EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AGENDAEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 4:30 p.m. CVAG Offices 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119 Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-1127

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

AGENDA

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 4:30 p.m.

CVAG Offices

73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119 Palm Desert, CA 92260

(760) 346-1127

THIS MEETING IS HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE. ACTION MAY RESULT ON ANY ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA.

1. CALL TO ORDER (Chair Michael Wilson, Mayor, City of Indio) 2. ROLL CALL A. Member Roster P6 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS

This is the time and place for any person wishing to address the Executive Committee on items not appearing on the agenda to do so.

5. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE / DIRECTOR COMMENTS

6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approve June 25, 2018 Executive Committee Minutes P7

B. Recommend Executive Committee Approve Lease of 2 Document Multifunction P15

Copiers (1 Color, 1 Black & White) from Canon Solutions America; and Surplus, Remove and Dispose of 2 old Copiers when new Copiers are Delivered

C. Authorize Executive Director to Execute Needed Agreements to Complete Eastern P17

Coachella Valley’s Action Plan for Climate Resilience for Combined Amount not to Exceed $156,607, and Authorize Executive Director and/or Legal Counsel to make Minor Modifications Prior to Execution

D. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Contract with HF&H P55 Consultants, LLC for the Used Oil Recycling Program to Extend Contract for three- years to September 30, 2021 and Increase Contract Amount not to Exceed $60,500 for FY 2018/2019, $62,000 for FY 2019/2020, and $63,500 for 2020/2021

E. Adopt the following policy statement: “CVAG supports the principles of the P60 memorandum of understanding between Riverside and Imperial Counties for working together on the Salton Sea.”

F. Authorize Executive Director to Execute Amendment #1 for No-Cost Extension to P63 CV Link Construction Management Contract with Parsons and Authorize Executive Director to Make Any Changes/Revisions for Clarification Purposes

G. Authorize Executive Director to Hire Consultant to Evaluate Cap-and-Trade P65 Legislative Options, at a Cost not to Exceed $25,000

6.1 ITEM(S) HELD OVER FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 7. DISCUSSION / ACTION A. Desert Healthcare District Expansion Presentation – Les Zendle, MD President

Desert Healthcare District/Foundation

B. HARC, Inc. CV Housing First Evaluation First Year Report – Cheryll Dahlin P70

C. Homeless Emergency Assistance Program (HEAP) Funding – Cheryll Dahlin P130

Recommendation: Each City in the Coachella Valley and Blythe to declare a shelter crisis by November 15, 2018 and Direct staff to apply for HEAP eligible projects for CV Housing First.

D. Closed Session

1) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54956.8

Property: Various parcels starting along the southerly bank of the channel east of Date Palm Drive in Cathedral City and generally heading southeasterly to Airport Boulevard within the City of Coachella within the Coachella Valley. CVAG Negotiator: Tom Kirk, Executive Director Negotiating Party: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for acquisition of a License Agreement for CV Link

2) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

Government Code Section 54956.8

Properties: Assessor Parcel Numbers CVAG Negotiator: Tom Kirk, Executive Director Negotiating Party: Various NO. APN # PROPERTY OWNER 1. 600-010-017 HOME DEPOT U S A INC 2. 600-010-021 BEHRSTOCK PROP, DANA HENRY & DAVID ALTEMUS 3. 600-010-022 99c ONLY STORES 4. 600-090-004 HOWARD 5. 600-130-015 HOWARD 6. 600-390-008 EXTRA SPACE PROPERTIES 126 LLC 7. 600-390-024 Jay F. Manino 8. 604-050-037 WASHINGTON ADAMS SPE 9. 604-050-067 Michael & Claudia Shovlin 10. 610-093-037 AMRUT PATEL & SITA PATEL, JAYANTI & BAGUATI 11. 611-261-003 IGLESIA DEL DIOS VIVO COLUMNA Y APOYO 12. 611-330-023 NITESH PATEL & MANISHA KUMAR 13. 634-270-002 TOSCANA HOA 14. 624-120-011 PORTOLA COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSN 15. 634-040-020 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16. 603-020-007 29 PALMS Band of Mission Indians 17. 603-020-010 29 PALMS Band of Mission Indians 18. 603-090-010 29 PALMS Band of Mission Indians 19. 603-090-015 29 PALMS Band of Mission Indians 20. 603-090-018 29 PALMS Band of Mission Indians 21. 603-290-010 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 22. 696-530-004 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 23. 603-300-018 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 24. 501-190-002 PS COUNTRY CLUB 25. 502-560-039 NEW MESQUITE HOA 26. 502-590-011 PALMS PARTNERS CAPITAL 27. 669-370-042 PALM SPRINGS VILLAS II\ 28. 669-375-075 PALM SPRINGS VILLAS II 29. 669-379-037 PALM SPRINGS VILLAS II 30. 669-480-030 J CLEMENT 31. 674-500-021 PALM SPRINGS MOTORS INC 32. 677-420-023 WARRIOR GOLF EQUITIES

33. 680-180-051 TAHQUITZ 41 34. 680-340-002 FALCON LAKE PROPERTIES/Welk Park North 35. 687-060-050 FALCON LAKE PROPERTIES/Welk Park North 36. 687-062-066 FALCON LAKE PROPERTIES/Welk Park North 37. 502-590-004 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 50C (John Andreas, Patricia Andreas,

Alberto Arviso, Amber Arviso, Peter Arviso and Anthony Boles) 38. 674-020-011 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 92E (Barbara M. Gonzales) 39. 674-020-012 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 92E (Barbara M. Gonzales) 40. 674-020-052 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 92E (Barbara M. Gonzales) 41. 674-050-042 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 28E (Paula J. Bleile Belknap and Lisa M.

Bleile) 42. 674-500-015 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 28E (Paula J. Bleile Belknap and Lisa M.




Bleile) 46. 677-020-027 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 72E (Benita Joyce Olinger) 47. 677-030-020 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 60E (Priscilla Anne Pete) 48. 677-030-023 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 1023 (Richard M. Milanovich Trust) 49. 677-030-033 ACBCI ALLOTTEE T1EB (ACBCI Trust) 50. 677-030-038 ACBCI ALLOTTEE T1EB (ACBCI Trust) 51. 677-040-025 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 66E (Leroy Francisco Segundo) 52. 677-040-030 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 66E (Leroy Francisco Segundo) 53. 677-040-031 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 66E (Leroy Francisco Segundo) 54. 680-170-014 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 98C (Frances Lucille Dias) 55. 680-170-053 ABCBI ALLOTTEE 65E (Belinda S. Short) 56. 680-170-053 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 104C (Beverly R. Diaz, Eli Diaz, and Estate

of Tasheena Diaz) 57. 680-180-040 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 104C (Beverly R. Diaz, Eli Diaz, and Estate

of Tasheena Diaz) 58. 687-050-003 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 97E (Debrah M. Purnel) 59. 687-050-004 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 20E (Sean M. Schoolcraft) 60. 687-050-018 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 97E (Debrah M. Purnel 61. 687-050-025 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 98E (Frances D. Cummings) 62. 687-050-039 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 98E (Frances D. Cummings) 63. 687-060-005 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 105E (Tanya R. Morretti, Noni A Bow,

Malerie Marquez, and Clara M. Bow) 64. 687-060-005 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 109E (Darlene Diaz) 65. 687-060-015 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 98E (Frances D. Cummings) 66. 687-060-016 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 88E (Jacob S. Ward and David H. Ward) 67. 687-060-044 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 98E (Frances D. Cummings) 68. 687-060-047 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 98E (Frances D. Cummings) 69. 687-360-017 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 98E (Frances D. Cummings) 70. 687-360-019 ACBCI ALLOTTEE 98E (Frances D. Cummings) 71. 677-250-057 New Valley 72. 677-250-059 New Valley

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for acquisition of easements for CV Link

E. Update on Right-of-Way Acquisition Activities for CV Link – Martin Magaña P152

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director: 1) Be delegated as the official representative to take any and all actions required,

pursuant to federal and state law, to complete the Right-of-Way acquisition process and license agreement process for construction for CV Link; and

2) Have authority to spend up to $50,000 for expenditures related to Right-of-Way and

construction activities for CV Link.

8. INFORMATION

a) Status of I-10 Interchange Projects P206

b) CVAG Regional Arterial Program - Project Status Report P207 c) CVAG Regional Arterial Program - Contract Status Report P208

d) CVAG Regional Bike/Pedestrian Safety Program Update P210

e) Executive Committee/Technical Advisory Committee Attendance Roster P211 f) Request for Input for the CVAG Audit Committee P212 g) CVAG Investment Report P213

h) 2017 CVAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Update P214

i) Desert Community Energy Update P216 j) Little Morongo Wash Encampment Clean-Up in Desert Hot Springs P217 k) Update on CV Link Community Connectors and ATP Cycle 4 P221 l) CV Housing 12 Month Report – July 2017-June 2018 P224

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Meetings at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119, Palm Desert: Executive Committee – Monday, December 3, 2018 at 4:30 p.m.

10. ADJOURNMENT

Jurisdiction Members Non-Voting Members

City of Blythe Joseph De Coninck Mayor

Mallory Crecelius Interim City Manager

City of Cathedral City Stan Henry Mayor

Charlie McClendon City Manager

City of Coachella Steven Hernandez Mayor

Bill Pattison City Manager

City of Desert Hot Springs Scott Matas Mayor

Chuck Maynard City Manager

City of Indian Wells Richard Balocco Councilmember

Wade McKinney City Manager

City of Indio Michael Wilson, Chair Mayor

Mark Scott, TAC Chair City Manager

City of La Quinta Linda Evans Mayor

Frank Spevacek City Manager

City of Palm Desert Sabby Jonathan Mayor

Lauri Aylaian City Manager

City of Palm Springs Robert Moon Mayor

David Ready City Manager

City of Rancho Mirage G. Dana Hobart Councilmember

Isaiah Hagerman City Manager

County of Riverside

Kevin Jeffries, 1st District Supervisor John Tavaglione, 2nd District Supervisor Chuck Washington, 3rd Dist. Supervisor V. Manuel Perez, 4th District Supervisor Marion Ashley, 5th District Supervisor

George Johnson CEO

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Jeff Grubbe, Vice Chair Tribal Chair

Tom Davis, TAC Chair Chief Planning & Development Officer

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Douglas Welmas Tribal Chair

Paul Slama Tribal Field Representative

ITEM 2A

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2018 PAGE 1

1. CALL TO ORDER

The June 25, 2018 Executive Committee meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Chair Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, at the Agua Caliente Resort & Spa, 32-250 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage.

2. ROLL CALL A roll call was taken, and it was determined that a quorum was present. Those in attendance

were as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT AGENCY Vice Mayor Eric Egan City of Blythe Councilmember Mark Carnevale City of Cathedral City Mayor Steven Hernandez City of Coachella Mayor Scott Matas City of Desert Hot Springs Councilmember Richard Balocco City of Indian Wells Mayor Michael Wilson City of Indio Mayor Linda Evans City of La Quinta Mayor Sabby Jonathan City of Palm Desert Mayor Robert Moon City of Palm Springs Councilmember Dana Hobart City of Rancho Mirage Supervisor V. Manuel Perez County of Riverside 4th District Supervisor Marion Ashley County of Riverside 5th District Tribal Chair Jeff Grubbe Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians MEMBERS NOT PRESENT AGENCY Supervisor Kevin Jeffries County of Riverside 1st District Supervisor John Tavaglione County of Riverside 2nd District Supervisor Chuck Washington County of Riverside 3rd District Tribal Chair Douglas Welmas Cabazon Band of Mission Indians NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT AGENCY Charlie McClendon City of Cathedral City Bill Pattison City of Coachella Chuck Maynard City of Desert Hot Springs Anna Grandys City of Indian Wells Mark Scott City of Indio

ITEM 6A

The audio file for this committee meeting can be found at: http://www.cvag.org/audio.htm

http://www.cvag.org/audio.htm


Frank Spevacek City of La Quinta Lauri Aylaian City of Palm Desert David Ready City of Palm Springs Isaiah Hagerman City of Rancho Mirage John Purnel Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians OTHERS PRESENT AGENCY Rosario Avila Cathedral City Resident Ben Benoit City of Wildomar Barry Busch County of Riverside Pat Cooper County of Riverside Kim Floyd Palm Desert Resident Leo Lee Advantec Brian Nestande County of Riverside Debbie Rose County of Riverside David Salgado Southern California Association of Governments Erin Sasse League of California Cities Lauren Skiver SunLine Transit Agency Brittney Sowell SunLine Transit Agency Herb Schultz Desert Healthcare District Ted Weill City of Rancho Mirage STAFF PRESENT Tom Kirk Gary Leong Martin Magaña Katie Barrows Jim Sullivan Eric Cowle Ben Druyon Erica Felci Joanna Stueckle Michael Jenkins CVAG Legal Counsel

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Michael Wilson led the Executive Committee in the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS None.

5. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE / DIRECTOR COMMENTS

Tom Kirk thanked the Tribal Council of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians for the use of the facility. Mr. Kirk also announced that there wasn’t a need for the closed session and asked CVAG Legal Counsel Michael Jenkins to give an update on the items listed on the agenda. Mr. Jenkins indicated that the exposure to litigation has gone away and that it appears as though the Ferguson v. CVAG et al lawsuit appeal was filed too late to be considered.


6. CONSENT CALENDAR

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR WILSON AND SECONDED BY MAYOR EVANS TO: A. APPROVE JUNE 4, 2018 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

B. AUTHORIZE UPDATING OF SIGNATURE CARDS, SUBJECT TO GENERAL

ASSEMBLY APPROVING THE 2018 NOMINATION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 2018/2019 CHAIR

C. APPROVE AMENDMENT #1 TO COST-SHARING AGREEMENT WITH WRCOG AND LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY FOR LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO POWER COST INDIFFERENCE ADJUSTMENT, RESOURCE ADEQUACY, AND RELATED REGULATORY MATTERS, TO INCREASE BUDGET TO $130,000, WITH CVAG (DCE) SHARE NOT TO EXCEED $43,333; AND AMENDMENT #1 TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CVAG AND DON DAME TO PROVIDE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONS SUPPORT FOR DCE, FOR AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000

D. APPROVE THE 2018 TUMF HANDBOOK E. APPROVE THE 2018 TUMF MODEL ORDINANCE

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 13 AYES AND 4 MEMBERS ABSENT.

VICE MAYOR EGAN AYE COUNCILMEMBER CARNEVALE AYE MAYOR HERNANDEZ AYE MAYOR MATAS AYE COUNCILMEMBER BALOCCO AYE MAYOR WILSON AYE MAYOR EVANS AYE MAYOR JONATHAN AYE MAYOR MOON AYE COUNCILMEMBER HOBART AYE SUPERVISOR JEFFRIES ABSENT SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE ABSENT SUPERVISOR WASHINGTON ABSENT SUPERVISOR PEREZ AYE SUPERVISOR ASHLEY AYE TRIBAL CHAIR GRUBBE AYE TRIBAL CHAIR WELMAS ABSENT

6.1 ITEM(S) HELD OVER FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

None.


6.2 CLOSED SESSION

The Board finds, based on advice from the General Counsel, that discussion in open session of the following described matter will prejudice the position of the Association in existing litigation: PENDING LITIGATION: Gov’t Code section 54956.9(d)(1) Ferguson v. Coachella Valley Association of Governments, et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. PSC 1705629

Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), the Executive Committee finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of CVAG in litigation. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(5)

It was deemed unnecessary to hold a closed session. Legal Counsel gave a verbal update under item 5, Executive Committee / Director Comments.

7. DISCUSSION / ACTION A. 2018 Nomination Committee Recommendation – Tom Kirk

Mr. Kirk provided the staff report. IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR HERNANDEZ AND SECONDED BY MAYOR EVANS TO APPROVE NOMINATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION OF MAYOR MICHAEL WILSON, CITY OF INDIO, AS CVAG CHAIR AND TRIBAL CHAIR JEFF GRUBBE, AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, AS CVAG VICE CHAIR. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 13 AYES AND 4 MEMBERS ABSENT.

VICE MAYOR EGAN AYE COUNCILMEMBER CARNEVALE AYE MAYOR HERNANDEZ AYE MAYOR MATAS AYE COUNCILMEMBER BALOCCO AYE MAYOR WILSON AYE MAYOR EVANS AYE MAYOR JONATHAN AYE MAYOR MOON AYE COUNCILMEMBER HOBART AYE SUPERVISOR JEFFRIES ABSENT SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE ABSENT SUPERVISOR WASHINGTON ABSENT SUPERVISOR PEREZ AYE SUPERVISOR ASHLEY AYE


TRIBAL CHAIR GRUBBE AYE TRIBAL CHAIR WELMAS ABSENT

B. Resolution No. 18-001 Adopting CVAG’s 2018/2019 Fiscal Year Annual Budget, Salary

Schedule, and Allocated Positions – Gary Leong

Gary Leong provide the staff report. Mayor Evans thanked Mr. Leong for his work on the budget.

IT WAS MOVED BY SUPERVISOR PEREZ AND SECONDED BY MAYOR WILSON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 18-001 ADOPTING CVAG’S 2018/2019 FISCAL YEAR ANNUAL BUDGET, SALARY SCHEDULE, AND ALLOCATED POSITIONS. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 13 AYES AND 4 MEMBERS ABSENT.


C. Funding Match for ATP Cycle 4 Projects – Erica Felci

Erica Felci provided the staff report. Councilmember Hobart read a statement opposing local funding and member discussion ensued.

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR MATAS AND SECONDED BY MAYOR WILSON TO AUTHORIZE THAT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CVAG TRANSPORTATION FUNDS BE USED AS A FUNDING MATCH FOR ATP CYCLE 4 GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR AVENUE 48/ ARTS & MUSIC LINE AND THE CV LINK CONNECTOR IN DESERT HOT SPRINGS AND THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING BE AUTHORIZED TO MAXIMIZE LEVERAGING POINTS. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 10 AYES, 1 NAY, 2 ABSTAINTIONS AND 4 MEMBERS ABSENT.

VICE MAYOR EGAN ABSTAIN COUNCILMEMBER CARNEVALE AYE MAYOR HERNANDEZ AYE


MAYOR MATAS AYE COUNCILMEMBER BALOCCO ABSTAIN MAYOR WILSON AYE MAYOR EVANS AYE MAYOR JONATHAN AYE MAYOR MOON AYE COUNCILMEMBER HOBART NAY SUPERVISOR JEFFRIES ABSENT SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE ABSENT SUPERVISOR WASHINGTON ABSENT SUPERVISOR PEREZ AYE SUPERVISOR ASHLEY AYE TRIBAL CHAIR GRUBBE AYE TRIBAL CHAIR WELMAS ABSENT

D. Madison Street Improvement Project – Eric Cowle Eric Cowle provided the staff report. IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR HERNANDEZ AND SECONDED BY MAYOR EVANS TO APPROVE AMENDMENT #3 TO THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF INDIO FOR THE MADISON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ADDING AN ADDITIONAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $5,527,294 AND BRINGING CVAG’S TOTAL REGIONAL SHARE TO $24,204,794. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 13 AYES AND 4 MEMBERS ABSENT.


E. Resolution of Legislative Intent Related to the Multi-Agency Participation Agreement for the Traffic Signal Synchronization Project – Eric Cowle

Mr. Cowle provided the staff report. Member discussion ensued.


IT WAS MOVED BY SUPERVISOR PEREZ AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BALOCCO TO AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS, APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT RELATED TO THE MULTI-AGENCY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 13 AYES AND 4 MEMBERS ABSENT.


F. TUMF Shopping Centers Recommendation – Eric Cowle

Mr. Cowle presented the staff report. Member discussion ensued.

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR WILSON AND SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR PEREZ TO 1) ELIMINATE THE TUMF SHOPPING CENTER, CONVENIENCE MARKET, AND FAST

FOOD RESTAURANT LAND USES AS OF 6/25/18. 2) APPROVE A REFUND PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPERS THAT STARTED A

SHOPPING CENTER BUT DID NOT YET MEET THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR BEING CONSIDERED A SHOPPING CENTER UNDER THE TUMF PROGRAM AS OF 6/25/2018.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 13 AYES AND 4 MEMBERS ABSENT.

VICE MAYOR EGAN AYE COUNCILMEMBER CARNEVALE AYE MAYOR HERNANDEZ AYE MAYOR MATAS AYE COUNCILMEMBER BALOCCO AYE MAYOR WILSON AYE MAYOR EVANS AYE MAYOR JONATHAN AYE MAYOR MOON AYE


COUNCILMEMBER HOBART AYE SUPERVISOR JEFFRIES ABSENT SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE ABSENT SUPERVISOR WASHINGTON ABSENT SUPERVISOR PEREZ AYE SUPERVISOR ASHLEY AYE TRIBAL CHAIR GRUBBE AYE TRIBAL CHAIR WELMAS ABSENT

8. INFORMATION

a) Status of I-10 Interchange Projects

b) CVAG Regional Arterial Program - Project Status Report

c) CVAG Regional Bike/Pedestrian Safety Program Update

d) Executive Committee/Technical Advisory Committee Attendance Roster

e) RFP for Transformative Climate Communities Planning Grant

f) FY 2018/2019 CVAG Meeting Schedule

g) Letter outlining the Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, pursuant to Statements on Auditing Standards No. 114 (SAS 114)

These items are placed in the agenda for member information.

