. All RPD related service complaints received by the RPD against a TOW OPERATOR or a TOW OPERATOR'S employee will be accepted and investigated in a fair and impartial manner. As a result of the investigation, the RPD shall take any action necessary in the CITY's sole discretion. In any event, the TOW OPERATOR will be notified if the allegations are deemed founded or unfounded.
1. Should the filing of a criminal charges be a possibility, the RPD will conduct the investigation to conclusion or assist the lead investigation agency and, if warranted, request prosecution.
XXXI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW
A. The TOW OPERATOR and its employees and agents shall, at all times, comply with federal, state and local laws and ordinances, which include, but are not limited to, those laws which are applicable to the TOW OPERATOR. (refer to Attachment B for selected Vehicle Code and Civil Code Sections).
1. In t
he event of a minor traffic violation by a TOW OPERATOR which is known by the RPD, the TOW OPERATOR shall be advised of the violation by the RPD. The TOW OPERATOR will be required to the opportunity to take necessary steps to ensure that the drive complies with the law.
B. Any conviction of the TOW OPERATOR involving a stolen or embezzled vehicle, fraud related to the towing business, stolen or embezzled property, a crime of violence, a drug related offense, felony driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or a drug while involved in a RPD rotation tow call, or moral turpitude shall be cause of termination of the AGREEMENT. 700
27 C. Any conviction of an TOW OPERATOR and it's drivers or agents, involving a stolen or embezzled vehicle, fraud related to the towing business, stolen or embezzled property, a crime of violation, a drug, misdemeanor driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or a drug while participating on the RPD ROTATION TOW LIST, or moral turpitude shall be cause for the immediate removal of the employee, driver or agent from the list of current RPD rotation tow truck drivers.
D. A TOW OPERATOR or its drivers or agents, arrested or charged for a violation involving any of the above crimes shall be prohibited from driving under this contract until the case is adjudicated.
XXXII. COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall, as a condition of inclusion in the ROTATION TOW LIST, comply with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT.
XXXIII. ADVERSTISING
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall not display any sign or engage in any advertisement indicating an official or unofficial connection with the RPD or the Department of Motor Vehicles.
1. Ex
amples include: "Official Police Department Tow," "Approved by RPD," etc.
2. Thi
s will not preclude the RPD supervisor from implementing a system to mark and identify particular tow trucks as having passed the RPD inspection.
XXXIV. CANCELLATION
A. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party upon giving thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party.
XXXV. ASSIGNMENTS: SUBCONTRACTORS: EMPLOYEES
A. Assignment. Both parties shall faithfully perform the provisions of this AGREEMENT and shall not assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this AGREEMENT or any right, title, or interest to any part thereof, unless otherwise specified in the AGREEMENT without the prior written consent of the other party and then only subject to such terms and conditions as the other party may require. Any assignment without such approval shall be null and void and, at the option of the other party, shall terminate this AGREEMENT and any permits, licenses, or privileges granted herein. This AGREEMENT and any interest herein 701
28 shall not be assignable by operation of law without the prior written consent of the other party.
B. Subcontractors: Em ployees. The TOW OPERATOR may, for this AGREEMENT, subcontract for dispatching services only.
XXXVI. NO
N-INTERFERENCE
A. The TOW OP ERATOR and/or employees, subcontractors or other representatives of TOW OPERATOR, shall not deliberately disrupt or interfere in any matter with the operations of other TOW OPERATORS within the CITY. Evidence of deliberate interference by the TOW OPERATOR with the operations of other TOW OPERATORS shall result in the immediate termination of the AGREEMENT.
XXXVII. FORCE MAJEURE
A. Neither party her eto 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 any cause, existing or future, which is beyond the reasonable control of such party.
XXXII
I. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS STATUS
A. For purposes of th is AGREEMENT, the TOW OPERATOR is an independent contractor and this AGREEMENT is not intended to and shall not be construed to create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association.
XXXIX. INSPECTION
A. The TOW OPERATOR's performance, place of business and records pertaining to this AGREEMENT are subject to monitoring, inspection, review and audit by authorized representatives of the CITY, the State of California, and the United States Government.
B. The RPD may inspect all TOW OPERATOR records without notice during normal business hours.
C. Failure o f the TOW OPERATOR to comply with the inspection requirements may in the CONTRACT ADMINISTRATORS sole discretion, result in immediate termination of this AGREEMENT.
702
29 XL. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
A. This AGREEMENT contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. Except as expressly provided herein, no other understanding, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this AGREEMENT shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto.
XLI. MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS
A. General amendments. This AGREEMENT may be modified or amended by a written document executed by the TOW OPERATOR and at the direction of the City of Richmond City Council.
XLII. CHOICE OF LAW AND JURISDICTION
A. This AGREEMENT is made in Contra Costa County and shall be governed and construed in accordance with laws of the State of California.
B. Any action relating to this AGREEMENT shall be instituted and prosecuted in the courts of Contra Costa County, State of California.
XLIII. CONFORMATION WITH FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS A. Should Federal or state regulations touching upon the subject of this AGREEMENT be adopted or revised during the term hereof, this AGREEMENT may be amended to assure conformance with such Federal or State requirements.
XLIV. NO WAIVER BY CITY
A. Inspections or approvals, or statements by any REQUESTING OFFICER, agent or employee of the CITY relating to the TOW OPERATOR'S performance, or payments therefore, or any combination of these acts, shall not relieve the TOW OPERATOR'S obligation to fulfill this AGREEMENT 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 A
GREEMENT.
XLV. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
A. The TOW OPERATOR promises and attests that the TOW OPERATOR and any members of its governing body shall avoid and actual or potential conflicts of interest. If the TOW OPERATOR is a corporation, the TOW OPERATOR agrees to furnish to the CITY upon demand a valid copy of its most recently adopted bylaws and also a complete and accurate list of its governing body (Board of Directors or Trustees) and to timely update said bylaws or the list of its governing body as changes in such governance occur.
703
30 XLVI. CONFIDENTIALITY
A. The TOW OPERATOR agrees to comply with, and to require its employees, officers, 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 AGREEMENT, their records, or services provided them, and assures that:
1. All applications and records concerning any individual made or kept by the TOW
OPERATOR or any public officer or agency in connection with the administration of or relating to services provided under this
AGREEMENT
will be confidential, and will not be open to examination for any purposes not directly connected with administration of such service or
as required by law.
2. 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 services or as required by law.
B. The
TOW OPERATOR shall inform all employees, agents, officers and partners of
the above provisions, and that any person knowingly and intentionally disclosing such information other than as authorized by law may be subject to legal action.
XLVII. NON-D ISCRIMINATION - CONTRACTOR
A. The TOW OPERATOR shall abide by the provisions of Section 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond, obligating every contractor under a contract 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, religious
creed, national origin or ancestry of any employees, any applicant for employment for any potential subcontractors.
XLVI
II. NON-R ENEW AL
A. There is no representation, implication, or understanding that the services provided by the TOW
OPERATOR under this AGREEMENT will be renewed by the CITY upon expiration or termination of this AGREEMENT and TOW OPERATOR waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any determination by the CITY to terminate or discontinue any services
from the TOW OPERATOR.
704
31 XLIX. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES
A. Notwithstanding mutual recognition that services under this AGREEMENT may provide
some aid or assistance to members of the CITY'S population, it is not the intention
of either the CITY or the TOW OPERATOR that such individuals occupy the position of intended third-party beneficiaries of the obligations assumed by either party to this AGREEMENT.
L. SURVIVAL
A. The right and obligations of the parties which by their nature survive termination or
completion of the services covered by this AGREEMENT shall remain in full force
and effect after termination or completion.
LI. SEVERABILITY
A. In
the event that any of the provision or portions or applications thereof of this AGREEMENT are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction,
the CITY and the TOW OPERATOR shall negotiate an equitable adjustment
in the provisions of the AGREEMENT with a view toward effecting the
purpose of this AGREEMENT, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining
provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.
LII. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES
A. The
CITY and the TOW OPERATOR shall each designate, below, an Authorized Representative
who has authority to act on its behalf in the administration of this AGREEMENT.
B. Written
notification to the other party shall be provided, in advance, or charges in name or address of such Authorized Representatives.
C. Notices
provided for under this AGREEMENT shall be in writing, and shall be served on the Authorized Representative of the receiving party, either personally or at
the party's offices, or by registered or certified mail to its office address.
D. The
CITY hereby designates as its Authorized Representative the CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATOR
whose name and address are as follows:
CHIEF
OF POLICE OR DESIGNEE
CHIEF BISA FRENCH
1701 REGATTA BLVD
RICHMOND CA 94804
705
32 E. The TOW OPERATOR hereby designates as its Authorized Representative whose name and address are as follows:
TOW OPERATOR
ADDR
ESS
CIT
Y
Z
IP CODE
LIII. RICHMOND BUSINESS LICENSE
A. Pursuant t o Richmond Municipal Code Section 7.04.030, the TOW OPERATOR must have or must obtain a CITY Business License before any provisions of this A
GREEMENT will be deemed to take effect.
706
1 EXHIBIT A-2
A. MAXIMUM BASIC CHARGE:
Beginning January 1, 2026, for each motor vehicle (including abandoned or stolen vehicles) towed at the request of the Richmond Police Department from a location within the City of Richmond to the nearest storage facility, the maximum basic charge shall be two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per hour.
B. MAXI
MUM ADDITIONAL CHARGES:
1. In any instance where the vehicle is towed outside the City limits and the distance between the location from which the motor vehicle is towed and the location to which it is delivered exceeds the distance between the location from which it is towed and the nearest storage facility operating under Chapter 7.74 of the Richmond Municipal Code, the following maximum additional charge may be made: $5.00 per mile.
2. Emergency road service at the location of the motor vehicle when the vehicle is not towed shall not exceed:
a. Flat tire repair or changing tires: One hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00). b. Fuel, start batteries, lockout: One hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00). c. Recovery and/or towing of a motor vehicle from off the roadway where special equipment or winches must be used: one hundred seventy-two dollars and fifty cents ($172.50) per hour prorated for each (one) 1- minute increment. This charge may be made whether or not all or just a portion of the vehicle is off the roadway, so long as the situation actually necessitates the use of special equipment or winches. As used herein, the term "roadway" shall mean that portion of a street, road, or highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. d. In any instance where a tow truck having a rated capacity in excess of one ton and two axles is required for towing and/or recovery the charge for the first hour or any portion thereof shall not exceed three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00). If the towing or recovery shall exceed one hour, the charges for the time in excess of one hour shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed one hundred fifty-five dollars ($155.00) per hour prorated for each (one) 1-minute increment.
707
2 e. In any instance where a tow truck having three axles is required for towing and/or recovery, the charge for the first hour, or any portion thereof, shall not exceed four hundred eighty-five dollars ($485.00) per hour prorated for each (one) 1-minute increment.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES:
1. The owner of any vehicle towed away under the direction of the RPO pursuant to Chapter 11.76 shall be required to pay an administrative fee of four hundred and twenty-four dollars ($424.00) to the City for the release of said owner's vehicle.
2. The owner of any vehicle towed away under the direction of the RPO pursuant to Section 14.40.050 of the Richmond Municipal Code, or Sections 14602.6, 14607.6, 22651(o) or 22651(p) of the California Vehicle Code, shall be required to pay an administrative fee of two hundred and forty dollars ($240.00) to t he
C
ity for the release of said owner's vehicle.
D. GATE FEE:
The owner of a vehicle towed away under the direction of the RPO shall be required to pay an after-hours gate fee of one hundred thirty -five dollars ($135.00) when r
equesting release of a vehicle after hours, during holiday or on weekends.
E. EVIDENCE TOWING:
For each vehicle towed as evidence in a criminal matter, the charge for towi ng s
hall not exceed seventy-seven dollars and fifty cents ($77.50).
F. STORAGE FEES:
1. For each towed vehicle stored as evidence in a criminal matter, the storage fee shall not exceed twenty dollars ($20.00) per day for the first seven (7) days, and five dollars ($5.00) per day thereafter.
2. For all other vehicles, daily storage fee rates shall not exceed:
a. Vehicles designed for use of six or fewer passengers, including cars, light-duty pickup trucks, taxicabs, minibuses and minivans: one hundred and thirty-five dollars ($135.00) per day.
708
3 b. Local-use commercial vehicles, other than buses, including delivery vans, passenger vans, and two axle flatbed trucks: one hundred fifty -five dollars ($155.00) per day.
c. Long-distance commercial vehicles and all buses: one hundred fifty -five dol
lars ($155.00) per day.
709
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT PROVISIONS
1. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:
a. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated in the manner set forth herein.
b. All payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photocopying, meals and travel, etc.). Invoices shall be adequately detailed, based on accurate records, and be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. Contractor may be required to provide back-up material upon request. c. All City vendors receiving new contracts shall sign up to receive electronic payments through the City’s Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) payments service/provider.
2. SUBMISSION OF INVOICES:
Contractor shall submit timely invoices by email to
[email protected] and/or to the following address:
Attention: City of Richmond Finance/Account Payable
Project Manager: _______________________
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804
3. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City Project Manager, _______________________, before payments shall be authorized.
a. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days after completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.
b. All appropriate permits, certificates, and licenses, including a City business license shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of this Contract before any payment is authorized.
4. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract is executed by the City. The insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be maintained by Contractor for the duration of this Contract and must be in place before any payment is authorized.
Bay Area Tow Inc.
710
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT C
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES
1. All required written notices shall be delivered: (i) by hand; or (ii) sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service; or (iii) sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective address listed in this Section.
2. Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of:
actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused; or three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above (Sundays and City holidays excepted).
3. Either party may, at any time, change its notice address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party three (3) days prior written notice of the new address.
4. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to the City shall be addressed to the City at:
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Email: ________________________________________________
5. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at:
Attn:
Email: ________________________________________________ [email protected]
Bay Area Tow Inc.
Bay Area Tow Inc.
525 S. 12th Street
Richmond, CA 94804
[email protected]
711
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT D
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
Contractor hereby declares that Contractor is engaged as an independent business and Contractor agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor.
The manner and means of conducting the services and tasks are under the control of Contractor except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Contract. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Contractor’s services. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from any compensation due to Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.
2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Contractor and the City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Contract.
3. STANDARD OF CARE:
Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service Contractors, as applicable, in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City.
4. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Contractor assumes all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.
5. NON-DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with the City’s policy and state and federal law that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Contractor and its employees, contractors, and agents shall not harass or discriminate against any job applicant, City employee, or any other person on the basis of any kind of any statutorily (federal, state or local) protected class, including but not limited to: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, Bay Area Tow Inc.
712
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
disability (both mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, medical condition (e.g. cancer), genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, political affiliation, military and veteran status or legitimate union activities. Contractor agrees that any violation of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.
6. CITY PROPERTY:
a. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, applicable plans, drawings, calculation, data, specification, video, graphic, or any other material or document produced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the City.
b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 11 below, indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data.
c. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval of the City Manager or their designee.
d. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City Manager or their designee may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services and tasks required under this Contract.
7. RECORDS:
a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services, tasks, work, documents and data in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Contractor’s performance under the Contract, as well as maintain books and records related to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of the services and tasks under this Contract (collectively the “Records”).
b. All Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the Records to the representatives of the City or its designees during regular business hours upon reasonable prior notice. The City has the right to examine and audit the Records, and to make copies or transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all proceedings and activities related to this Contract. Such Records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained by Contractor for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment.
Bay Area Tow Inc.
713
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. If supplemental examination or audit of the Records is necessary due to concerns raised by the City’s preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City’s supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of this Contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.
8. PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City business license, required in connection with the performance of the services and tasks hereunder.
The failure to obtain such permits and licenses shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.
9. TERMINATION:
a. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder immediately upon transmission of written notice to Contractor as provided in Exhibit C “Authorized Representatives and Notices”.
b. Termination in the Event of Default. Should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Contract, City may immediately terminate this Contract by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination. Contractor shall be compensated as provided in Exhibit B; provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, if any, sustained by City by virtue of Contractor's breach of this Contract. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.
10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest (as defined under any federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation, or at common law) with respect to this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges, represents and warrants that no City official or employee has any economic interest, as defined in Title 2, California Code of Regulations §§ 18703.1 through 18703.5, with Contractor that would invalidate this Contract. Contractor acknowledges that in the event that Contractor shall be found by any judicial or administrative body to have any conflict of interest (as defined above) with respect to this Contract, all consideration received under Bay Area Tow Inc.
714
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.
11. HOLD HARMLESS:
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, obligations, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses whatsoever, including attorney’s fees and costs of litigation (“Claims”), arising from or in any manner connected to Contractor’s performance of its obligations under this Contract or failure to comply with any of its obligations under this Contract or out of the operations conducted by Contractor even if the City is found to have been negligent. If the Claims filed against Indemnitees allege negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct on the part of Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct is not found on the part of Contractor. Contractor shall not have any obligations to indemnify Indemnitees if the loss or damage is found to have resulted solely from the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract.
b. This indemnification obligation shall survive this Contract and shall not be limited by any term of any insurance policy required under this Contract; provided however, that if this Contract is for design professional services, this indemnity provision is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional (as defined in California Civil Code section 2782.8).
12. LIMITATIONS UPON SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT:
a. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee.
b. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Contract, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of the City Manager. Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to transfer to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the desired transfer.
The City Manager or their designee may consent or reject such request in their sole and absolute discretion. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for Bay Area Tow Inc.
715
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
money against the City under this Contract may be assigned by Contractor to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent.
c. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor (if applicable), or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member if Contractor is a partnership or joint- venture or syndicate, which shall result in a change of control of Contractor, shall be deemed an assignment. For this purpose, control shall mean fifty percent or more of the voting power or twenty-five percent or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture.
d. Only those persons and/or businesses whose names and resumés are attached to this Contract shall be used in the performance of this Contract. However, if after the start of this Contract, Contractor wishes to use sub-contractors, at no additional costs to the City, then Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to add sub- contractors including the names of the sub-contractors and the reasons for the request to the City Manager at least five (5) days in advance. The City Manager may consent or reject such requests in their sole and absolute discretion.
e. Each sub-contractor shall be required to furnish proof of workers’ compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance (as applicable) in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor.
f. In addition, any tasks or services performed by sub-contractors shall be subject to each provision of this Contract. Contractor shall include the following language in their Contract with any sub-contractor: “Sub-Contractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to the City.”
g. The requirements in this Section 12 shall not apply to persons who are merely providing materials, supplies, data or information that Contractor then analyzes and incorporates into its work product.
13. SAFETY:
a. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of all vehicles owned or operated by Contractor, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the services and tasks under this Contract.
Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any of subcontractor's employees This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. In addition, Contractor will comply with all safety provisions in conformance with U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Act, any equivalent state law, and all other applicable Bay Area Tow Inc.
716
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, codes, and any regulations that may be detailed in other parts of the Contract. Where any of these are in conflict, the more stringent requirements will be followed. Contractor’s failure to thoroughly familiarize itself with the aforementioned safety provisions will not relieve it from compliance with the obligations and penalties set forth herein.
b. Contractor will immediately notify the City (in no event less than 24 hours) of any incident of death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage that occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract. Contractor will promptly submit to the City a written report of all incidents that occur in connection with this Contract. This report must include the following information: (i) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); (ii) name and address of Contractor’s employee(s) involved in the incident; (iii) name and address of Contractor’s liability insurance carrier; (iv) a detailed description of the incident; and (v) a police report.
c. Contractor acknowledges that the City shall have the right to impose, at the City’s sole discretion, requirements that it deems are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City employees, residents, and visitors. Contractor agrees to comply with all such requirements, including, but not limited to, mandatory vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. masks), physical distancing, and health screenings.
Contractor also agrees to make available to the City, at the City’s request, records to demonstrate Contractor’s compliance with this Section.
14. INSURANCE:
Insurance requirements are set forth in Exhibit F to this Contract. Contractor shall abide by the insurance requirements set forth in said Exhibit F.
15. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS:
a. During the term of this Contract, Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future state and federal laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Richmond which affect the manner in which the services or tasks are to be performed by Contractor, as well as all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, state and federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50,
2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable.
b. Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor is required to provide the City with documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall notify each of its affected employees with regards to the wages that are required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance as prescribed in § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code.
Bay Area Tow Inc.
717
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
c. Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or sub-Contractor under an agreement or sub-agreement with the City for public works, goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential sub-contractor.
d. Contractor acknowledges that the City’s Drug Free Workplace Policy, Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the City’s website at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/workplacepolicies.
Contractor agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of said policies.
16. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
The Recitals and exhibits are a material part of this Contract and are expressly incorporated herein. This Contract represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only by written execution signed by both the City and Contractor.
17. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS:
In the event of a conflict between these General Conditions and those of any Exhibit or attachment hereto, these General Conditions shall prevail; provided, however, that any Special Condition as set forth in Exhibit E shall prevail over these General Conditions. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any two or more Exhibits or attachments hereto, those prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by the Contractor, and the terms and conditions preferred by the City shall prevail over those preferred by the Contractor.
18. FORCE MAJEURE:
Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of such an obligation is prevented or delayed by reason of acts of God, strikes, boycotts, lock-outs, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, failure of power, restrictive governmental laws and regulations enacted after the date of this Contract, riots, civil unrest, acts of terrorism, insurrection, war, declaration of a state or national emergency or other reasons of a like nature not within the reasonable control of such party.
19. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Contract shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of Bay Area Tow Inc.
718
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
California without regard to any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Contract and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Contract (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Contract shall be filed with the courts of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.
20. CLAIMS:
Any claim by Contractor against City hereunder shall be subject to Government Code §§ 800 et seq. The claims presentation provisions of said Act are hereby modified such that the presentation of all claims hereunder to the City shall be waived if not made within six months after accrual of the cause of action.
21. INTERPRETATION:
This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.
22. WARRANTY:
If any product is be provided to the City as part of this Contract, Contractor warrants as follows: Contractor possesses good title to the product and the right to transfer the product to City; the product shall be delivered to the City free from any security interest or other lien; the product meets any specifications contained herein; the product shall be free from material defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of one (1) year from the date of delivery; and the product shall be fit for its intended purpose(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, consumable and maintenance items (such as light bulbs and batteries) shall be warranted for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of delivery. All repairs during the warranty period shall be promptly performed by Contractor, at Contractor's expense, including shipping.
23. SEVERABILITY:
In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.
24. AUTHORITY:
City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that they are duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, Bay Area Tow Inc.
719
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
and shall be personally liable to City if they are not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.
25. WAIVER:
The waiver by City of any breach of any term or provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. Inspections or approvals, or statements by any officer, agent or employee of the City relating to the Contractor’s performance, or payment therefore, or any combination of these acts, shall not relieve the Contractor’s obligation to fulfill this Contract as prescribed; nor shall the City be thereby stopped from bringing any action for damages or enforcement arising from any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Contract.
26. COUNTERPARTS:
This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts (including by fax, PDF, DocuSign, or other electronic means), each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
27. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE (SCCO):
The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G.
Bay Area Tow Inc.
720
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT E
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable, otherwise please state “NONE”):
Bay Area Tow Inc.
None.
721
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT F
INSURANCE PROVISIONS
☐ CHECK HERE IF RISK MANAGEMENT HAS APPROVED WAIVING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CONTRACT.
1. CERTIFICATES: Before the commencement of the terms of this Contract, and during the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, Contractor shall furnish the City’s Risk Manager with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with coverage requirements set forth by the City and incorporated herein.
Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor’s indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement:
“Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of Richmond.
Attention: Risk Manager.”
Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Contract all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Contract with an insurance company licensed to offer insurance business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII or Standard & Poor’s Rating (if rated) of at least BBB unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Contractor shall deliver updated insurance certificates to the City at the address set forth in Exhibit C prior to the expiration of the existing insurance certificate for the duration of the term of Contract.
Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.
2. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS: The City’s insurance requirements depend upon the type of service being provided and/or the provider. The City’s insurance requirements will fall into one of the following categories (unless otherwise provided by the City):
Consultants and Contractors – Type 1
Professional Services – Type 2
Environmental Risk/Hazardous Waste Material – Type 3
Lease of City Property – Type 4
Vendors, Suppliers, Small Grant Recipients & Nonprofit Organizations – Type 5 Transportation Providers – Type 6
Professional Services Pyrotechnics – Type 7
Cyber and I.T. Risks – Type 8
Bay Area Tow Inc.
722
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
The insurance requirements classification applicable to this Contract shall be attached to this Exhibit F and made a part hereof.
3. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or
maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in Contractor’s name or as an agent of Contractor and shall be compensated by Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
4. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor’s insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Contractor. The coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Contract; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of the coverage carried by or available to Contractor; whichever is greater.
INSERT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CLASSIFICATION APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTRACT: (IF NECESSARY, CONFIRM WITH RISK MANAGER)
Bay Area Tow Inc.
723
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________
EXHIBIT G
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”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:
a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:
i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies;
ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.
b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.
Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.
By executing this statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Printed Name: Title:
Signed: Date:
Business Entity:
Bay Area Tow Inc.
724
January 6, 2026
DocID #59694v1
Public Works
DATE: January 6, 2026
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 Bauman Landscape and
Construction Inc. for the 13th Street Complete Street
Project
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed $4,393,481.50 expenditure, which includes a $3,993,481.50 base bid and 10 percent contingency of
$400,000, will be funded through the One Bay Area
Grant 3 (OBAG3) federal grant ($2,820,000), the General Capital Fund ($1,300,000), and the Road Maintenance
and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA – SB 1) ($450,000).
(Account Strings: 15436431-400708-29120, 20136031-
400708-29120, 11931031-400708-29120).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
City staff have completed the bid solicitation and review process for the 13th Street Complete Street Project and are bringing forward a recommendation for City Council
approval. City staff request City Council adopt a
resolution approving a construction agreement with
Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. for the 13th
Street Complete Street Project, which will improve
pedestrian accessibility and extend the City’s Class IV bicycle lane network (CML-5137(056)).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution to APPROVE a construction agreement with Bauman Landscape and Construction
Inc. for the 13th Street Complete Street Project in an
AGENDA
REPORT
725
January 6, 2026
DocID #59694v1
amount not to exceed $3,993,481.50 with an additional
construction contingency in the amount of $400,000
(10%) and AUTHORIZE the Director of Public Works to
approve change orders within this contingency amount
for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of
$4,393,481.50 - Public Works Department (Hillal Hamdan
621-1612/Robert Armijo 620-5477).
DISCUSSION:
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) has selected the Richmond 13th Street Complete Street Project as one of their recommended projects for an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). One Bay Area Grant Program 3 (OBAG3) is a funding initiative managed by MTC, aimed at advancing the Bay Area's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
The corridor is one of only two continuous north–south roadways in the area, providing a critical connection between Central Richmond, the Richmond BART stations, and major commercial destinations in San Pablo (Attachment 1). Due to limited neighborhood connectivity caused by roadway grid barriers—particularly the railroad tracks running parallel to the corridor—the Rumrill Boulevard/13th Street corridor plays a vital role in serving all modes of transportation. Land uses along the corridor are diverse, ranging from commercial and industrial areas to single-family residential neighborhoods.
The scope of work entails the transformation of a 4-lane arterial street from Harbour Way to Costa Avenue into a multi-modal complete street corridor. Eliminating one vehicular travel lane in each direction and using the space to create continuous directional cycle tracks along the length of the corridor is a key component of the Complete Streets conversion (https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4865/29120---13th-Street- Complete-Street). Sidewalks will be widened where feasible, and bus stop and crosswalk improvements will be constructed throughout the corridor. The project closes a gap between the Active Transportation Program (ATP) funded Rumrill Boulevard Complete Streets project in the City of San Pablo and the ATP funded Yellow Brick Road project in the City of Richmond.
The City publicly solicited bids for the project via BidsOnline on September 19, 2025.
Bids were opened on October 16, 2025, with a total of five (5) submissions with the following results (Attachment 2):
Bidder Bid Amount
Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. $3,993,481.50
Bidder #2 Ghilotti Bros,Inc. $4,245,411.40
Bidder #3 Redwick Construction Co. $4,371,591.00
Bidder #4 fbd vanguard $4,971,857.00
726
January 6, 2026
DocID #59694v1
Bidder Bid Amount
Bidder #5 Kerex Engineering Inc $5,503,646.00
It was determined that Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. is the lowest responsive bidder. Staff further determined the bidder to be responsible following a comprehensive review and analysis of all submissions. Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. is responsive because its bid meets all requirements of the project and the terms and conditions of the contract. Likewise, the contractor is responsible because it possesses the qualifications, experience, reputation, facilities, and financial resources necessary to perform the work.
In conclusion, City staff recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a construction agreement for $3,993,481.50 with Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. for the 13th Street Complete Street Project and establish a construction contingency of $400,000 (10%) for change orders under the Director of Public Works’ authority for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $4,393,481.50 (Attachments 3 and 4).
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Project Map
Attachment 2 – Bid Summary Report
Attachment 3 – Resolution: 13th Street Complete Street Project Construction Contract Attachment 4 – Construction Agreement
727
Project Area – 13th Street Complete Street Project
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
Reso. No. xx-25
DocID #59724v1
RESOLUTION NO. xx-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO
APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH BAUMAN LANDSCAPE
AND CONSTRUCTION INC. FOR THE 13TH STREET COMPLETE STREET PROJECT CML-5137(056)
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond is committed to improving pedestrian accessibility and extending the existing Class IV bicycle lane infrastructure through the 13th Street Complete Street Project (CML-5137(056)), which will transform a four-lane arterial street from Harbour Way to Costa Avenue into a multi-modal corridor; and
WHEREAS, the project is supported by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) through the One Bay Area Grant 3 (OBAG3) program and closes a critical gap in the City’s active transportation network; and
WHEREAS, the project’s scope of work includes eliminating one vehicular travel lane in each direction to create continuous directional cycle tracks, widening sidewalks where feasible, and constructing bus stop and crosswalk improvements throughout the corridor; and
WHEREAS, this project will further close an active transportation gap between the Active Transportation Program (ATP)–funded Rumrill Boulevard Complete Streets project in the City of San Pablo and the ATP-funded Yellow Brick Road project in the City of Richmond; and
WHEREAS, the City publicly solicited bids for the project via BidsOnline on September 19, 2025, and received five (5) submissions; bids were opened on October 16, 2025; and
WHEREAS, Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsive and a responsible bidder at an amount of $3,993,481.50 following a comprehensive review of all submissions; and
WHEREAS, the contractor is responsive because its bid meets all requirements of the project and the terms and conditions of the contract, and responsible because it possesses the qualifications, experience, reputation, facilities, and financial resources necessary to perform the work; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends establishing a construction contingency in the amount of $400,000 (10%), to be maintained at the budget level and available for change orders approved by the Director of Public Works for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $4,393,481.50 ; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richmond, as follows:
Section 1: The City Council hereby approves a Construction Agreement with Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. for the 13th Street Complete Street Project (CML-5137(056)) in a base contract amount not to exceed $3,993,481.50.
Section 2: The City Council hereby establishes a construction contingency in the amount of $400,000 (10%) and authorizes the Director of Public Works to approve change orders, as needed, within this contingency amount for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $4,393,481.50.
Section 3: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
**********************
735
Reso. No. xx-25
DocID #59724v1
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 January xx, 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
January 6, 2026
Economic Development
PORT
DATE: January 6, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Charles Gerard, Port Director
Emily Combs, Finance Director
Rita Martinez, Finance Manager
Lizeht Zepeda, Senior Business Assistance Officer
Kyle Lam, Management Analyst
Subject:
Port of Richmond Enterprise Fund Financial Overview
Report
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for receiving this item.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
October 21, 2025
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
This report provides the City Council with an overview of the Port of Richmond’s financial structure, including how Port revenues are generated through tariffs and leases, how those funds are used, and the funding mechanisms
the Port may access to fund larger infrastructure projects and improvements.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE the Port of Richmond Financial Report and presentation, which provides an overview of Port revenue sources, tariff structures, and funding mechanisms for
larger infrastructure projects – Economic
Development/Port (Charles Gerard 510-620-6792/Rita
Martinez 510-621-1546). This item was continued from
the December 16, 2025, meeting.
AGENDA
REPORT
755
January 6, 2026
DISCUSSION:
The Port of Richmond is one of five publicly owned ports in the San Francisco Bay Area and serves as the City’s international maritime gateway for automobile imports, liquid and dry bulk cargo, and general cargo. As an enterprise department, the Port currently operates independently of the City of Richmond’s (City) General Fund and is fully supported through the Port Enterprise Fund.
Port revenues are derived primarily from terminal real estate leases, local port tariffs, and associated service charges. These revenues support the Port’s operations, maintenance, capital improvement projects, debt service obligations, and administrative functions. All income generated through port activities is deposited into the Port Enterprise Fund and is used exclusively for port-related purposes and expenses.
The primary sources of Port operating revenue are:
Port Tariffs: a formal public document issued by the Port and approved by City Council made up of fees charges, rules, compliance, and regulations. For example, fees are charged to vessels and cargo owners for use of port facilities. Lease Revenues: Rent paid by tenants and terminal operators for long-term use of port property.
Service Charges and Miscellaneous Income: Includes utility reimbursements, security fees, and facility use fees.
The Port’s tariff schedule establishes uniform rates for maritime services consistent with industry practices at other public ports. Key tariff components include:
Dockage: Charges assessed to a vessel for occupying a berth alongside a wharf, pier, or terminal. Dockage is calculated based on the vessel’s length overall (LOA) and the duration of stay, typically measured in 24-hour periods. Wharfage: Fees applied to cargo moving across the Port’s wharves. It is assessed per ton, per vehicle, or per measurement unit depending on the commodity type.
Storage: Charges assessed for cargo or equipment remaining on the Port’s facilities beyond a free-time allowance. Storage fees encourage timely cargo movement and compensate for the use of valuable terminal space.
Tariff-based revenues fluctuate with vessel calls, cargo volumes, and tenant activity.
The Port periodically reviews and updates the tariff to maintain competitiveness and ensure cost recovery.
Port revenues are used to fund operational expenses and to invest in maintenance, capital improvements, repairs, and upgrades to Port facilities. Large infrastructure projects at the Port can be financed through mechanisms such as public-private partnerships, tenant-funded investments, grants, bond funding, and self-funding. The successful Honda Port of Entry project at Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT) and 756
January 6, 2026
the development of the 200,000-square-foot Portside Commerce Center warehouse at Terminal 3 are examples of tenant-funded investments.
The Port’s financial performance is tied closely to maritime activity levels in the San Francisco Bay Area, global trade trends, and tenant stability. While the Port’s revenues vary from year to year, the Enterprise Fund has maintained a stable operating balance, supporting continued investment in infrastructure, environmental compliance, increased safety, and facility maintenance. This financial stability allows the Port to commence focus on longer-term strategic planning and economic development.
Port staff continue to pursue new tenants and business development opportunities to diversify revenue streams, generate positive economic activity, implement the Green- Blue New Deal and the Green Empowerment Zone, increase the maritime workforce, and ensure long-term sustainability for the Richmond Community and region.
SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:
This report aligns with the City Council’s Priority 2.5: Revitalization of the Port. As an Enterprise Fund, it is important for the Port to share financial data and provide ongoing and transparent updates to the City Council, staff, and the public regarding Port operations, revenue generation, and the Port’s contributions and benefits to the City of Richmond.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Port Enterprise Fund Financial Overview
757
Port Enterprise Fund Financial
Overview
December 16, 2025
Photo: Malcolm Wallace
Courtesy of East Bay EDA
DRAFT 12/9/25 RM
758
Agenda
• Port Enterprise Fund: Definition & Benefits
• Port as an “Economic Engine”
• Tenant Recap - Leases & Tariffs
• Port Financial Reports
• Loan Between City and Port
• Funding Point Potrero Marine Terminal Infrastructure
• Strategic Planning Process
2759
Enterprise Funds
Used by governments to account for operations that are
financed and operated like a private business
Revenues should be used solely for the operations of the enterprise activity
Should always
have enough
reserves to:
1) Manage risks (revenue shortfalls and
unexpected capital expenses)
2) Maintain creditworthiness with rating agencies
3) Pursue grants that require local funding matches
3760
Port Enterprise Fund
Revenues generated by the
Port (wharfage fees, dockage
fees, lease revenue) cannot be
used to fund unrelated
government activities.
A well-maintained, self-
sustaining port can have
many indirect economic benefits
to support other government
activities.
4 • Transparency and Accountability
• Facility Reinvestment
• Protects Taxpayer Dollars
• Performance Metrics and
Management
• Indirect and Induced Jobs
• Increased Sales and Property Tax
Revenues
• Business Attraction and Retention
• Innovation Hubs
761
Port as an “Economic Engine”
The Port supports jobs, trade, and investment, generating economic activity both directly and indirectly through its operations and tenants.
✓Job creation: The Port supports hundreds of local jobs in longshore work, auto processing, trucking, storage, and maintenance, as well as indirect jobs in retail and services. ✓Business activity: Port terminals manage a range of cargo and services creating steady demand for local businesses that provide logistics, fuel, and vessel services.
✓Revenue generation: The Port contributes to the City’s economy through business taxes and fees that support Port operations, staff, and reinvestment in the facilities.
✓Regional competitiveness: By providing a maritime
gateway, the Port attracts and retains industry in Richmond, supporting the City’s broader economic development goals.
Job Creation
Business
Activity
Revenue
Generation
Regional
Competitiveness
5762
Port as an “Economic Engine”
• Port invests over $2M on an annual
basis on capital projects, professional
services, staffing that keeps local
resources and businesses working.
Annual Port
Investment
• The Port’s Facilities Assessment project
has highlighted the need for significantly
more local investment on infrastructure
to improve Port facilities and services.
Future Port
Investments
• Port tenants pay approx. $430,000 in
business license and sales tax to the
City of Richmond’s General Fund.
Business
License and
Sales Tax
✓Job Creation
✓Business Activity
✓Revenue
Generation
✓Regional
Competitiveness
6763
Tenant Recap - Leases and Tariffs
Terminal LEASES TARIFFS
Term 2 AAK AAK
Term 3 Brookfield Properties (& Sause Tugs)
Term 4 Nematode Holdings (& Pt. San Pablo Harbor)
PPMT Foss Tugs Auto Warehousing Company
PPMT Marine Spill Response Corp (MSRC)
PPMT Dutra Group (Dredging Co.)
PPMT City Cruises / Alcatraz Cruises
PPMT National Response Corp / Republic Services
Non-Profit Tenants – No Lease Fee Notes
PPMT Red Oak Victory Ship, RMA Annual debt reduction benefit PPMT Northland Nautical, Sea Scouts Boating & waterfront skills for youth 7764
Port Lease Revenue
5-Year Trend
8 $1.8
$2.5 $2.4 $2.4
$2.6
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
MILLIONS
765
Port Tariffs Explained
A Port Tariff is a schedule of fees and charges that sets the rates for the use of Port facilities and services.
Dockage
• Dockage is the fee charged to a ship for the use of the Port’s pier or wharf based on the length of the ship and the amount of time it is at the berth.
Wharfage
• Wharfage is the fee charged on cargo that moves across the Port’s wharf - loaded or unloaded from a ship.
Storage
• Storage is the fee charged when cargo or equipment stays on Port property for a period of time after unloading.
9766
Port Tariff Revenue
5-Year Trend
10 $8,660,533
$8,022,831 $8,256,873
$9,675,362
$8,505,171
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
AAK Dockage and Wharfage
AWC Dockage
AWC Wharfage and fees
Other Terminals
767
Port Revenues and Expenses
5-Year Comparison
11 $10.7
$11.3
$12.3
$13.9
$13.0
$6.3
$4.9
$5.5
$6.4
$5.8
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
MILLIONS
Revenue Expense768
Statement of Net Position
5-Year Comparison
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Assets
Cash and investments 3,257,402 6,245,066 10,478,957 16,508,586 20,505,373 Restricted C&I, Receivables 6,180,056 6,058,034 6,252,342 6,039,820 6,258,708 Noncurrent assets - Lease Receivables 64,399,300 56,208,130 56,546,155 53,774,405 Capital assets 36,491,112 32,961,291 29,458,225 26,114,821 23,845,648 Deferred Outflows of Resources 233,714 98,098 233,884 257,769 184,147 Total Assets 46,162,285 109,761,789 102,631,538 105,467,151 104,568,282 Liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued liabilitles 321,914 313,689 176,264 412,557 596,679 Unearned Revenue & Deposits Payable 758,423 770,329 770,329 772,601 798,797 Bonds and Long-Term Debt Liability 13,701,169 9,182,363 4,485,306 OPEB and Pension Liability 2,188,877 600,840 898,587 1,255,393 1,111,794 Loan / Advance - General Fund 13,062,225 12,774,486 12,485,370 12,144,862 7,502,950 Deferred Inflows of Resources 279,191 63,839,388 54,687,576 54,289,144 50,786,734 Total Liabilities 30,311,798 87,481,094 73,503,432 68,874,558 60,796,954 Net Position (Defecit)
Net Investment in Capital Assets 36,491,112 32,961,291 29,458,225 26,114,821 23,845,648 Restricted for debt service 150,627 77,892 348,038 Unrestricted (20,791,253) (10,758,488) (678,157) 10,477,772 19,925,679 Total Net Position 15,850,487 22,280,695 29,128,106 36,592,593 43,771,327 12769
Port Assets, Liabilities, and Net Position
5-Year Trend
13 $46
$109.7
$102.6 $105.5 $104.5
$30
$87.5
$73.5
$68.9
$60.8
$15.8
$22.2
$29
$36.6M
$43.8
$3.2 $6.2
$10.5
$16.5M
$20.5
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Millions
Assets
Liabilities
Net Position
Cash
770
Loan Between City and Port
Since 1977, the City has provided
services and advances to the Port.
Various Promissory Notes were later
combined and entered into as a Loan
Agreement. The General Fund loan
was used to cover operating deficits,
support capital improvements,
ensure continuity of services, and
bridge timing gaps.