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Meeting at Agua Caliente Casino Resort, 32-250 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage: General Assembly – Monday, June 25, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. Upcoming Meeting at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119, Palm Desert: Executive Committee – Monday, September 24, 2018 at 4:30 p.m.

10. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, Chair Ashley adjourned the meeting at 5:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted,

Joanna Stueckle Joanna Stueckle Executive Assistant

ITEM 6B

Staff Report Subject: Lease of Document Multifunction Copiers Contact: Gary Leong, Deputy Executive Director ([email protected]) Recommendation: That the Executive Committee: 1) Approve lease of 2 Document Multifunction Copiers (1 Color, 1 Black & White) from

Canon Solutions America;

2) Surplus, remove and dispose of 2 old copiers when the new copiers are delivered.

Technical Advisory Committee: CONCURS (Meeting of September 10th) Background: CVAG currently has two multifunction copiers that were originally leased in 2010 under a five-year term. Upon completion of the lease, CVAG owned the copiers outright. These copiers have performed longer than the projected operating time estimate given when purchased. These copiers were discontinued approximately four years ago. As the copiers age, the copiers are breaking down with increasing frequency, thus affecting productivity. Moreover, parts for the copiers are getting scarce. When available, the parts normally take a few days to be shipped to CVAG. Due to the increased frequency in breakdowns and difficulty in obtaining parts, the copiers’ annual maintenance agreements are increasing. As such, staff is recommending replacing the current copiers. Staff has secured the following three quotes for document multifunction copiers and Canon Solutions America was the low bidder. Details are as attached and a summary of the estimated annual costs are follows:

1) Innovative Document Solutions - $9,108.90

2) Valley Office Equipment - $8,194.50

3) Canon Solutions America - $5,445.52

Should the committee approve the lease of the copiers, staff is also recommending surplusing the old copiers s that they are removed and disposed of when the new copiers are delivered. Fiscal Analysis: The estimated cost has been included in the current budget.

mailto:[email protected]

Coachella Valley Association of GovernmentsQuotes Obtained for Multifunction Copiers

Total Total Total

Annual Lease (5-years) 6,648.00 5,736.00 3,188.52

Maintenance Cost Per CopyColor Copier - Color copies 0.0480 1,968.00 0.0500 2,050.00 0.0450 1,845.00Color Copier - B/W copies 0.0093 353.40 0.0070 266.00 0.0065 247.00

B/W Copier - B/W copies 0.0093 139.50 0.0095 142.50 0.0110 165.00

Overall estimated Total $9,108.90 $8,194.50 $5,445.52

Estimated Annual CopiesColor Copier - Color copies 41,000Color Copier - B/W copies 38,000

B/W Copier - B/W copies 15,000

Innovative Document Solutions Valley Office Equipment Canon Solutions America

ITEM 6C

Staff Report Subject: Contracts for Transformative Climate Communities Planning Grant Contact: Erica Felci, Governmental Projects Manager ([email protected]) Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to execute needed agreements to complete Eastern Coachella Valley’s Action Plan for Climate Resilience for a combined amount not to exceed $156,607, and authorize the Executive Director and/or Legal Counsel to make minor modifications prior to execution. Technical Advisory Committee: CONCURS (Meeting of September 10th) Background: In February 2018, the CVAG Executive Committee authorized the acceptance of a $170,000 Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) planning grant that CVAG secured with the City of Coachella. The grant will fund the Eastern Coachella Valley’s Action Plan for Climate Resilience, which will identify and prioritize affordable housing, transportation, green infrastructure and park projects that would be competitive for grants, as well as point out policy and program gaps. In recommending the project, Strategic Growth Council (SGC) staff stated it was “a unique application” and will “better prepare the region to be competitive for future California Climate Investment program funds.” In August 2018, CVAG and Coachella held a kickoff meeting with its grant partners – Riverside County and Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability – to discuss the first steps in the planning process. After the meeting, CVAG issued a request for proposals to hire a consultant to complete the scope of work that was outlined in the grant. The consultant will review existing transportation, housing and general plans that relate to cap-and-trade type projects and meet with local jurisdictions. Based on this work, they will condense the information into a planning document that can help communities in the Coachella Valley compete for future funding opportunities, particularly those associated with disadvantaged communities. The deadline for submissions was September 7, and two technical proposals were received. A three-person panel reviewed the proposals and identified Dudek as the best firm to do the work based on the quality and completeness of the proposal, applicable experience and resources. Dudek has an office in La Quinta and has worked on projects across the Coachella Valley. They also have grant writers, planners and climate change specialists as part of their team, as well as sub-consultants who are well versed in sustainable transportation planning. Additionally, the grant application outlined the intent to work with Leadership Counsel, a nonprofit that has worked with other communities to successfully secure California’s cap-and-trade funding. Leadership Counsel’s work will focus on public outreach and community engagement efforts, which will be an instrumental part of compiling the Action Plan.


This item was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee on September 10, as the RFP selection process was being completed. The scope of work and budgets for this grant were developed in partnership with Leadership Counsel and the City. The scope of work for both Dudek and Leadership Counsel are consistent with the tasks identified in the grant, which anticipates this planning effort being complete in July 2019. Fiscal Analysis: SGC awarded CVAG and Coachella with a $170,000 grant. The grant application budget identified $53,522 for Leadership Counsel. Dudek’s services will cost $103,085, which is within the budget that CVAG and the Coachella anticipated when seeking the grant. Staff time invested by CVAG and the City is being provided as an in-kind match to the grant. Attachments: Services Contract for Dudek

Services Contract for Leadership Counsel

SERVICES CONTRACT

between

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (CVAG) and

DUDEK

THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of September 24, 2018 between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") and Dudek ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. TERM

This Agreement shall commence on September 24, 2018 and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than August 1, 2019 unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

2. SERVICES

Consultant shall perform services consistent with the provisions of the Request for Proposals released on August 14, 2018 (the "RFP,") and any modification thereto adopted in writing by the parties and identified herein as an exhibit to this Agreement, upon issuance by CVAG of written authority to proceed (a "Work Order") as to either (a) a portion of the work if separate and independent tasks are contemplated or (b) all work if it constitutes a single project. Except as amended by the exhibits hereto, Consultant is bound by the contents of the RFP and Consultant's response thereto. In the event of conflict, the requirements of this Agreement, including any exhibits, then the Request for Proposals, shall take precedence over those contained in Consultant's response.

The following exhibit(s), which amend or modify the RFP and/or Consultant's response thereto, are attached and incorporated herein by reference:

Exhibit A: Price Formula

Exhibit B: RFP

3. PRICE FORMULA

CVAG agrees to pay Consultant at the rates set forth in Exhibit A, the Price Formula, at a cost not to exceed $103,085.

4. PERFORMANCE

Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks required hereunder. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.

Consultant shall submit informal progress reports to CVAG's Project Manager by telephone, e-mail or in person, on a weekly basis, in a form acceptable to CVAG, describing the state of work performed. The purpose of the reports is to allow CVAG to determine if the contract objectives and activities are being completed in accordance with the agreed upon schedule, and to afford occasions for airing difficulties or special problems encountered.

The Consultant’s Project Manager shall meet with the CVAG Project Manager as needed.

5. PAYMENT

(a) If independent and separate Work Orders are contemplated, CVAG shall pay Consultant upon satisfactory completion of each Work Order; and, unless Consultant provides a performance bond, progress payments will not be made on individual or a collection of Work Orders. If all the work constitutes a single project, Consultant shall submit invoices for work completed on a periodic basis, no more frequently than monthly. (b) Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth in a duly issued Work Order.

(c) Consultant shall submit invoices for services performed in accordance with the payment rates and terms set forth in Exhibit A. The invoice shall be in a form approved by CVAG. (d) A formal report of tasks performed and tasks in process, in a form acceptable to CVAG, shall be attached to each invoice. (e) All invoices shall be consistent with current progress reports as well as the budget and work schedule set out in the RFP and, if modified or supplemented thereby, the exhibits to this Agreement.

(f) Upon approval by CVAG's Project Manager, payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If CVAG disputes any of Consultant's invoiced fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice.

6. INSPECTION OF WORK Consultant shall permit CVAG the opportunity to review and inspect the project activities at all reasonable times during the performance period of this Agreement including review and inspection on a daily basis. 7. SCOPE OF WORK CHANGES The scope of work shall be subject to change by additions, deletions or revisions by CVAG. Consultant shall be advised of any such changes by written notice. Consultant shall promptly perform and strictly comply with each such notice. If Consultant believes that performance of any change would justify modification of the Agreement price or time for performance, Consultant shall comply with the provisions for dispute resolution set out hereinbelow. 8. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE (a) CVAG may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon Consultant seven (7) days prior written notice. Upon tender of said notice, Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless further work is authorized by CVAG. If CVAG suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement, such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. (b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, CVAG shall pay Consultant only for work that has been accepted by CVAG. Work in process will not be paid unless CVAG agrees in writing to accept the partial work, in which case, prorated fees may be authorized. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, Consultant will submit a final invoice to CVAG. Payment of the final invoice shall be subject to approval by the CVAG Project Manager as set out above. 9. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT (a) Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, CVAG shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to Consultant. Provided, however, if such failure by Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. (b) As an alternative to notice of immediate termination, the CVAG Executive Director or his/her delegate may cause to be served upon Consultant a written notice of the default. Consultant shall then have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that Consultant

fails to cure its default within such period of time, CVAG shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS (a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to work performed, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information that relates to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of CVAG or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give CVAG the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit CVAG to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. (b) Unless the RFP or exhibits hereto expressly provide otherwise, upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of CVAG and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by CVAG without the permission of Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to CVAG, at Consultant's office and upon reasonable written request by CVAG, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files. 11. INDEMNIFICATION FOR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY

To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless CVAG, its members and any and all of their officials, employees and agents from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to Consultant's alleged act(s) or failure(s) to act. 12. INSURANCE (a) Throughout the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall procure and maintain insurance, including Workers' Compensation as required by law for its personnel, and a one million dollar ($1,000,000.00) commercial general liability policy. Consultant shall include CVAG, its member agencies and any other interested and related party designated by CVAG, as additional insureds on this commercial liability policy for liabilities caused by Consultant in its performance of services under this

Agreement and shall provide CVAG with a certificate verifying such coverage. In the event said insurance coverage expires at any time or times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant agrees to provide at least five (5) days notice prior to said expiration date and, prior to said expiration date, a new certificate of insurance evidencing insurance coverage as provided herein for no less than the remainder of the term of the Agreement, or for a total period of not less than one (1) year. New certificates of insurance are subject to the approval of CVAG. In the event Consultant fails to keep in effect at all times insurance coverage as herein provided, CVAG may, in addition to any other remedies it may have, terminate this Agreement.

(b) CVAG, member agencies and any other interested and related party designated by CVAG are to be covered as additional insured as respects liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the said additional insureds. Minimum requirements are $100,000/$300,000/$25,000.

(c) Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects CVAG, its member agencies, and any other interested and related party designated by CVAG as additional insureds. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by said additional insureds shall be in excess of Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it and, to the extent obtainable, such coverage shall be payable notwithstanding any act of negligence of CVAG, its members, or any other additional insured, that might otherwise result in forfeiture of coverage. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breach of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to said additional insureds. Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by any party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to CVAG.

(d) Consultant shall provide worker’s compensation insurance or a California Department of Insurance-approved self-insurance program in an amount and form that meets all applicable Labor Code requirements, covering all persons or entities providing services on behalf of Consultant and all risks to such persons or entities.

(e) Said insurance policy or policies shall be issued by a responsible insurance company with a minimum A. M. Best Rating of “A-“ Financial Category “X”, and authorized and admitted to do business in, and regulated by, the State of California. (f) Evidence of all insurance coverage shall be provided to CVAG prior to issuance of the first Work Order. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that such insurance is in addition to Consultant's obligation to fully indemnify and hold CVAG, its members and any other additional insureds free and harmless from and against any and all claims arising out of an injury or damage to property or persons caused by the acts or omissions of Consultant.

13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to CVAG a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither CVAG, its members, nor any of their officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of CVAG or its members. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against CVAG or its members, or bind CVAG or its members in any manner except as expressly authorized by CVAG.

(b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, CVAG shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder. CVAG shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.

14. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Consultant shall keep itself informed of State, Federal and local laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. CVAG, its members, and their officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity for any liability occasioned by failure of Consultant to comply with this Section.

Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, or any other unlawful basis.

15. UNDUE INFLUENCE

Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or will be used against or in concert with any officer or employee of CVAG in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of CVAG will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling CVAG to any and all remedies at law or in equity.

16. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES

No member, officer, or employee of CVAG, nor its designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the subject of this Agreement during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the services performed under this Agreement.

17. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

(a) All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without CVAG's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or sub-consultants, shall not without written authorization from the CVAG Task Manager or unless requested by the CVAG Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property of CVAG. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives CVAG notice of such court order or subpoena.

(b) Consultant shall promptly notify CVAG should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or sub-consultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property of CVAG or its members. CVAG retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with CVAG and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, CVAG's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by CVAG to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

(c) Consultant covenants that neither it nor any officer or principal of Consultant's firm has any interest in, or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by Consultant as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor.

18. NOTICES

Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:

To CVAG: Tom Kirk, Executive Director Coachella Valley Association of Governments


To Consultant: Joe Monaco, President Dudek 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 19. ASSIGNMENT/PERSONNEL

Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of CVAG.

Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, there shall be no change in Consultant's Project Manager or members of the project team without prior written approval by CVAG.

20. MANAGEMENT

CVAG's Executive Director shall represent CVAG in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all services submitted by Consultant.

During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide sufficient executive and administrative personnel as shall be necessary and required to perform its duties and obligations under the terms hereof.

21. SUBCONTRACTS

Unless expressly permitted in the exhibits hereto, Consultant shall obtain the prior written approval of CVAG before subcontracting any services related to this Agreement. CVAG reserves the right to contract directly with any necessary subcontractors in the unlikely event it becomes necessary.

22. LICENSES

At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement.

23. GOVERNING LAW

CVAG and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the Riverside County Superior Court, Desert Branch.

Any dispute arising under this Agreement shall first be decided by the CVAG Executive Director or designee. Consultant shall give CVAG written notice within seven (7) days after any event which Consultant believes may give rise to a claim for an increase in compensation or a change in the performance schedule. Within fourteen (14) days thereafter, Consultant shall supply CVAG with a statement supporting the claim. CVAG shall not be liable for and Consultant hereby waives any claim or potential claim which Consultant knew or should have known about and which was not reported in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. Consultant agrees to continue performance of the services during the time any claim is pending. No claim shall be allowed if asserted after final payment.

24. FINAL PAYMENT CERTIFICATION AND RELEASE

CVAG shall not be obligated to make final payment to Consultant until Consultant has fully performed under this Agreement and has provided CVAG written assurances that Consultant has paid in full all outstanding obligations incurred as a result of Consultant’s performance hereunder. All obligations owing by CVAG to Consultant shall be deemed satisfied upon Consultant’s acceptance of the final payment. Thereafter, no property of CVAG shall be subject to any unsatisfied lien or claim arising out of this Agreement.

25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.

26. FORCE MAJEURE

Neither party hereto shall be liable to the other for its failure to perform under this Agreement when such failure is caused by strikes, accidents, acts of God, fire, war, flood, governmental restrictions, or any other cause beyond the control of the party charged with performance; provided that the party so unable to perform shall promptly advise the other party of the extent of its inability to perform. Any suspension of performance by reason of this paragraph shall be limited to the period during which such cause of failure exists.

27. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT

The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

Joe Monaco, AICP Tom Kirk President Executive Director Dudek Coachella Valley Association of Governments

EXHIBIT A: PRICE FORMULA

Project:Client: 10%

Date Prepared: Revised - September 13, 2018

Employee Charles Greely Shannon C Wages Rose M Kelly Jane Gray Raoul B Ranoa GIS Administration

Billing CategoryPrincipal in

Charge Project Manager Planner/Climate Specialist

Grant/Funding Specialist Senior Designer GIS Specialist Administration

% Used on job 7% 17% 49% 6% 6% 5% 11% Phase 235.00 195.00 125.00 225.00 155.00 135.00 90.00Task 1 Project Initiation and Community Engagement Support - - - 7,700 7,700.00 Kick-off Meeting 6 8 8 22 3,970 9,416 13,386.00 Community Engagement 4 12 12 28 4,780 - 4,780.00 Task 2. Existing Plan Evaluation - - - - - Plan Synthesis 4 8 44 6 16 78 11,090 8,641 19,730.50 Disruptive and Emerging Trends 2 10 24 4 8 48 7,120 2,541 9,661.00 Plan and Policy Gap Analysis 2 12 40 4 58 8,430 7,728 16,157.50 Task 3. Prepare Action Plan - - - - Draft Action Plan 8 16 64 26 12 24 150 22,870 - 22,870.00 Final Action Plan 4 10 30 24 68 8,800 - 8,800.00

Total Hours 30 76 222 26 26 24 48 452 67,060 74,760.00 Total Billing 7,050 14,820 27,750 5,850 4,030 3,240 4,320 67,060 28,325 7,700 103,085.00$

Eastern Coachella Valley's Action Plan for Climate ResilienceCoachella Valley Association of Governments in association with The City of Coachella

Lab

or H

ours

Labo

r @ B

illing

Ra

tes

Markup

CV S

trate

gies

Fehr

& P

eers

Tota

l

EXHIBIT B: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

RFP for TCC planning grant 1 OF 4 8/14/2018

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS EASTERN COACHELLA VALLEY’S ACTION PLAN FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION

NOTICE The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), in partnership with the City of Coachella, is soliciting technical proposals to retain a firm who can research and complete the Eastern Coachella Valley’s Action Plan for Climate Resilience (Action Plan). The Action Plan is envisioned as the definitive document that results from a year-long planning effort funded by a Strategic Growth Council’s Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) grant. The work will include reviewing existing transportation, housing and general plans that relate to cap-and-trade type projects and meeting with local jurisdictions. Based on this work, the Action Plan will be developed to help communities in the eastern Coachella Valley compete for future funding opportunities, particularly those associated with disadvantaged communities. PROJECT BACKGROUND The State of California funds a number of programs through cap-and-trade revenues. One of those programs is the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC), which is administered by the Strategic Growth Council. The TCC program is designed to empower communities that are impacted by pollution by having them choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution. In January 2018, CVAG and the City of Coachella were awarded one of 10 TCC planning grants, which are intended to fund activities that are defined in an existing regional or local plan and that will occur in disadvantaged communities that may be eligible for future TCC Implementation Grants, or other California Climate Investment (CCI) programs. The application outlines the development of the Eastern Coachella Valley’s Action Plan for Climate Resilience. The Action Plan is a planning effort to identify and prioritize affordable housing, transportation, green infrastructure, and park projects that would be competitive for future TCC funding cycles and other climate investments opportunities. The proposed Action Plan will create a consistent regional plan that identifies existing and new projects related to cap and trade funding opportunities, including affordable housing, transportation and urban greening. By working with the regional leaders and community members through public outreach, the Action Plan will also identify the projects that, either because of preliminary work or community need, should be prioritized in upcoming funding cycles. PROJECT PARTNERS CVAG will serve as the agency spearheading and overseeing grant-related activities. The City of Coachella is serving as the co-applicant and Riverside County is serving as a project partner. The chosen consultant will also work with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, a nonprofit that was identified in the grant application to conduct public outreach and community engagement efforts.


PROJECT OVERVIEW The Coachella Valley’s total population is comparable with that seen in a single big city, yet it is divided into nine cities, three tribal nations, three school districts as well as unincorporated communities. Over the years, each of these agencies, numerous, but separate, planning documents have identified opportunities and challenges for sustainable communities. Some of these efforts have led communities to compete against themselves. The consultant will review existing transportation, housing and general plans that relate to cap-and-trade type projects and meet with local jurisdictions. The Action Plan will create regional consistency by combining existing plans, not to be limited to the following: General plans for Riverside County and Coachella; CVAG Active Transportation Plan; SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan; emerging mobility plans, as well as regional and city-specific Climate Action Plans. The Action Plan activities will identify existing and new projects related to cap and trade funding opportunities, including but not limited to affordable housing with mixed-use development, promoting active transportation and supporting urban greening. The planning activities will advance the Strategic Growth Council’s sustainable communities objectives by highlighting opportunities for investments and development in existing communities to serve existing populations. Specifically, the planning activities will improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by increasing access to active transportation infrastructure and transit and reducing dependence on single occupancy vehicles. The planning activities also will focus on increasing and improving access to quality housing for all income levels including extremely low-income households currently dependent on substandard and/or overcrowded housing. Similarly, the Action Plan activities will identify and plan for active transportation, fixed transit, and flexible transit options which will increase access to economic opportunities and services while reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicles. The regional Action Plan can use existing planning efforts, such as the CVAG Active Transportation Plan, as a starting point. The Action Plan and related activities should also help identify new opportunities that will take advantage of proposing compact transit-oriented development. This would ensure accessibility of housing, employment centers, and key destinations through “Zero Carbon” transportation options such as biking, walking and/or hydrogen or electric bus transit. Based on their evaluation of existing plans – and in conjunction with a related community engagement effort – the consultant will condense the information into a planning document that can help communities in the Coachella Valley compete for future funding opportunities, particularly those associated with disadvantaged communities. The consultant will also work with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, a nonprofit that was identified in the grant application to conduct public outreach and community engagement efforts. PROJECT TASK LIST The task list below is a general outline of the scope of work. The consultant is encouraged to review and add to or revise this list as experience and expertise would dictate. The overall project goals are the guiding factor. The completeness of the task list will be one of the proposal evaluation criteria. The work includes:


• Project meetings with governing agencies and school districts

• Evaluating existing plans to identify opportunities & policy gaps

• Compiling documents into new master plan

• Working with Leadership Counsel to integrate feedback from Community Outreach Plan

• Incorporate input into master plan & circulate draft to stakeholders

• Finalize Action Plan and produce digital copies In addition, the consultant will be asked to produce project meeting lists and provide feedback for the grant’s monthly progress reports. These efforts will focus on the City of Coachella and the unincorporated communities southeast of the City. A map is attached showing the planning boundary. PROJECT TIMELINE The TCC grant provides funding for one year. Work for this consultant shall commence no later than October 2018. The review and evaluation period of existing plans should be completed in six (6) months with the new Eastern Coachella Valley’s Action Plan for Climate Resilience completed within three (3) months after that. PROPOSAL FORMAT The consultant’s proposal should describe the methodology to be used to accomplish each of the project tasks as well as the qualifications of the individuals who will perform the tasks and prepare written and oral reports to CVAG and the City of Coachella. The proposal should also describe the work which shall be necessary in order to satisfactorily complete the task requirements. These descriptions should include the strategy and method which will be utilized in selecting, implementing, and evaluating the network system. The proposal should be no more the 15 pages in length, excluding the cost proposal. Front and rear cover will not be included in the 15-page count. The contract shall be a lump sum (firm fixed price). EVALUATION CRITERIA A Consultant Selection Committee, appointed by the CVAG Executive Director, shall review each Technical Proposal and, if necessary, will conduct an interview with the consultant's project management and key personnel of the most qualified firm(s). The Consultant Selection Committee shall rate each interviewed firm's technical proposal and identify the ranking of proposals in a selection order based upon the following criteria:

• Project meetings with governing agencies and community stakeholders

• Understanding of the work to be done (15 points possible)

• Experience with similar kinds of work. (10 points possible)

• Quality of staff for work to be done (10 points possible)


• Familiarity with related planning procedures (10 points possible)

• Completeness of task items list (5 points possible)

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION & DEADLINE All Technical Proposals and accompanying materials shall become the property of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments upon submittal. Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to CVAG Governmental Projects Manager Erica Felci at the address listed below or via e-mail at [email protected]. All requests for clarification and comments must be provided in writing to CVAG on or before August 24 by 5:00 pm. Answers/Clarifications shall be provided in the form of formal Addenda and shall be issued to the short-listed firms in a timely manner. Technical Proposals must be received and date stamped at CVAG no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 7, 2018. Four (4) copies of each proposal should be clearly marked "Technical Proposal for the Eastern Coachella Valley’s Action Plan for Climate Resilience” and delivered to:

Coachella Valley Association of Governments Attn: Erica Felci


SELECTION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE A selection committee will evaluate each proposal according to the criteria set forth in this RFP. The Agency will then perform a reference verification process by contacting and interviewing the references provided by the firms. Following this reference verification process, the firm(s) receiving the highest evaluation from the selection panel will be invited to interview.

}86 SALTONSEA

OASIS

MECCA

NORTH SHORE

THERMAL

COACHELLA

469

456.04

456.05

469

456.09

9404

457.05

452.22

457.03

457.06

452.26

457.07456.06

457.04§̈¦10

§̈¦10

Eastern Coachella Valley Climate Resilience Action Plan

Ü

Legend

AB 1550 Low-IncomeCommunities

Regional Boundary

Highways

0 5 10 15 202.5Miles

CalEnviroscreen Disadvantaged Communites}111

}111

Census Tracts

CVAG Boundary

Riverside County

_̂

Source: CalEnviroScreen 3.0 and AB 1550 Mapping Tool for TCC

Plan Boundary

SERVICES CONTRACT

between

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (CVAG) and

LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of September 24, 2018 between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") and Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. TERM

This Agreement shall commence on September 24, 2018 and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than August 1, 2019 unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

2. SERVICES

Consultant shall perform services consistent with the provisions of the Transformative Climate Communities grant (the "Grant") and any modification thereto adopted in writing by the parties and identified herein as an exhibit to this Agreement, upon issuance by CVAG of written authority to proceed (a "Work Order") as to either (a) a portion of the work if separate and independent tasks are contemplated or (b) all work if it constitutes a single project. Except as amended by the exhibits hereto, Consultant is bound by the contents of the Grant and Consultant's response thereto. In the event of conflict, the requirements of this Agreement, including any exhibits, then the Grant shall take precedence over those contained in Consultant's response.

The following exhibit(s), which amend or modify the Grant and/or Consultant's response thereto, are attached and incorporated herein by reference:

Exhibit A: Grant Price Formula

3. PRICE FORMULA

CVAG agrees to pay Consultant at the rates set forth in Exhibit A, the Grant Price Formula, at a cost not to exceed $ 53,522.

4. PERFORMANCE

Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks required hereunder. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.

Consultant shall submit informal progress reports to CVAG's Project Manager by telephone, e-mail or in person, on a weekly basis, in a form acceptable to CVAG, describing the state of work performed. The purpose of the reports is to allow CVAG to determine if the contract objectives and activities are being completed in accordance with the agreed upon schedule, and to afford occasions for airing difficulties or special problems encountered.

The Consultant’s Project Manager shall meet with the CVAG Project Manager as needed.

5. PAYMENT

(a) If independent and separate Work Orders are contemplated, CVAG shall pay Consultant upon satisfactory completion of each Work Order; and, unless Consultant provides a performance bond, progress payments will not be made on individual or a collection of Work Orders. If all the work constitutes a single project, Consultant shall submit invoices for work completed on a periodic basis, no more frequently than monthly. (b) Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth in a duly issued Work Order.

(c) Consultant shall submit invoices for services performed in accordance with the payment rates and terms set forth in Exhibit A. The invoice shall be in a form approved by CVAG. (d) A formal report of tasks performed and tasks in process, in a form acceptable to CVAG, shall be attached to each invoice. (e) All invoices shall be consistent with current progress reports as well as the budget and work schedule set out in the Grant and, if modified or supplemented thereby, the exhibits to this Agreement.

(f) Upon approval by CVAG's Project Manager, payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If CVAG disputes any of Consultant's invoiced fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice.

6. INSPECTION OF WORK Consultant shall permit CVAG the opportunity to review and inspect the project activities at all reasonable times during the performance period of this Agreement including review and inspection on a daily basis. 7. SCOPE OF WORK CHANGES The scope of work shall be subject to change by additions, deletions or revisions by CVAG. Consultant shall be advised of any such changes by written notice. Consultant shall promptly perform and strictly comply with each such notice. If Consultant believes that performance of any change would justify modification of the Agreement price or time for performance, Consultant shall comply with the provisions for dispute resolution set out hereinbelow. 8. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE (a) CVAG may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon Consultant seven (7) days prior written notice. Upon tender of said notice, Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless further work is authorized by CVAG. If CVAG suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement, such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. (b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, CVAG shall pay Consultant only for work that has been accepted by CVAG. Work in process will not be paid unless CVAG agrees in writing to accept the partial work, in which case, prorated fees may be authorized. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, Consultant will submit a final invoice to CVAG. Payment of the final invoice shall be subject to approval by the CVAG Project Manager as set out above. 9. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT (a) Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, CVAG shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to Consultant. Provided, however, if such failure by Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. (b) As an alternative to notice of immediate termination, the CVAG Executive Director or his/her delegate may cause to be served upon Consultant a written notice of the default. Consultant shall then have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that Consultant

fails to cure its default within such period of time, CVAG shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS (a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to work performed, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information that relates to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of CVAG or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give CVAG the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit CVAG to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. (b) Unless the Grant or exhibits hereto expressly provide otherwise, upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of CVAG and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by CVAG without the permission of Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to CVAG, at Consultant's office and upon reasonable written request by CVAG, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files. 11. INDEMNIFICATION FOR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY

To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless CVAG, its members and any and all of their officials, employees and agents from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to Consultant's alleged act(s) or failure(s) to act. 12. INSURANCE (a) Throughout the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall procure and maintain insurance, including Workers' Compensation as required by law for its personnel, and a one million dollar ($1,000,000.00) commercial general liability policy. Consultant shall include CVAG, its member agencies and any other interested and related party designated by CVAG, as additional insureds on this commercial liability policy for liabilities caused by Consultant in its performance of services under this

Agreement and shall provide CVAG with a certificate verifying such coverage. In the event said insurance coverage expires at any time or times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant agrees to provide at least five (5) days notice prior to said expiration date and, prior to said expiration date, a new certificate of insurance evidencing insurance coverage as provided herein for no less than the remainder of the term of the Agreement, or for a total period of not less than one (1) year. New certificates of insurance are subject to the approval of CVAG. In the event Consultant fails to keep in effect at all times insurance coverage as herein provided, CVAG may, in addition to any other remedies it may have, terminate this Agreement.

(b) CVAG, member agencies and any other interested and related party designated by CVAG are to be covered as additional insured as respects liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the said additional insureds. Minimum requirements are $100,000/$300,000/$25,000.

(c) Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects CVAG, its member agencies, and any other interested and related party designated by CVAG as additional insureds. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by said additional insureds shall be in excess of Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it and, to the extent obtainable, such coverage shall be payable notwithstanding any act of negligence of CVAG, its members, or any other additional insured, that might otherwise result in forfeiture of coverage. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breach of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to said additional insureds. Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by any party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to CVAG.

(d) Consultant shall provide worker’s compensation insurance or a California Department of Insurance-approved self-insurance program in an amount and form that meets all applicable Labor Code requirements, covering all persons or entities providing services on behalf of Consultant and all risks to such persons or entities.

(e) Said insurance policy or policies shall be issued by a responsible insurance company with a minimum A. M. Best Rating of “A-“ Financial Category “X”, and authorized and admitted to do business in, and regulated by, the State of California. (f) Evidence of all insurance coverage shall be provided to CVAG prior to issuance of the first Work Order. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that such insurance is in addition to Consultant's obligation to fully indemnify and hold CVAG, its members and any other additional insureds free and harmless from and against any and all claims arising out of an injury or damage to property or persons caused by the acts or omissions of Consultant.

13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to CVAG a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither CVAG, its members, nor any of their officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of CVAG or its members. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against CVAG or its members, or bind CVAG or its members in any manner except as expressly authorized by CVAG.

(b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, CVAG shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder. CVAG shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.

14. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Consultant shall keep itself informed of State, Federal and local laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. CVAG, its members, and their officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity for any liability occasioned by failure of Consultant to comply with this Section.

Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, or any other unlawful basis.

15. UNDUE INFLUENCE

Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or will be used against or in concert with any officer or employee of CVAG in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of CVAG will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling CVAG to any and all remedies at law or in equity.

16. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES

No member, officer, or employee of CVAG, nor its designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the subject of this Agreement during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the services performed under this Agreement.

17. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

(a) All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without CVAG's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or sub-consultants, shall not without written authorization from the CVAG Task Manager or unless requested by the CVAG Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property of CVAG. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives CVAG notice of such court order or subpoena.

(b) Consultant shall promptly notify CVAG should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or sub-consultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property of CVAG or its members. CVAG retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with CVAG and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, CVAG's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by CVAG to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

(c) Consultant covenants that neither it nor any officer or principal of Consultant's firm has any interest in, or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by Consultant as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor.

18. NOTICES

Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:

To CVAG: Tom Kirk, Executive Director Coachella Valley Association of Governments


To Consultant: Veronica Garibay-Gonzalez, Co-Director Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability 764 P Street, Suite 012 Fresno, CA 93721

19. ASSIGNMENT/PERSONNEL

Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of CVAG.

Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, there shall be no change in Consultant's Project Manager or members of the project team without prior written approval by CVAG.

20. MANAGEMENT

CVAG's Executive Director shall represent CVAG in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all services submitted by Consultant.

During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide sufficient executive and administrative personnel as shall be necessary and required to perform its duties and obligations under the terms hereof.

21. SUBCONTRACTS

Unless expressly permitted in the exhibits hereto, Consultant shall obtain the prior written approval of CVAG before subcontracting any services related to this Agreement. CVAG reserves the right to contract directly with any necessary subcontractors in the unlikely event it becomes necessary.

22. LICENSES

At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement.

23. GOVERNING LAW

CVAG and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the Riverside County Superior Court, Desert Branch.

Any dispute arising under this Agreement shall first be decided by the CVAG Executive Director or designee. Consultant shall give CVAG written notice within seven (7) days after any event which Consultant believes may give rise to a claim for an increase in compensation or a change in the performance schedule. Within fourteen (14) days thereafter, Consultant shall supply CVAG with a statement supporting the claim. CVAG shall not be liable for and Consultant hereby waives any claim or potential claim which Consultant knew or should have known about and which was not reported in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. Consultant agrees to continue performance of the services during the time any claim is pending. No claim shall be allowed if asserted after final payment.

24. FINAL PAYMENT CERTIFICATION AND RELEASE

CVAG shall not be obligated to make final payment to Consultant until Consultant has fully performed under this Agreement and has provided CVAG written assurances that Consultant has paid in full all outstanding obligations incurred as a result of Consultant’s performance hereunder. All obligations owing by CVAG to Consultant shall be deemed satisfied upon Consultant’s acceptance of the final payment. Thereafter, no property of CVAG shall be subject to any unsatisfied lien or claim arising out of this Agreement.

25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.

26. FORCE MAJEURE

Neither party hereto shall be liable to the other for its failure to perform under this Agreement when such failure is caused by strikes, accidents, acts of God, fire, war, flood, governmental restrictions, or any other cause beyond the control of the party charged with performance; provided that the party so unable to perform shall promptly advise the other party of the extent of its inability to perform. Any suspension of performance by reason of this paragraph shall be limited to the period during which such cause of failure exists.

27. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT

The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

Veronica Garibay-Gonzalez Tom Kirk Co-Director Executive Director Leadership Counsel for Coachella Valley Association of Governments Justice & Accountability

EXHIBIT A: GRANT PRICE FORMULA

Transformative Climate Communities Program Planning Grant Application

Strategic Growth CouncilDepartment of Conservation

Lead Applicant: Coachella Valley Association of GovernmentsProposal Name: Eastern Coachella Valley Climate Resilience Action Plan Jurisdiction: Eastern Coachella Valley

Applicant Lead Applicant Co-applicant 1 Co-applicant 2 Co-applicant 3 Co-applicant 4Name CVAG City of CoachellaType Joint Powers Authority CityAddress 73710 Fred Waring Dr., Suite

200, Palm Desert, CA 922601515 Sixth Street, Coachella, CA 92236

Tax ID 33-0105726 95-6000693Primary Contact Tom Kirk Bill PattisonTitle Executive Director City Manager Phone 760-346-1127 760-398-3502Email [email protected] [email protected]

APPLICATION SUMMARY

Proposal Summary: The Eastern Coachella Valley Climate Resilience Action Plan will identify and prioritize affordable housing, transportation, green infrastructure and park projects that would be competitive for future climate investment opportunities. Because of the interconnected nature of the region, this plan will focus on the City of Coachella and adjacent unincorporated communities in Riverside County. The efforts will combine existing planning documents into one master plan. Efforts will also include identifying potential policy and program gaps in existing plans and bolstering efforts through community engagement.

TCC APPLICANTS

Updated: 9/18/2018 TCC Revised 3-6-18Application Summary

Page 3 of 10

Transformative Climate Communities Program Planning Grant Application



High Level Activities/Milestones

Responsible Parties[ex: Lead Applicant, Co-Applicant, Subcontractor, etc.]

Timeline[Start and End Date]

Task 1: Project Start-UpSubtask A: Kickoff MeetingSubtask B: Develop RFP for consulting services & release it Subtask C: Evaluate, interview and hire consultant Deliverables: RFP & executed contract

CVAG with Participation from Leadership Counsel &

CoachellaMonth 1 through month 3

Task 2: Plan DevelopmentSubtask A: Project meetings with governing agencies and school districtsSubtask B: Evaluate existing plans to identify opportunities & policy gapsSubtask C: Begin compiling documents into new master planDeliverables: Project meeting lists, monthly progress reports

Subcontractor in consultation with CVAG, Coachella and

Leadership CouselMonth 2 through Month 9

Task 3: Community Engagement and InputSubtask A: Develop Community Oureach PlanSubtask B: Produce/ Distribute outreach materialsSubtask C: Host series of communiy meetingsDeliverables: Outreach plan, copies of fliers, attendance records from meetings

Leadership Counsel in consultation with CVAG and

CoachellaMonth 2 through Month 11

Task 4: AdministrationSubtask A: Incorporate input into master plan & circulate draft to stakeholdersSubtask B: Finalize Climate Resilience Action PlanSubtask C: Invoice & fiscal administrationDeliverables: Climate Resilience Action Plan, final invoices

Subcontractor in consultation with CVAG, Coachella and

Leadership CounselMonths 10 through Month 12

WORK PLAN

Last updated: 9/18/2018 TCC Revised 3-6-18Work Plan

Page 4 of 10

Transformative Climate Communities Program - FY 16/17Planning Grant Application



PERSONNEL Hourly Rate # of Hours (D*E) Benefits Requested Grant Funds

CVAG Executive Director 0 6.5 0 -$ CVAG Gov't Projects Manager 0 76.5 0 -$ CVAG Dir of Transportation 0 5 0 -$ Coachella City Manager 0 7 0 -$ Coachella Asst. to City Manager 0 47.5 0 -$ Coachella Dir. Of Development Services 0 47.5 0 -$ City Enginner/ Assit. City Manager 0 8 0 -$ Coachella Associate Planner 0 44.5 0 -$

Total 242.5 -$ CONSULTANTS -$ Leadership Counsel 53,522.15$ Subcontractor B 116,097.85$

-$ 168,380.00$

SUPPLIES -$ Outreach and Education Flyers 520.00$ Visual devices (maps, etc) 600.00$ Easel paper/ Plan production / misc meeting supplies 500.00$

1,620.00$ TRAVEL -$

-$ -$ -$ -$

OTHER DIRECT COSTS -$ -$ -$ -$

GRAND TOTAL 170,000.00$

SUMMARY BUDGET

Last Updated: 9/18/2018 TCC Revised 3-6-18Summary Budget

Page 5 of 10



Lead Applicant: Coachella Valley Association of GovernmentsProposal Name: Eastern Coachella Valley Climate Resilience Action Plan Jurisdiction: Eastern Coachella ValleyLead Entity: CVAG and City of Coachella

Task 1:


CVAG Executive Director 0 2 0 -$ CVAG Gov't Projects Manager 0 17.5 0 -$ CVAG Dir of Transportation 0 1 0 -$ Coachella City Manager 0 1 0 -$ Coachella Asst. to City Manager 0 6.5 0 -$ Coachella Dir. Of Development Services 0 6.5 0 -$ City Enginner/ Assit. City Manager 0 2 0 -$ Coachella Associate Planner 0 3.5 0 -$

Total 40 0 -$ CONSULTANTSLeadership Counsel 2,303.35$ Subcontractor B 1,000.00$

Totals 3,303.35$ SUPPLIES

Totals -$ TRAVEL

Totals -$ OTHER DIRECT COSTS

Totals -$ SUBTOTAL 3,303.35$

Last Updated: 9/18/2018 TCC Revised 3-6-18Task 1

Page 6 of 10



Lead Applicant: Coachella Valley Association of GovernmentsProposal Name: Eastern Coachella Valley Climate Resilience Action Plan Jurisdiction: Eastern Coachella ValleyLead Entity: Sub-consultant in consultation with applicants

Task 2:


CVAG Executive Director 0 0 0 -$ CVAG Gov't Projects Manager 0 10 0 -$ CVAG Dir of Transportation 0 0 0 -$ Coachella City Manager 0 2 0 -$ Coachella Asst. to City Manager 0 10 0 -$ Coachella Dir. Of Development Services 0 10 0 -$ City Enginner/ Assit. City Manager 0 2 0 -$ Coachella Associate Planner 0 10 0 -$

Total 44 0 0 -$ CONSULTANTSLeadership Counsel 12,425.60$ Subcontractor B 100,597.85$