• Total Amount: $17,139,855
• Term of Loan: 6/30/2005 to 6/30/2049
• Annual Principal Payment: $150,000
• Annual Offset for Red Oak Victory
Basin-5
14 $13,062,225 $12,774,486 $12,485,370 $12,144,862
$7,502,950
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
202 1 202 2 202 3 202 4 202 5
DEBT OWED TO GENERAL FUND
$4.5M one-time
payment in
FY2025
771
Funding Port Infrastructure
Public-Private Partnerships (P3s), Tenant
Funded
➢Leveraging long-term tenant leases and
development agreements to incentivize capital
investment.
State & Federal Grants
➢Pursuing USDOT Port Infrastructure
Development Grants and other grants to fund
investment.
Bond Funding
➢Evaluating the issuance of revenue bonds or
other municipal financing tools.
Self Funding
➢Directly investing from the Port Enterprise
account while also retaining funds needed for
grant local match.
15772
Strategic Plan Building Blocks
Strategic Plan
Economic Impact Study
Offshore Wind Study (CEC
Grant)
Land Use Considerations
and Restrictions
Port Framework
(SPA or non-SPA)
Infrastructure Assessment Completed
Underway w. Danny W.
Underway w. Danny W.
Starts January 2026
To be Procured/Executed
To be Procured/Executed
Strategic
Proactive
Optimized
16773
Draft Strategic Plan Tentative Timeline
17 774
Questions
Emily Combs
[email protected]
(510) 620-6790
Charles Gerard
[email protected]
(510) 620-6792
Rita Martinez
[email protected]
(510) 621-1546
18775
January 6, 2026
Department
DATE: January 6, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager – Community
Services
Patrick Seals, Administrative Chief
Subject:
Evaluation Report by WestEd on the Richmond Fund for
Children & Youth
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for receiving this report.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
January 16, 2024
April 15, 2025
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
As required under the City of Richmond Charter Article
15, Sections 2, 4(d), and (d)(ii)(4–5), the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth must conduct regular program
evaluations. The City, through a contract with WestEd, an independent third-party evaluator, completed evaluations of all grant-funded programs for Fiscal Years 2021–22,
2022–23, and 2023–24. WestEd has prepared an
evaluation report for City Council review to ensure that fund expenditure aligns with the provisions of the
Charter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECEIVE the WestEd evaluation report, a third-party
external evaluator, assessing the impact of the Richmond Fund for Children & Youth grant programs from Fiscal
Years 2021–2024 – Richmond Department of Children &
Youth (Patrick Seals/LaShonda White 510-307-8016).
This item was continued from the December 16, 2025,
meeting.
AGENDA
REPORT
776
January 6, 2026
DISCUSSION:
In 2018, Richmond voters approved Measures E and K, collectively known as the “Richmond Kids First Initiative,” which amended the City Charter (Article 15) to establish the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) and the Richmond Department of Children and Youth (RDCY). Measure E dedicated a portion of the City’s General Fund to programs supporting children, youth, and their families, reflecting the community’s commitment to promoting healthy development, safety, and long-term success for Richmond’s young residents.
The Department of Children and Youth (DCY) was subsequently created to administer the fund, oversee program investments, and implement the community’s Strategic Investment Plan (SIP), which guides funding priorities over multiple years. The SIP identifies critical areas where strategic investment can reduce inequities and expand opportunities, including early childhood development, education, youth leadership, housing stability, and community safety.
A key feature of the Charter’s RFCY language is the mandate for independent evaluation. According to the Charter and related City policy, the Oversight Board is charged with facilitating an annual evaluation through a third-party, external independent evaluator; this evaluation must identify relevant measures and ensure that programs funded by RFCY produce meaningful outcomes. The evaluation is intended to review not only individual program performance, but also system-wide effects, process fidelity, collaboration, equity in resource distribution, and alignment with the Fund’s goals as laid out in the Charter and Strategic Investment Plans.
The period covered by the evaluation, Fiscal Years (FY) 2021–2024, represents the Fund’s first full investment cycle. During this time, the City allocated $9.1 million in grant funding to 46 community-based organizations (CBOs) serving Richmond and North Richmond. These organizations delivered programs across a range of priority areas and age groups, with an emphasis on children and youth birth–24 and their caregivers.
The evaluation was conducted by WestEd which served as the City’s independent evaluator. Their mandate was to assess the extent to which RFCY-funded programs were implemented as intended, to measure participant outcomes, and to examine early indicators of system-level impact in Richmond’s youth-serving ecosystem. This evaluation represents a significant milestone for the Fund, providing the first comprehensive picture of how public investments have translated into programs and outcomes on the ground.
Additionally, the Richmond Fund for Children & Youth Oversight Board received the evaluation report at their meeting in July 2025
777
January 6, 2026
Analysis Overview
The Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) was established to ensure that all children, youth, and young adults in Richmond have the opportunity to grow, thrive, and succeed in supportive environments. The Fund is guided by six overarching goals that shape its investment strategy and program priorities, including (1) healthy, safe, and successful; (2) to strengthen families and communities; (3) to provide equitable, culturally responsive, and trauma-informed services; (4) to foster collaboration among agencies and organizations; (5) to ensure fair distribution of resources citywide; and (6) to fill service gaps while leveraging additional funding to maximize impact.
Evaluation plays a vital role in telling the story of the RFCY—its programs, the people served, and the impact of these investments on youth, families, and the broader Richmond community. It provides an opportunity to measure progress toward the Fund’s goals, identify challenges, and continuously improve the quality and reach of funded programs.
Evaluation Questions
The evaluation was guided by six key questions designed to assess both program implementation and outcomes:
1. How and to what extent is the Fund successfully building the capacity of grantees?
2. What are the successes and challenges of implementing RFCY-funded activities and services?
3. How and to what extent are grant funds being used to expand program reach and coverage?
4. How and to what extent is the RFCY reducing service gaps across Richmond?
5. How and to what extent is the RFCY facilitating high-quality programming?
6. How and to what extent are RFCY-funded programs promoting positive outcomes for participants?
Evaluators, WestEd employed a mixed-methods evaluation approach, combining quantitative data from grantee reports and participant surveys with qualitative insights gathered through interviews, focus groups, and administrative data reviews. This approach allowed for both a broad view of program reach and outcomes and a more nuanced understanding of participants’ experiences and organizational capacity.
Between FY 2021 and FY 2024, the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth invested a total of $9.12 million to support 56 programs delivered by 46 nonprofit and community- based organizations. These programs operated across 120 sites in Richmond and neighboring communities, including schools, parks, libraries, community centers, and nonprofit offices.
778
January 6, 2026
Over this three-year period, RFCY-funded programs recorded more than 58,000 youth encounters1—representing more than 215,000 hours of direct programming. Programs served Richmond’s most vulnerable populations, focusing heavily on neighborhoods with the highest poverty rates and lowest scores on the Child Opportunity Index (COI).
Many of these programs were situated within walkable areas or along AC Transit and Richmond Moves routes, ensuring accessibility for participants without reliable transportation.
Funding Distribution and Program Areas
Programs funded through RFCY spanned six (6) priority service areas, established through the City’s 2020 Community Needs Assessment and Strategic Investment Plan.
These areas and their corresponding funding allocations are presented below:
Priority Area Funding (FY21–24) % of Total Youth
Encounters
Out-of-School Time, Sports, and Enrichment $3,007,657 33% 19,876 Education and Employment Support $2,128,957 23% 9,456
Behavioral Health and Wellness $2,026,335 22% 19,475
Youth Violence Prevention $805,300 9% 6,150
Information, Guidance, and Case
Management $620,000 7% 1,077
Access to Basic Needs $536,008 6% 2,227
Total $9,124,257 100% 58,261
RFCY grantees also leveraged volunteer engagement and youth leadership in program delivery—37 percent of funded programs utilized volunteers, while 74 percent engaged youth over multiple quarters or years, demonstrating sustained, long-term involvement.
Participant Demographics and Equity Impact
The programs collectively reached a population reflective of Richmond’s diversity. Of the youth served, 46 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino, 19 percent as Black or African American, 20 percent as White, and 6 percent as Asian, with smaller percentages identifying as mixed race or other ethnicities.
Participants ranged from infants to young adults, with the majority (62%) between ages 6–12, representing the City’s largest youth cohort. Slightly more than half (55%) identified as female, 43 percent as male, and 2 percent as nonbinary or unspecified.
Most participants resided in ZIP codes 94801, 94804, and 94806, which together encompass nearly 90 percent of the youth served.
1 “Encounters” represent the number of youth served per quarter and may include duplicate counts for participants engaged in multiple programs or across multiple quarters. With approximately 46,000 Richmond residents ages 0–24, these figures reflect repeat participation rather than unique individuals served. 779
January 6, 2026
Crucially, programs were strategically distributed to reach communities with the highest concentrations of low-income families—particularly those below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Many programs also offered multilingual services, including Spanish, Mandarin, and Arabic, and intentionally incorporated trauma-informed, gender- responsive, and culturally competent approaches.
Key Achievements and Impact
The evaluation demonstrates substantial progress toward the RFCY’s long-term goals and highlights several major accomplishments:
Broad and Inclusive Reach: With over 58,000 youth encounters across 120 sites, RFCY programs have become a City-wide resource for children and families. Positive Youth Outcomes: Participants reported meaningful gains in confidence, connection, and leadership. Specifically:
o 93% said the program helped them learn to get along with others. o 87% said it helped them make new friends.
o 82% said they became stronger leaders.
o 83% said they better understood how to prepare for college. o 77% said the program taught them to handle problems positively. Academic and Career Readiness:
o 67% said their program made learning fun.
o 56% said it motivated them to learn more in school.
o 93% said they now understand how to get the kind of job they want. o 91% learned about new careers or industries.
Organizational Growth and Stability:
o Nine multi-organization collaborations and eight small/emerging programs received targeted funding to expand their capacity.
o 100% of grantees funded in FY 2021 or FY 2022 were renewed in the following fiscal year.
o RFCY grantees leveraged City funding to secure an additional $1.5 million in outside grants and private contributions.
Community Partnerships: Over 44 public schools, including 27 elementary schools, partnered with RFCY-funded programs, resulting in more than 43,000 school-based youth encounters.
Program Quality and Participant Experience
Most RFCY-funded programs met or exceeded key performance benchmarks.
WestEd’s analysis of youth and parent surveys across 22 programs found strong indicators of program quality and participant satisfaction.
92% of grantees met the benchmark for overall program satisfaction. 77% met targets for youth sense of belonging.
62% met benchmarks for caring adult connections and perceived program safety. 780
January 6, 2026
84% of grantees reported positive working relationships and responsiveness from RDCY staff.
Youth described programs as “safe,” “fun,” and “transformative.” Parents reported that 94 percent of their children enjoyed participating and would recommend the program to others, emphasizing the programs’ positive effects on their children’s confidence, behavior, and engagement in learning.
Organizational Capacity and Sustainability
RFCY’s multiyear funding structure proved essential to helping local organizations plan, stabilize, and grow. Nearly half of all grantees operated with annual budgets under $1 million, and for several small organizations, RFCY grants represented more than half of their total operating revenue.
Over time, this investment helped organizations:
Hire additional staff and expand professional development. Establish new data systems and reporting mechanisms.
Improve strategic planning and financial management.
Forge lasting partnerships with schools, health agencies, and community centers.
Grantees also reported that City support enhanced their credibility with other funders— serving as a “stamp of approval” that unlocked new funding opportunities and strengthened community trust.
Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned
Despite measurable success, the first three years also brought important lessons and challenges. Many programs operated during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, navigating school closures, virtual learning transitions, and significant increases in family stress and mental health needs.
Nonetheless, grantees overwhelmingly expressed optimism, noting that RDCY’s responsiveness and partnership approach improved over time, and that new systems implemented in 2024 and 2025—such as the Submittable reporting platform—are already addressing earlier challenges.
Recommendations for Future Implementation
WestEd and RDCY identified several strategies to enhance the Fund’s impact moving forward. These include:
1. Maintaining Flexible Funding to allow grantees to adapt quickly to community needs.
2. Expanding Capacity-Building Support for small and emerging organizations in evaluation, data, and strategic planning.
3. Improving Communication and Efficiency through clearer guidance and faster reimbursement processing.
781
January 6, 2026
4. Reducing Access Barriers with transportation support, extended program hours, and bilingual outreach.
5. Strengthening School Partnerships by aligning calendars and points of contact to reduce disruptions.
6. Deepening Youth and Community Voice through participatory evaluation and youth co-evaluator programs.
7. Promoting Long-Term Sustainability by helping organizations diversify funding streams and plan for the future.
CONCLUSIONS
The Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Evaluation Report (FY 2021–2024) affirms that Measure E has become a cornerstone of Richmond’s commitment to advancing equity, opportunity, and youth development. Over the past three years, more than $9.1 million has been invested to support 56 community-based programs, facilitating over 58,000 children, youth, and families encounters across the city. These investments have created a strong, responsive infrastructure that promotes learning, leadership, wellness, and healing throughout Richmond’s neighborhoods.
The evaluation paints a compelling picture of progress and promise. In its inaugural funding cycle, the Fund successfully launched and scaled a diverse portfolio of high- quality programs that have produced measurable improvements in academic engagement, social-emotional well-being, safety, and family stability. Beyond individual outcomes, RFCY funding has strengthened the overall ecosystem of youth-serving organizations—building capacity, fostering collaboration, and ensuring that resources reach the communities most in need.
While challenges remain, the City’s investments are delivering meaningful results and lasting impact. As Richmond prepares to implement the FY 2025–2028 Strategic Investment Plan, the findings of this evaluation provide a clear roadmap for continued progress—guided by data, driven by equity, and rooted in community voice. The Department of Children and Youth concurs with WestEd’s recommendations to enhance data systems, expand technical assistance, and deepen capacity-building support, ensuring that future investments build upon today’s successes while addressing areas of growth.
Next Steps
City staff will return to the City Council in early Quarter 1 of the 2026 calendar year with a presentation on the potential renewal of the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY), Article 15 of the City Charter (formerly Measures E and K). The presentation will outline available renewal pathways, seek City Council direction, and summarize anticipated timelines and fiscal considerations to support informed decision-making.
SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:
782
January 6, 2026
City of Richmond Charter Article 15, Sections 2, 4(d), and (d)(ii)(4–5) - The Richmond Fund for Children & Youth shall use independent evaluations to ensure funded programs meet outcomes, with reports shared publicly and with City leadership.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Fiscal Year 2021-24 RFCY Report Final
Attachment 2 – DRAFT City Council Presentation – WestEd Evaluation RFCY Attachment 3 – DRAFT Evaluation Report Question and Response
783
Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
Evaluation
Report
FY 21–24
784
This report was prepared under Contract 6896, from the City of Richmond, Department of Children and Youth. The content does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the City of Richmond or the Department of Children and Youth. © 2025 WestEd. All rights reserved.
WestEd is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that aims to improve the lives of children and adults at all ages of learning and development. We do this by addressing challenges in education and human development, increasing opportunity, and helping build communities where all can thrive. WestEd staff conduct and apply research, provide technical assistance, and support professional learning. We work with early learning educators, classroom teachers, local and state leaders, and policymakers at all levels of government. i
785
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Key Achievements 1
Implementation Challenges 2
Recommendations 2
Future Impact 2
Introduction 3
RFCY Theory of Change 4
Evaluation Approach 5
Data Sources 5
RFCY Implementation Summary 6
Program Reach and Coverage 7
RFCY Participant Demographics 7
Serving Communities With the Highest Needs 9
Serving Children and Youth at Easily
Accessible Locations 10
Reducing Service Gaps 13
T ypes of Supported Programming 13
Addressing Basic Needs 13
Programs by Priority Area 16
• Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness 17
• Education Support and Employment/Training Support 19
• Out-of-School Time, After School, Sports and Enrichment 21 • Youth Violence Prevention 23
• Access to Basic Needs 24
• Information, Guidance, and Case Management 25
Assessing the Quality of Funded Programs 26
• RFCY Grantee Performance Measures 27
• Participant Satisfaction 28
• Program Environment 28
• Sense of Belonging 29
Additional Participant Experiences 30
• Building Connections 31
• Leadership and Advocacy 31
• College Preparation 31
• Academic Success 32
• Life Skills 32
• Career and Trade Job Readiness 33
• Physical, Mental, and Emotional Health 34
ii
786
Grantee Approaches to Assessing and
Improving Program Quality 35
z Grantees actively measure impact and participant learning 35 z Community engagement is central to grantees’ work 35
RFCY Grants Support Programs’
Organizational Capacity and Sustainability 37
Capacity Building for Grantees 37
z RFCY catalyzed collaboration in Richmond 38
z RFCY helped emerging programs grow their
organizational infrastructures 39
Grantees’ Fiscal Health and Sustainability 40
z Multiyear RFCY funding supported grantees’ planning and growth 40 z Grantees pursued additional funding sources to support sustainability 40 Implementation Challenges 42
COVID-19 42
Barriers to Access and Attendance 42
Scheduling and Communication Issues With Partners 43
Staffing Shortages and Turnover 43
Limited Grantee Organizational Capacity 44
Limited RDCY Organizational Capacity 44
Recommendations to Improve the Richmond
Fund for Children and Youth 46
Prioritize Flexible Funding 46
Support Capacity Building for Program Quality 46
Promote Long- Term Sustainability Planning 46
Enhance Communication and Responsiveness 47
Increase Access Supports and Promote Attendance 47
Strengthen School and Community Partnerships 47
Deepen Youth and Community Voice 47
Conclusion 48
Appendix A. Evaluation Planning Process 49
Document Review 49
Listening Sessions With RFCY Grantees 50
Development of Performance Measures 50
Pilot Evaluation 50
Appendix B. RFCY Evaluation
Partner Engagement 51
Regular Meetings With RDCY 51
RFCY Oversight Board Engagement 51
Youth Co-Evaluators 51
iii
787
Appendix C. Detailed Description
of Data Collection Methods 52
Participant Surveys 52
Grantee Focus Groups 53
Quarterly Reports 53
Grantee Survey 53
Appendix D. Funded Programs Priority Area 54
Appendix E. List of Program Sites 59
iv
788
Executive
Summary
From FY 2021 to FY 2024, the
Richmond Fund for Children
and Youth (RFCY) invested
over $9.1 million in programs
supporting Richmond’s
children, youth, and families.
A
dministered by the Richmond Department of
Children and Youth (RDCY), RFCY funded 56
programs implemented by 46 grantee organiza -
tions, spanning services in mental and behavioral
health, education and employment, out-of-
school time, violence prevention, access to basic
needs, and case management. This evaluation—
conducted by WestEd—provides a comprehensive
assessment of the reach, quality, and outcomes
of RFCY-funded programs, as well as recommen-
dations for future improvement.
1 Each grantee reported the number of youth served at their organization per quarter, described in this report using the term “encounter.” Participants are duplicated in these counts if they participated in more than one funded program or attended their programs for more than a quarter. Given that there are about 46,000 Richmond residents ages 0–24, the data suggest that RFCY program participants attended more than one program and/or a single program for more than one quarter.
Key Achievements
• Widespread Reach: There were over 58,000
children and youth encounters1 across
120 sites throughout Richmond, with high
representation from areas of greatest need.
• Equity-Focused Implementation: Programs
reached diverse groups, including Black,
Latinx, multilingual, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged youth. Many programs
embedded trauma-informed and culturally
responsive practices.
• Accessible Services: Many sites were
accessible by public transit, walkable for
youth, or supported by transportation
partnerships. Some grantees launched their
own bus routes to eliminate access barriers.
• Positive Youth Experience: Youth reported
high levels of satisfaction, belonging, and
connection with caring adults. Outcomes
included positive youth experiences related
to leadership, self-confidence, college and
career readiness, and mental health support.
• Support for Organizations: RFCY funding
helped grantees stabilize and expand
services, strengthen partnerships, and plan
for long-term sustainability. Several small
or emerging organizations successfully
expanded their reach and capacity.
1 789
Implementation
Challenges
• Barriers to Outreach and Participation:
Some grantees struggled to reach youth
most in need, and some struggled with
consistent attendance due to the many
demands youth face.
• Administrative and Staffing Burdens:
Organizations struggled with staff turnover,
delayed payments, and administrative
requirements. Early RDCY staffing limitations
also impacted grantee support.
• Sustainability Concerns: Despite successes,
some grantees expressed uncertainty about
long-term funding and scalability without
additional support or infrastructure.
Recommendations
• Prioritize Flexible Funding: Maintain flexible
funding to support responsive, community-
informed programs that can pivot to meet
emerging needs.
• Support Capacity Building for Program
Quality: Expand technical assistance to
strengthen infrastructure, data use, and
program quality.
• Promote Long-Term Sustainability Planning:
Help grantees build fiscal resilience through
strategic planning, revenue diversification,
and blending of funding sources.
• Enhance Communication and
Responsiveness: Improve clarity in
communication between the RDCY and
RFCY grantees and streamline grantmaking
processes.
• Increase Access Supports and Promote
Attendance: Reduce participation barriers
by promoting transportation solutions,
expanded hours, and flexible formats
tailored to high-need populations.
• Strengthen School and Community
Partnerships: Help grantees to streamline
coordination with schools via aligned
calendars, clear points of contact, and
processes to reduce disruptions.
• Deepen Youth and Community Voice:
Expand participatory approaches in
evaluation and program planning to ensure
programming remains inclusive, relevant,
and effective.
Future Impact
The RFCY has become a vital, equity-driven invest-
ment in Richmond’s children and youth-serving
system, enabling organizations to deliver impact-
ful, culturally relevant services. Continued
improvements in systems coordination, grantee
support, and strategic communication—alongside
sustained flexible funding—will be key to maxi -
mizing RFCY’s long-term impact.
2 790
Introduction
On June 5, 2018, Richmond
voters approved Measures E
and K, known as the Richmond
Kids First Initiative.
T
he Richmond Kids First Initiative approved
a City of Richmond charter amendment
(Article 15) to create the Richmond Department
of Children and Youth (RDCY) and require that a
portion of the General Fund be set aside to fund
youth programs and services. Starting in fiscal
year (FY) 2021–22, RDCY provided grant fund -
ing through the Richmond Fund for Children
and Youth (RFCY) to various organizations serv -
ing Richmond and North Richmond youth under
the age of 24. WestEd was contracted by RDCY
to evaluate the RFCY from FY 2021 through
FY 2028. This report summarizes evaluation find-
ings from FY 2021–24, reflecting the first three
grant funding cycles.
The six goals of RFCY are the following:
1 To ensure that Richmond’s children, youth,
and young adults are physically, emotionally,
mentally, and socially healthy; educated and
successful in school; and live in stable, safe,
and supported families and communities.
2 To increase safety for children, youth, and
young adults, their parents/guardians,
families, and the communities in which
they live by preventing problems and
enhancing the strengths of children,
youth, young adults, and their families.
3 To ensure young people are provided
with gender responsive, trauma-
informed, population-specific, and
culturally competent services.
4 To strengthen collaboration between
public agencies and community-based
organizations around shared outcomes among
all service providers for children, youth,
young adults, and their parents/guardians.
5 To ensure an equitable distribution of
resources to all of Richmond’s young people in
recognition of the importance of investment in
their futures from birth through young adult.
6 To fill gaps in services and to leverage
other resources whenever feasible.
What is evaluation?
Evaluation provides an opportunity for an organization to share its story about the program; the people served; and the impact of the program on those who are served, their families, and the broader community.
3 791
RFCY Theory of Change
Figure 1. RFCY Theory of Change
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth
Service gap reduction
High-quality, equitable
service delivery
Strengthened
collaboration between
service providers
Increased availability
of services
• Increased safety
supports for
children and youth
Results In Community
Impact
Fund
Impact
Richmond's children,
youth, and young
adults are physically,
emotionally, mentally,
and socially healthy;
educated and
successful in school;
and live in stable, safe,
and supported families
and communities.
Theory of Change
The RFCY theory of change (Figure 1) visualizes
how the RFCY is expected to positively impact
Richmond residents long term. By funding
Richmond-serving organizations, the RFCY will
reduce service gaps, deliver more high-quality
and equitable services, and promote stronger
collaboration between service providers across
the city. Over time, these short-term outcomes
will lead to increased availability of services
and safety supports for Richmond children
and youth. Through these positive short- and
intermediate-term outcomes, the RFCY will
ensure that Richmond children, youth, and young
adults are healthy; educated and successful in
school; and live in stable, safe, and supportive
communities.
4 792
Evaluation Questions
1 How and to what extent is the Fund
successfully building the capacity
of grantees?
2 What are successes and challenges of
implementing RFCY-funded activities
and services?
3 How and to what extent are grant
funds used to expand program reach
and/or coverage?
4 How and to what extent is the RFCY
reducing service gaps in the city
of Richmond?
5 How and to what extent is the RFCY
facilitating high-quality programming?
6 How and to what extent are RFCY-
funded programs promoting positive
outcomes for program participants?
Evaluation Approach
The RFCY evaluation is designed to measure the
extent to which the RFCY is meeting its intended
goals. The evaluation plan was developed over 10
months in collaboration with the RDCY, the RFCY
Oversight Board, RFCY grantees, and Richmond
youth (see Appendix A for a description of eval -
uation plan development). During the evaluation
planning phase, WestEd hosted listening ses -
sions with grantees and co-developed evaluation
instruments with the RFCY Oversight Board and
youth co-evaluators. WestEd also partnered with
a small group of grantees to pilot the participant
survey data collection process. During the data
collection and analysis stage, WestEd collabo -
rated with the RDCY, RFCY Oversight Board, and
co-evaluators to co-interpret evaluation data (see
Appendix B).
Data Sources
Detailed descriptions of data sources are found in Appendix C. *Youth surveys were administered to youth ages 11 and older, whereas parent surveys were admin- istered only to parents of children ages 10 and younger. When funded, grantees were not explicitly required to participate in evaluation activities, and some programs did not have activities corre - sponding with data collection windows. Survey findings are not representative of all grantees, as only 40 percent of grantees administered surveys. 565
Participant
Surveys*
315
Grantee
Reports
38 Grantee
Surveys
6 Grantee
Focus
Groups
533 Youth surveys
32 Parent/guardian surveys
154 Quarterly narratives
78 Service provision reports
83 Demographic reports
5 793
RFCY
Implementation
Summary
RDCY first awarded
grants on July 1, 2021.
E
ach subsequent year, RDCY renewed grant
agreements with existing grantees and
awarded new grants to additional programs.
Annual grantee awards ranged from $15,000
to $150,000.
In total, over 9.1 million dollars went to orga -
nizations serving Richmond children, youth,
and families.
Evaluation data show that the RFCY is increasing
access to services and supports for Richmond
children and youth by expanding the availability
and accessibility of services across the city. Funds
were used to cover a variety of costs, including
staff salaries, direct program costs, infrastruc -
ture and administrative costs, and staff training
and professional development.
organizations
funded
46 grants
56 program
sites
121
dispersed
$9,124,257
of funded
programs utilize
volunteers
37%
programs
engage youth
long term
74%
youth
encounters
58,261
hours of
services
216,686
$1.6M
+19 new awards
+19 new awards
FY 2022–23
FY 2021–22
FY 2023–24
$3M
$4.5M
+18 new awards
Nearly tripled since
FY 2021–22
RFCY Awards by Year
“The funding helps
a lot because as [a]
non-profit it’s pret -
ty much impossible
to continue to pay
for everything your -
self, especially as
your goals continue
to grow and as the
amount of people
you’re helping contin-
ues to grow.”
—Program Staff
6 794
Program Reach
and Coverage
The RFCY has funded 56
programs that operate
across 118 different sites.
P
rogram sites span the city of Richmond (80
sites) and surrounding areas, including San
Pablo (10 sites) and El Sobrante (4 sites). Sites
in Richmond include 12 publicly owned facilities
(libraries, city community centers, recreation
complex), 13 outdoor spaces, 32 schools, and
24 community-based sites such as youth cen -
ters, social service providers, and offices. Sites
outside of Richmond include 5 parks, 8 desti -
nations that were visited as one-time field trips,
3 schools outside of West Contra Costa Unified
School District (WCCUSD), 3 postsecondary
schools, and 11 sites that are offices or centers for
social services, healthcare, or outreach. Figure 2
shows the location of RFCY-funded program sites
across census block groups, which captures the
geographic area the census uses to summarize
information about the households in that area.
As shown by the map (Figure 2), sites are most
concentrated in central Richmond, and overall,
there are more sites in areas with a higher popu-
lation of children and youth.
2 American Community Survey 2023 5-Year Estimates. United States Census Bureau.
RFCY Participant
Demographics
Throughout FY 2021–24, RFCY grantees had over
58,000 encounters with children and youth. Each
funded program served between 21 and 2,700
children and youth per quarter. The largest pro -
grams were those that served entire schools or
grades within schools. Many grantees said that
RFCY enabled them to expand their reach by
serving more students and expanding program -
ming. The funding from RFCY increases programs’
capacities to operate at more locations, for longer
durations, and have more spaces in their program.
Grantees served a diverse population of chil -
dren and youth of various ages, ethnicities, and
neighborhoods. Grantees served a large portion
of Richmond’s population, given that young
people under 24 make up about 30 percent of
Richmond’s total population. 2
The majority of participants resided in the fol -
lowing zip codes: 94801 (34%), 94804 (34%), and
94806 (19%) (Figure 3).
“The funds have really helped
open up and expand our program.
We can work not just with mid -
dle school students but also high
school students and year round.”
—Program Manager
12,3650
Population Under Age 18
Figure 2. Map of
RFCY Sites
7 795
Figure 3. Home Zip Code of RFCY Participants
94801
94806
94804
94803
34%
15,149–15,212
Participants
34%
8,665–15,148
Participants
19%
2,964–8,664
Participants
94805
7%
2,800–2,963
Participants
6%
2,799
Participants
Figure 4. RFCY Participant Gender Identity
Figure 5. RFCY Participant Ages
The majority of participants (62%) fell into the
6–12 age range. A small number of programs
served children 5 years old and under (Figure 5).
Those same programs also served older children
and/or the entire family. Programs that served
young adults (ages 18–24) included internship
and employment programs and whole-family ser-
vices, such as case management and workshops
for parents. These services were offered through
private businesses, the Richmond Department of
Employment and Training, and other well-funded
nonprofit and social service organizations.
“We have bilingual (Spanish-En-
glish, some Arabic) Youth Peer
Support staff to support in au -
thentic youth engagement and
program leadership, especially to
help address the language bar -
riers present in the community.”
—Grantee report
Figure 6. RFCY Participant Race/Ethnicity
Note. “Other” includes Native American, Alaska
Native, Pacific Islander, and Unknown
Grantees served a racially and ethnically diverse
population of children and youth. The demo -
graphics of participants in RFCY-funded programs
mirror that of Richmond’s overall population
(Figure 6). Many programs were intentional in pro-
viding services for Spanish-speaking children,
youth, and families. Several programs offered
services in more than two languages.
Female
55%
Male
43%
Unknown 1%
Non-Binary 1%
RFCY Participant Gender Identity
Birth–5
5%
Ages 6–12
62%
Ages 13–17
26%
Ages 18–24
7%
RFCY Participant Ages
Hispanic/Latino 46%
White 20%
Black 19%
Asian 6%
Mixed Race 4%
Other 5%
RFCY Participant Race/Ethnicity
8 796
Program Highlight
The East Bay Center for Performing Arts
Young Artist Diploma Program (YADP)
was funded in FY 2021–24 to provide
cross-cultural performing arts programs. The
YDAP provides youth ages 7-12 with wrap -
around services to help youth experience
art as a therapeutic outlet. For example, the
grantee partnered with the Contra Costa
Family Justice Center to help young artists
understand and address complex issues
related to violence in their communities.
Through these partnerships, YADP promotes
resilience and positive youth development. As
one staff member describes, “This import -
ant capacity-building work to document our
highly effective curriculum will provide pro -
gram continuity for years to come and ensure
that all faculty and staff have the tools and
focus they need to ensure that all young
people are able to meet their full potential
in all aspects of their lives.”
3 COI visualized on the map is a calculated measure of neighborhood resources and conditions across domains of education, health, environment, social, and economic resources. For more information about the COI, visit www.diversitydatakids.org .
Serving Communities
With the Highest Needs
The majority of program sites are in areas with
a higher proportion of families whose income is
less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level
and are rated as areas of lower opportunity on the
Child Opportunity Index (COI; see Figure 7) com-
pared to other Richmond city council districts. See
the 2024 Richmond Department of Children and
Youth Community Needs Assessment Report3 for
more information about Richmond’s high-needs
areas.
Across Richmond’s six city council districts, dis -
trict 3 has the most RFCY-funded program sites,
followed by district 1. These districts are also those
with lowest COI, indicating areas of highest need.
“In West Contra Costa, we’re
contracted with WCCUSD, Bay
Area Community Resources, and
Expanded Learning. We work in
schools and with afterschool pro-
grams, but we also work at hous-
ing sites, clinics, community cen-
ters. So we’re really reaching youth
in a lot of different settings.”
—Program Director
100 0
Child Opportunity Index Score
City Council District Boundaries
Child Opportunity Index 3.0
2020 Census Tracts
2021 Data
Figure 7. Child
Opportunity Index
Across Richmond
9 797
Serving Children
and Youth at Easily
Accessible Locations
The majority of program sites are easily acces -
sible via Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
(AC Transit) buses and Richmond’s public shut -
tle service, Richmond Moves4 (Figure 8). Many are
located in central Richmond and the Richmond
City Center—both of which are also accessible
by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Additionally,
several sites are situated in high-density neigh -
borhoods, making them walkable for many local
youth.
Grantees are implementing innovative strategies
to support youth with limited access to public
transportation. One organization partnered
with WCCUSD to offer no-cost transportation,
enabling students from across Richmond to
attend programs at two school sites. Another
launched its own bus route, allowing approxi -
mately 20 percent of participating families—who
otherwise would have been unable to attend—to
access services.
4 The City of Richmond Office of Transportation Services reported that 15,826 students took rides on Richmond Moves between March 4 and December 31, 2024.
School-based programs help remove obstacles
that might prevent students from accessing
programs off campus. In total, 42 K–12 schools
hosted RFCY-funded programming, including
27 elementary, 4 middle, and 6 high schools.
The school sites include 40 WCCUSD schools.
Colleges and adult schools also partnered with
RFCY grantees. The approach of operating at
school sites meets children and youth where
they are and reduces potential barriers related
to transportation.
Throughout FY 2021–24, there were over
43,000 encounters with children and youth at
school sites.
AC Transit bus routes
Figure 8. AC Transit Routes Across Richmond
10 798
Program Highlight
Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY) has a
long history of partnering with schools,
the County Office of Education, and
community-based organizations. The
RFCY has directly supported the expan -
sion of this program to operate in more
schools by providing resources for FLY to
strengthen partnerships with schools.
In the 2022-23 school year, FLY forged
a partnership with a new school site,
Sylvester Greenwood Academy, which
allowed the program to serve 24 new
at-promise and justice system-impacted
Richmond youth.
“[RFCY is the] kind of funding that
… has been creative in addressing
an issue that [is] usually some -
thing that is a second thought
to all the other services, and it’s
specific for youth. It’s been really
empowering for our kids to hear
that this money is for them and
about them.”
—Resource Development Administrator
11 799
Schools Who Partner With RFCY-Funded Programs
A Aspire Richmond Ca. College
Preparatory Academy
Aspire Richmond Technology Academy
B Betty Reid Soskin Middle School
C Caliber: Beta Academy
Cesar E. Chavez Elementary
Coronado Elementary School
D De Anza High School
Dover Elementary School
E Edward M. Downer Elementary School
El Cerrito High School
F Ford Elementary School
G Golden Gate Community School
Grant Elementary School
Greenwood Academy
H Helms Middle School
Highland Elementary School
J John F. Kennedy High School
L Lake Elementary School
Leadership Public Schools: Richmond
Lincoln Elementary School
Lovonya DeJean Middle School
M Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary
School
Michelle Obama Elementary School
Mira Vista Elementary School
Montalvin Manor
Murphy Elementary School
N Nystrom Elementary School
O Olinda Elementary School
P Peres Elementary School
Pinole Middle School
R Richmond Charter Elementary-Benito
Juarez
Richmond College Prep
Richmond High School
Riverside Elementary School
S Sheldon Elementary School
Stege Elementary School
T Tara Hills Elementary School
V Verde Elementary School
Vista Virtual Elementary School
Voices College-Bound Language
Academy at West Contra Costa County
W Washington Elementary School
West County Mandarin School
“That’s one of our biggest
thing[s]—incorporating the par-
ents and the youth into morphing
us into something that they real-
ly want to come to and share with
their friends and family.”
—Program Founder
“The administration at all of the
schools were excited and ex -
pressed that they had been
waiting for an opportunity like
this. They were quick to support
our integration into [their] sites
and to do their part to support
our implementation.”
—Grantee report
12 800
Reducing Service
Gaps
RFCY supports a diverse array of
programs that address critical
service gaps in Richmond.
O
ver the past 3 years, the RFCY has made a
meaningful impact by enabling child- and
youth-serving organizations to meet their ongoing
and evolving needs. While limited resources often
constrain organizations to focus on only the most
urgent needs, RFCY funding allowed grantees to
expand their capacity and meet the intercon -
nected needs of their participants. Grantees
provided over 215,000 hours of programming
to Richmond children and youth in FY 2021–24.
In focus groups, grantees spoke about the impact
of RFCY funding:
“It feels a lot better to know we’re
embedded in our community, not
just in the kids and the staff, but
also the funding.”
—Vice President of Programs
Types of Supported
Programming
• Providing Individual Support
Example activities: Individual counseling,
case management, private lessons, mental
health assessments, individual tutoring
• Providing Group Support
Example activities: Tutoring, reading circles,
workshops, field trips, college tours, summer
camps, after-school clubs
• Managing Internships
Example activities: Recruitment of interns,
coordinating with host sites, trainings for
interns
• Contracting With Other
Youth-Serving Organizations
Example activities: Contracts with partner
organizations for counseling services,
environmental education, dance classes
Grantees used funds to deliver individual sup -
ports, group programming, and internships and
to address the basic needs of children and youth.
While each grantee organization receives fund -
ing for a specific program, the RFCY’s flexibility
allows grantees to spend funds in ways that are
responsive to the community’s needs. For exam-
ple, one program that offered support to parents
in the form of parent workshops learned that
parents were hesitant about a group setting. In
response, the program began offering more indi-
vidualized, one-on-one support. From adapting
program models to shifting staff roles and incor-
porating youth feedback, grantees emphasized
the importance of flexibility—especially in the
evolving, post-pandemic context.
“Because of this funding, our cli-
nicians can more flexibly ad -
dress the needs of the student,
the school faculty, and promote
a more supportive and trauma-in-
formed climate. The flexibility
allows us to support youth and
their families ‘on the go,’ as the
needs arise, as often as needed,
and for as brief or as long a term
as needed.”
—Grantee Report
Addressing Basic Needs
RFCY-funded programs connected youth and
families to basic needs like transportation,
food and shelter, and access to technology
(Figure 9). Programs also trained partici -
pants in foundational skills such
as financial management,
13 801
public speaking, and navigation of the legal
system. Through these supports, programs facili-
tated positive short- and long-term outcomes for
participants. One funded program, 18 Reasons,
shared that “participants are thankful for the food
provided through the program as well as the infor-
mation on how to save money at the grocery store.”
Parents/guardians were interested in program -
ming for a variety of reasons. The most common
reasons why parents/guardians enrolled their
child in the program was because they wanted
their child to participate in learning activities,
new experiences, and/or because the program
was free (Figure 10).
Education-
Related Services
Counseling or
Other Mental
Health Services
Housing
Assistance
Medical or
Dental Care
Transportation
Tickets or Passes
Work-Appropriate
Clothing or
Work-Related
Equipment
Food Assistance Childcare
35%
27%
25%
15%
14%
14%
10%
6%
Top Resources Received by Youth
Figure 9. Types of Resources Received by Youth
Note. Participants could select all that apply, so percentages do not add up to 100 percent. Parent/guardian survey respondents also reported that they were connected with worK–appropriate clothing or equipment (28%), childcare (25%), and education-related services (25%), alongside counseling (22%), food assistance (19%), housing assistance (16%), transportation assistance (16%), and medical or dental care (3%). 14 802
I wanted my child to participate in learning activities.
The program is free.
I wanted my child to participate in new experiences.
I wanted my child to develop better social skills.
I wanted my child to be in a safe environment.
I wanted my child to gain more confidence.
I wanted my child to have opportunities to be with other young people.
I needed childcare.
My child wanted to enroll.
I believed the program would help my child do better in school. 56%
50%
50%
44%
44%
41%
38%
38%
34%
34%
Reasons Parents Enrolled their Child in Programming
Figure 10. Reasons Parents Enrolled Their Child in Programming Note. The chart above reflects 32 parent surveys from six funded programs. Respondents could select all that apply, so percentages may not add up to 100 percent. 15 803
Programs by
Priority Area
Programs were funded under one of six prior -
ity areas that were identified through the 2020
Community Needs Assessment and Strategic
Investment Plan (see Figure 11): behavioral health:
mental health and wellness; education training
and employment/training support; out-of-school
time, after school, and sports and enrichment;
5 See Appendix D for full list of programs by priority area. Profiles of each funded program can be found in a supplemental file.
youth violence prevention; access to basic needs;
and information, guidance, and case manage -
ment.5 Although each program was funded under
a single priority area, many grantees offered pro-
gramming that crossed multiple priority areas.
See Appendix D for a complete list of funded pro-
grams and their funding amount, organized by
priority area.
$3,007,657
33%
$2,128,957
23%
$2,026,335
22%
$805,300
9%
$620,000
7%
$536,008
6%
Out-of-School Time,
After School, Sports
& Enrichment
Education Support
& Employment/
Training Support
Youth Violence
Prevention
Information,
Guidance, & Case
Management
Access to
Basic Needs
Behavioral Health:
Mental Health
& Wellness
Priority Area of Funded Programs
FYS 21–24
Figure 11. Priority Area of Funded Programs
16 804
Behavioral Health:
Mental Health and
Wellness
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $2,026,335
Number of Participant Encounters: 19,475
The RFCY funded 10 programs to increase access
to mental health services, reduce stigma around
mental health support, decrease substance
use, and promote greater awareness of avail -
able mental health resources at 26 sites. Funded
programs under this priority area provided ther -
apeutic interventions, resource connections,
mental health education, and advocacy to
enhance the behavioral health and well-being of
children and youth. Specifically, grantees offered
individual and group therapy, family advocacy
and support, school-based mental health ser -
vices, wellness classes in schools, integrative
healing-arts programming, mentorship, wrap -
around services, and case management. Funding
behavioral health services allows organizations to
address a broader set of participant needs that
wasn’t feasible in the past. For example, the Early
Childhood Mental Health Program shared that
RFCY funding allows them to provide services for
the prenatal population regardless of insurance.