Visual devices/ maps 200.00$ Misc. meeting supplies 100.00$

Totals 300.00$ TRAVEL




Page 7 of 10



Lead Applicant: Coachella Valley Association of GovernmentsProposal Name: Eastern Coachella Valley Climate Resilience Action Plan Jurisdiction: Eastern Coachella ValleyLead Entity: Leadership Counsel in consultation with applicants

Task 3:


CVAG Executive Director 0 0 0 -$ CVAG Gov't Projects Manager 0 18 0 -$ CVAG Dir of Transportation 0 0 0 -$ Coachella City Manager 0 2 0 -$ Coachella Asst. to City Manager 0 10 0 -$ Coachella Dir. Of Development Services 0 10 0 -$ City Enginner/ Assit. City Manager 0 2 0 -$ Coachella Associate Planner 0 10 0 -$

Total 52 0 0 -$ CONSULTANTSLeadership Counsel 31,020.80$ Subcontractor B 4,500.00$

Totals 35,520.80$ SUPPLIESOutreach and Education Flyers 520.00$ Visual devices (maps, etc) 400.00$ Easel paper / misc meeting supplies 300.00$

Totals 1,220.00$ TRAVEL




Page 8 of 10



Lead Applicant: Coachella Valley Association of GovernmentsProposal Name: Eastern Coachella Valley Climate Resilience Action Plan Jurisdiction: Eastern Coachella ValleyLead Entity: Sub-consultant in conjunction with applicants

Task 4:


CVAG Executive Director 0 4.5 0 -$ CVAG Gov't Projects Manager 0 31 0 -$ CVAG Dir of Transportation 0 4 0 -$ Coachella City Manager 0 2 0 -$ Coachella Asst. to City Manager 0 21 0 -$ Coachella Dir. Of Development Services 0 21 0 -$ City Enginner/ Assit. City Manager 0 2 0 -$ Coachella Associate Planner 0 21 0 -$

Total 106.5 0 0 -$ CONSULTANTSLeadership Counsel 6,532.40$ Subcontractor B 10,000.00$


Production of plan onto disk 100.00$ Totals 100.00$

TRAVEL




Page 9 of 10

ITEM 6D

Staff Report Subject: Contract Amendment for Used Oil Recycling Program with HF&H

Consultants Contact: Katie Barrows, Director of Environmental Resources ([email protected]) Recommendation: Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Contract with HF&H Consultants, LLC for the Used Oil Recycling Program to extend the contract for three years to September 30, 2021 and increase the contract amount to not to exceed $60,500 for FY 2018/2019, $62,000 for FY 2019/2020, and $63,500 for 2020/2021. Technical Advisory Committee: CONCURS (Meeting of September 10th) Energy & Environmental Resources Committee: (September 13th meeting cancelled) Background: CVAG in partnership with our member agencies continues with our successful Used Oil Recycling Program including used oil filter recycling events throughout the Coachella Valley. The Used Oil Recycling program has been successfully implemented through the use of consultants to provide program coordination and staff services. HF&H Consultants, LLC has been under contract to CVAG since 2006. A new Request for Proposals (RFP) was completed in July 2016 and HF&H Consultants was the only firm to submit a proposal, despite wide distribution. Since 2016 the contract has been extended in one-year increments as there was some uncertainty about funding from CalRecycle. In 2018 CalRecycle confirmed that funding for the Used Oil Program will continue. The current contract with HF&H is for one year in an amount not to exceed $59,000 and expires on September 30, 2018. The request is to extend the HF&H contract for three years, conditional on continued funding. The proposed budget is attached. HF&H has a very capable team which has made our Used Oil Recycling Program a success; they continue to look for new outreach opportunities and creative options for the program. The 2017/2018 contract included the addition of the City of Palm Desert as a participant in the regional Used Oil Recycling program. Like other participating cities, Palm Desert allocates the funds received from CalRecycle to the regional CVAG program. In 2017/2018 the City requested that two events be offered in their city which was covered by an additional $13,000 in the HF&H contract. Palm Desert will again provide additional funding. Staff requests support for Amendment #2 which extends the HF&H contract for three years and includes a cost-of-living increase in hourly rate to $125/hour for 2018/2019, $127/hour for 2019/2020, and $129/hour in 2020/2021, an annual increase of approximately 1.6%. The contract would increase to $60,500 for 2018/2019, $62,000 for 2019/2020, and $63,500 for 2020/2021. The contract will be through September 30, 2021, conditional on receipt of funding from CalRecycle. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommended approval at their September 10th meeting; the September Energy & Environmental Resources Committee meeting was cancelled. Fiscal Analysis: The Used Oil Recycling Program including the HF&H contract is funded by a grant to CVAG from CalRecycle. The proposed contract is fully funded by the CalRecycle grant. Palm Desert will provide additional funding to cover the cost of radio advertising, promotional items, and printing; HF&H will bill Palm Desert directly for these costs. Attachments: 1. Amendment #2 to HF&H Services Contract, including program budget


AMENDMENT #2

To AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC

The Agreement for Professional Services (the “Contract”) dated September 26, 2016 by and between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (“CVAG”) and HF&H Consultants, LLC (“Consultant”), is amended, effective September 24, 2018, as follows: 1) The term of the Contract end date will be extended from September 30, 2018 to September

30, 2021. a. On page 2 of said Contract under section 4, “Term and Termination” reads as follows:

This Agreement shall be effective September 26, 2016 and shall terminate on September 30, 2018.

This amendment #2 will extend the contract and will read as follows:

This Agreement shall be effective September 24, 2018 and shall terminate on September 30, 2021.

2) The Contract not to exceed amount is increased by $1,500 for each of three years to bring

the total contract amount to $60,500 for labor and materials for fiscal year 2018/2019, including an additional $13,300 to cover the cost of including the City of Palm Desert in the Used Oil Recycling Program.

a. On page 1 of said Contract under section 2, “Compensation” reads as follows:

The total amount for this contract is not to exceed $45,000 for one year. This amendment #2 will increase the contract amount and will read as follows:

The total amount for this contract is not to exceed $60,500 for 2018/2019 as shown in Exhibit A: Cost Proposal. The total not to exceed amount for 2019/2020 is $62,000 and for 2020/2021 is $63,500.

3) All other terms and conditions shall remain the same as stated in the original Contract. ___________________________ ____________________________ Laith Ezzet Michael Wilson HF&H Consultants, LLC Chair, Executive Committee

Coachella Valley Association of Governments

Coachella Valley Association of Governments EXHIBIT A: Updated Cost Proposal

Proposal to Provide Used Oil Recycling Program Assistance

August 28, 2018 Page 1 HF&H Consultants, LLC

EXHIBIT A: COST PROPOSAL HF&H will perform the scope of work as described in the technical proposal in Attachment A. Our

proposed billing rates and budgets for the project are shown in the tables below. Out-of-pocket travel

expenses will be billed at actual cost and are included in the budget below. The budget does not include

the purchasing of give-aways, print and radio advertisements, or filter exchange reimbursement.

Proposed Budget

Year Billing RateCVAG Budget

(Excluding Palm Desert) (1)

Budget for Palm Desert (2) Total Budget

FY 2018-19 $125 $47,200 $13,300 $60,500FY 2019-20 $127 $48,400 $13,600 $62,000FY 2020-21 $129 $49,600 $13,900 $63,500

(2) Includes planning and staffing for two events in the City of Palm Desert.

(1) Includes cities of Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Springs.

Coachella Valley Association of Governments EXHIBIT A: Updated Cost Proposal

Proposal to Provide Used Oil Recycling Program Assistance

August 28, 2018 Page 2 HF&H Consultants, LLC

FY 2018-19 Workplan

Engagement Director &

Advisor

Project Manager

Support Staff Total Hours

1. Pre-Event CoordinationA. Prepare annual event budget and advertising strategy 4 2 4 10B. Drawing Contest 4 15 19C. Obtain vendor quotes 2 12 14D. Develop event schedule with participating cities 1 8 9E. Design campaign flyers and other print media, and coordinate

reproduction and distribution4 12 16

Task 1: Hours 4 13 51 68Task 1: Budget 8,500$

2. Used Oil Filter Exchange Events (9 events)A. Coordinate advertising opportunities and event preferences with

Member Cities4 12 16

B. Special land use permits and certificates of insurance preparation and submittal assistance

4 12 16

C. Contact/coordinate with event sites 2 9 11D. Order flyers, posters, and other advertisements 4 12 16E. Coordinate promotional item purchase and distribution 2 12 14F. Prepare on-site documentation materials 1 12 13G. Coordinate on-site equipment 1 12 13H. Provide staff at events 8 130 138I. Conduct awards ceremony at first event of the season 2 2 4J. Coordinate event site reimbursement 1 10 11

Task 2: Hours 29 223 252Task 2: Budget 31,500$

3. Project Measurement and Monitoring 2 8 24 34Task 3: Budget 4,250$

4. Additional AdvertisingA. Order radio commercials and/or remotes for each event 1 6 7B. Prepare newspaper articles 1 8 9C. Post events on online community calendars 1 6 7D. Advertise event in utility bills 4 4E. Maintain email list and send upcoming event announcements 1 4 5

Task 4: Hours 4 28 32Task 4: Budget 4,000$

5. Certified Center Inspections 1 14 15Task 5: Budget 1,875$

6. Grant Application and Report Assistance 4 12 50 66Task 6: Budget 8,250$

7. Provide Support at Meetings as Requested by CVAGA. Prepare and present annual results (if requested by CVAG)B. Additional meetings on request

Task 7: Budget -$

Total Hours 10 67 390 467Average Hourly Rate 125Total Professional Fees 58,375$ Travel Expenses 2,125$ Total Fees and Expenses* 60,500$ * Excludes printing, radio, other advertisements, promotional items and oil filters.

TASK DESCRIPTION

Optional Task - Time and materialsOptional Task - Time and materials

CVAG Used Oil Filter Recycling Program

Proposed Expenditures for FY 2018/19

Row Item

CVAG Budget

Excluding Palm

Desert (1)

Palm Desert

Budget (2)

Total CVAG

Budget

1 Cycles 8 and 9 OPP Funds Available (3) 110,837 13,300 124,137

2 Oil Recycling Containers 6,000 - 6,000

3 Funnels and Shop Rags 1,400 - 1,400

4 Ziploc Bags 500 - 500

5 Event Flyers and Posters 1,400 - 1,400

6 Drawing Contest 550 - 550

7 Radio Event Advertising 8,000 - 8,000

8 Additional Advertising 500 - 500

9 New Oil Filters 7,500 - 7,500

10 Filter Collection at Kragen 550 - 550

11 HF&H (4) 47,200 13,300 60,500

12 Administrative Expenses 50 - 50

13 CVAG Staff 6,500 - 6,500

14 Proposed Expenditures 80,150 13,300 93,450

15 Contingency 5,000 - 5,000

16 Total Proposed Expenditures and Contingency for FY 2017/18 85,150 13,300 98,450

17 Estimated Remaining Funds Available at 6/30/19 25,687 - 25,687

18 Estimated OPP Cycle 10 (3) 74,418 13,300 87,718

19 Total Estimated Funds Available for FY 2019/20 100,105 13,300 113,405

Fiscal Year 2018/19 Proposed Expenditures

(1) Includes cities of Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Rancho Mirage, and Palm

Springs.

(2) Palm Desert joined CVAG regional used oil program in Cycle 8 OPP and requests two filter exchange events per year. Palm

Desert's OPP portion will cover approximately $13,300 for their two events. The remainder of the Palm Desert event costs will be

funded by the City's Recycling Fund.

(3) Cycle 9 and Cycle 10 OPP are estimated to be the same amount as Cycle 8 OPP.

(4) Contract year October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019. Cost of HF&H staffing for Palm Desert includes two events in Palm Desert

(November 2018 and March 2019).

8/28/2018

ITEM 6E

Staff Report Subject: Salton Sea Memorandum of Understanding Contact: Tom Kirk, Executive Director ([email protected])

Recommendation: Adopt the following policy statement: “CVAG supports the principles of the memorandum of understanding between Riverside and Imperial Counties for working together on the Salton Sea.” Background: Riverside County and Imperial County have recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to support common goals that further Salton Sea restoration and management efforts as well as the development potential of the Salton Sea. The MOU includes support for the North Lake vision that Riverside County Supervisor V. Manuel Perez unveiled earlier this year, as well as a Perimeter Lake concept that would include a South Lake component. The Counties want to have these concepts included into the state’s 10-year Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP). The MOU also outlines an intent to work together with the Salton Sea Authority and other local agencies on projects and financing mechanisms, such as an Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District (EIF), that would stimulate economic development around the Sea while mitigating air quality issues and creating vital habitat. Riverside County is asking cities and agencies across the county support the MOU. A resolution has already been adopted by the member agencies of the Salton Sea Authority. The MOU was presented to the CVAG Technical Advisory Committee at the September 10, 2018 meeting as an information item. Attachments: MOU Concerning Unified Support on the Salton Sea


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

CONCERNING UNIFIED SUPPORT ON THE SALTON SEA

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is entered into on this 26th day of June, 2018, by and between the County of Imperial, a political subdivision of the State of California, and the County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the State of California. Both counties may be referred to herein collectively as the “Parties”.

This MOU represents good faith commitments and common goals which are being made in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration to benefit the Salton Sea.

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the County of Imperial and the County of Riverside to work together in a collaborative manner and support common goals to further Salton Sea restoration and management efforts as well as the development potential of the Salton Sea; and

WHEREAS, the inflow of water to the Salton Sea has decreased and pursuant to the Quantification Settlement Agreement, mitigation water inflows ended on December 31, 2017, and without restoration or stabilization measures, the Salton Sea will rapidly decline; and

WHEREAS, the State of California (“State”) has developed the Salton Sea Management Program (“SSMP) through departments within the California Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Agencies and is obligated to pay for certain costs related to habitat, air and water quality issues at the Salton Sea; and

WHEREAS, the state has developed the 10-year SSMP plan and identified a phased series of projects, the state has not appropriated all the necessary SSMP funding. The Salton Sea is at substantial risk of irreversible damage and threatens wildlife and public health; and

WHEREAS, it is the intent of both Parties to take coordinated and cooperative action to further stabilize the Salton Sea on such restoration efforts which would protect and improve public health, air quality, and wildlife habitat; and

WHEREAS, the Salton Sea is located within both counties and the Parties have land-use authority and land-use control; and

WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of both Parties to work together on agreed projects and financing mechanisms such as an Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District (“EIFD”) that would support projects and stimulate economic development around the Sea; and

WHEREAS, both Parties recognize and support the immense value of working together to enhance opportunities for renewable energy and geothermal development to the region by providing reliable, affordable energy in furtherance of the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard and Greenhouse Gas Reduction goals and could provide funding for Salton Sea infrastructure; and

WHEREAS, the benefits of said integrated projects would include economic development, recreational activity, and reduction in air quality impacts as well as optimize the potential opportunities at the Salton Sea; and

WHEREAS, it is the desire of both Parties to support the Salton Sea Authority (“SSA”), the SSA as a Joint Power Authority with common power of directing and coordinating actions relating to the improvement of the Salton Sea; and

WHEREAS, both Parties desire recognition of Imperial and Riverside Counties as the local land use authorities with an enhanced role in implementing projects. California law requires the California Natural Resources Agency to develop a Salton Sea plan in cooperation and consultation with local agencies; and

WHEREAS, the Parties support the common goal of a locally managed and more efficient process to expedite projects at the Salton Sea to avert a further decline at the Salton Sea.

WHEREAS, it is the desire of both Parties to respectfully request a State Legislative amendment to clarify the state’s legislative directive to consult and cooperate with Imperial and Riverside Counties; and

WHEREAS, the Salton Sea Authority recently achieved historic progress and completed the first phase Wetland project located on the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe reservation. The Wetland project was carried out and accomplished by the leadership of the Salton Sea Authority and its member agencies; and

WHEREAS, the Parties are in support of the North Lake vision which would complement the state’s SSMP plan by providing an in-sea barrier around the contours of the north shoreline with a deep lake and respectfully request the state’s support and recognition in the SSMP as an important integrated project; and

WHEREAS, the Parties are supportive of the Perimeter Lake concept which would also include a South Lake component and resemble a flowing river with a system of low profile levees bordering the Salton Sea shoreline. The Parties respectfully request to have the Perimeter Lake incorporated into the state’s SSMP long-term plan; and

WHEREAS, the Parties will encourage outreach to the surrounding communities and seek supportive resolutions from all cities. The Parties welcome other agencies to join and assist them in efforts that are supportive of the Salton Sea; and

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Parties to improve the public health, economic opportunity and overall quality of life of the disadvantaged communities around the Salton Sea; and

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Parties to support public-private partnerships and will assist private entities to define and develop projects around the Salton Sea; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Imperial and the County of Riverside hereby adopt this Memorandum of Understanding and agree to a collaborative partnership and a unified strategy to support common goals which would stabilize and restore the Salton Sea.

ITEM 6F

Staff Report Subject: Extension of Construction Management Contract for CV Link Contact: Martin Magaña, Transportation Director ([email protected]) Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment #1 for a no-cost extension to the CV Link construction management contract with Parsons and authorize the Executive Director to make any changes/revisions for clarification purposes. Background: In April 2014, the Executive Committee authorized staff to release a number of proposals for CV Link, including one for a Construction Manager/General Contractor. The idea was to bring onto the team a firm familiar with engineering and construction methods and pricing to provide constructability review services to the engineering and design team. Having that service available as part of the design process can help the team identify potential cost savings and address constructability issues. Five proposals were received during the RFP process and, after interviews, it was decided the Parsons Transportation Group was the best firm based on the quality and completeness of the process, applicable experience, resource commitment, and cost. On September 29, 2014, the CVAG Executive Committee authorized a contact with Parsons that ran through 2017. The plan was to engage Parsons on constructability review of CV Link when engineering design was nearing completion. However, CVAG could not advance to begin final design until Caltrans approved the federal environmental document (NEPA), which was in July 2018. Now that this milestone has been reached, CVAG can engage Parsons to provide their services and review final design plans before obtaining construction bids. Parsons billed CVAG for some minor work through spring 2017. With CV Link’s engineering nearing completion, and right-of-way acquisition now under way, construction management services are needed and a no-cost contract extension is necessary. CVAG staff became aware of the contract’s time lapse after the Transportation Committee and Technical Advisory Committee met. These committees don’t meet again for two months, so delaying the amendment could impact the project team’s ability to maintain the final design schedule or delay current right-of-way activities. Fiscal Analysis: There is no additional cost to CVAG. The original contract authorized up to $75,000 a year for three years, for a total cost of $225,000. There is $197,510.98 remaining on the contract, which will cover the costs of work through 2019. The cost of the services will be paid from existing funding secured for CV Link. CVAG staff will revisit its construction management needs as additional segments of CV Link are under construction. Typically, such management costs are a percentage of the project’s total.

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1

with PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP

This First Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services (“First Amendment”) by and between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and Parsons Transportation Group (“Contractor”) is entered into effective December 31, 2017.