The program manager explained, “Because of
Medi-Cal, we would have to diagnose infants [to
receive reimbursement]. And so, with this fund -
ing, we didn’t have the pressure of having to prove
medical necessity, and we were able to look at it
from a relational perspective on how we can pro-
vide services to the mothers and infants that we
were serving.”
Programs funded under this priority area:
• Early Childhood Mental Health Program:
Perinatal Circle of Care
• Greater Richmond Interfaith Program: Early
Childhood Mental Health Program
• Bay Area Community Resources: Mental
Health and Wellness Classes at Richmond
Schools (2 separate grants)
• Mindful Life Project: Mental Health and
Wellness Support for Richmond Schools
• New Life Movement: Reactions Program
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
17 805
• West County Mandarin School PTA: Social
and Emotional Learning Enrichment
• Richmond Community Foundation: Sister
Circle
• Seneca Family of Agencies: Unconditional
Education School Partnerships
• Desarrollo Familiar: Youth Matters Program
Program Highlight
Mindful Life Project (MLP) was funded
by RFCY in FY 2022–24. MLP provides
mindfulness-based programming for
teachers, parents, and elementary and
middle school students. MLP led mind -
fulness sessions for teachers both
one-on-one and at staff meetings, and
it hosted family mindfulness sessions
during weekly school-hosted Family
Coffee Hours. In addition, MLP provided
age-appropriate mindfulness sessions at
partner schools. The TK–2nd grade les -
sons focused on understanding emotions
and how to identify them when they
arise. The 3rd-5th grade lessons focused
on brain science and how different parts
of the brain affect emotional responses.
The 6th-8th grade lessons emphasized
independent learning.
18 806
Education Support and
Employment/Training
Support
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $2,128,957
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 9,456
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded 12 programs to provide educa-
tion support and employment training to promote
increased access to early learning, improved read-
ing, higher school attendance rates, higher school
graduation rates, improved college entry and
persistence, reductions in chronic absenteeism,
increased access to career and college resources,
and more opportunities and higher earnings for
youth and young adults at 49 sites.
Funded programs within this priority area
provided a variety of services to improve chil -
dren and youth’s education and employment
trajectories. Programs that served younger
children and youth provided experiential learn -
ing opportunities related to career exploration
(e.g., field trips, in-classroom demonstrations,
project-based learning) and academic supports to
improve literacy and reduce summer learning loss.
Programs under this priority area also prepared
young adults for post-high school opportunities
through college readiness workshops, college
tours, paid internships, apprenticeships, and
mentorship. When possible, programs also pro -
vided additional supports to address barriers that
their participants experienced, such as scholar -
ships for college, wraparound services, and parent
information workshops.
Programs funded under this priority area:
• Bridges From School to Work: Job Readiness
and Placement Program
• City of Richmond Employment and Training
Department: Healthcare Pathways Program
• City of Richmond Employment and Training
Department: Richmond BUILD
• College Is Real: Summer Bridge Program and
High School Programming
• Healthy Contra Costa: Richmond Youth
Health Advocacy Pathways
19 807
• Improve Your Tomorrow: Support program
for young men
• Richmond Art Center: Supporting People’s
Outlooks, Talents, and Speech (SPOTS)
Mural Program
• Richmond Promise: Health Care Career
Connections for Richmond Promise Leaders
• Richmond Public Library: Drop-in homework
help and tutoring services
• Things That Creep: Neighborhood Snakes
program
• Urban Tilth: Urban Agriculture Academy
• Watershed Project: Green Collar Corps Youth
Employment Program
Program Highlight
The Watershed Project Green Collar Corps
was funded by RFCY in FY 2022–24. This
project funded 10 young people to par -
ticipate in its program, which consisted
of three components: team-building
field trips, a yearlong career develop -
ment academy that provides training
and project-based work experience,
and a community day. This program is
a career-building opportunity, particu -
larly for high schoolers who face barriers
to maintaining a balanced school, home,
and work life.
As the Youth Employment Program
Manager explained: “There are plenty of
kids who want to do [cool] things, but
they can’t. They can’t get to the office.
They can’t come after school. Or they
have to cook dinner for their younger
siblings in the evening. And so, thanks
to RFCY, we’re able to fund transporta -
tion, we’re able to fund meals, we’re able
to fund materials and make it possible.”
20 808
Out-of-School Time,
After School, Sports
and Enrichment
Funding Amount FY 21-24: $3,007,657
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 19,876
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded 20 programs to expand access
to out-of-school programs, increase year-round
learning opportunities, provide more diverse and
culturally relevant offerings, and increase no-cost
or subsidized programs at 47 sites.
Funded programs within this priority area pro -
vided culturally relevant and diverse free or
low-cost programming that supports positive
youth development, empowers young people,
and provides academic enrichment. About half
of programs in this priority area operated during
the school year only, providing free after-school
clubs, field trips, and extracurricular activities.
Four programs under this priority provided full-
day summer learning and enrichment programs
that were free to participants. Six programs oper-
ated throughout the year, providing consistent
opportunities for children and youth. Programs
included a variety of activities, including tutor -
ing, physical activities, artistic development,
cultural activities, and environmental awareness
and stewardship. Under this priority area, RFCY
grantees also used funds to build program staff
capacity and increase the number of spots avail-
able to participants in their programs.
Programs funded under this priority area:
• ABLE Community Development Foundation:
After-school enrichment club
• Aim High for High School: Summer Learning
Programs
• City of Richmond, Community Services:
Camp Achieve
• City of Richmond, Community Services:
Sports and Leadership Program
• Community Education Partnerships:
Educational Services
• DREAM Financial: Literacy Project
• East Bay Center for the Performing Arts:
Young Artist Diploma Program
• Richmond Freedom School:
Summer program
• Envisioneers Inc: Curriculum support and
after-school enrichment
• Social Progress: Academic tutoring
• Oshiana Unique Thompkins Foundation:
Oshi Entrepreneur Club
• Pogo Park: Enrichment Programs at Elm
Playlot
• Practice Space: Speak Together Be Together
• Rosie the Riveter Trust: Community liaison
to support educational enrichment
programming
• Rosie the Riveter Trust: Rosie Service Corps
• RYSE: Integrative Arts Programming
• Scientific Adventures for Girls: After-school
STEM program at WCCUSD Schools
• Watershed Project: Educational program
support for WCCUSD teachers
• West County Digs: School Garden
Renewal Program
• Youth Code Now: After-school program
21 809
Program Highlight
Pogo Park was funded by RFCY in FY
2022–24 to provide enrichment programs
at Elm Playlot. During the 2023-24 school
year, Pogo Park provided 188 enrichment
opportunities to 544 children and youth
who came to the park. The program pro-
vided diverse activities to meet various
interests and needs of the community.
For example, Pogo Park offered dance
classes and an art station to nurture chil-
dren’s self-expression and collaboration;
a chess club to hone critical thinking,
decision-making, and focus; nature
exploration to instill curiosity; and a gar-
dening program to teach responsibility.
Collectively, these diverse programs
helped Richmond children and youth
thrive socially and emotionally. As one
staff member explained, “These spaces
serve as outlets for creativity, imagi -
nation, and self-expression, allowing
children to explore their interests and
develop their talents. Additionally, they
provide opportunities for social interac-
tion, building friendships, and enhancing
communication and cooperation skills.
Overall, these spaces empower low-in -
come children to thrive, discover their
potential, and lay a foundation for a
brighter future.”
22 810
Youth Violence
Prevention
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $805,300
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 6,150
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded five programs to reduce the
number of youth who witness violence, become
involved in criminal activity, and perpetrate vio-
lence and bullying at 31 sites.
Programs within this priority area promoted
healthy child development and nonviolent coping
through positive adult relationships, peer-to-peer
groups, family support, outreach, and after-
school activities. Specifically, RFCY grantees
supported young people by providing safe spaces,
legal education, mentorship, social–emotional
learning activities, and wraparound services. The
grantees’ programming sought to support youth
to make positive choices. Several RFCY grant -
ees aimed to interrupt intergenerational cycles
of violence by providing resources to parents and
offering individual and group counseling services.
As one grantee explained, “Abusive households
have profound impacts on [children’s and youth’s]
development. The trauma-informed service pro-
viders support our young clients to intervene in
the cycle of abuse and trauma they develop.”
Programs funded under this priority area:
• Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra
Costa County - Speak Up Be Safe and
Nurturing Parenting Program
• Community Violence Solutions: H.O.P.E.
Counseling and Therapy Services
• Fresh Lifelines for Youth: Law-Related
Education
• Project Avary: Leadership Program for
Children of Incarcerated Parents
• Richmond Police Activities League: Youth
Diversion and Development program
Program Highlight
The Child Abuse Prevention Council
(CAPC) of Contra Costa County was
funded in FY 2021–24 to implement its
Speak Up Be Safe program and Nurturing
Parent Program. Speak Up Be Safe is a
culturally and linguistically competent
curriculum delivered to English- and
Spanish-speaking students at Cesar
Chavez, Lincoln, and Verde elementary
schools. The lessons teach children what
is and is not safe and when they should
talk to a safe adult. The Nurturing Parent
Program is a program for parents at Cesar
Chavez Elementary School that teaches
them about the protective factors for
child development. This multigenera -
tional approach to interrupting violence is
meaningful, as CAPC reported, “Parents
[shared] how their own parents raised
them and the parenting practices that
were normalized. … They acknowledged
their parents tried their best, and now
parents believe they have the opportu -
nity to do better.”
23 811
Access to Basic Needs
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $536,008
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 2,227
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded four programs to address the
basic needs of children and youth, such as hous-
ing, food security, childcare, transportation, and
high-speed internet at 16 sites.
Programs within this priority area provided
childcare, meal and nutrition support, financial
counseling, rent assistance, trauma-informed
mental health support, and resource navigation.
Funding in this service area met basic needs by
providing nutrition education and groceries,
funding a homeless shelter for families, and pro -
viding computers to first-year college students.
RFCY programs were intentional about deliver -
ing culture- and language-specific services to
overcome traditional barriers to access in mar -
ginalized communities.
Programs funded under this priority area:
• 18 Reasons: Cooking Matters Program
• Fresh Approach: Nutrition Education and
Resources
• Greater Richmond Interfaith Program:
Shelter Services
• Richmond Promise: Technology Access for
First-Generation College Students
Program Highlight
Fresh Approach’s Youth Community
Ambassador program was funded during
FY 2022–24 to engage youth ages 18–24 in
part-time employment, mentorship, and
training in the topics of nutrition, food
access, and public health. Participants
earn nutrition and wellness coach certifi-
cates and gain job shadowing experience
with reputable partner organizations.
With RFCY funds, Fresh Approach reports
that they have been empowering youth
to be healthy eating and wellness ambas-
sadors to their communities. Moreover,
every participant and their household
receive $10/week in VeggieRX vouchers.
This resource enables youth and their
families to purchase fresh fruits and veg-
etables from local farmers’ markets.
24 812
Information, Guidance,
and Case Management
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $620,000
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 1,077
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded five programs to increase access
to information and build capacity for navigation
support, case management, and/or wraparound
services at 13 sites.
Programs within this priority area provided tangi-
ble resources for children, youth, and families.
The five funded programs within this service
area provided financial wellness and home -
ownership workshops, referrals, wraparound
services, and/or case management to children,
youth, and their families.
Programs funded under this priority area:
• Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance: Family
Justice Center
• Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau:
Wraparound Services
• Greater Richmond Interfaith Program: Case
Management
• Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services:
High School to Homeownership (H2H)
Program
• Youth Finance Institute of America: Personal
Finance Workshop Program
Program Highlight
Richmond Neighborhood Housing
Services (RNHS) was funded in FY 2023-
24 to partner with Youth Finance Institute
of America (YFIA) and create a program
to support Black youth’s financial prog-
ress toward home ownership. Workshops
explored budgeting and credit manage-
ment to give youth the knowledge needed
to make sound financial decisions as they
become adults. In their partnership, RNHS
and YFIA combined their areas of exper-
tise to host a workshop explaining the
connection between two seemingly dis-
parate financial decisions—purchasing
one’s first car and future homeown -
ership: “We tied this workshop to one
day purchasing a home by showing how
buying a car you cannot afford can delay
or even prevent homeownership in the
future, [and also] how having access to
reliable transportation is key to obtain-
ing and retaining employment.” At the
end of its funding cycle, RNHS indicated
that 100 percent of participants reported
improved knowledge on topics related to
the homebuying process.
25 813
Assessing the
Quality of Funded
Programs
Programs funded by RFCY
are expected to provide high-
quality programming, as
measured by a series of universal
performance measures.
T
hese performance measures capture how
well a program is performing relative to a
benchmark value that indicates adequate per -
formance. Appendix A includes a table of all
performance measures and their associated
benchmarks, which were determined in partner-
ship with RDCY and RFCY grantees (see Appendix
B for a description of partner engagement pro -
cesses). Transformational change that promotes
program quality requires sustained investment
over multiple years. During this initial data col -
lection period, performance measures provided a
point-in-time snapshot of program quality, which
6 Survey respondents who indicated they were attending the program for the first time were primarily from four pro - grams. These programs were all at schools/in partnership with schools, and most of these respondents were middle school aged (90% ages 11-14). Possible explanations include (a) the respondent has attended the program before but hasn’t known it by name if the program came in and the student didn’t distinguish it separately from regular school activities or (b) the student may have been absent last time the program worked with the school and truly has not interacted with the program before. In both cases, WestEd is collaborating with grantees to improve data collection procedures to ensure collected data is a valid representation of funded programs. is expected to improve over time with continued
funding and targeted support from RDCY.
Grantees generated performance measurement
data based on surveys of 533 youth who attended
22 programs. Of the 533 survey respondents, 14
percent indicated that the survey was conducted
on their first day in the program—an important
consideration, as their limited exposure to the
program and staff may have influenced their
responses and affected the overall findings. 6
Grantee-level performance measures are pro -
vided to RDCY annually for performance
monitoring over the course of the grant period.
While the majority of grantees met the key perfor-
mance measures, some programs fell short (see
Figure 12). A disaggregated list of performance by
grantee was provided to the RDCY after the data
were collected to help identify which grantees
need additional support, if funded in the future.
The RDCY is developing technical assistance and
capacity-building offerings to support grant -
ees who fell below predetermined performance
benchmarks.
26 814
Figure 12. Percentage of RFCY Grantees Who Met
Performance Benchmarks, FY 2021–24
Program Satisfaction
Program Environment
Caring Adults
Sense of Belonging
92%
62%
62%
77%
Percent of RFCY Grantee Who Met
Performance Benchmarks, FY 2021-24
Note. The Figure above includes data from 13 grant-
ees who had at least 10 youth survey responses.
Only grantees who had at least 10 survey responses
are included in benchmark calculations.
Program Highlight
Richmond Freedom Schools leveraged
RFCY funding to improve the quality of
their services in a variety of ways—from
adding more afternoon enrichment
opportunities to sending food home
on the weekends to paying for field trip
transportation. As one staff member
summarized the impact of the RFCY on
program quality: “The program is already
a quality program at its base, but … this
money puts us over the top so we can
give our absolute best for the kids.”
RFCY Grantee Performance
Measures
• Program Participation: Number of
participants served as a percentage of the
program’s proposed number of participants
• Service Provision: Number of hours of
programming provided as a percentage of
the program’s proposed number of hours of
programming
• Program Satisfaction: Percentage of
surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “I would recommend this program to
a friend.”
• Program Environment: Percentage of
surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “I feel physically safe when I am at
this program.”
• Caring Adults: Percentage of surveyed youth
who agreed or strongly agreed, “There is an
adult at this program who cares about me.”
• Sense of Belonging: Percentage of surveyed
youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I have
a strong sense of belonging to a community
at this program.”
As depicted in Figures 13–17, findings from the
youth experience survey were mixed. Although
the majority of participants rated their pro -
grams positively across key items in the youth
survey, a significant portion selected neutral
responses. These neutral ratings suggest that
while participants may not have had negative
experiences, they may also not have experienced
strong engagement or impact in certain areas of
programming. There are many possible reasons
for these neutral responses, including the amount
of time participants spent in the program or the
specific structure and activities offered.
A small but meaningful number of youth partic -
ipants indicated negative experiences in their
programs. While these responses represent a
minority, they are important indicators of areas
where program improvements may be neces -
sary to ensure all youth feel safe, supported, and
engaged. There are many potential reasons behind
these negative responses, including mismatches
between youth needs and program offerings,
inconsistencies in implementation, or interper -
sonal challenges within program environments.
Both neutral and negative ratings raise import -
ant questions about how youth are experiencing
programs and what factors influence their expe-
rience in the program. WestEd and RDCY will
explore these findings further in conversations
with community partners and grantees to better
understand youth perspectives and identify the
underlying causes. These insights will help shape
future supports—and, in some cases, required
improvements—to ensure quality programming
and more consistently positive experiences
for all youth.
27 815
Participant Satisfaction
The majority of participants were satisfied with
the programs they attended (Figure 13). Outside
of the program satisfaction measures collected
as part of the RFCY evaluation, many grantees
collected their own program satisfaction data and
reported that, overall, their participants enjoyed
their programs. Youth participants expressed sat-
isfaction with a range of programmatic aspects,
including the loving and respectful commu -
nity, the supportive structure, and the concrete
skills gained. Most commonly, youth participants
expressed satisfaction through comments about
how “fun” or “safe” or “eye-opening” the pro -
gram experience was for them. Similarly, the vast
majority of parent survey respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that they liked the program,
they would recommend the program to another
parent, their child was interested in what they
do at the program, and they try new things (97%,
94%, 91%, and 94%, respectively). One youth par-
ticipant from Fresh Lifelines for Youth shared their
admiration for their program: “I honestly believe
the program organizers did a fantastic job and
deserve props for their hard work.”
Program Environment
RFCY funding has enabled most grantees to
create program environments that priori -
tize safety, support, creativity, and a sense of
belonging (Figure 14). From green spaces to
in-school wellness centers, these environments
help youth feel secure, cared for, and empowered.
The program environments offered opportunities
for collaboration, relationship-building, and open
communication, while also encouraging youth
to express themselves and explore their inter -
ests and talents.
Grantees were also committed to building cul -
turally and linguistically responsive spaces that
supported emotional and physical well-being.
Some grantees focused on diverse hiring prac -
tices to reflect the communities they serve, while
others integrated cultural competency into their
programming—celebrating traditions such as West
African and Mexican music and dance. Several
grantees also provided multicultural wraparound
services to holistically support youth from diverse
backgrounds. A participant from Desarrollo
Familiar shared, “In this program I can feel safe
that I will not be judged, and I can share my
ideas safely.”
I would recommend this program
to a friend.
I do things that make a
difference at this program.
6% 20% 33% 35%
9% 20% 33% 31%
14% 33% 17%
11% 20% 33% 29%
7% 18% 39% 29%
I like this program.
I am interested in what we do at
this program.
In this program, I try new things.
Participants’ Satisfaction With the Funded Programs
Strongly Disagree Disagree AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree 27%
5%
6%
6%
5%
5%
Figure 13. Participants’ Satisfaction With Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Fewer than 5 percent of participants fell into the “N/A” category for each item. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to omis - sion of “N/A” responses
28 816
Caring Adults
Most RFCY grantees fostered strong, support -
ive networks of adults through programming
that centered on youth well-being. Some did
this through behavioral health initiatives that
build trusting relationships with counselors
and mentors, while others offered arts enrich -
ment programs in which youth connect with
safe, caring instructors. A participant from the
East Bay Center for Performing Arts shared,
“The consistent instruction and support from
trusted adults is one of the most valuable
components of our program. … I call this place
my home away from home.” This sentiment
reflects a broader trend, as most youth indi -
cated in surveys that they felt supported by
caring adults in their programs (Figure 15).
Sense of Belonging
Grantees reported that RFCY-funded programs
fostered strong social connections among youth
by creating inclusive environments and offer -
ing a wide range of opportunities that promote
belonging. These included team-building activ -
ities, nature discovery walks, inter-age buddy
reading, and unstructured play. One program
specifically supported youth with incarcerated
parents by offering a safe and understanding
community of peers and counselors who share
similar experiences. And at Community Education
29%
31%
35%
26%
I feel physically safe when I am
at this program.
Adults at this program encourage
respect for others who are different
from me.
Adults at this program
understand my family’s culture.
This place is a comfortable
place to hang out.
Participants’ Satisfaction with Program Environment
Note: The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Bars without data labels had three percent or fewer participants.
Strongly Disagree Disagree AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree 5%
8%
23%
19%
15%
27%
37%
37%
42%
35%
Figure 14. Participants’ Satisfaction With Program Environment Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants.
T here is an adult at this program who
cares about me.
T here is an adult in this program who
b elieves I will become a success.
T here is an adult in this program who
a lways wants me to do my best.
I can talk to adults at this program
a bout things that bother me.
Participants’ Perspectives on the Adults in Their Programs Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to omission of “N/A” responses.
Strongly Disagree Disagree AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree 23% 36% 33%
24% 35% 32%
18% 38% 38%
6% 10% 28% 29% 26%
Figure 15. Participants’ Experiences With Adults in Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants. 29 817
Partnerships, students began referring to each
other as “cousins,” demonstrating a deep sense
of mutual support both within and beyond the
program.
A participant from Project Avary captured this
feeling of connection, saying, “When a youth
steps off the bus for their first time at a camp
or retreat, they suddenly know that they are no
longer alone and that they now have a commu -
nity of support and belonging where every youth
has this shared experience.” Survey results from
RFCY participants further reinforced this theme,
with youth expressing a strong sense of belong -
ing in their programs (Figure 16).
Additional Participant
Experiences
In addition to the four areas of performance
described in the previous section, the partic -
ipant surveys also included a range of other
questions about participant experiences, which
are shared in this section. Overall, there were 533
youth and 32 parent/guardian survey respon -
dents. However, the number of respondents to
each section described here differ due to the
survey structure.
I can usually be myself
in this program.
I feel like I matter
in this program.
I have a strong sense of
belonging to a community
at this program.
Participants’ Sense of Belonging in their Program
Strongly Disagree Disagree AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree 7% 15% 17% 27% 29%
9% 13% 21% 23% 27%
7% 13% 22% 30% 21%
Figure 16. Participants’ Sense of Belonging in Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Totals may not equal 100 percent due to omission of “N/A” responses.
30 818
Building Connections
• 93% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me learn how to get along with
others.”
• 87% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me make new friends.”
Leadership and Advocacy
• 94% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I better understand
solutions to problems in my community.”
• 90% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming to
this program, I am better at saying ‘no’
to things I know are wrong.”
• 88% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I am more aware about
what is going on in my community.”
• 82% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I am more of a leader.”
College Preparation
• 83% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true
that “because of this
program, I understand
the steps I need to
take to get into
college.”
RFCY program partici -
pants formed meaningful
connections within support -
ive, nurturing environments.
Youth had opportunities to explore their identi -
ties, strengthen social and emotional skills, and
engage in open, trusting dialogue with peers and
adults. Through activities that encouraged peer
bonding and community responsibility, they
developed a deeper sense of belonging and
purpose. Project-based learning fostered collab-
oration, while service-oriented projects taught
youth how to contribute to and support their
broader communities.
Through RFCY-funded programs, Richmond
youth engaged in diverse experiences that
nurtured their leadership and advocacy skills.
Several grantees offered community service and
civic engagement opportunities, encouraging
youth to become stewards of shared environ -
ments. Other programs focused on self-discovery
and helping youth understand their role within a
broader community. Some initiatives provided
structured advocacy pathways, training youth
to present to city and county boards. Others
hosted showcases to build communication and
public-speaking skills. Across these varied expe-
riences, youth gained critical life skills, a deeper
sense of agency, and the confidence to lead—
emerging as empowered voices in their
communities.
RFCY-funded programs equipped
Richmond youth with the skills, knowl -
edge, and mindsets needed to pursue
and succeed in college. Some programs
emphasized critical thinking by engaging
youth in real-world projects, while others
provided targeted college preparation sup -
port—such as helping students meet eligibility
requirements or navigate the admissions process.
Several programs awarded scholarships for study
in specific fields, such as the arts. Recognizing
that college preparation can be stressful, many
programs also integrated mental health services,
including case management and crisis interven -
tion, to support students more holistically. From
financial aid guidance and college campus tours
to “high school roadmaps,” RFCY grantees have
been using their funding to ensure youth of all
ages feel prepared, supported, and empowered
to pursue higher education.
“I feel like this pro-
gram really pushes
me and encour-
ages me into doing
my best.”
—East Bay Center for
the Performing Arts
participant, age 16
31 819
Academic Success
• 67% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
makes learning fun.”
• 65% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “what I learn
at this program helps me be more
successful in school.”
• 56% reported it was somewhat, mostly
or completely true that “because of this
program, I am more motivated to learn
in school.”
Life Skills
• 95% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me to think about the future.”
• 89% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “I have learned
new skills that will help me achieve my
goals.”
• 86% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “in this
program, I learn how to set goals and
meet them.”
RFCY-funded programs supported Richmond
youth in building both academic skills and con -
fidence. Many grantees used project-based
learning approaches to engage youth in real-world
challenges—such as identifying ways for commu-
nities to have access to clean water—that required
critical thinking and creative problem-solving.
Other initiatives offered comprehensive aca -
demic supports not typically available in schools,
including personalized tutoring, mentoring, life
skills counseling, and college readiness coaching.
These individualized services helped students feel
more prepared and capable in their academic pur-
suits. Some youth also developed leadership skills
by mentoring younger peers, reinforcing their own
learning in the process. Across programs, partici-
pants reported greater confidence in their academic
abilities, improved reading comprehension, more
positive attitudes toward learning, and increased
interest in fields such as STEM and the arts.
Youth reported learning the following skills:
• Write a resume (39%)
• Complete an application (34%)
• Make better choices
about spending (29%)
• Interview for a job (28%)
• Search for a job (22%)
• Open a bank account (16%)
• Make a budget (15%)
• Fill out official forms (12%)
RFCY grantees offered transformative experi -
ences that helped Richmond children and youth
build essential life skills. Through hands-on,
project-based learning, youth learned to
express themselves and collaborate effectively.
Mentorship and mindfulness training fostered
core social–emotional competencies, including
self-awareness, self-management, communica-
tion, leadership, and problem-solving. Workshops
equipped youth with practical skills in budgeting,
personal finance, organization,
goal setting, and navigating
the legal system. These
trainings and workshops
provided structured
opportunities to apply
these lessons in real life.
As a result, participants
reported feeling more
confident in their ability to
make healthy, informed deci -
sions about their futures.
“You can express
yourself and you
can be yourself.“
—Community
Violence Solutions
participant, age 16
32 820
Career and Trade Job
Readiness
• 93% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me to understand how to get the
kind of job I want.”
• 91% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “in this
program, I learned about jobs I can have
in the future.”
• 87% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
has helped me learn how to work
independently with focus.”
• 84% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “at this
program, I learned what is expected in a
work setting.”
• 67% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “in this
program, I learned about an industry
that I am interested in (e.g., IT, health
care, culinary arts).”
Overall, 77 percent of career
and job readiness respon-
dents reported receiving
the following supports:
• A paid job (42%)
• A volunteer opportunity
(35%)
• A paid internship (13%)
• An unpaid internship (3%)
• An unpaid job (3%)
RFCY program participants engaged in robust
career and trade job readiness activities designed
to expand their horizons and prepare them for the
future. Through structured workshops and field
trips, Richmond youth met professionals in fields
such as biology, engineering, and even space
exploration—gaining exposure to a wide range of
career possibilities. Some programs introduced
youth to skilled trades, such as carpentry and
welding, while others offered specialized train -
ing, such as healthcare occupational skills that
counted toward certification. Participants
also received individualized support, includ-
ing resume reviews, regular checK–ins, and
personalized guidance, to help them navi -
gate career pathways. Programs addressed
common barriers to success by offer -
ing resources and mentorship to help
youth manage stress, peer pressure, and
family responsibilities.
“I have fun and
learn at the same
time.”
—Social Progress
participant, age 18
“I liked this expe-
rience because it
helped me with
talking more
and being more
comfortable.”
—Rosie’s Service Corps
participant, age 13
33 821
RFCY programs supported the physical, mental,
and emotional well-being of Richmond youth.
Some grantees partnered with schools to deliver
small-group mindfulness or social-emotional
learning lessons to students in close coordina -
tion with school staff. Others collaborated with
local agencies to provide wraparound services
for youth and their families. Programs such as
Pogo Park offered opportunities for physi -
cal activity, including dance and horse or pony
rides, through partnerships
with other Richmond-
based organizations.
Collectively, these
programs helped
youth build emo -
tional regulation
skills, adopt healthy
physical habits such
as nutritious eating,
and develop strategies
to cope with trauma and daily
stressors, including community violence.
Youth frequently expressed appreciation for
these supports, noting the lasting impact on
their well-being. As one 8th grader shared,
“Mindfulness [is] important to me because it
helps me calm down in tough situations and it
allows me to manage them better.” Many echoed
this sentiment, highlighting the powerful role that
RFCY programs play in equipping youth with tools
for healing, resilience, and self-care.
Physical, Mental, and
Emotional Health
• 77% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “this
program has taught me to deal with my
problems in a positive way (like asking
for help).”
• 74% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
teaches me how to be healthy.”
• 71% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
has helped me cope with stress.”“I feel like this pro-
gram has helped
me so much”
—Bridges From
School to Work
participant, age 16
34 822
Grantee Approaches
to Assessing and
Improving Program
Quality
Grantees actively
measure impact and
participant learning
Many grantees administered their own partic -
ipant surveys to track growth over the course
of their programs. For instance, The Watershed
Project uses surveys to assess how participants’
learning progresses over time. Other grantees are
conducting impact evaluations, focusing on stra-
tegic planning, and establishing actionable goals
to ensure their programs yield measurable
outcomes.
Community
engagement is central
to grantees’ work
One key lesson that grantees identified
is that meaningful community engage -
ment is essential to building high-quality
programs. They found that authentic engage -
ment goes beyond outreach—it involves actively
including youth and families in shaping the future
of their own communities.
Grantees indicated that clear, consistent com -
munication is critical to successful program
implementation and growth . Grantees who
established open lines of communication with
partners and participants reported stronger
engagement, smoother delivery, clearly defined
roles, effective contingency planning, and greater
overall buy-in.
“We are conducting regular
program evaluations to assess
the effectiveness and impact
of our interventions, identify
areas for improvement, and
make data-driven decisions to
optimize outcomes. This
ongoing process of
evaluation and adap-
tation ensures that
the project remains
responsive to the
evolving needs of
the community and
maintains its relevance
and effectiveness over time.”
—Grantee Report
“When we are working togeth -
er towards the same goal, we
demonstrate how beautiful and
heartwarming are the people of
our community. Working togeth-
er allows us to help each other
and the children of this commu-
nity, which are the future of this
beautiful community.”
—Grantee Report
RFCY-funded programs are strengthened by the
support of formal partners, local businesses, vol-
unteers, and parents throughout the Richmond
community. Grantees noted that, over the course
of their grant periods, they were encouraged by
the strong interest from community members
eager to volunteer their time. This mobilization of
community support played a key role in program
success, helping to sustain long-term impact
through deeper engagement with participants,
donors, volunteers, and other interest holders.
Many grantees also reported expanding their
partnerships with community organizations and
institutions, a reflection of the growing positive
public perception of RFCY-funded initiatives.
“[This is a] very
helpful program
for someone who
starts their
first job.”
—Bridges From
School to Work
participant, age 19
35 823
Multiple grantees described
that schools were particular -
ly committed to supporting
RFCY-funded programs, which
helped facilitate smooth
program implemen -
tation: “The admin -
istration at all of the
schools were excited
and expressed that
they had been wait-
ing for an opportunity
like this. They were quick
to support our integration into
[their] sites and to do their part
to support our implementation.”
—Grantee Report
Grantees collect participant and community
feedback by the following:
• Conducting surveys and focus groups with
students, parents, or teachers (e.g., annual
program surveys, post-session surveys for
teachers and parents, literacy surveys
for youth)
• Engaging and elevating
community voice (e.g., Youth
Ambassador Programs, Youth
Committee, direct observation)
• Participating in ongoing
dialogue with partners and
collaborators (e.g., conversations
with school staff that provide deeper
insights into student needs or preferences)
Grantees responded to feedback in a variety
of ways:
• Adjusting program design to include different
age groups and/or the types of services
offered (Aim High, Oshiana Unique Thompkins
Foundation; CEP; Bay Area Community
Resources; Watershed Project Educational
Programs; DREAM)
• Revising and/or developing curriculum to
address implementation barriers (18 Reasons,
Aim High)
• Engaging district officials for district-
level endorsements to support school-level
student outreach (Oshiana Unique Thompkins
Foundation)
• Expanding volunteer recruitment to fill
volunteer vacancies post-COVID (CEP)
• Revising internal evaluation tools to capture
reliable and valid participant feedback
(Things That Creep)
• Integrating feedback with broader
organizational goals and strategic planning
(RYSE)
“Community involvement in the
decision-making process en -
sures that the programs … tru -
ly reflect their needs and aspi -
rations. Community voices are
essential for creating relevant and
impactful programs.”
—Grantee Report
“I’ve had a big
change in how to
handle my emo-
tions and know
that they’re in my
control.”
—Desarrollo Familiar
Participant, age 16
36 824
RFCY Grants
Support
Programs’
Organizational
Capacity and
Sustainability
RFCY plays a vital role in
strengthening organizational
health and supporting
sustainable program models.
W
hile no more than 20 percent of the
grant funds may be allocated to indi -
rect costs, grantees are using their indirect
allotment to cultivate meaningful partnerships,
enhance sustainable program design, build
organizational capacity, and engage in frequent
community engagement and robust program
evaluation. Collaborations with local schools,
community-based organizations, and the school
district allow grantees to share resources and
expertise, expand their reach, and deliver last -
ing support to youth and families. In addition,
grantees are actively diversifying their funding
streams to sustain and grow their efforts beyond
RFCY funding.
“This funding has given us the
opportunity to look forward and
plan ahead. ... [The fund is] giv -
ing back our voice because we’re
not limited on what we can do
and it gives us an opportunity
to look at new ways to do com -
munity outreach, look for other
sources of funding. It’s strength-
ening the partnerships with us
and other [community-based
organizations].”
—Program Coordinator
Capacity Building for
Grantees
When RFCY grantee organizations build their
internal capacity, children and youth directly
benefit from higher-quality programming. When
submitting their RFCY application, grantee annual
budgets ranged from $25,000 to over 151 million
dollars, with 42 percent of grantees having annual
budgets less than 1 million dollars. The funding
amount made up less than 10 percent of the
operating budget for most grantees (57%)
and added more than 50 percent to the
operating budgets for three grant-
ees. Because RFCY funding
37 825
accounts for only a small percentage of most
grantees’ total operating budget, its ability to
drive immediate change may be limited. While the
funding may not be sufficient to scale programs,
invest in infrastructure, and support long-term
planning in the first funding year, over time, and
combined with other funding sources, RFCY can
contribute to each of these organizational goals.
Grantees built their capacity by hiring additional
staff, increasing salaries, enhancing professional
development opportunities, and improving volun-
teer recruitment efforts. Others were invested in
strategic planning and refining internal systems
and operational structures to support long-term
effectiveness and sustainability.
RFCY catalyzed
collaboration in Richmond
The RFCY actively fostered collaboration by
funding nine “collaboration” grantees to imple -
ment programs that required partnerships
between at least two organizations. In addi -
tion, many grantees funded as “single agencies”
partnered with schools, businesses, and com -
munity organizations to deliver high-quality,
community-responsive programming. In focus
groups, one program leader shared, “RFCY has
really brought us all together,” highlighting how
the initiative has encouraged community-based
organizations to build stronger, more coordinated
partnerships across the city.
Partnerships enabled programs to more effec -
tively and sustainably address challenges, such
as participant recruitment and program access.
These collaborations also helped grantees over-
come barriers, coordinate services, and better
meet the diverse needs of Richmond’s youth and
families. For example, Bay Area Community
Resources partnered with the California
Department of Education and the Sandy Hook
Promise Foundation to deliver specialized trainings
for 6th grade students—opportunities that would
not have been feasible for the grantee to provide
on its own. These trainings focused on reducing
social isolation, enhancing peer relationships, and
preventing bullying and violence in schools.
Grantees partnered with healthcare professionals,
universities, and community-based organizations
to strengthen their staff’s capacity to meet the
needs of youth and families. For example, Rosie’s
Service Corps, which supports LGBTQ+ youth
facing fears around employment discrimination,
partnered with the Rainbow Community Center
to provide staff with specialized LGBTQ+ train -
ing. This collaboration helped ensure that staff were
better equipped to offer inclusive, affirming sup-
port to the youth they serve.
“While we have a plan in place to
facilitate more school and district
contracts, [RFCY] grant funding
remains essential to helping us
reach high-need student popu-
lations and increase our capaci-
ty to provide the highest-quality
programming for Richmond stu-
dents and take on more schools.”
—Grantee Report
$1,581,457
administered to 9
collaborative programs
100% of grantees funded in FY 2021
or FY 2022 were re-funded the follow -
ing fiscal year. Funding for FY 2025-28
shifted to a 3-year grant that does not
require grantees to reapply each year.
38 826
“Effective communication and
collaboration among stakehold-
ers—including school district of-
ficials, teachers, parents, and
mentors—are vital. ... Addressing
communication gaps and foster-
ing strong partnerships facilitates
better coordination and support
for at-risk youth.”
—Grantee report
Collaboration Program Highlight
D.R.E.A.M. Financial Academy and Just
Imagine KidZ Literacy Project co-deliver
summer and after-school programs to
youth ages 8-17 on a variety of topics,
including financial literacy, STEM, and
Black history education. Before RFCY, the
program creators used their own money
to fund their offerings. During the 2022–
23 school year, the program served twice
as many children and youth than they had
originally proposed due to their collabo-
rative funding model. During the 2023–24
school year, D.R.E.A.M. added another
collaboration with Junior Achievement
of Northern California to incorporate a
career exploration component to the
program.
RFCY helped emerging
programs grow
their organizational
infrastructures
RFCY intentionally invested in eight small and
emerging programs during FY 2021–24. These
programs had unique support needs to hire staff,
build infrastructure, and secure additional fund-
ing. RFCY grantees are required to provide data to
RDCY throughout the grant period, which pushed
some organizations to grow and improve their
internal capacity.
“[RDCY] helped us think together
about what the program needed
from an infrastructure standpoint in
order to deliver the services. [RDCY’s
requirements allowed us] to co-write
very strong grants and we got fund-
ing for it. ... And that team that was
one and a half people at the begin -
ning, is now a team of five people”
—Program Director
Small and Emerging
Program Highlight
Richmond Freedom School was estab -
lished in 2021 as a 6-week literacy
program for TK–6 children in Richmond.
It was funded by RFCY as a small and
emerging summer program in FY 2022–
24. Each program day included integrated
reading curriculum, enrichment activities,
intergenerational leadership development,
two meals and a snack, and field trips on
a weekly basis. Since becoming an RFCY
grantee, Richmond Freedom School became
sustainable by securing over $100,000 in
individual contributions, establishing a part-
nership with WCCUSD, and recruiting 60
volunteers. The director intends to pursue
additional grant opportunities and funds
from schools, faith-based organizations,
and community partnerships.
$559,957
administered to 8 small and
emerging programs
39 827
Grantees’ Fiscal Health
and Sustainability
Multiyear RFCY funding
supported grantees’
planning and growth
The ability to receive RFCY funding over multi -
ple years enables grantees to develop long-term
business strategies and allocate resources
toward securing additional funding. Many grant-
ees expressed enthusiasm about RFCY’s shift to
a 3-year grant cycle beginning in FY 2025, noting
that this change will support more sustainable
investments in program improvement and orga-
nizational growth.
Grantees pursued
additional funding sources
to support sustainability
To secure additional funding, several grantees
launched fundraising campaigns, while others
received fiscal support through new grant oppor-
tunities. Some shared that receiving RFCY funding
helped strengthen their credibility, as city funding
served as a “stamp of approval” that appealed to
other funders. For example, Pogo Park is actively
expanding its donor base and increasing earned
income as part of its effort to “build a resilient
financial framework that can withstand fluctua-
tions in income streams.”
“I don’t think there’s another part-
ner out there who provides a multi-
year level of support the way the
Richmond Fund does and to the
depths of that support—it’s really
transformative. And so, while we
definitely can find ways to keep
the program going, [it is] so much
easier with this good partnership
and it allows us to plan for the fu-
ture, knowing that the population
of students on site will continue to
increase and knowing that we will
need to be there to support them.”
—Program Director
To support program sustainability, many grant-
ees combined RFCY funding with other sources,
including local foundations, school districts,
county agencies (such as health and probation
departments), and state grant programs. During
focus groups, grantees noted that many of these
existing funding sources come with restrictions
that limit who can be served. By strategically braid-
ing RFCY dollars with other funds, grantees are able
to fill service gaps and extend their program reach.
For example, some programs receive funding from
WCCUSD, which can only be used for students
enrolled in the district—excluding Richmond chil-
dren and youth who attend other schools. RFCY
funding helps bridge these gaps, ensuring more
equitable access to services across the commu-
nity. Furthermore, emergent programs were able
to leverage this data to secure additional funding.
40 828
“When we tell people from dif -
ferent companies, ‘Hey, we’ve
got the support of the Richmond
Fund for Children and Youth,’ that
helps us. That’s a big deal because
they’re like, ‘Oh, okay, the city is
actually supporting this program.’
So that not just legitimizes it, but
it makes them feel stronger about
supporting us.”
—Executive Director
“Additional funding sources allow
you to serve a greater variety of
kids. … We were able to take in
both charter students from the
city of Richmond as well as kids
that the school district will pay
for. And so again, with diversified
funding, you find a way to kind of
pay for everything in pieces.”