RECITALS A. CVAG and Contractor entered into an Agreement for Professional Services (“Agreement”) dated September 29, 2014 by the terms of which Contractor was engaged as an independent contractor to perform construction management services in connection with the CV Link Project (“Project”). B. Due to delays in the implementation of the Project unrelated to Contractor, the parties now mutually desire to extend the term of the Agreement without any modification to the compensation to be paid for the services. C. CVAG does not have on its staff employees who possess the expertise or qualifications to perform the services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Agreement is amended as follows: 1. The term set forth in Section 1 of the Agreement is extended to December 31, 2019. 2. The compensation to be paid for the services provided for in Section 3 of the Agreement shall remain the same; in light of services provided to date, the remaining compensation under the Agreement during the balance of the term shall not exceed $197,510.98. 3. Except as above modified, in all other respects the Agreement is hereby reaffirmed in full force and effect. Ernest A Figuera Tom Kirk Principal-In-Charge Executive Director Parsons Transportation Group Coachella Valley Association of Governments

ITEM 6G

Staff Report Subject: Cap and Trade Advocacy Update

Contact: Erica Felci, Governmental Projects Manager ([email protected])

Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to hire a consultant to evaluate cap-and-trade legislative options, at a cost not-to-exceed $25,000. Background: In April 2015, the CVAG Executive Committee unanimously authorized its Chairman and the CVAG Executive Director to seek administrative or legislative changes in the state’s cap and trade program that would make projects in the Coachella Valley more competitive, particularly as it pertains to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. Last year, there was renewed interest among Coachella Valley stakeholders to ramp-up the efforts as they pertain to program guideline changes, which led to the CVAG Executive Committee forming a cap-and-trade ad hoc committee in December 2017. The ad hoc committee met on September 7 to discuss upcoming funding opportunities and potential legislative changes. At the meeting, Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia (D-Coachella) discussed AB 1945, which is legislation he authored to make changes to the way competitive grant programs are allocated. Specifically, the bill broadens the list of co-benefits defined by the State Air Resources Board so that benefits such as improved community access to green space, increased water resilience and promotion of multi-jurisdictional partnerships are considered. It also would allow the Counties of Imperial and San Diego to better address how border crossings affect their daytime population figures. Finally, AB 1945 would require state agencies develop at least three categories for applications based on the population and density when it pertains to competitive grant programs that involve housing, urban forestry, urban greening, or planning. AB 1945 had bipartisan support when it was approved by the Legislature. The Coachella Valley’s other two legislators – Sen. Jeff Stone and Assemblyman Chad Mayes – both voted for the bill. The ad hoc committee concurred with CVAG submitting a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown’s office, asking for his signature. CVAG also distributed this information to the Technical Advisory Committee, in case member jurisdictions also wanted to voice support. As the letter notes, there are cap-and-trade funding opportunities that are currently designed in a way where the Coachella Valley is ineligible to apply. While the changes mandated by AB 1945 begin to address problematic requirements regarding housing densities and transit requirements, additional guideline changes and legislation are needed for the Coachella Valley and other parts of eastern Riverside County, such as Blythe and the Palo Verde Valley, to compete for funding. Riverside County’s Executive Office has expressed an interest in working with CVAG to analyze the guidelines through its existing legislative platform, which includes fighting for fairness in cap-and-trade distribution. County and CVAG staff believe that a specialized consultant may be necessary to assist in the effort. If the effort is focused primarily on the needs of the eastern Coachella Valley and CVAG, it is proposed that the consultant be hired by CVAG. If it is best that


this be a County-led effort, the consultant may be retained by the County and CVAG could potentially contribute to the cost. The County and CVAG are still evaluating the options. Given the timing of the CVAG committee meetings, and the state’s legislative calendar, providing the Executive Director with additional signing authority will allow CVAG to directly hire a consultant if necessary. Any decisions would be made in consultation with the CVAG Executive Committee Chairman, who also is a member of the cap and trade ad hoc committee, and an update will be presented to the CVAG committees at the next meetings. The discussion regarding hiring a consultant occurred after the last TAC meeting, so this aspect of the report was not included in the TAC update. Attachments: AB 1945 fact sheet

CVAG letter for AB 1945

Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia, 56th Assembly District

BACKGROUND

The Cap and Trade program, reauthorized by AB 398 (Chapter 135, Statutes of 2017), creates a quarterly auction for compliance credits. The profits from those auctions go into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). The California Air Resources Board (ARB) oversees the Cap and Trade auctions and also manages GGRF expenditures on behalf of the Department of Finance. AB 1532 (Chapter 807, Statues 2012) directed administering agencies to maximize co-benefits of the GGRF investments. CARB is responsible for providing guidance to administering agencies on quantifying emissions impacts and co-benefits for their GGRF grant programs. ARB contracted with researchers at University of California, Berkeley to identify supporting information for co-benefits, and is the process of working with administering agencies to incorporate those co-benefits into grant application scoring and evaluation metrics.

ISSUE

Several important potential co-benefits are not currently identified in ARB’s list for administering agencies. That means that projects that would ensure additional community benefits – including projects that serve communities identified by ARB as suffering from cumulative pollution burden pursuant to AB 617 (Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017) – are not necessarily prioritized over projects that do not result in those benefits. Imperial County and San Diego County see approximately 200,000 people cross the US-Mexico Border every day. However, those jurisdictions are unable to count that daytime population in their applications for funding, meaning significant emissions reduction opportunities are not feasible because the funding for those projects cannot be justified with the resident population numbers. Finally, while ARB is charged with coordinating the GGRF programs on behalf of the Department of Finance, they are not currently tracking and reporting applications received for funding. This data could help decision-makers understand where there is unmet funding need, or barriers to accessing funding that need to be addressed.

BILL SUMMARY

This bill will be effective July 1, 2019. The bill amends Health and Safety Code Section 39712 to expand the list of co-benefits defined by ARB to include:

Improved community access to green space Increased water resilience Decreased transportation, energy, or fuel costs Accelerated development of low-carbon

technology Reduced vehicle miles traveled Increased access to services or amenities Promotion of multi-jurisdictional partnerships Promotion of climate adaptation

The bill also amends Government Code Section 16428.87 to direct administering agencies to ensure communities identified under Health and Safety Code Section 44391.2 for “community emission reduction programs” are given preferential points during competitive application scoring for projects that will improve air quality. This bill further amends Government Code Section 16428.87 to direct administering agencies to ensure that applicants from Imperial County and San Diego County are able to count daytime population in their competitive grant applications, to require agencies offering competitive application processes to have at least a three month gap between the first call for applications and the due date for proposals, and to direct administering agencies for certain programs to consider new scoring criteria for competative applications based on the size and density of the jurisdiction where the project will occur. Finally, this bill amends Health and Safety Code Section 39720 to require the Department of Finance, in its annual report to the Legislature, to include information on application received for each grant program, including location of the project, amount of funding requested, lead applicant, and whether the project was awarded funding in full or in part. SUPPORT

Bear Yuba Land Trust

California Park & Recreation Society

City of Coachella

City of El Centro

Comite Civico Del Valle

AB 1945 – Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Updated: 8/30/2018 Co-authored by Senator Ben Hueso and Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher

County of Imperial

East Bay Regional Park District

Eastern Sierra Land Trust

Engineering Contractors’ Association

Heber Public Utility District

Imperial County Air Pollution Control District

Imperial County Transportation Commission

Friends of the Inyo

Mammoth Lakes Recreation

Mammoth Lakes Trails and Public Access Foundation

Outdoor Afro

Placer Land Trust

Rails to Trails Conservancy

Sierra Business Council

Sierra Foothill Conservancy

Sierra Nevada Alliance

Sonoma County Regional Parks

Southern California Association of Governments

State Park Partners Coalition

Tahoe City Public Utility District

The Trust for Public Land

Truckee Donner Land Trust

Watershed Conservation Authority FOR MORE INFORMATION Katie Valenzuela Garcia Principal Consultant State Capitol, Room 4140 [email protected] (916) 319-2056

ITEM 7B

Staff Report Subject: HARC, Inc. CV Housing First Evaluation First Year Report Contact: Cheryll Dahlin, Management Analyst ([email protected]) Recommendation: Information Background: As CVAG transitioned from the emergency shelter model to implementing a Housing First model, the Homelessness Committee expressed the need for evaluation of homeless programs to ensure results and funding was being well spent to end homeless situations. CVAG staff sought multiple proposals for a third-party evaluator. Out of the three interested evaluators, HARC, Inc. was chosen because of their local experience and the value of services they could provide. HARC has completed a comprehensive analysis of the first year of the CV Housing First program, which is run by Path of Life Ministries (POLM). The analysis concludes that “the program has been quite successful at addressing the issue of homelessness in the Coachella Valley.” According to the HARC review, POLM served 401 clients in the Coachella Valley and Blythe between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018. Of those, 185 were served by CVAG funding. Most clients were grappling with long-term issues, as 70 percent had been homeless for more than 12 months in the past three years. The report goes on to state “Of the 242 people who have exited the program in the first year, 81% exited to a permanent destination, such as permanent housing or rentals. Most (89%) successfully completed the program. Monthly income of those who exited more than doubled from only $629 upon program entrance to $1,496 upon exit.” This is the second report HARC has provided. The interim results that were presented in April 2018 were consistent with the findings of this latest report. The April study showed “82.6% exited to a permanent destination, and all because they completed the program as intended.”. The HARC analysis included services directly funded through CVAG as well as programs that are leveraged. This evaluation utilizes data that is already collected by POLM (via the Homeless Management Information System, HMIS), as well as a customized study demonstrating how POLM is working to address homelessness in the region, where gaps may exist, and what cost savings local government receives because of these programs. HARC’s initial Scope of Work included an evaluation of the valley’s entire network of homeless services. The proposal was changed by the CVAG Homelessness Committee due to the


challenges with an open evaluation of all programs to study the differences in models and potentially find gaps. Therefore, there is only a comparison with Roy’s Desert Resource Center (Roy’s), since other providers were unwilling to provide the information. HARC’s scope of work also included the design and implementation of an evaluation of POLM’s work on CV Housing First. CVAG would like to thank Path of Life and Jewish Family Services of San Diego, the operator of Roy’s, for their willingness to participate and share their data. Fiscal Analysis: This study was completed as part of a $11,400 contract with HARC, which was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee meeting on December 4, 2017.

Attachments:

1. CV Housing First Evaluation: First Year Report

CV Housing First Program Evaluation

Examining the Clients Served in the First Year:

July 2017 to June 2018

Report By:

Chris Morin, MS Jenna LeComte-Hinely, PhD

September 2018

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 8

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 9

Section 1: CV Housing First Client Characteristics ....................................................... 10

Demographics ............................................................................................................. 10

Homelessness Situation Details ................................................................................. 12

Outputs from Exit Survey Data .................................................................................. 15

Section 2: Spotlight on CVAG-Funded Clients ............................................................... 17

Demographics .............................................................................................................. 17


Outputs from Exit Survey Data .................................................................................. 24

Section 3: Successful Placement .................................................................................... 27

Successful Placement – Street Outreach.................................................................... 28

Successful Placement – All Other Programs.............................................................. 29

Section 4: Comparisons to Roy’s Desert Resource Center ............................................ 31

Demographics ............................................................................................................. 32


Outputs from Exit Survey ........................................................................................... 37

Successful Placement ................................................................................................. 40

Section 5: Custom Survey – Focus on Homelessness Prevention ................................ 41

Program Information ................................................................................................. 41

Homelessness Details ................................................................................................. 42

Medical Usage ............................................................................................................. 43

Law Enforcement Encounters .................................................................................... 46

Satisfaction with POLM .............................................................................................. 47

Usefulness of Resources ............................................................................................. 53

Changes to Quality-of-Life Indicators ........................................................................ 53

Employment Pipeline Program .................................................................................. 54

Behavioral Health Program ........................................................................................ 54

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 55

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction In June 2017, Roy’s Desert Resource Center, an emergency homeless shelter in North Palm Springs, was officially closed. Run by Jewish Family Service of San Diego, Roy’s had served as a western Coachella Valley resource for homeless individuals for many years. To fill the void left by Roy’s, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Homelessness Committee issued a Request for Interest (RFI) to identify a contractor who could provide homelessness services in the West Valley, later expanded to the entire Coachella Valley and Blythe. Path of Life Ministries (POLM) responded to that RFI, and in June 2017, was selected as the chosen contractor. POLM operated on a “Housing First” approach rather than an emergency shelter approach, which prioritizes placing people in permanent housing before addressing other life issues such as joblessness or behavioral health. The program, with its expanded target area, is known as Coachella Valley Housing First (CV Housing First). The Homelessness Committee/CVAG recognized the need to evaluate this new program and approach. After considering multiple scope of work and cost proposals, HARC, Inc. (Health Assessment and Research for Communities) was hired as the evaluator in December of 2017. HARC is a nonprofit research and evaluation firm located in the Coachella Valley. HARC staff met with staff from POLM and CVAG and designed an evaluation that relied heavily on data that is already collected through the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and supplemented this with a customized survey created by HARC and POLM. This report summarizes the results of the evaluation of the first year of CV Housing First, from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.

Results The results are presented in five sections:

1. CV Housing First Overall 2. CV Housing First - Spotlight on CVAG Funding 3. Successful Placement of Clients 4. Comparisons to Roy’s Desert Resource Center 5. Custom Survey - Spotlight on Homelessness Prevention

2

Section 1: CV Housing First Client Characteristics A total of 401 clients have been served in the Coachella Valley, under CVAG and other leveraged funding for the dates of July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. Demographics The average age of clients is 38, with the oldest being 94 and the youngest being less than a year old. About half are female and about half are Hispanic/Latino. About 18% have experienced domestic violence. Close to a third (31%) have a disability; 4% are veterans. Homelessness Situation Details About 48% of CV Housing First clients originated in the East Valley, outside of Desert Healthcare District (DHCD) boundaries; 51% originated within DHCD boundaries/in the West Valley. Most CV Housing First clients (70%) have been homeless for more than 12 months out of the last three years, indicating long-term homelessness. Most clients (66%) came to CV Housing First from a homeless situation, while another third (32%) were coming from transitional and permanent housing. Relatively few (2%) came from institutional housing. Many of these clients (44%) had been living in that situation for more than a year, once again indicating long-term homelessness. Outputs from Exit Survey Data POLM operated six types of programs under CV Housing First: 1) Emergency Shelter, 2) Homelessness Prevention, 3) Hotel/Motel Vouchers, 4) Rapid Rehousing, 5) Permanent Supportive Housing, and 6) Street Outreach. On average, clients spent 159 days in the program.

In the year that POLM has been operating CV Housing First, 242 people have exited the program and have exit survey data. Ideally, all would exit the program to a permanent destination. Results show that most clients (81%) did exit to a permanent destination. Only 11% exited to a temporary destination, and 8% exited to “other” (e.g., no exit interview completed). Nearly all (89%) clients who exited did so because they completed the program. Exit surveys demonstrated that average monthly income more than doubled while clients were in the CV Housing First program, going from $629 upon entrance to $1,496 upon exit. Section 2: Spotlight on CVAG-Funded Clients The results listed in the previous section capture all POLM activity through CV Housing First, which utilizes funds from CVAG as well as from other funders (known as “leveraged funds”). This section now separates the results by the two funding sources, to allow for examination of what CVAG dollars have done in the first year of CV Housing First.

CVAG funds supported four types of programs: emergency shelter, hotel/motel voucher, rapid rehousing, and homelessness prevention. Most CVAG-funded clients (77%) were in the homelessness prevention program. In contrast, leveraged funds were used to support emergency shelter, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and street outreach. Leveraged funds did not support any homelessness prevention activity; as a result, comparing the two funding sources is somewhat akin to comparing different programs.

3

Demographics A total of 185 clients were served through CVAG funds, while 216 clients have been served through other leveraged programs. CVAG-funded clients’ average age was 35 with the oldest being 94 and the youngest being less than a year old. Leveraged-funded clients’ average ages were 41, with the oldest being 78 and the youngest being two years old. About half are female under both CVAG and leveraged funds. The same holds true for ethnicity, although slightly more Hispanic/Latino clients (56%) are being served with CVAG funds than with leveraged funds (50%). Most of those being served under CVAG funds (95%) have not experienced domestic violence. About 19% have a disability, and 3% are veterans.

Homelessness Situation Details A total of 64% of CVAG-funded clients originated within DHCD boundaries, compared to 40% of leverage-funded clients. Under CVAG funds, about 46% of clients have been homeless for more than 12 months in the last three years. More than half (67%) of the CVAG-funded clients came from a transitional and permanent housing situation, which is notably different than the clients in other leveraged programs (only 8% of whom were in transitional/permanent housing prior to coming to CV Housing First). Approximately 33% of CVAG-funded clients came from a homeless situation, as did 89% of leveraged-funded clients. Outputs from Exit Survey Data In the year that POLM has been operating CV Housing First, 242 people have completed the program and have exit survey data: 156 who are CVAG-funded and 86 who are supported by leveraged funds. CVAG-funded clients spent an average of 77.1 days in the program, compared to 229.2 days for leverage-funded clients. The most commonly used program under CVAG-funded programs was the homelessness prevention program in which clients spent an average of 70.7 days. The lengthier stay in leveraged programs is likely because two of these programs (rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing) are meant as long-term solutions, and thus, clients spent more than 300 days on average in each of those programs. Nearly all CVAG-funded clients (94%) exited to a permanent destination, although it is worth noting that those in the homelessness prevention program often started off in a permanent destination (and were able to stay there because of the work POLM did). A total of 56% of leverage-funded clients exited to a permanent destination. Most of these were emergency shelter clients, as the rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing programs are long-term solutions, and thus, have very few people who’ve exited from them in this first year. Those being served under CVAG funds are entering with higher incomes, on average, compared to those being served in other leveraged programs. Clients being served under CVAG funds have doubled their monthly income from entry ($901) to exit ($1,961).

4

Section 3: Successful Placement One measure of success of homelessness programs, as defined by HUD, is successful placement. This is defined as any exit that progresses a person through the continuum to more permanent, independent housing.

All of CV Housing First’s street outreach (n = 34, 100%) were successfully placed. This compares very favorably to Riverside County as a whole, where only 31% were successfully placed. Part of the reason for this high success rate is the unique method of street outreach that POLM used. POLM works through Riverside County’s Coordinated Entry System (CES) which takes into account each person’s vulnerability. Using this system, POLM reached out to those most in need when housing was available.

Excluding street outreach, the other CV Housing First programs had an overall successful placement rate of 79%. This includes three types of programs: emergency shelter/motel vouchers, permanent supportive housing, and homelessness prevention. Most of these were homelessness prevention clients.

The successful placement rate for emergency shelter clients is about 36%. In comparison, Riverside County successful placement rates for emergency shelter, transitional housing, supportive housing, and permanent housing combined is 40%. Section 4: Comparisons to Roy’s Desert Resource Center HARC was able to obtain HMIS data from Jewish Family Service of San Diego, who operated Roy’s Desert Resource Center (“Roy’s”) prior to its closure in June of 2017. While the emergency shelter model is quite different than the Housing First model, comparing the outcomes can help to understand how CV Housing First has filled the gap left by Roy’s. HARC was not able to obtain data from any other shelters to assess other Coachella Valley homelessness efforts. A total of 4,255 clients were included in Roy’s dataset, and the service dates ranged from October 2014 to June 2017.

Demographics The average age of clients served at Roy’s was 45. The youngest was two years old while the oldest was 103. About two-thirds (65%) were male and three-quarters (75%) were white. The majority of clients (89%) entered Roy’s while living in poverty. About 21% of Roy’s clients have experienced domestic violence and more than two-thirds (66%) had a disability. Approximately 8% were veterans.

Homelessness Situation Details The majority of Roy’s clients came from a homeless situation (64%), which is considerably different from the percentage of CVAG clients coming from a homeless situation (33%), but similar to the range for leverage-funded clients (66%).

Outputs from Exit Survey Data Roy’s clients spent an average of 15.9 days in their program, while CVAG-funded clients spent an average of 77.1 days across the CV Housing First programs. The average monthly income for Roy’s clients did not improve from entrance ($418) to exit ($418), likely due to the short duration of their stay.

The majority (75%) exited to an “other” destination. This is because most clients did not know where they were exiting to. Only 2% of Roy’s clients exited to a permanent destination, constituting a “successful placement”.

5

Section 5: Custom Survey – Spotlight on Homelessness Prevention HARC and POLM worked together to create a custom survey, designed to be administered to clients of CV Housing First upon their exit from the program. The survey encompassed many different areas, including medical usage, law enforcement encounters, satisfaction levels, usefulness of resources, and changes in quality-of-life outcomes such as health insurance, employment, hunger, etc. The surveys were designed for their POLM navigator to assist them in completing the survey, to ensure comprehension. Data collection on the custom surveys ranged from the months of May to July 2018 and included a total of 26 clients. Of these, 23 were homelessness prevention clients, and thus, the other three were excluded so that the focus would be on the impact on homelessness prevention clients. Medical Usage Prior to coming to CV Housing First/POLM, there were four emergency room (ER) visits and four ambulance rides. During the program, this dropped to a single ER visit, and no ambulance rides. Before coming to CV Housing First/POLM, the ER/hospital was the usual source of care for 22% of clients, a rate more than double that of Coachella Valley adults as a whole. By the end of their time at POLM, this dropped to about 7%. The percent of clients who had a doctor’s office as their primary source of care went from 22% to 36%, indicating an increase in clients who are getting continuity of care at affordable prices. If we extrapolate from the 23 homelessness prevention clients who completed the custom survey to the other 119 homelessness prevention clients served in the first year of CV Housing First, this means as many as 32 of them likely used the ER/hospital as their usual source of care before going to POLM, which then dropped to about 10 people after going through the program. The other 22 people now receive their care elsewhere, most likely at a doctor’s office or clinic. The average ER visit costs between $900 and $2,700, depending on severity. Assuming each individual who describes their usual source of care as the ER/hospital visits at least one time per year, that’s a potential cost savings of between $19,800 and $59,400 for those 22 diverted visits in one year. Law Enforcement None of the participating homelessness prevention clients reported being arrested or having contact with police in the last two years. However, it is important to mention that while the current sample didn’t encounter law enforcement, local authorities still have to deal with homelessness in the Valley frequently. HARC was in contact with the Palm Springs Police Department, and they provided us with data on the current year. They spend an average of 2,626 hours on homelessness calls each year, which is more than a full-time job. Satisfaction For POLM/CV Housing First overall, the results are entirely positive, in that nearly all strongly agreed they are satisfied with services (96%), are being helped to achieve their goals (91%), and that POLM has met their needs (91%).