—Executive Director
41 829
Implementation
Challenges
RFCY Grantees and the Richmond
Department for Children and
Youth experienced a variety
of challenges over the course
of their grant period.
COVID-19
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many
youth and families faced significant crises.
Grantees funded in 2021 encountered major chal-
lenges, including school closures and the need to
quickly transition to virtual programming. Even
after schools reopened, grantees continued to
navigate emerging post-pandemic needs—most
notably, increased demand for mental health sup-
port and disparities in learning loss. In response,
many programs integrated trauma-informed
practices and mental health referrals into their
core services. As one grantee shared, “Youth are
dealing with more than we anticipated. ... We
added more emotional intelligence sessions and
formed small support groups to respond to the
level of emotional need.”
Barriers to Access and
Attendance
While many of the RFCY programs are easily
accessible by public transportation, some are
not. The program lead of one grantee organiza -
tion pointed out, “Some folks are coming from
South Richmond or North Richmond, and so if
they don’t have reliable transportation, if they
don’t have cars, it can just be difficult for them
to get to our program, to come to our meetings.”
Another grantee described the challenges that
participants have accessing internships both
locally and outside the city due to limited trans-
portation options.
Grantees reported recruitment challenges in
reaching the children and youth most in need.
In one case, limited communication between
staff and families delayed the identification and
referral of at-risk youth who would have benefited
from New Life Movement’s Reaction Program—a
behavioral health initiative designed to address
and redirect harmful behaviors. Another grantee
aimed to provide youth-specific supports for all
children living in its shelter program. However,
the transitional nature of families moving in and
out of the shelter made consistent engagement
difficult.
For some grantees offering multi-week programs,
maintaining consistent attendance was a chal -
lenge due to family vacations, summer sports,
and other scheduling conflicts. One grantee work-
ing primarily with families noted the difficulty
of engaging parents, explaining that “guardians
often have numerous other commitments in addi-
tion to picking up their children from school or
after-school care.” To address these challenges,
many grantees relied on strong partnerships.
Collaborating with schools and community orga-
nizations helped them identify optimal times and
strategies for engaging participants and sharing
83% of grantees served more children and
youth than they had originally proposed.
83%
37% of grantees provided more hours of
services than they had originally proposed.
37%
42 830
information. Partners also played a key role in
overcoming participation barriers—offering trans-
portation support or helping with scheduling to
increase accessibility.
“At the beginning of the project
... we faced significant challeng-
es with youth recruitment and at-
tendance … due to staffing con-
straints and limited partnerships
for recruiting young adults for our
workshops. … Our initial strug -
gles highlighted the necessity
of building a robust recruitment
pipeline and establishing strong
community partnerships from
the outset.”
—Grantee report
Scheduling and
Communication Issues
With Partners
Grantees faced a range of challenges when part-
nering with school sites, particularly around
communication and scheduling. Many reported
difficulties with timely information sharing and
misaligned calendars between their programs
and school partners. For example, one grantee
designed a 12-week program model but had to
adjust it for a school operating on an 8-week
quarter system. As a result, the program lost
about half of its participants for that quarter.
Staffing Shortages and
Turnover
Some grantees faced staffing transitions or lim-
ited staffing capacity, which affected their ability
to deliver programming. Throughout the funding
period, those experiencing staffing challenges
reported actively recruiting new team members.
In some cases, staff shortages led to reduced
program offerings. This issue also extended to
grantees who relied heavily on consistent volun-
teer support, highlighting the broader impact of
staffing gaps on program implementation.
“We were asked to complete a
new process with the district,
which prevented us from serving
students at [our originally pro -
posed school] for most of the ac-
ademic school year. Despite our
immediate efforts to submit the
required paperwork, the response
was delayed in coming, so we fo-
cused our efforts on serving stu-
dents at [another school]. We took
the opportunity to implement cur-
riculum at [the other school] and
piloted a semester-long program.”
—Grantee report
“With staff transitions that took
place over the course of our
grant,] a number of our programs
have needed to either be put on
hold or be adjusted to account for
a decrease in staff.”
—Grantee report
43 831
In addition, staffing changes within schools
sometimes delayed program implementation.
In cases of teacher turnover, some grantees
had to pause their programs until a new point
of contact was identified. Occasionally, the new
contact lacked the interest or capacity to sup -
port external programming. While grantees had
little control over school staffing shortages or
transitions, strong communication with school
partners helped mitigate disruptions and mini -
mize the impact on program delivery.
“Within these partnerships, it has
given us valuable insights to the
school system and some of the
challenges or barriers they are ex-
periencing, such as inadequate
teachers or transition of key staff,
which ultimately could have a
negative or positive impact on
[our] programming.”
—Grantee report
Limited Grantee
Organizational Capacity
Grantees reflected that larger funding
amounts would better support the delivery of
high-quality, consistent programming . While
many aimed to dedicate more staff time to
direct services, they also had to manage essen -
tial administrative responsibilities needed to keep
their organizations running effectively. Some
grantees reported having growing waitlists but
lacked the physical space and organizational
capacity to fully meet this rising demand.
“Our primary challenge remains
managing the daily administra-
tive tasks required to run a non-
profit, while also finding time or
assistance for grant writing to se-
cure more consistent funding.”
—Grantee report
Limited RDCY
Organizational Capacity
During the RFCY’s first funding cycle, the RDCY
was simultaneously responsible for funding and
monitoring grantees while also building a new city
department from the ground up. This included
hiring and training staff, developing internal sys-
tems, managing an external evaluation team,
and creating a program model to deliver and
oversee the RFCY. These foundational efforts,
which spanned the first several years of grant
implementation, placed significant demands on
RDCY’s capacity and impacted the level of sup -
port that RDCY staff could provide to grantees.
Overall, results from the grantee survey indicate
that grantees were generally satisfied with RDCY
staff (Figure 17).
5%
11%
24%
38%
22%Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Figure 17. Grantee’s Overall Satisfaction With
RDCY (N = 37)
44 832
The majority of grantees indicated that RDCY
staff were valuable partners in their work (76%),
RDCY staff provided helpful guidance and feed -
back (73%), they felt comfortable approaching
RDCY staff when problems arose (84%), and
they felt that RDCY provided valuable resources
and support that goes beyond grant funding
(54%; see Figure 18).
Despite these strengths, grantees also encoun -
tered challenges with staff responsiveness and
communication. One grantee shared, “It was a
challenge to get in touch with staff members who
could give us an update on payments.” Delays in
processing grant agreements and invoices—largely
due to RDCY’s limited capacity—were a common
concern. As one grantee explained, “The grant
process is very well-organized, but the invoices
take far too long to process,” while another noted,
“Reimbursements were processed very slowly,
sometimes extending for weeks, which affected
the program’s flow.”
Grantees also expressed frustration with unclear
or inconsistent forms and reporting instructions.
One remarked, “The forms and instructions can
be unclear, contradictory, or duplicative.” Some
found the reporting requirements more inten -
sive than those of other funders. Many of these
issues are being addressed in the next cycle of
RFCY funding, with the implementation of the
Submittable platform for grantees to submit
required reporting and invoicing documents using
a standardized, online template.
Still, many grantees conveyed optimism, express-
ing hope that as RDCY continues to build its
internal capacity, improvements in systems,
communication, and responsiveness will follow .
Note. Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer respondents.
I view RDCY staff as valuable
partners in this work.
I feel comfortable approaching RDCY
staff when a problem or issue arises.
RDCY staff respond to questions or
concerns within a few business days.
RDCY provides valuable resources and
supports to my organization that go
beyond grant funding.
RDCY staff provide helpful
guidance and feedback.
RFCY Grantee’s Service and Support Satisfaction
Note: Bars without data labels had three percent or fewer respondents.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree 16%
11%
16%
11%
32%
32%
11%
8%
11%
30%
51%
38%
30%
5% 35%
24%
32%
35%
46%
11%
Figure 18. RFCY Grantee’s Service and Support Satisfaction ( N = 37) 45 833
Recommendations
to Improve the
Richmond Fund
for Children and
Youth
As RFCY continues to fund
programs through FY 2027,
WestEd offers a set of
recommendations grounded in
evaluation findings and youth
development best practices.
I
mplementing these strategies can enhance
RFCY’s impact on child- and youth-serving orga-
nizations and the communities they serve.
Prioritize Flexible
Funding
Continue to prioritize the RFCY funding model
that allows grantees to respond dynamically to
community needs. This adaptability supported
program pivots, individualized services, and inno-
vative programming aligned with emerging needs
and youth and family feedback.
Support Capacity
Building for Program
Quality
Increase technical assistance and capacity-
building efforts for organizations on program
quality. Program quality supports include net -
working events and training around youth
development, collaboration with schools, and
data collection and reporting. Performance
measures and findings from the youth experi -
ence survey can inform what tailored technical
assistance supports grantees may benefit from.
Small and emerging organizations may need more
intensive supports unique to the organizational
challenges they face.
Promote Long-Term
Sustainability Planning
Encourage and support grantees to engage in
long-term strategic planning, diversify revenue
streams, and braid RFCY funds with other fund -
ing sources. This might include providing technical
assistance focused on administrative infrastruc-
ture, data reporting, and sustainable funding
strategies.
46 834
Enhance
Communication and
Responsiveness
Improve clarity and consistency in communica -
tion with grantees, especially regarding invoicing,
reporting requirements, and instructions about
forms. Build systems to expedite invoicing and
payments. Investing in staffing and systems at
RDCY will improve support and responsiveness.
Increase Access
Supports and Promote
Attendance
Address barriers to access and attendance by
supporting grantees with funds or partnerships
that allow for transportation solutions, expanded
hours, or flexible program formats to increase
reach to high-need populations.
Strengthen School
and Community
Partnerships
Identify opportunities to streamline partnerships
between grantees and schools, including clear
coordination processes, calendar alignment, and
designated points of contact to mitigate disrup-
tions due to staff turnover.
Deepen Youth and
Community Voice
Continue and deepen participatory evaluation,
grant-making, and needs assessment efforts with
youth and community members. Their insights
led to more relevant, inclusive, and effective pro-
gramming and should remain central in future
evaluation and planning efforts. Grantees found
value in community and participant feedback
on their programs. Efforts to deepen youth
and community voice will support continuous
improvement and youth empowerment.
47 835
Conclusion
The RFCY has made a
significant, measurable impact
on Richmond’s children,
youth, and families in its
first three funding cycles.
B
y investing over $9.1 million across 56 pro -
grams and supporting more than 58,000
encounters with children and youth, RFCY has
expanded grantee programs’ reach, closed service
gaps, strengthened the capacity of local organiza-
tions, and facilitated high-quality programming.
The evaluation findings highlight RFCY’s suc-
cess in promoting equity, supporting the
whole child, and empowering grantees to
meet evolving community needs. Programs
demonstrated strong performance across key
quality indicators and achieved meaningful
outcomes in areas such as academic suc -
cess, mental health, leadership, and life skills.
Although challenges persist, the commitment of
grantees, community partners, and the RDCY to
continuous improvement is evident. With sus -
tained investment and ongoing collaboration,
the RFCY is well positioned to deepen its impact
and advance its vision of a thriving, equitable
Richmond for all children and youth.
48 836
Appendix A.
Evaluation
Planning Process
The evaluation plan was
developed over 10 months in
collaboration with the RDCY,
the RFCY Oversight Board, RFCY
grantees, and Richmond youth.
Document Review
RDCY provided WestEd with copies of all RFCY
grantee contracts, contract amendments, prog-
ress reports, and quarterly reports from March
2021 through December 2023. WestEd reviewed
these materials to develop a comprehensive
understanding of RFCY-funded programs and to
compile an inventory of each grantee’s internal
evaluation design and measures. In addition,
WestEd conducted a comparative review of eval-
uation frameworks used by similar funding
initiatives in neighboring cities, including Oakland
and San Francisco. This review included youth
and staff survey instruments as well as key per -
formance metrics.
Table 1. Core Performance Measures for RFCY Grantees
Topic Measure Benchmark
Program participation Number of participants served as a percentage of the program’s projected number of participants 85%
Service provision hours
Number of hours of programming provided as a
percentage of the program’s projected hours of
programming
85%
Program satisfaction Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I would recommend this program to a friend.” > 50% Program environment Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I feel physically safe when I am at this program.” > 70% Caring adults
Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “There is an adult at this program who cares
about me.”
> 70%
Sense of belonging
Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “I have a strong sense of belonging to a
community at this program.”
> 50%
49 837
Listening Sessions With
RFCY Grantees
In October 2023, WestEd facilitated two listen -
ing sessions with RFCY grantees representing all
six priority areas. The sessions aimed to deepen
WestEd’s understanding of the diverse programs
funded by RFCY, the populations they serve, how
grantees utilize RFCY funds, and how their pro -
grams address the needs of children and youth.
Insights from these sessions helped refine the
primary evaluation questions and informed the
overall approach to data collection.
Development of
Performance Measures
The RFCY evaluation is designed to measure
whether funded programs are offering high-
quality programming. To define and measure
program quality, WestEd created a community-in-
formed list of universal performance measures.
A performance measure is a number or a quan -
tity that shows how well a program is performing
relative to a predetermined benchmark value
that represents adequate performance. WestEd
collaborated with RDCY, the Oversight Board,
Richmond youth, and grantees to identify perfor-
mance measures that are reported on an annual
basis. The selected performance measurement
use data from grantee-reported service provision
data and the youth experience survey (Table 1).
Pilot Evaluation
WestEd conducted a pilot evaluation to test the
surveys and survey protocols. Six RFCY-funded
programs were selected to participate in the
pilot: Sister Circle, Bridges From School to Work,
Social Progress, Community Violence Solutions,
Contra Costa Family Justice Center, and East
Bay Center for the Performing Arts. Pilot grant -
ees were strategically selected to cover different
program areas, ensuring that all items from the
youth experience survey would be administered.
Across six evaluation pilot programs, 40 youth
completed the youth experience survey and two
parents completed the parent survey. All six pro-
grams completed the grantee survey. WestEd
presented pilot results to the RDCY and the RFCY
Oversight Board and made revisions to the par -
ticipant surveys and the grantee survey based
on feedback received.
50 838
Appendix B.
RFCY Evaluation
Partner
Engagement
WestEd employed a participatory
evaluation approach that
actively engaged those most
affected by the RFCY in the
design and implementation
of the evaluation.7
W
estEd learned from community part -
ners, including youth and grantees,
through holding listening sessions, codesigning
evaluation instruments, and collectively inter -
preting findings.
Regular Meetings With
RDCY
WestEd met biweekly with RDCY staff from
July 2023 to June 2025. During these biweekly
meetings, WestEd collaborated on partner
7 Organizing Engagement. (2023). Participatory Action Research and Evaluation. https://organizingengagement.org/models/participatory-action-research-and-evaluation/ engagement and evaluation planning and
implementation.
RFCY Oversight Board
Engagement
WestEd first met with the Oversight Board in
November 2023, facilitating an activity to gauge
members’ interest in deeper collaboration in the
evaluation. Since then, WestEd has actively part-
nered with board members throughout each
stage of the evaluation.
In March 2024, WestEd returned to provide
updates on evaluation planning and community
engagement. During this meeting, board mem -
bers offered feedback on the RFCY logic model,
evaluation questions, and draft items for the
Youth Experience Survey. In June 2024, WestEd
presented the full evaluation plan and received
input on the emerging qualitative data collection
approach. Most recently, in April 2025, WestEd
shared project updates and preliminary findings
and sought recommendations for incorporating
spatial analyses into the final report.
Youth Co-Evaluators
The Youth Co-Evaluators are a group of Richmond
youth, ages 14–20, who contribute their unique
perspectives as participants in school- and com-
munity-based programs funded by RFCY. The
evaluation plan was initially shaped by a team
of five youth data collectors nominated by RFCY-
funded grantees. These youth received training
in research and evaluation fundamentals and,
during the evaluation planning phase, helped pilot
the Youth Experience Survey and informed the
approach to analyzing grantee reports. They were
also trained to assist grantees with administer -
ing participant surveys.
During the implementation phase, WestEd
recruited additional Youth Co-Evaluators through
a similar nomination and application process.
These 13 youth were onboarded in February
2025 and contributed to the development of this
final report.
51 839
Appendix C.
Detailed
Description of
Data Collection
Methods
Participant Surveys
The RFCY participant surveys were designed to
assess the extent to which the Fund is fostering
high-quality programming. The survey measures
a range of program-specific outcomes for chil -
dren and youth who participate in RFCY-funded
programs. There are two versions of the survey,
one of which is designed for youth participants
over age 10 and the other for parents of partici -
pants age 10 and younger. The participant surveys
are available online and on paper in both English
and Spanish.
The youth surveys include a core module com -
posed of 16 items, supplemental modules, and a
set of demographic questions. The core module,
as seen in Table 2, measures several topics for all
RFCY-funded program participants. Supplemental
modules are sets of questions that measure
topics aligned with the program type. With this
flexible design, youth experience surveys are
customized to each program based on program
format and goals. For example, programs that
support youth to apply for jobs and manage their
finances administer the employment and life skills
modules, while programs that offer educational
supports administer the academic engagement
module. The specific topics measured by the core
and supplemental modules were informed by lis-
tening sessions with grantees, feedback from
RDCY and the RFCY Oversight Board, and review
of existing standardized measures of program
quality. The parent survey includes items from
core modules and those supplemental modules
seen in Table 3.
Table 2. Youth Survey Modules
Core Module Supplemental
Modules
• Program
satisfaction
• Sense of belonging
• Program
environment
• Positive
relationships
with adults
• Cultural
competency
• Linkage to
resources
• Demographics
• Program
satisfaction
• Sense of belonging
• Program
environment
• Positive
relationships
with adults
• Cultural
competency
• Linkage to
resources
• Demographics
Table 3. Parent Survey Modules
Core Module Supplemental
Modules
• Program
satisfaction and
enjoyment
• Sense of belonging
• Program
environment
• Positive
relationships with
adults
• Linkage to
resources
• Motivation for
enrollment
• Demographics
• Building
connections
• Academic
engagement
• Health
All RFCY grantees were invited to administer par-
ticipant surveys. Survey data were collected in
paper and digital formats, in English and Spanish,
during programming time. In total, 22 grantees
(39%) collected at least one survey response.
Of these, only 13 grantees had enough data for
performance monitoring and data featured on
program profiles (10 responses minimum). A
supplemental file lists the programs that admin-
istered the youth experience survey during this
reporting period and shows which supplemental
modules were administered for each program.
52 840
Grantee Focus Groups
To understand RFCY implementation, WestEd
conducted six 1-hour virtual focus groups with
33 RFCY-funded program managers and execu -
tives. The goal of the focus groups was to learn
about the extent to which and how the RFCY is
successfully building the capacity of grantees and
to learn about the successes and challenges of
implementing RFCY-funded activities and services.
All focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and
coded by WestEd analysts. WestEd conducted a
thematic analysis of focus group data and sum -
marized these findings in this report.
Quarterly Reports
As part of their grant agreement, each RFCY
grantee is required to submit a quarterly progress
report and a final report at the end of the fund -
ing year. These reports help WestEd understand
more about the implementation of RFCY and the
characteristics of funded programs. The reports
are a key data source for grantees to describe pro-
gram outcomes and impact, but are subject to
reporting bias where grantees might only report
positive outcomes. The reports were systemati -
cally analyzed and the findings were summarized
in the body of this evaluation report. The progress
reports and final reports were collected by RDCY.
WestEd conducted a content analysis of grantee
reports to address each of the evaluation
questions. Findings from these analyses are sum-
marized throughout this report.
Grantee Survey
WestEd administered a survey to FY 2021–24
grantees to learn more about how RFCY and RDCY
has supported their organizational goals and their
needs for additional support. The survey was
administered to all RFCY grantees in December
2024. There were 37 respondents to the survey,
representing 33 organizations across all six priority
service areas. Overall, the survey had a 75 percent
response rate from grantee organizations funded
by RDCY between FY21 and FY24. Most survey
respondents were program leads/managers (47%),
followed by executive directors (30%) and program
staff (9%). Roles of the remaining respondents
(14%, categorized as “other”) included develop -
ment manager, director of advancement, county
director, and grant administrators.