6

POLM clients strongly agreed that they were satisfied with services from the navigator (91%) and felt listened to and heard (91%). Seeing strengths and capabilities (73%) was slightly lower when compared to the other statements, but still reflects a high amount of satisfaction. Quality-of-Life Outcomes Results indicate that during their time in the CV Housing First/POLM program, their quality of life improved overall. For example, four people used to go hungry very often who now no longer have to do so. Four people who were unemployed now have a paying job. Two people who needed medical care and couldn’t get it are now able to get it, and two who needed mental health care and couldn’t get it have now received care. Employment Pipeline Program Three participants responded to questions regarding satisfaction with the employment pipeline program, where clients receive skills assessments, job readiness training, job referrals, job placement assistance, and self-employment support in order to successfully transition into employment and sustainable income. Of these three, all were satisfied with their employment support navigator, three know where to look for employment, and three have interviewing and resume skills. However, confidence in being employed soon had mixed opinions. Behavioral Health Program Two clients responded to statements pertaining to the behavioral health program, which provides counseling, therapy, and an array of life skills support. Clients expressed high levels of satisfaction with their behavioral health navigator and the services received, and the hours of availability.

Conclusion Altogether, it can be said that the CV Housing First program has been effective at combatting homelessness in the Coachella Valley. HARC recommends that future evaluations continue the custom survey with clients in many programs, and that there should be an attempt to measure long-term outcomes to track whether recidivism is an issue.

7

Coachella Valley Housing First

Program Evaluation

__________________________________________

Full Report

8

INTRODUCTION In June 2017, Roy’s Desert Resource Center, an emergency homeless shelter in North Palm Springs, was officially closed. Run by Jewish Family Service of San Diego, Roy’s had served as a western Coachella Valley resource for homeless individuals for many years. The building will be transitioned to a long-term behavioral health care center administered by Riverside University Health System-Behavioral Health. To fill the void left by Roy’s, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Homelessness Committee issued a Request for Interest (RFI) to identify a contractor who could provide homelessness services in the West Valley. Path of Life Ministries (POLM) responded to that RFI, and in June 2017, was selected as the chosen contractor. The program was officially known as the West Valley Housing Navigation Program (WVHNP) and operated on a “Housing First” approach, which prioritizes providing permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness. The assumption in this approach is that individuals need a stable home environment before they can tackle other issues in their lives, such as finding a job or treating behavioral health issues.1 Housing First is a different approach to the emergency shelter or transitional housing progressions used elsewhere. The WVHNP was designed to provide services related to prevention, diversion, and rapid rehousing based in the principles of Housing First. In September 2017, the WVHNP was expanded, so that POLM’s program could include services throughout the entire Coachella Valley through June 30, 2019. To better reflect the expansion of services and the intent of the program, the name of the program was changed from WVHNP to Coachella Valley Housing First (CV Housing First). This program includes prevention and diversion services (e.g., rapid rehousing, case management, behavioral health support, employment support), along with crisis stabilization housing. The Homelessness Committee and CVAG recognized the need for evaluation of the new CV Housing First program. In September 2017, the Homelessness Committee agreed to seek out a third-party evaluator to document the impact of POLM’s work through the CV Housing First program. HARC, Inc. (Health Assessment and Research for Communities) submitted a proposed scope of work for consideration. In November 2017, the Homelessness Committee voted to approve the scope of work and cost proposal. The contract was signed in December 2017, and HARC became the official evaluator. HARC staff met with staff from POLM and CVAG and learned that a great deal of valuable data is already collected and tracked through the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HARC determined the best way to measure POLM’s impact would be to assess change in outcomes through these existing methods as well as a customized survey created by HARC in collaboration with POLM.

1 National Alliance to End Homelessness. (April 20, 2016). Fact Sheet: Housing First. Available online at http://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/housing-first-fact-sheet.pdf

http://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/housing-first-fact-sheet.pdf

9

RESULTS This report contains several results sections with different data sources and are described here for reference. The HMIS data for clients served by POLM through CV Housing First includes the service data range of July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018.

• Section 1: CV Housing First Client Characteristics o First, HMIS data is presented and consists of all clients being served by

POLM regardless of funding source. This portion contains overall demographics of those being served through CV Housing First, as well as some brief overall outputs.

• Section 2: Spotlight on CVAG-Funded Clients o Following this, HMIS data for POLM is split by two categories: activities

funded by CVAG and those conducted by POLM but funded by other sources, known as “leveraged funding”. This allows the reader to focus on what CVAG’s funds have specifically accomplished. Demographics of those being served, separated by funding source is presented here, along with brief outputs.

• Section 3: Successful Placement o HMIS data is used to determine what percentage of exiting clients were

placed successfully, according to HUD system performance measures. Rates of successful placement are compared to similar efforts in the County as a whole using HMIS published by HUD in March of 2018.

• Section 4: Comparison to Roy’s Desert Resource Center o Since the CV Housing First initiative was intended to fill the gap left by

Roy’s in the landscape of services, this analysis compares CVAG-funded work by CV Housing First to HMIS data from Roy’s using all available data for Roy’s (spans October 2014 to June 2017).

• Section 5: Custom Survey – Spotlight on Homelessness Prevention o Finally, a custom survey developed between POLM and HARC is

presented. The survey was designed to assess medical usage, law enforcement encounters, satisfaction with POLM, usefulness of resources, and various employment/health outcomes of those being served. Because most of the participants who took the survey were clients in the homelessness prevention program, this section focuses on outcomes for that specific program.

10

Section 1: CV Housing First Client Characteristics A total of 401 clients have been served in the Coachella Valley and Blythe during the first year of CV Housing First. Demographics The average age of clients is 38, with the oldest being 94 and the youngest being less than a year old. About half are female and about half are Hispanic/Latino. The majority report being White. In terms of poverty, about 84.7% were living in poverty at entrance. Detailed demographics of those served are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. CV Housing First Client Demographics

Variable Frequency (n)

Percentage (%)

Age 0-17 98 26.6% 18-29 34 9.2% 30-39 44 12.0% 40-49 65 17.7% 50-59 66 17.9% 60-69 44 12.0% 70 and older 17 4.6% Total 368 100%

Gender Female 198 49.4% Male 202 50.4% Trans female (male to female) 1 0.2% Total 401 100%

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino 211 52.6% Not Hispanic/Latino 190 47.4% Total 401 100%

Race American Indian or Alaska Native 8 2.0% Asian 1 0.2% African American 60 15.0% Native Hawaiian or other pacific islander 1 0.2% White 331 82.5% Total 401 100%

Poverty Living in poverty at entrance 238 84.7% Not in poverty at entrance 43 15.3% Total 281 100%

11

Other information pertaining to previous experiences is collected through HMIS. For example, a disabling condition refers to any type of disability (physical, mental, emotional, impairment caused by alcohol/drugs, developmental, HIV/AIDS, and veterans who are disabled). Domestic violence data are also collected and includes any domestic, dating, or sexual violence, stalking or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions against the individual or family members. As illustrated in Table 2, about 17.9% have experienced domestic violence and close to a third (31.4%) have a disability. Only 4.4% are veterans. Table 2. Other Demographic Characteristics Variable Frequency

(n) Percentage

(%) Domestic Violence

Has experienced domestic violence 54 17.9% Has not experienced domestic violence 247 82.1% Total 301 100%

Disability Has a disability 126 31.4% Does not have a disability 275 68.6% Total 401 100%

Veteran Status Veteran 13 4.4% Not a veteran 282 95.6% Total 295 100%

12

Homelessness Situation Details Zip codes in Table 3 represent the area in which POLM engaged the client and initiated service delivery. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not require that zip codes be tracked. Fortunately, the Riverside Continuum of Care added the zip code tracking feature, at the request of POLM. About 48.4% of clients being served by CV Housing First originated in the East Valley (using Desert Healthcare District boundaries as a guide), while 51.2% originated within DHCD boundaries/in the West Valley, as illustrated in Table 3. Table 3. Location of Service Initiation Zip Code City Boundary n % 92225 Blythe Outside DHCD 7 1.7% 92234 Cathedral City DHCD 12 3.0% 92235 Cathedral City DHCD 10 2.5% 92236 Coachella Outside DHCD 34 8.5% 92240 Desert Hot Springs DHCD 57 14.2% 92241 Desert Hot Springs DHCD 1 0.2% 92210 Indian Wells Outside DHCD 1 0.2% 92201 Indio Outside DHCD 109 27.2% 92202 Indio Outside DHCD 2 0.5% 92203 Indio Outside DHCD 9 2.2% 92253 La Quinta Outside DHCD 19 4.7% 92254 Mecca Outside DHCD 1 0.2% 92258 North Palm Springs Outside DHCD 3 0.7% 92211 Palm Desert DHCD 39 9.7% 92260 Palm Desert DHCD 7 1.7% 92262 Palm Springs DHCD 40 10.0% 92263 Palm Springs DHCD 11 2.7% 92264 Palm Springs DHCD 26 6.5% 92270 Rancho Mirage DHCD 2 0.5% 92274 Thermal Outside DHCD 10 2.5% 92276 Thousand Palms DHCD 1 0.2%

Total 401 100.0%

13

As illustrated in Table 4, homelessness is a long-term issue for many people. Most clients who went through CV Housing First (69.5%) had been homeless more than a year in the past three years. Table 4. Total Times and Months Homeless n % Times Homeless in Last Three Years

One time 139 65.3% Two times 31 14.6% Three times 15 7.0% Four or more 28 13.1% Total 213 100%

Total Months Homeless in Last Three Years One month 18 8.5% Two to three months 13 6.1% Four to six months 19 9.0% Seven to twelve months 15 7.0% More than twelve months 148 69.5% Total 213 100%

Figure 1 refers to the first date that clients being served experienced homelessness. This includes the date in which the client was first on the streets, in an emergency shelter, or in a safe haven. More than half (57.1%) first became homeless within the last two years. Note that that sample for the below figure is n = 215 as there were missing data on homeless start dates. Figure 1. Homeless Start Date

Note: n = 215.

18.1%

28.8%

10.2%

15.8%

11.6%

15.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 and earlier

14

Prior to coming to POLM/CV Housing First, most clients were living in a homeless situation (65.8%), as illustrated in Table 5. Another third (32.2%) were coming from transitional and permanent housing. About 43.9% were living in their prior living situation for a year or longer, as illustrated in Figure 2. Table 5. Living Situation at Entrance n % Homeless Situation

Place not meant for habitation 99 33.4% Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter voucher

95 32.1%

Safe Haven 1 0.3% Subtotal 195 65.8%

Institutional Housing Hospital or other residential non-psychiatric medical facility

3 1.0%

Psychiatric hospital or other psychiatric facility 2 0.7% Substance abuse treatment facility 1 0.3% Subtotal 6 2.0%

Transitional and Permanent Housing Situation Hotel or motel paid for without emergency voucher 5 1.7% Rental by client, no ongoing housing subsidy 79 26.7% Staying or living in a family member’s room, apartment or house

4 1.4%

Staying or living in a friend’s room, apartment, or house

5 1.7%

Owned by client, no ongoing housing subsidy 2 0.7% Subtotal 95 32.2%

Note: n = 296.

Figure 2. Length of Stay in Prior Living Situation

Note: n = 215.

4.8%7.8% 9.2%

14.3%

20.1%

43.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

One night or less Two to six nights One week ormore, but lessthan a month

One month ormore, but lessthan 90 days

90 days or more,but less than one

year

One year or longer

15

Outputs from Exit Survey Data On average, the 401 clients of CV Housing First spent 159.1 days across the programs. As illustrated in Table 6, this equates to a total of 63,794 days of services provided to individuals. The minimum stay was two days (in the emergency shelter), while the maximum was 1,106 days (in permanent supportive housing). Table 6. Days Spent in Program Type of Program Average Sum Min/Max n

Emergency Shelter Project 72.3 5,569 2/180 77 Homelessness Prevention Project 70.7 10,041 49/271 142 Hotel/Motel Voucher 139.6 977 34/313 7 Rapid Rehousing 322.9 18,082 25/637 56 Permanent Supportive Housing 29.0 19,528 105/1,106 29 Street Outreach 106.6 9,597 7/313 90

Total 159.1 63,794 2/1,106 401 In the year that POLM has been operating CV Housing First, 242 people have exited the program and have exit survey data. Ideally, all would exit the program to a permanent destination. Results show that most clients (80.9%) did exit to a permanent destination. Only 10.5% exited to a temporary destination, and 8.4% exited to “other” (e.g., no exit interview completed), as illustrated in Table 7. Table 7. Exit Destination Type n % Permanent Destination

Permanent housing (other than RRH) for formerly homeless persons

15 6.3%

Rental by client with RRH or equivalent subsidy 28 11.8% Rental by client, no ongoing housing subsidy 135 57.0% Rental by client, ongoing housing subsidy 1 0.4% Staying or living with family, permanent tenure 10 4.2% Owned by client, no ongoing housing subsidy 2 0.8% Owned by client, with ongoing housing subsidy 1 0.4% Subtotal 192 80.9%

Temporary Destination Jail, prison, juvenile detention facility 1 0.4% Hotel or motel paid for without emergency shelter voucher 1 0.4% Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with shelter voucher

19 8.0%

Hospital or other residential non-psychiatric medical facility 1 0.4% Place not meant for habitation 3 1.3% Subtotal 25 10.5%

Other Deceased 1 0.4% No exit interview completed 19 8.0% Subtotal 20 8.4%

Total 237 100.0%

16

Nearly all (88.8%) clients who exited did so because they completed the program, as illustrated in Table 8. Table 8. Program Exit Reason Reason n % Completed program 198 88.8% Criminal action (went to jail) 1 0.4% Death 1 0.4% Left for housing before they completed program 3 1.3% Maximum time allowed in program 8 3.6% Needs could not be met by program 9 4.0% Unknown/disappeared 3 1.3%

Total 223 100.0% Clients were asked to report their average monthly income (for an individual) upon both intake and exit. As illustrated in Figure 3, clients’ average income more than doubled over the course of their time in the CV Housing First program, growing from less than $630 to nearly $1,500 per month. Figure 3. Monthly Income

Note: Entrance n = 281; exit n = 141.

$629

$1,496

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

Entrance income Exit income

17

Section 2: Spotlight on CVAG-Funded Clients As mentioned previously, CVAG is interested in all CV Housing First activities being conducted by POLM within the CVAG boundaries, which include those activities funded by CVAG, and those funded through other sources (referenced throughout as “leveraged programs”). For this reason, POLM programs within the Valley are parsed from each other by funder in this section of the report. A total of 185 clients were served through CVAG funds, while 216 were served through other leveraged programs. Specific program types are presented in Table 9. Most clients served by CVAG funds were through the homelessness prevention program, while the most common program supported by leveraged funds was street outreach; no homelessness prevention activities were funded by leveraged funds. Thus, comparing CVAG-funded programs and other leveraged programs is not necessarily comparing apples-to-apples, as the different funds supported different programs.

Table 9. Program Type Funder Program n % CVAG Homelessness Prevention Program 142 35.4%

Hotel/Motel Voucher 7 1.7% Emergency Shelter 29 7.2% Rapid Rehousing 7 1.7% CVAG Subtotal 185 46%

Leveraged Cold Weather Emergency Shelter 21 5.2% Family Emergency Shelter 12 3.0% Year-Round Emergency Shelter 15 3.7% Rapid Rehousing 19 4.7% Rapid Rehousing East County 30 7.5% ESG Street Outreach 13 3.2% State Funded Street Outreach 77 19.2% Permanent Supportive Housing 29 7.2% Leveraged Programs Subtotal 216 54%

Overall Total 401 100% Note: n = 401.

Demographics CVAG-funded clients’ average age was 35 with the oldest being 94 and the youngest being less than a year old. Leverage-funded clients’ average age was 41, with the oldest being 78 and the youngest being two years old. About half of the clients are female under both CVAG and leveraged funds. The same holds true for ethnicity, although slightly more Hispanic/Latino clients (56.2%) are being served with CVAG funds than with leveraged funds (49.5%).

18

In terms of poverty, about 74.4% of those being served under CVAG funds are living in poverty, whereas 92.5% of those being served under leveraged programs are living in poverty. Detailed demographics for both funding categories are presented in Table 10. Table 10. Client Demographics

CVAG Funds Leveraged Programs Variable n % n % Age

0-17 61 34.9% 37 19.2% 18-29 18 10.3% 16 8.3% 30-39 19 10.9% 25 13.0% 40-49 21 12.0% 44 22.8% 50-59 20 11.4% 46 23.8% 60-69 22 12.6% 22 11.4% 70 and older 14 8.0% 3 1.6% Total 175 100.0% 193 100.0%

Gender Female 95 51.4% 103 47.7% Male 90 48.6% 112 51.9% Trans female (male to female)

- - 1 0.5%

Total 185 100.0% 216 100.0% Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latino 104 56.2% 107 49.5% Not Hispanic/Latino 81 43.8% 109 50.5% Total 185 100.0% 216 100.0%

Race American Indian or Alaska Native

3 1.6% 5 2.3%

Asian - - 1 0.5% African American 38 20.5% 22 10.2% Native Hawaiian or other pacific islander

1 0.5% - -

White 143 77.3% 188 87.0% Total 185 100.0% 188 100.0%

Poverty Living in poverty at entrance 90 74.4% 148 92.5% Not in poverty at entrance 31 25.6% 12 7.5% Total 121 100.0% 160 100.0%

19

Other information pertaining to previous experiences is collected through HMIS. For example, a disabling condition refers to any type of disability (physical, mental, emotional, impairment caused by alcohol/drugs, developmental, HIV/AIDS, and veterans who are disabled). Individuals with a disability condition were then asked if it was an indefinite condition (i.e., a condition that is expected to be long-term, indefinite). Domestic violence data are also collected and includes any domestic, dating, or sexual violence, stalking or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions against the individual or family members. About 5.0% of clients supported by CVAG funds have experienced domestic violence. This is quite different from those served by leveraged funds, where 26.5% have experienced domestic violence. About 18.9% of CVAG-funded clients have a disability, which again, is lower than those clients supported by leveraged funds (42.1% of whom have a disability). Between 3% to 4% of all clients are veterans, regardless of funding source. See Table 11 for further details. Table 11. Other Demographic Characteristics CVAG Funds Leveraged Programs Variable n % n % Domestic Violence

Has experienced domestic violence

6 5.0% 48 26.5%

Has not experienced domestic violence

114 95.0% 133 73.5%

Total 120 100.0% 181 100.0% Disability

Has a disability 35 18.9% 91 42.1% Does not have a disability

150 81.1% 125 57.9%

Total 185 100.0% 216 100.0% Veteran Status

Veteran 6 3.2% 7 4.0% Not a veteran 114 61.6% 168 96.0% Total 120 100.0% 175 100.0%

20

Homelessness Situation Details Zip codes in Table 12 represent the area in which POLM engaged the client and initiated service delivery. A total of 64.3% of CVAG-funded clients originated within the DHCD’s boundaries, whereas 35.6% originated outside of DHCD boundaries. For leveraged programs, 40.3% were within DHCD boundaries, whereas 59.8% originated outside DHCD boundaries. Table 12. Location of Service Initiation Zip City Boundary CVAG

Funds Leveraged Programs

n % n %

92225 Blythe Outside DHCD - - 7 3.2% 92234 Cathedral City DHCD 6 3.2% 6 2.8% 92235 Cathedral City DHCD - - 10 4.6% 92236 Coachella Outside DHCD 12 6.5% 22 10.2% 92240 Desert Hot

Springs DHCD 44 23.8% 13 6.0%

92241 Desert Hot Springs

DHCD 1 0.5% - -

92210 Indian Wells Outside DHCD - - 1 0.5% 92201 Indio Outside DHCD 20 10.8% 89 41.2% 92202 Indio Outside DHCD - - 2 0.9% 92203 Indio Outside DHCD 8 4.3% 1 0.5% 92253 La Quinta Outside DHCD 16 8.6% 3 1.4% 92254 Mecca Outside DHCD - - 1 0.5% 92258 North Palm

Springs Outside DHCD - - 3 1.4%

92211 Palm Desert DHCD 31 16.8% 8 3.7% 92260 Palm Desert DHCD 1 0.5% 6 2.8% 92262 Palm Springs DHCD 17 9.2% 23 10.6% 92263 Palm Springs DHCD 4 2.2% 7 3.2% 92264 Palm Springs DHCD 14 7.6% 12 5.6% 92270 Rancho Mirage DHCD 1 0.5% 1 0.5% 92274 Thermal Outside DHCD 10 5.4% - - 92276 Thousand Palms DHCD - - 1 0.5%

Total 185 100.0% 216 100.0%

21

About 46.2% of clients receiving CV Housing First services through CVAG funds have been homeless for more than a year in the past three years. This is significantly less time than those funded by leveraged funds, where 74.7% have been homeless for more than a year. Table 13. Total Times and Months Homeless CVAG Funds Leveraged Programs n % n % Times Homeless in Last Three Years

One time 31 79.5% 108 62.1% Two times 6 15.4% 25 14.4% Three times 1 2.6% 14 8.0% Four or more 1 2.6% 27 15.5 Total 39 100% 174 100%

Total Months Homeless in Last Three Years One month 5 12.8% 13 7.5% Two to three months 2 5.1% 11 6.3% Four to six months 14 35.9% 5 2.9% Seven to twelve months - - 15 8.6% More than twelve months 18 46.2% 130 74.7% Total 39 100% 174 100%

Figure 4 refers to the first date that clients being served experienced homelessness. This includes the date in which the client was first on the streets, in an emergency shelter, or in a safe haven. Most of the CVAG funded clients first became homeless in either 2018 (27.5%) or 2017 (35.0%). Figure 4. Homeless Start Date

Note: CVAG Funded n = 40; Leveraged Programs n = 175.

27.5%

35.0%

10.0%

2.5%

7.5%

17.5%16.0%

27.4%

10.3%

18.9%

12.6%14.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 and earlier

CVAG Funded Leveraged Programs

22

More than half (67.0%) of the CVAG-funded clients came to the CV Housing First program from a transitional/permanent housing situation, which is notably different than the clients in other leveraged programs (only 8.1% of whom were in transitional/permanent housing prior to coming to CV Housing First). About 33.1% of CVAG-funded clients came to the program from a homeless situation. In contrast, 88.6% of leverage-funded clients came to the program from a homeless situation, as illustrated in Table 14. This difference is reflective of the types of programs supported by the different funding sources; because CVAG supported homelessness prevention, many of these individuals were currently housed, and the services they received helped them to stay housed. In contrast, those accessing other programs (e.g., emergency shelter, rapid rehousing, etc.) were homeless. Table 14. Living Situation at Entrance CVAG Funds Leveraged

Programs n % n % Homeless Situation

Place not meant for habitation 19 15.7% 80 45.7% Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter voucher

21 17.4% 74 42.3%

Safe Haven - - 1 0.6% Subtotal 40 33.1% 155 88.6%


- - 3 1.7%

Psychiatric hospital or other psychiatric facility

- - 2 1.1%

Substance abuse treatment facility - - 1 0.6% Subtotal - - 6 3.4%

Transitional and Permanent Housing Situation Hotel or motel paid for without emergency voucher

- - 5 2.9%

Rental by client, no ongoing housing subsidy

79 65.3% - -

Staying or living in a family member’s room, apartment, or house

- - 4 2.3%


- - 5 2.9%

Owned by client, no ongoing housing subsidy

2 1.7% - -

Subtotal 81 67.0% 14 8.1%

Total 121 100.0% 175 100.0%

23

Regarding the prior living situations mentioned above, a little under half (47.5%) of those being served with CVAG funds were in their prior living situation for a year or longer. The second most common timeframe was three months to a year (28.3%), as illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5. Length of Stay in Prior Living Situation

Note: CVAG Funds n = 120; Leveraged Programs n = 174.

0.8%2.5%

7.5%

13.3%

28.3%

47.5%

7.5%11.5% 10.3%

14.9% 14.4%

41.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%




year

One year or longer

CVAG Funds Leveraged Programs

24

Outputs from Exit Survey Data In the year that POLM has been operating CV Housing First, 242 people have completed the program and have exit survey data, 156 who are CVAG-funded and 86 who are supported by leveraged funds. Table 15 includes descriptive statistics on the number of days clients spent in each program under CVAG and leveraged funding. Under all CVAG funded programs, clients spent an average of 77.1 days. This is significantly less than those that are supported by leveraged funds, where the average is 229.2 days. The reason for this difference is based in the types of programs supported by each funding source. CVAG funds primarily went to supporting homelessness prevention program, which has one of the shortest average days spent in program (70.7). In contrast, leveraged funds support permanent supportive housing, a program that is meant to be a long-term solution, as illustrated by the fact that the average client has spent more than a year in the program (673.3 days). Table 15. Days Spent in Program Type of Program Average Sum Min/Max n CVAG Funded

Homelessness Prevention Project 70.7 10,041 49/271 142 Hotel/Motel Voucher 139.7 977 34/313 7 Emergency Shelter 83.6 2,425 7/162 29 Rapid Rehousing 118.9 832 25/313 7 All CVAG Funded 77.1 14,275 7/313 185

Leveraged Programs Cold Weather Emergency Shelter 87.8 1,844 3/136 21 Family Emergency Shelter 52.9 635 49/59 12 Year-Round Emergency Shelter 44.3 665 2/180 15 Rapid Rehousing 340.2 6,464 266/419 19 Rapid Rehousing East County 359.5 10,786 25/637 30 State-Funded Street Outreach 104.8 8,070 7/313 77 Street Outreach 117.5 1,527 69/139 13 Permanent Supportive Housing 673.3 19,528 105/1106 29 All Leveraged Programs 229.2 49,519 2/1106 216

Total 159.1 63,794 2/1106 401

25

Ideally, all clients existing the CV Housing First program would exit to a permanent destination. Results show that exiting clients supported by CVAG funds nearly all exited to a permanent destination (94.2%); only 5.8% exited to a temporary destination. One reason for the high percentage of CVAG-funded clients who exit to a permanent destination is because most of them are clients in the homelessness prevention program; thus, many lived in a permanent destination before coming to POLM, and then were able to remain in their homes because of the help they received from POLM. Exiting clients who were supported by leveraged programs exited to a permanent destination at a lower rate (55.6%), as illustrated in Table 16. An additional 19.8% exited to a temporary destination, and 24.7% exited to an “other” destination. Table 16. Exit Destination Type CVAG

Funded Leveraged Programs

n % n % Permanent Destination


5 3.2% 10 12.3%

Rental by client with RRH or equivalent subsidy

6 3.8% 22 27.2%


132 84.6% 3 3.7%

Rental by client, ongoing housing subsidy

1 0.6% - -

Staying or living with family, permanent tenure

- - 10 12.3%

Owned by client, no ongoing housing subsidy

2 1.3% -

Owned by client, with ongoing housing subsidy

1 0.6% - -

Subtotal 147 94.2% 45 55.6% Temporary Destination

Jail, prison, juvenile detention facility - - 1 1.2% Hotel or motel paid for without emergency shelter voucher

- - 1 1.2%

Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with shelter voucher

8 5.1% 11 13.6%

Hospital or other residential non-psychiatric medical facility

1 0.6% - -

Place not meant for habitation - - 3 3.7% Subtotal 9 5.8% 16 19.8%

Other Deceased - - 1 1.2% No exit interview completed - - 19 23.5% Subtotal - - 20 24.7%

Total 156 100.0% 81 100.0%

26

Nearly all CVAG-funded clients (99.4%) made their exit as a result of the program. Under leveraged programs, about two-thirds of clients (64.2%) exited because they completed the program. Table 17. Program Exit Reason Reason CVAG Funded Leveraged

Programs n % n % Completed program 155 99.4% 43 64.2% Criminal action/property destruction - - 1 1.5% Death - - 1 1.5% Left for housing before they completed program

- - 3 4.5%

Maximum time allowed in program - - 8 11.9% Needs could not be met by program 1 0.6% 8 11.9% Unknown/disappeared - - 3 4.5%

Total 156 100.0% 67 100.0% Clients were asked to report their average monthly income (for an individual) upon both intake and exit. Those being served under CVAG funds are entering with higher incomes, on average, compared to those being served in other leveraged programs. This is because many clients being served under CVAG funds are in the homelessness prevention program. Regardless, clients being served under CVAG funds have doubled their monthly income from entry ($901) to exit ($1,961). Clients supported by leveraged funds have a much smaller increase of income, as illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6. Average Monthly Income at Entrance and Exit

Note: CVAG Entrance n = 121; CVAG Exit n = 95; Leveraged Programs Entrance n = 160; Leverage Programs Exit n = 46.

$901

$1,961

$423$536

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000


CVAG-Funded leveraged programs

27

Section 3: Successful Placement One measure of success in homelessness intervention services the number of exiting clients who obtain successful placement.2 What defines “successful”? Any move that progresses a person through the continuum to more permanent, independent housing can be considered “successful placement”. Below are some examples:

• Persons served in street outreach projects who exit to emergency shelter, safe haven, transitional housing, or permanent housing destinations.

• Persons served in emergency shelter, safe haven, transitional housing, or rapid re-housing projects who exit to permanent housing destinations.

• Persons served in permanent housing projects who retain permanent housing or exit to permanent housing destinations.3

Certain destinations are non-applicable for determining successful outcomes such as exiting to a foster care home, hospital or other residential medical facility, residential project, and long-term care facility or nursing home. This is because the reasons for exiting to these destinations are often numerous and complex.4 In this section, HARC uses these definitions to categorize the CV Housing First exit destination data into “successful placement” and “non-successful placement” and compare these to similar programs across Riverside County for context. The first section describes successful placement under street outreach programs. Street outreach programs are calculated separately from all other programs. This is because street outreach entails connecting homeless individuals and their families to immediate relief. Thus, moving from being homeless to an emergency shelter is a successful outcome. Then, the next section describes successful placement under all other programs. The calculations are only based on those who have exited programs, and thus, does not include the entirety of those being served by CV Housing First. For example, under CVAG funding, seven people in rapid rehousing, eight people in homelessness prevention, two in hotel/motel voucher, and twelve in emergency shelter have not exited. For leveraged funding, 28 in permanent supportive housing, 46 in rapid rehousing, five in emergency shelter, and 56 in street outreach have not yet exited their programs. Thus, they are excluded from these calculations.

2 System Performance Measures Introductory guide. https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/3894/system-performance-measures-introductory-guide/ 3 Ibid. 4 System Performance Measure 7: Destination Classification. https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4966/system-performance-measure-7-destination-classification/

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/3894/system-performance-measures-introductory-guide/

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4966/system-performance-measure-7-destination-classification/

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4966/system-performance-measure-7-destination-classification/

28

Successful Placement – Street Outreach As a part of CV Housing First, POLM did street outreach, supported by leveraged programs. All of the clients in POLM’s street outreach program (n = 34) exited to a permanent destination, and thus, were successful. This compares very favorably to the successful placement rates across the county as a whole; the successful placement rate for street outreach in Riverside County was 31.0% in 2016, as represented by the green column in Figure 7. Figure 7. Successful Placement Rates – Street Outreach

Note: POLM Street Outreach n = 34. Riverside County Street Outreach data is from HUD Exchange. (April, 2018). System Performance Measure Data Since FY 2015. https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5691/system-performance-measures-data-since-fy-2015/

Part of the reason for this high success rate is the unique method of street outreach that POLM used. POLM worked off of Riverside County’s Coordinated Entry System (CES), targeting those highest on the list, who were the most in need (based on the Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool, or VI-SPDAT) when housing was available. Thus, the individuals reached by POLM were high-need individuals who were actively looking for housing assistance, and they were contacted when there was housing available for them. In contrast, many other outreach programs work with any and all homeless individuals on the street, some of which do not want to be placed, and others of which score relatively low on the CES list, and thus, are not immediately eligible for housing. Rates of successful placement in these types of programs is understandably lower than the rate using POLM’s targeted street outreach.

100.0%

31.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

POLM Street Outreach Riverside County Street Outreach

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5691/system-performance-measures-data-since-fy-2015/


29

Successful Placement – All Other Programs For all other programs (emergency shelter, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, homelessness prevention program, etc.), successful placement is defined as exiting to a permanent destination. Those who exit to a temporary destination are deemed not successful, as are those who exit to an “other” destination. As illustrated in Table 18, clients served via CVAG’s funds had a 94.8% exit rate. This high number is partially due to the fact that the majority of clients served went through the homelessness prevention program, which means many were already housed successfully, and their work with POLM allowed them to stay that way. Successful placement rates for emergency shelter and permanent supportive housing are substantially lower, as illustrated in the table below. Overall, 78.6% of CV Housing First clients were successfully placed. Table 18. Successful Placement Calculations Funding Source

Program Successfully Placed

Not Successfully

Placed

Total % Success

CVAG Funds

Emergency shelter and hotel/motel vouchers

13 8 21 61.9%

Homelessness prevention program

134 0 134 100.0%

Subtotal - CVAG 147 8 155 94.8% Leveraged Funds

Emergency shelter 10 33 43 23.3% Permanent supportive housing

0 1 1 0.0%

Rapid rehousing 1 1 2 50.0% Subtotal – Leveraged Funds

11 35 46 23.9%

Total 158 43 201 78.6% It is worth noting that both rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing are intended to be long-term solutions (i.e., over a year before program exit), and thus, are not well-represented by this data. This means that a single year of data collection is insufficient to document the successful placement of clients in these programs. For example, in the first year of CV Housing First, POLM has had 56 clients in the rapid rehousing program, but only two have exited the program to date. It will take at least another year of evaluation before we can begin to determine the successful placement rate of this program and compare to other similar programs across the county.

30

In Riverside County as a whole, emergency shelter (ES), transitional housing (TH), supportive housing (SH), and permanent housing (PH) programs overall have a 40.0% rate of successful placement when combined, as illustrated by the green column in Figure 8.5 Figure 8. Successful Placement Rates

Note: CVAG-Funded Programs (n = 155), Leveraged Programs (permanent supportive housing, emergency shelter; rapid rehousing n = 46), CVAG and Leveraged combined (n = 201). Riverside County Average data is from HUD Exchange. (April, 2018). System Performance Measure Data Since FY 2015. https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5691/system-performance-measures-data-since-fy-2015/

Relative to this, CV Housing First’s 78.6% successful placement rate measures up very well. However, once again comparisons should be made with caution due to the apples-to-oranges nature of the data. Specifically, two-thirds of the clients captured in the CV Housing First numbers are from the homelessness prevention program, whereas the Riverside County comparison numbers do not include any homelessness prevention programs. Because of this caveat, it may be more useful to compare the numbers from the other programs listed in Table 18 above to the 40.0% County placement rate. When the homelessness prevention program numbers are removed, the bulk of the remaining clients were emergency shelter clients (n = 64). This is because the other programs—rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing—are meant to be long-term programs, where clients spend a year or more before exiting. Thus, it will be a year or more before the data will accurately capture the successful placement rate of these programs adequately. As such, the current data reflects an emergency shelter successful placement rate of 35.9%, slightly lower than the County’s 40.0% successful placement rate for emergency shelter (ES), transitional housing (TH), supportive housing (SH), and permanent housing (PH) programs combined.

5 HUD Exchange. (April, 2018). System Performance Measure Data Since FY 2015. https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5691/system-performance-measures-data-since-fy-2015/

94.8%

23.9%

78.6%

35.9%40.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

CVAG-Funded (ES &HPP)

Leverage-Funded (ES,PSH, and RRH)

CV Housing First -Funding Sources

Combined

CV Housing First - ESOnly (Funding Sources

Combined)

Riverside CountyAverage (ES, TH, SH, &

PH)




31

Section 4: Comparisons to Roy’s Desert Resource Center The Housing First model does not operate in a vacuum, but rather, is one piece of the diverse local efforts to address homelessness. Thus, it is useful to compare outcome data to that from other local organizations to assess utility. HARC was able to obtain HMIS data from Jewish Family Service of San Diego, who operated Roy’s Desert Resource Center (“Roy’s”) prior to its closure in June of 2017. While the shelter model is quite different than the Housing First model, comparing the outcomes accomplished by POLM through CV Housing First to the outcomes accomplished by Roy’s can be somewhat instructive. HARC was not able to obtain data from any other shelters. The data from Roy’s is especially interesting, as the CV Housing First program was designed to meet the needs left by the closing of Roy’s, albeit through a different model. Thus, this comparison can inform how CV Housing First has worked to fill the gap left by Roy’s in the service matrix of homelessness programs in the Coachella Valley and Blythe. It is important to mention here that Roy’s Desert Resource Center was an emergency shelter. Thus, they only have one program (emergency shelter) to report in HMIS, whereas CV Housing First programs being carried out by POLM are much more diverse. An “apples to apples” comparison would compare Roy’s HMIS outcomes to those of another emergency shelter. The programs that POLM has implemented, such as rapid rehousing or the homelessness prevention project, have different objectives and outcomes, and thus, should be compared to Roy’s only with caution. A total of 4,255 clients were included in Roy’s Desert Resource Center HMIS dataset, and the service dates ranged from October of 2014 to June of 2017. It should be noted that 2014 proportions were likely smaller as October was the first record. Likewise, 2017 had smaller proportions as services dates only ranged from January to June. See Table 18 for a breakdown of enrollment dates for Roy’s Desert Resource Center. Table 19. Enrollment Dates by Year Year Months of

Operation n %

2014 3 69 1.6% 2015 12 1,851 43.5% 2016 12 1,779 41.8% 2017 6 556 13.1%

Total 33 4,255 100.0%

32

Demographics Age statistics extracted from HMIS reflect the current age of clients. Thus, age demographics are a few years older, as Roy’s was closed in June of 2017. The average age of clients served at Roy’s Desert Resource Center was 45.2. The youngest was two years old while the oldest was 103. About two-thirds (65.0%) were male and three-quarters (75.0%) were white. The majority of clients (89.4%) entered Roy’s while living in poverty. See Table 20 for detailed demographics on CV Housing First (includes both CVAG-funded and leverage-funded), specific data for CVAG-funded clients, and Roy’s. Table 20. Roy's Client Demographics CV Housing

First CVAG Funded Roy’s

Variable n % n % n % Age

0-17 98 26.6% 61 34.9% 198 4.7% 18-29 34 9.2% 18 10.3% 633 14.9% 30-39 44 12.0% 19 10.9% 730 17.2% 40-49 65 17.7% 21 12.0% 722 17.0% 50-59 66 17.9% 20 11.4% 1,145 26.9% 60-69 44 12.0% 22 12.6% 640 15.0% 70 and older 17 4.6% 14 8.0% 187 4.0% Total 368 100% 175 100% 4,255 100%

Gender Female 198 49.4% 95 51.4% 1,474 34.6% Male 202 50.4% 90 48.6% 2,764 65.0% Trans female (M t0 F) 1 0.2% 0 0 10 0.2% Trans male (F t0 M) 0 0 0 0 7 0.2% Total 401 100% 185 100% 4,255 100%

Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino 211 52.6% 104 56.2% 1,056 24.8% Not Hispanic/Latino 190 47.4% 81 43.8% 3,189 75.2% Total 401 100% 185 100% 4,245 100%

Race American Indian or Alaska Native

8 2.0% 3 1.6% 133 3.2%

Asian 1 0.2% 0 0 43 1.0% African American 60 15.0% 38 20.5% 746 17.7% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

1 0.2% 1 0.5% 25 0.6%

White 331 82.5% 143 77.3% 3,161 75.0% Multi-racial 0 0 0 0 107 2.5% Total 401 100% 185 100% 4,215 100%

Poverty Poverty at entrance 238 84.7% 90 74.4% 3,628 89.4% Not in poverty at entrance

43 15.3% 31 25.6% 429 10.6%

Total 281 100% 121 100% 4,057 100%

33

As illustrated in Table 21, about 20.9% of Roy’s clients have experienced domestic violence and more than two-thirds (66.2%) had a disability. Approximately 8.0% were veterans. See Table 21 for further details on the demographics for CV Housing First clients (from all funding sources), CVAG-funded clients only, and Roy’s clients. Table 21. Roy's Other Demographic Characteristics CV Housing

First CVAG Funded Roy’s

Variable n % n % n % Domestic Violence

Has experienced domestic violence

54 17.9% 6 5.0% 824 20.9%

Has not experienced domestic violence

247 82.1% 114 95.0% 3,124 79.1%

Total 301 100% 120 100% 3,948 100% Disability

Has a disability 126 31.4% 35 18.9% 2,720 66.2% Does not have a disability 275 68.6% 150 81.1% 1,387 33.8% Total 401 100% 185 100% 4,107 100%

Veteran Status Veteran 13 4.4% 6 3.2% 322 8.0% Not a veteran 282 95.6% 114 61.6% 3,736 92.0% Total 295 100% 120 100% 4,058 100%

Homelessness Situation Details Common areas that Roy’s clients originated in included Palm Springs (36.8%), Indio (10.6%), Desert Hot Springs (8.7%), and Cathedral City (5.6%). However, clients originated from many other zip codes including areas outside of the Coachella Valley. More than a quarter (27.9%) of Roy’s clients were homeless for 12 months or more in the last three years, as illustrated in Table 22. Table 22. Total Times and Months Homeless CV Housing

First CVAG

Funded Roy’s

n % n % n % Times Homeless in Last Three Years

One time 139 65.3% 31 79.5% 2,432 61.5% Two times 31 14.6% 6 15.4% 690 17.4% Three times 15 7.0% 1 2.6% 292 7.4% Four or more 28 13.1% 1 2.6% 543 13.7% Total 213 100% 39 100% 4,057 100%

Total Months Homeless in Last Three Years One month 18 8.5% 5 12.8% 943 38.2% Two to three months 13 6.1% 2 5.1% 332 13.5% Four to six months 19 9.0% 14 35.9% 266 10.8% Seven to twelve months 15 7.0% - - 236 9.6% More than twelve months 148 69.5% 18 46.2% 689 27.9% Total 213 100% 39 100% 2,466 100%

34

As illustrated in Figure 9 below, most clients being served at Roy’s first became homeless in 2016 (30.8%) and 2015 (30.2%). The teal columns in the chart below represent all CV Housing First clients (CVAG-funded and those funded by leveraged programs), while the grey bars represent only those funded by CVAG, and the blue indicate those served by Roy’s. Figure 9. Homeless Start Date

Note: CV Housing First n = 215; CVAG Funded n = 40; Roy’s n = 3,268.