53 841
Program Name First Year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received Funding per Year Total Number of
Youth Encounters
Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness $2,026,335 Bay Area Community Resources – Mental Health and Wellness Classes at Kings Schools (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $150,000 $150,000 173 Bay Area Community Resources – Mental Health and Wellness Classes at DeJean-Coronado (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $300,000 $150,000 658 Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. – Youth Matters (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $405,000 $135,000 395 Early Childhood Mental Health Program – Perinatal Circle of Care (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 $100,000 210
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Early Childhood Mental Health Program (Collaboration) FY 2023–24 $85,000 $85,000 73 Mindful Life Project – Mental Health and Wellness Support for Richmond Schools (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $120,000 $60,000 12,355 New Life Movement – Reactions Program (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $200,000 $100,000 313 Seneca Family of Agencies – Unconditional Education School Partnerships (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 $100,000 4,786 West County Mandarin School PTA – SEL Enrichment
(Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $41,000 $41,000 463
Richmond Community Foundation – Sister Circle (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $125,335 $125,335 49 Education Support and Employment/Training Support $2,128,957 Bridges From School to Work – Bridges from School to Work (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $50,000 $50,000 30
College Is Real – Summer Bridge Program and High School Programming (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $255,000 $85,000 3,616 Appendix D. Funded Programs Priority Area
54 842
Program Name First Year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received Funding per Year Total Number of
Youth Encounters
Healthy Contra Costa – Richmond Youth Health Advocacy Pathway (Collaboration) FY 2023–24 $96,007 $96,007 38
Improve Your Tomorrow (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $75,000 $75,000 94 Richmond Art Center – Supporting Peoples Outlooks, Talents, and Speech (SPOTS) Mural Program (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $80,000 $40,000 36 Richmond Promise – Health Care Career Connections
(Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $397,950 $132,650 165
Richmond Public Library – Literacy Program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $150,000 $150,000 2,640 Things That Creep – Neighborhood Snakes (Small and Emerging) FY 2022–23 $60,000 $30,000 1,546 Urban Tilth – Urban Agriculture Academy (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $240,000 $80,000 1,064 Watershed Project – Green Collar Corps Youth Employment Program (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $200,000 $100,000 26 City of Richmond Employment and Training Department –
YouthWORKS – Healthcare Pathways Program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $150,000 $150,000 21 City of Richmond Employment and Training Department –
RichmondBUILD (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $375,000 $125,000 180 Out-of-School Time, After School, Sports and Enrichment $3,007,657 ABLE Community Development Foundation – After-school
enrichment club (Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $45,707 $45,707 23 Aim High for High School – Aim High Summer Learning Programs for Richmond Middle School Students (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $300,000 $150,000 702 City of Richmond, Community Services – Camp Achieve
(Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $270,000 $90,000 198
City of Richmond, Community Services – Sports and Leadership Program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $61,500 $61,500 220 55 843
Program Name First Year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received Funding per Year Total Number of
Youth Encounters
Community Education Partnerships – Educational Services (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $134,700 $134,700 122
DREAM – Financial Literacy Project (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $80,000 $40,000 324 East Bay Center for the Performing Arts – Young Artist Diploma Program (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 $100,000 990 Easter Hill United Methodist Church – Richmond Freedom School (Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $39,000 $39,000 79
Envisioneers Inc. – Academic Curriculum (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $80,000 $80,000 971 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Social Progress Inc (Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $15,000 $15,000 200
Oshiana Unique Thompkins Foundation – Oshi Entrepreneur Club (Small and Emerging) FY 2022–23 $60,000 $30,000 217
Pogo Park – Enrichment Programs at Elm Playlot (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $300,000 $150,000 3,938 Practice Space – Speak Together Be Together (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $200,000 $100,000 832 Rosie the Riveter Trust – Community Liaison (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $172,500 $86,250 1,405
Rosie the Riveter Trust – Rosie Service Corps (Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $195,000 $65,000 1,206
RYSE – Integrative Arts Programming (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $225,000 $75,000 2,954 Scientific Adventures for Girls – Afterschool STEM Program at WCCUSD Schools (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $130,000 $65,000 1,908 Watershed Project – Educational Programs (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $100,000 $50,000 1,433 West County Digs – School Garden Renewal Program (Small and Emerging) FY 2021–22 $136,500 $45,500 1,647
56 844
Program Name First Year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received Funding per Year Total Number of
Youth Encounters
Youth Code Now – After School Program (Small and Emerging) FY 2021–22 $162,750 $54,250 507 Youth Violence Prevention $805,300
Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County – Speak Up Be Safe (SUBS) and Nurturing Parenting Program (NPP) (Single Agency)
FY 2021–22 $105,000 $35,000 2,027
Community Violence Solutions – H.O.P.E. Services (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 $100,000 3,715 Fresh Lifelines for Youth – FLY Law-Related Education (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $130,950 $65,475 116
Project Avary – Leadership Program for Children of Incarcerated Parents (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $195,300 $65,100 127 Richmond Police Activities League – Youth Diversion and Development program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $74,050 $74,050 165 Access to Basic Needs $536,008
18 Reasons – Cooking Matters (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $75,000 $ 25,000 1,373 Fresh Approach – Nutrition Education and Resources (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $136,008 $68,004 322
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Shelter Services
(Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $100,000 $50,000 307
Richmond Promise – Technology Access for First-Generation College Students (Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $225,000 $75,000 225 Information, Guidance, and Case Management $620,000
Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance – Family Justice Center (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $330,000 $110,000 425
Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau – Wraparound Services (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $160,000 $80,000 70
57 845
Program Name First Year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received Funding per Year Total Number of
Youth Encounters
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Case Management
(Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $40,000 $20,000 116
Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services – High School to Homeownership (Collaboration) FY 2023–24 $60,000 $60,000 45 Youth Finance Institute of America – Youth Finance Institute of America (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $30,000 $30,000 842 Grand Total $9,124,257 58,682
58 846
Appendix E. List of Program Sites
Site Funded Organizations
Office- 6215 Bernard Ave, Richmond, CA 94805 Project Avary Alvarado Park- 5755 McBryde Ave, Richmond, CA 94805 Watershed Project Aspire Richmond Ca. College Preparatory Academy- 3040 Hilltop Mall Rd, Richmond, CA 94806 Mindful Life Project Aspire Richmond Technology Academy- 3170 Hilltop Mall Rd, Richmond, CA 94806 Mindful Life Project Healthy Contra Costa
Bay Area Rescue Mission- 200 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Community Education Partnerships Bayview Branch Library- 5100 Harnett Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Public Library Berkeley City College- 2050 Center St, Berkeley, CA 94704 Healthy Contra Costa Betty Reid Soskin Middle School- 1121 Allview Ave, El Sobrante, CA 94803 Community Violence Solutions
Envisioneers
Rosie the Riveter Trust
Booker T Anderson Community Center- 960 S 47th St, Richmond, CA 94804 Watershed Project Caliber: Beta Academy- 4301 Berk Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Mindful Life Project Cerrito Creek- Albany, CA 94530 Urban Tilth
Cesar E. Chavez Elementary - 960 17th St., Richmond, CA 94801 18 Reasons
Child Abuse Prevention Council
Community Violence Solutions
Mindful Life Project
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Youth Code Now
Challenge Sonoma Adventure Ropes Course- Orchard Road, Eldridge, CA 95431 Project Avary City of Richmond- 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Promise City of Richmond Employment and Training Department- 330 25th Street, Richmond, CA 94801 City of Richmond Employment and Training Department
59 847
Site Funded Organizations
City of Richmond Recreation Complex- 1410 Kelsey St, Richmond, CA 94804 Camp Achieve
Richmond Public Library
Early Childhood Mental Health Program
Clem Miller Environmental Education Center- 1 Bear Valley Road, Pt. Reyes Station, CA 94956 Project Avary CoBiz/La Familia- 1503 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond Community Foundation Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Codornices Creek- Albany, CA 94708 Urban Tilth
Contra Costa College- 2600 Mission Bell Drive, San Pablo, CA 94806 Healthy Contra Costa Contra Costa County San Pablo WIC- 501 Gateway Ave, San Pablo, CA 94806 Fresh Approach Contra Costa Juvenile Hall- 202 Glacier Dr, Martinez, CA 94553 Fresh Lifelines for Youth Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau- 186 Broadway, Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau- 84 Broadway, Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau Coronado Elementary School- 2100 Main Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 Bay Area Community Resources
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Things that Creep
Youth Code Now
De Anza High School- 5000 Valley View Rd, Richmond, CA 94803 College is Real
Community Violence Solutions
Improve your tomorrow
New Life
Richmond Promise
Dover Elementary School- 1870 19th St, San Pablo, CA 94806 Community Violence Solutions Practice Space
Early Childhood Mental Health Program- 200 24th St, Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Early Childhood Mental Health Program
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program
East Bay Center for the Performing Arts Winters Building- 339 11th Street, Richmond, CA 94801 East Bay Center for the Performing Arts 60 848
Site Funded Organizations
Easter Hill United Methodist Church- 3911 Cutting Blvd, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Freedom School Edward M. Downer Elementary- 1231 18th St, San Pablo, CA 94806 18 Reasons
Community Violence Solutions
Scientific Adventures for Girls
El Cerrito High School- 540 Ashbury Ave, El Cerrito, CA 94530 Richmond Promise Elm Playlot- 720 Elm Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Pogo Park
Ford Elementary School- 2711 Maricopa Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Community Violence Solutions
Project Avary
Seneca Family of Agencies
Golden Gate Community School- 2200 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Fresh Lifelines for Youth Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Grant Elementary School- 2400 Downer Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Mindful Life Project
New Life Movement
Practice Space
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Seneca Family of Agencies
Things that Creep
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program- 165 22nd Street, Richmond, CA 94801 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program Greenway Edible Forest- Ohio Ave & 16th Street, Richmond, CA 94801 Urban Tilth Greenwood Academy- 831 Chanslor Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Rosie the Riveter Trust
Early Childhood Mental Health Program
Health Career Connections- 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612 Richmond Promise Healthy Contra Costa- 1015 Nevin Avenue, Richmond, CA 94801 Healthy Contra Costa Helms Middle School- 2500 Rd 20, San Pablo, CA 94806
18 Reasons
Community Violence Solutions
Envisioneers
61 849
Site Funded Organizations
Highland Elementary School- 2829 Moyers Rd., Richmond, CA 94806 Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County
Home office- 926 Pomona Ave, Albany, CA 94706 Youth Finance Institute of America Jewish Vocational Services- 1 Post St, San Francisco, CA 94104 Healthy Contra Costa John F. Kennedy High School- 4300 Cutting Blvd., Richmond, CA 94804 College is Real
Community Violence Solutions
Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Improve your tomorrow
New Life Movement
Richmond Promise
Kaiser Permanente School of Allied Health- 938 Marina Way, Richmond, CA 94804 Healthy Contra Costa Lake Elementary School- 2700 11th St, San Pablo, CA 94806 Youth Code Now Leadership Public Schools: Richmond- 880 Bissell Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Community Violence Solutions Lincoln Elementary School- 29 6th St, Richmond, CA 94801 18 Reasons
Child Abuse Prevention Council
Youth Code Now 3
Lovonya DeJean Middle- 3400 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 ABLE Community Development Foundation
Bay Area Community Resources Area
Community Violence Solutions
Desarrollo Familiar Area
New Life Movement
Main Library- 325 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Public Library Martin Griffin Preserve- 4900 Shoreline Hwy, Stinson Beach, CA 94924 Project Avary Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School- 4022 Florida Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 Bay Area Community Resources
Practice Space
Project Avary
Things that Creep
Youth Code Now
Martinez Adult School- 600 F Street, Martinez, CA 94553 Healthy Contra Costa 62 850
Site Funded Organizations
May Valley Community Center- 3530 Morningside Drive, Richmond, CA 94803 Richmond Public Library Men & Women of Valor- 1350 Kelsey Street, Richmond, CA 94801 Social Progress Inc Michelle Obama Elementary School- 629 42nd St, Richmond, CA 94805 Practice Space
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Things that Creep
Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline- 900 Dornan Dr, Richmond, CA 94801 Watershed Project Mira Vista Elementary- 6397 Hazel Ave, Richmond, CA 94805 Practice Space
Things that Creep
West County Digs
Montalvin Manor - 300 Christine Dr., San Pablo, CA 94806 Aim High Watershed Project
Mt. Diablo Adult School - 1266 San Carlos Ave, Concord, CA 94518 Healthy Contra Costa Multicultural Bookstore- 260 Broadway, Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau DREAM Financial
Murphy Elementary- 4350 Valley View Rd, El Sobrante, CA 94803 Scientific Adventures for Girls Things that Creep
Natura Institute for Ecology & Medicine at Commonwealth Garden- 480 Mesa Road, Bolinas, CA 94924 Project Avary Nevin Community Center- 598 Nevin Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Camp Achieve NLM Resource Center- 322 Harbour Way, Richmond, CA 94801 New Life Movement Nystrom Elementary School- 230 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 Things that Creep
Watershed Project
Youth Code Now
OARS West Inc - 7330 River Park Drive, Lotus, CA 95651 Project Avary Olinda Elementary School- 5855 Olinda Rd, Richmond, CA 94803 Things that Creep
Watershed Project
Youth Code Now
63 851
Site Funded Organizations
Parchester Community Center- 900 Williams Dr, Richmond, CA 94806 Camp Achieve Peres Elementary School- 719 5th St, Richmond, CA 94801 Community Violence Solutions
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Youth Code Now
Performing Stars- 271 Drake Ave., Marin City, Ca 94565, Marin City, CA 94565 DREAM Financial Pinole Middle School- 1575 Mann Dr., Pinole, CA 94564 Watershed Project Point Pinole Regional Shoreline- 5551 Giant Hwy, Richmond, CA 94806 Watershed Project RCF Connects- 3260 Blume Dr, Richmond, CA 94806 Richmond Community Foundation Reach Out Mode Center- 435 Valley View Rd, El Sobrante, CA 94803 Oshiana Unique Thompkins Foundation Richmond Art Center- 2540 Barrett Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Art Center Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Richmond Charter Elementary-Benito Juarez- 1450 Marina Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 Mindful Life Project Richmond City Center- 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Promise Fresh Approach
Richmond College Prep- 1014 Florida Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Mindful Life Project Rosie the Riveter Trust
Richmond High School- 1250 23rd Street, Richmond, CA 94804 18 Reasons
College is Real
Community Violence Solutions
Desarrollo Familiar
Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Richmond Promise
Urban Tilth
Watershed Project
Early Childhood Mental Health Program
Richmond Maritime Child Development Center- 1014 Florida Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Rosie the Riveter Trust Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services- 12972 San Pablo Ave, Richmond, CA 94805 Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services 64 852
Site Funded Organizations
Richmond Police Activities League- 2200 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 DREAM Financial Richmond Police Activities League
Riverside Elementary School- 1300 Amador St, San Pablo, CA 94806 18 Reasons Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park Visitor Center- 1414 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 Rosie the Riveter Trust RYSE Youth Center- 3939 Bissell Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 RYSE
Richmond Community Foundation
Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Early Childhood Mental Health Program
Fresh Approach
Sanbox Experience- 5614 Bay St, Emeryville, CA 94608 OUT Foundation SAP Site #1: North Richmond Farm- 323 Brookside Drive, Richmond, CA 94801 Urban Tilth SAP Site #3: Greenway Community Gardens- Ohio Ave & 6th Street, Richmond, CA 94801 Urban Tilth SAP Site #4: Wildcat Creek Trail- Watershed Fred Jackson Way & Parr Blvd, Richmond, CA 94801 Urban Tilth Sea Trek Kayak & StandUp Paddle Board Center- 2100 Bridgeway, Sausalito, CA 94965 Project Avary Sheldon Elementary- 2601 May Rd, Richmond, CA 94803 Scientific Adventures for Girls Shields-Reid Community Center- 1410 Kelsey St, Richmond, CA 94801 Camp Achieve
Community Violence Solutions
Richmond Public Library
Shimada Friendship Park- 79 Harbor View Dr, Richmond, CA 94804 Watershed Project SparkPoint Richmond- 1000-C Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond Community Foundation SparkPoint Richmond- 1000-C Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Healthy Contra Costa St. Dorothy's Rest- 160 St. Dorothy Ave, Camp Meeker, CA 95419 Project Avary 65 853
Site Funded Organizations
Stege Elementary School // West County Reads Educators' Book Depot- 4949 Cypress Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 Bay Area Community Resources
Practice Space
Seneca Family of Agencies
Things that Creep
West Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Stinson Beach- 3514 Shoreline Hwy, Stinson Becah, CA 94970 Tara Hills Elementary- 2300 Dolan Way, San Pablo, CA 94806 Practice Space Scientific Adventures for Girls
Tech Exchange- 2530 International Blvd, Oakland, CA 94601 Richmond Promise Tech Exchange Warehouse- 2201 Poplar Street, Oakland, CA 94607 Richmond Promise The Watershed Project office- 1327 S. 46th St, Richmond, CA 94804 Watershed Project Tilden Park- 740 Wildcat Canyon Rd, Berkeley, CA 94708 Urban Tilth Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley- 1 Lawson Rd, Kensington, CA 94707 Project Avary Unity Park Richmond Greenway- 1605 Ohio Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Watershed Project Veggie Rx program outreach- 24 Barrett Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Fresh Approach Verde Elementary School- 2000 Giaramita St, Richmond, CA 94801 18 Reasons
Child Abuse Prevention Council
Community Violence Solutions
Practice Space
Things that Creep
Watershed Project
Youth Code Now
Vista Virtual Elementary- 2625 Barnard St , San Pablo, CA 94806 Things that Creep Voices College-Bound Language Academy at West Contra Costa County- 201 28th St, Richmond, CA 94804 Community Violence Solutions Washington Elementary- 565 Wine St, Richmond, CA 94801
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Watershed Project
Things that Creep
66 854
Site Funded Organizations
West Contra Costa Family Justice Center- 256 24th St, Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance West County Clinic- 13601 San Pablo Ave, San Pablo, CA 94806 Early Childhood Mental Health Program West County Mandarin School- 1575 Mann Dr, Pinole, CA 94564 West County Mandarin School PTA West Side Branch Library- 135 Washington Avenue, Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond Public Library Workspace- 344 20th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 Bridges from School to Work 67 855
Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
FY 2021–24 Evaluation Findings
Prepared for Richmond City Council
856
Introduction
Key Achievements
Looking Forward
Agenda
857
Introduction
858
RFCY Theory of Change
859
Evaluation Methods
860
Evaluation Results
861
Summary of the RFCY
Over 9 million dollars
went to organizations
serving Richmond
children, youth, and
families.
862
RFCY at a Glance
863
Funding Areas
“[RFCY is the] kind of funding that … has been creative in addressing an issue that [is] usually something that is a second thought to all the other services, and it’s specific for youth. It’s been really empowering for our kids to hear that this money is for them and about them.”
—Resource Development Administrator
864
Funding Areas
Featured photos: Practice Space, Youth Code Now, Scientific Adventures for Girls, Community Education Partnerships, RYSE 865
Funding Areas
Featured photos: Watershed Project Green Collar
Corps, Things That Creep, Richmond YouthWORKS
866
Funding Areas
“I’ve had a big
change in how to
handle my emotions
and know that they’re
in my control."
—Desarrollo Familiar
participant, age 16
867
Funding Areas
Featured photos: Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County, Fresh Lifelines for Youth
“R-pal is a great
program for the
community.”
—Richmond Police
Activities League
participant, age 18
868
Funding Areas
869
10/14/2025 15
Over FY 2021–24, there were over 120
program sites.
“We work in schools
and with afterschool
programs, but we
also work at housing
sites, clinics,
community centers.
So we’re really
reaching youth in a
lot of different
settings.”
—Program Director
870
10/14/2025 16
RFCY grantees had over 58,000
encounters with children and youth.
871
10/14/2025 17
Grantees served a racially and ethnically
diverse population of children and youth.
“We have bilingual (Spanish-
English, some Arabic) Youth Peer
Support staff to support in
authentic youth engagement and
program leadership, especially to
help address the language barriers
present in the community.”
—Grantee report
872
10/14/2025 18
RFCY is serving communities with the
highest needs.
“It feels a lot
better to know
we’re embedded in
our community,
not just in the kids
and the staff, but
also the funding.”
—Vice President of
Programs
873
10/14/2025 19
Program sites are accessible because
they are at schools or alongside
transit routes.
Funded programs
took place at 44
K–12 schools and
served over 43,000
children and
youth.
874
10/14/2025 20
Participants had positive experiences in
RFCY-funded programs.
“This program really
pushes me and
encourages me into doing
my best.”
—East Bay Center for the
Performing Arts participant,
age 16
“I liked this experience
because it helped me with
talking more and being
more comfortable.”
—Rosie’s Service Corps
participant, age 13
875
10/14/2025 21
• Grants are a catalyst for collaboration.
• RFCY helped emerging programs grow
their organizational infrastructures.
Capacity
• Multiyear RFCY funding supported
grantees’ fiscal planning and growth.
• Grantees pursued additional funding
sources to support sustainability.
Fiscal health
and
sustainability
RFCY supports grantees’ organizational
capacity and sustainability.
$1,581,457
administered to nine
collaborative programs
$559,957
administered to eight
small and emerging
programs
“When we tell people from different companies, ‘Hey, we’ve got the support of the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth,’ that helps us. That’s a big deal because they’re like, ‘Oh, okay, the city is actually supporting this program.’ So that not just legitimizes it, but it makes them feel stronger about supporting us.” —Executive Director
876
Widespread Reach
Equity-Focused Implementation
Accessible Services
Positive Youth Experience
Support for Organizations
Summary of Key Achievements
877
Recommendations
Prioritize Flexible Funding
Support Capacity Building for Program Quality
Promote Long-Term Sustainability Planning
Enhance Communication and Responsiveness
Increase Access Supports and Promote Attendance
Strengthen School and Community Partnerships
Deepen Youth and Community Voice
878
2025
Evaluation
Report
2026
Evaluation
Report
City Council
reauthorization
vote
by December 31, 2027
(Richmond Charter,
Article XV Sec. 11)
2027
Evaluation
Report
FY 2025–28
Evaluation
Report
What’s Next?
36 programs are funded for FY 2025–28
Longitudinal evaluation data will highlight the impact of investing in children and youth over time.879
Alexis Grant
[email protected]
Questions?
Nicole Tirado-Strayer
[email protected]
880