18.1%

28.8%

10.2%

15.8%

11.6%

15.3%

27.5%

35.0%

10.0%

2.5%

7.5%

17.5%

12.5%

30.8% 30.2%

11.0%

15.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 and earlier

CV Housing First CVAG Funds Roy's

35

The majority of Roy’s clients came from a homeless situation (63.9%), which is considerably different from the percentage of CVAG clients coming from a homeless situation (33.1%), but about the same as CV Housing First as a whole (65.8%). See Table 23 for details on CV Housing First clients (from all funding sources), CVAG-funded clients only, and Roy’s clients.

Table 23. Living Situation at Entrance CV Housing

First CVAG

Funded Roy’s

n % n % n % Homeless Situation

Place not meant for habitation 99 33.4% 19 15.7% 2,336 57.6% Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter voucher

95 32.1% 21 17.4% 241 5.9%

Safe haven 1 0.3% - - 14 0.3% Subtotal 195 65.8% 40 33.1% 2,591 63.9%


3 1.0% - - 134 3.3%

Psychiatric facility 2 0.7% - - 86 2.1% Jail, prison, or juvenile detention facility

- - - - 32 0.8%

Substance abuse treatment facility

1 0.3% - - 29 0.7%

Foster care - - - - 9 0.2% Long-term care facility or nursing home

- - - - 1 0.0%

Subtotal 6 2.0% - - 291 7.2% Transitional and Permanent Housing Situation


5 1.7% - - 425 10.5%

Staying or living in a family member’s room, apartment, or house

4 1.4% - - 306 7.5%

Hotel or motel paid for without emergency voucher

5 1.7% - - 244 6.0%


79 26.7% 79 65.3% 123 3.0%

Other transitional or permanent housing situation

2 0.7% 2 1.7% 54 1.3%

Subtotal 95 32.2% 81 67.0% 1,1152 28.4% Other Situation

Data not collected - - - - 12 0.3% Other/ don’t know/ refused - - - - 11 0.2% Subtotal - - - - 23 0.6%

Total 296 100% 121 100% 4,057 100%

36

As illustrated in Figure 10 below, about half (46.4%) of Roy’s clients spent less than a week in their prior living situation. About 11.9% in their prior living situation. This is quite a difference from the clients served by CV Housing First, where nearly half of the clients had been in their prior living situation for more than one year of the last three.

Figure 10. Length of Stay in Prior Living Situation

Note: CV Housing First n = 215; CVAG Funded n = 120; Roy’s n = 4,010.

4.8%7.8% 9.2%

14.3%

20.1%

43.9%

0.8%2.5%

7.5%

13.3%

28.3%

47.5%

20.4%

26.0%

13.9%16.2%

11.6% 11.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%




year

One year or longer

CV Housing First CVAG Funds Roy's

37

Outputs from Exit Survey As illustrated in Table 24, Roy’s clients spent an average of 15.9 days in their program, while CVAG funded clients spent an average of 77.1 days across the CVAG programs. Table 24. Days Spent in Each Program Average Sum Min/Max n CV Housing First

Emergency Shelter Project 72.3 5,569 2/180 77 Homelessness Prevention Project 70.7 10,041 49/271 142 Hotel/Motel Voucher 139.6 977 34/313 7 Rapid Rehousing 322.9 18,082 25/637 56 Permanent Supportive Housing 29.0 19,528 105/1,106 29 Street Outreach 106.6 9,597 7/313 90 All CV Housing First 159.1 63,794 2/1,106 401

CVAG Funded Emergency Shelter 83.6 2,425 7/162 29 Homelessness Prevention Project 70.7 10,041 49/271 142 Hotel/Motel Voucher 139.7 977 34/313 7 Rapid Re-Housing 118.9 832 25/313 7 All CVAG Funded 77.1 14,275 7/313 185

Roy’s Emergency Shelter 15.9 67,844 0/120 4,251

Exit statistics for CV Housing First clients (from all funding sources), CVAG-funded clients only, and Roy’s clients are reported in Table 25. The majority (74.7%) exited to an “other” destination. This is because most clients did not know where they were exiting to (58.9%). Only 2.2% of Roy’s clients exited to a permanent destination. Table 25. Destination at Exit for Roy's Clients Type of Destination CV Housing

First CVAG Funds Roy’s

n % n % n %

Permanent Destination Rental by client, no ongoing housing subsidy

135 57.0% 132 84.6% 31 0.7%

Rental by client with RRH or equivalent subsidy

28 11.8% 6 3.8 - -

Rental by client, ongoing housing subsidy

1 0.4% 1 0.6% - -

Staying or living with family or friends, permanent tenure

10 4.2% - - 44 1.0%

Owned by client (with or without housing subsidy)

3 1.6% 3 2.0% - -


15 6.3% 5 3.2% 11 0.3%

Other permanent destination - - - - 8 0.3% Subtotal 192 80.9% 147 94.2% 94 2.2%

38

Temporary Destination Staying or living with friends or family, temporary tenure

- - - - 813 19.3%

Hotel or motel paid for without emergency shelter voucher

1 0.4% - - 67 1.6%

Hospital or other residential non-psychiatric medical facility

1 0.4% 1 0.6% 38 0.9%

Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with shelter voucher

19 8.0% 8 5.1% 20 0.5%

Place not meant for habitation 3 1.3% - - 20 0.5% Other temporary destination 1 0.4% - - 23 0.5% Subtotal 25 10.5% 9 5.8% 981 23.1%

Other No exit interview completed 19 8.0% - - 613 14.5% Client doesn’t know - - - - 2,506 59.4% Data not collected - - - - 32 0.8% Client refused, other, deceased 1 0.4% - - 27 0.6% Subtotal 20 8.4% 0 0.0% 3,146 74.5%

Total 237 100% 156 100% 4,221 100% Of those who exited Roy’s shelter, about three-quarters (73.5%) exited because of an unknown/disappearance reason, as illustrated in Table 26. Table 26. Program Exit Reason CV Housing

First CVAG Funds

Roy’s

Reason n % n % n % Completed program 198 88.8% 155 99.4% 57 3.1% Criminal action (went to jail) 1 0.4% - - 2 0.1% Death 1 0.4% Left for housing before completed 3 1.3% - - 85 4.6% Maximum time allowed in program

8 3.6% - - 149 8.1%

Needs could not be met by program

9 4.0% 1 0.6% 12 0.7%

Unknown/disappeared 3 1.3% - - 1,345 73.5% Non-compliance with program - - - - 132 7.2% Other - - - - 49 2.7%

Total 223 100% 156 100% 1,831 100%

39

As illustrated in Figure 11, clients came into Roy’s making less money than clients who entered the CV Housing First program. Overall, there was no change in income for Roy’s clients from entrance ($418) to exit ($418). Figure 11. Average Monthly Income at Entrance and Exit

Note: CV Housing First Entrance n = 281; CV Housing First Exit n = 141; CVAG Entrance n = 121; CVAG Exit n = 95; Roy’s Entrance n = 4,057; Roy’s Exit n = 3,480. It should be noted that Roy’s clients spent an average of 15.9 days at the shelter, while

CV Housing First clients spent an average of 159.1 days in their various programs. Thus,

it is understandable that no change in income occurred at Roy’s; two weeks is too short

of a time to see a change in earnings.

$629

$1,496

$901

$1,961

$418 $418

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000


CV Housing First CVAG-Funded Roy's

40

Successful Placement As seen in the earlier section on successful placement, exits to a permanent destination as defined as a “successful placement”, and a positive exit outcome. Looking at exit destinations for Roy’s clients, and excluding destinations such as hospitals and long-term care facilities, 2.2% have had successful exits, as illustrated in Table 27. Table 27. Successful Placement Rates Category Programs Included n % Success CV Housing First CVAG-Funded Programs Emergency shelter

Hotel/motel vouchers Homelessness prevention

155 94.8%

Leveraged Programs Emergency shelter Permanent supportive housing Rapid rehousing

46 23.9%

Total CV Housing First See above

201 78.6%

Comparison Data Riverside County (2016)

Emergency shelter Transitional housing Supportive housing Permanent housing

- 40.0%

Roy’s (2014 – 2017)

Emergency shelter 4,211 2.2%

As mentioned earlier (section 3, page 30), the successful placement rate for emergency

shelter clients through CV Housing First—including those funded by CVAG and those

supported by leveraged programs—was 35.9%. The number of clients served is

drastically different (i.e., 64 emergency shelter clients in the first year of CV Housing

First versus 4,211 emergency shelter clients across three years of Roy’s operations), but

overall, the successful placement rate of CV Housing First emergency shelter clients

(35.9%) appears to be quite strong when compared to Roy’s emergency shelter clients

(2.2%).

41

Section 5: Custom Survey – Focus on Homelessness Prevention HARC and POLM worked together to create a custom survey, designed to be administered to clients of CV Housing First upon their exit from the program. The survey encompassed many different areas, including medical usage, law enforcement encounters, satisfaction levels, usefulness of resources, and changes in quality-of-life outcomes such as health insurance, employment, hunger, etc. The surveys were designed for their POLM navigator to assist them in completing the survey, to ensure comprehension. Data collection on the custom surveys ranged from the months of May to July 2018 and included a total of 26 clients. Program Information The survey began with a series of questions designed to provide context for understanding the clients’ experience with the CV Housing First program. A total of 26 participants completed the surveys. However, nearly all (n = 23) were part of the homelessness prevention program. As such, the other 3 participants were removed so that the evaluation would focus on the homelessness prevention program. Because most clients were in the homelessness prevention program, most clients were not homeless (78.3%); in fact, only five of the 23 clients were homeless. A total of 20 reported exit dates, and of these, most (n = 13) exited some time in 2018, while fewer (n = 7) did not yet exit their program. Clients were asked, “What is the service initiation zip code of this client? i.e., where did POLM first engage the client and initiate service delivery?” This helps to establish the area in which POLM first engaged the client and initiated service delivery. As illustrated in Table 28, common locations included Palm Springs (n = 7) and Desert Hot Springs (n = 6). Two were outside of district boundaries. Table 28. Service Initiation Zip Code Zip Code City Boundary n % 92240 Desert Hot Springs DHCD 6 33.3% 92262 Palm Springs DHCD 4 22.2% 92264 Palm Springs DHCD 3 16.7% 92234 Cathedral City DHCD 1 5.6% 92236 Coachella Outside DHCD 1 5.6% 92201 Indio Outside DHCD 1 5.6% 92211 Palm Desert DHCD 1 5.6% 92260 Palm Desert DHCD 1 5.6%

Total 18 100.0%

42

Clients were also asked, “Prior to entry into the POLM program, what city or zip code did the client spend the previous 90 days in? i.e., what city was the client living in?” As illustrated in Table 29, Palm Springs (n = 7) and Desert Hot Springs (n = 7) had the highest proportions. Table 29. Previous Zip Code Zip Code

City Boundary n Percent

92240 Desert Hot Springs DHCD 7 35.0% 92264 Palm Springs DHCD 4 20.0% 92262 Palm Springs DHCD 3 15.0% 97701 Bend, Oregon Outside DHCD 1 5.0% 92234 Cathedral City DHCD 1 5.0% 92236 Coachella Outside DHCD 1 5.0% 92201 Indio Outside DHCD 1 5.0% 92211 Palm Desert DHCD 1 5.0% 92260 Palm Desert DHCD 1 5.0%

Total 20 100.0%

Homelessness Details An area of interest to CVAG included reasons behind becoming homeless. Consequently, clients were asked, “Why did you become homeless? You can check multiple reasons.” Only seven people responded to this question, likely because most were seeking homelessness prevention services and were not currently homeless. Responses included:

• Unemployment (n = 2)

• Lack of income for housing (n = 3)

• Fleeing domestic violence (n = 1)

• Mental illness (n = 1)

• Runaway/left home (n = 1) POLM clients were also asked, “Did you stay at a homeless shelter before coming to Path of Life?” Only three people had stayed at a shelter prior to this.

43

Medical Usage In order to assess medical usage, POLM homelessness prevention clients were asked about two common areas of medical usage that come with a high cost attached:

1. Emergency room visits 2. Ambulance use

These areas are typically examined within the homelessness intervention literature, as ending chronic homelessness has the potential to reduce public spending in the above-mentioned areas.6 POLM homelessness prevention clients were asked to provide monthly estimates on emergency room visits and ambulance rides both before and during their time with POLM. As illustrated in Figure 12, emergency room visits and ambulance rides dropped after clients entered the homelessness prevention program; in fact, only one individual visited the emergency room after coming to POLM, and none used an ambulance. Figure 12. Medical Usage

Note: Emergency room n = 23; Ambulance n = 23.

It is worth noting that the time period is not the same; the “before POLM” includes up to two years’ worth of history, while the “during POLM” includes about 11 months.

6 Ending Chronic Homelessness in 2017. https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Ending_Chronic_Homelessness_in_2017.pdf

4 4

1

00

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Emergency Room Ambulance rides

Before POLM During POLM

https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Ending_Chronic_Homelessness_in_2017.pdf

44

Homelessness prevention clients were asked, “Before you were in the POLM program, when you were sick or in need of healthcare, where do you usually go?” and a second matching question about where their usual source of healthcare is since they’ve come to POLM. Ideally, all individuals would have a medical home/primary care provider as their usual source of care; this is not only cheaper for the medical system but also provides important continuity of care to the patient. However, for populations that are unstable, such as those at risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness, the emergency room (ER)/hospital is all too often their usual source of care. Sure enough, as illustrated in Figure 13, the ER/hospital was a usual source of care for 22.2% of homelessness prevention clients before entering CV Housing First’s program. This is more than double the rate for Coachella Valley adults as a whole, which is 10.5%.7 During their time in the homelessness prevention program, however, this dropped to 7.1%. Further, the number of people who utilize a doctor’s office for their care increased from 22.2% to 35.7%. This is an encouraging sign that the homelessness prevention program helped these individuals to obtain medical care that will provide continuity of care and be more affordable. Figure 13. Usual Source of Care before and during POLM

Note: Before n = 18; During n = 14.

Over the course of the first year, POLM’s activities for CV Housing First have included 142 clients in the homelessness prevention program. If we assume that the 23 homelessness prevention clients in this sample are similar to the other 119 homelessness prevention clients POLM has reached during the year, we can make some cautious extrapolations.

7 HARC, Inc. (2017). Coachella Valley Community Health Survey.

22.2%

11.1%

16.7%

22.2%

5.6% 5.6%

16.7%

7.1%

14.3%

21.4%

35.7%

7.1% 7.7% 7.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

ER/Hospital Urgent Care Clinic Doctor's office Some otherplace

No usual place Other

Before During

45

For example, using the percentages as a guideline, it appears likely that approximately 32 homelessness prevention clients used the ER/hospital as their usual source of care prior to coming to POLM. Since working with POLM, this would likely drop to about 10 individuals; the other 22 now receive their care elsewhere, most likely at a doctor’s office or clinic. To estimate the costs saved by this behavior change, HARC downloaded pricing information from OSHPD (Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development) for the three local hospitals.8, 9 Two of these included either incomplete data from 2016, or were complete, but were 2014 data. For this reason, emergency room average costs at severity levels for 2016 were utilized from Eisenhower Medical Center which received 38.9% of emergency room department encounters in the valley for 2016. This data revealed that the average ER visit cost ranges from $900 to more than $2,700, based on severity level. If we assume that each of the 22 individuals who used to use the ER/hospital as their usual source of care visited once in the past year, that would equate to 22 ER visits that have now been replaced by visits to a primary care doctor or a clinic. That’s a cost savings of between $19,800 and $59,400, depending on the severity of the issues. It’s also likely that POLM’s other programs also help to reduce ER visits; future continued use of the custom survey will help to document this.

8 Hospital Chargemaster Program. https://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Hospital-Chargemaster.html 9 Hospital Chargemasters and 25 common outpatient procedures. www.oshpd.ca.gov/Chargemaster

https://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Hospital-Chargemaster.html

http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/Chargemaster

46

Law Enforcement Encounters The homelessness prevention clients were also asked about law enforcement encounters. Specifically, they were asked about the number of times they were arrested and the number of times they had any type of contact with the police in the past two years. None of the 23 homeless prevention program participants who completed the custom survey reported being arrested or having contact before or after their time with POLM. However, it is important to mention here that while the current sample didn’t encounter law enforcement very often, local authorities still have to deal with homelessness in the Valley frequently, which has its own cost burden. HARC reached out to a couple of the police departments in the Valley to explore this topic. Palm Springs Police Department was kind enough to share data on the current year; they have had approximately 3,581 calls for service related to homelessness.10 The calls vary in severity as do the type of officers who respond (e.g., non-sworn community police, transport, etc.) but when aggregating all calls, an officer will spend an average of 44 minutes on the call. This means that the Palm Springs Police Department spends an average of 2,626 hours on homelessness calls each year, which is more than a full-time job (a full-time job typically is 2,080 hours of work per year). Note that these estimates are for Palm Springs Police Department only. Thus, there are likely significantly more calls in the Valley related to homelessness, and significantly more cost-savings to be collected by reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness, and thereby reducing the burden on our police.

10 M. Kovaleff. Personal communication - email/phone interview. (2018, August).

47

Satisfaction with POLM The homelessness prevention clients were asked to rate their satisfaction with their experiences with POLM overall, their navigators, their individual service plan (ISP), and their SMART goals. The rating scale ranged from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree. Overall POLM Satisfaction For satisfaction with POLM, clients were asked to rate their level of agreement with the following statements:

• I am satisfied with services received by POLM

• POLM staff are helping me achieve my goals

• POLM has met my needs As illustrated in Figure 14, the results are entirely positive, in that nearly all strongly agreed they are satisfied with services (95.5%), are being helped to achieve their goals (90.9%), and that POLM has met their needs (90.9%). The remaining clients chose “agree”, with no one selecting negative options such as “neutral” or “disagree”. Figure 14. Satisfaction with POLM

Note: Satisfied n = 22; Helping me achieve n = 22; Had met my goals n = 22.

95.5%

4.5%0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

90.9%

9.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

90.9%

9.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Satisfied with services Helping me achieve my goals Has met my needs

48

Homelessness prevention clients were also asked an open-ended question, “Was there anything about POLM services that really helped you? If so, describe your experience.” Responses were qualitatively analyzed through a process of content coding, in which similar responses reflecting a theme were grouped together and summed. From this, three primary themes emerged which can be seen below, with some respective direct quotes. Helped with rent/not losing housing (n = 8)

• “Was out of work for 6 months - almost lost my car and house. She contacted landlord too have him wait. She was great! She convinced the landlord for a 2nd chance”

• “We did not have to leave our house we lived in for 20 years.”

• “Your services made a big difference in our lives and everyday living. Without your services we would have been homeless.”

General positive statements (n = 6)

• “Let myself know that I'm not alone and humble self to look for help.”

• “It was not very difficult to get help, they made it easy.”

• “Yes, the fact that it took the weight off shoulders, very helpful.”

Helped with documents, paperwork, planning (n = 3)

• “They listened made sure I had everything helped with corrections and making sure I had everything right on my documents.”

• “They have helped by realizing that anything doesn't come free- the stability plan help me realized what needs to change.”

49

Satisfaction with Navigator Every client of POLM receives a navigator who will assist them during program services. POLM clients were asked to rate their satisfaction with their navigator by indicating their level of agreement with the following statements:

• I am satisfied with services by my navigator

• My navigator helps me see my strengths and capabilities

• I feel listened to and heard by my navigator Once again, homelessness prevention clients strongly agreed that they were strongly satisfied with services from the navigator (90.9%) and felt listened to and heard (91.3%). Seeing strengths and capabilities (72.7%) was slightly lower when compared to the other statements, but still reflects a high amount of satisfaction. Only a few people reported strong disagreements with satisfaction regarding their navigator, as can be seen in Figure 15. Figure 15. Satisfaction with Navigator

Note: Satisfied n = 22; Helped me n = 22, Felt listened n = 23.

90.9%

4.5%0.0% 0.0%

4.5%

72.7%

13.6%9.1%

4.5%0.0%

91.3%

4.3%0.0% 0.0%

4.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


Satisfied with services Helped me see my strengths and capabilities Felt listened to and heard

50

Homelessness prevention clients were asked an open-ended question pertaining to their navigator: “Was there a navigator that you felt really helped you? If so, please describe your experience.” Once again, responses were qualitatively analyzed, and three primary themes emerged. Navigator was very helpful (n = 12)

• “Made a big difference in our lives, I got a job after she helped us out”

• “She helped us do the papers because we don't speak English”

• “They helped me and my kids not be homeless and during Christmastime because I was pregnant. She talked to the manager to stop the eviction because we went to court already but they (POLM) helped me stay.”

• “Yes, she was pleasant and experience was easy and fast. She resolved everything”

Navigators were kind, compassionate, and caring (n = 7)

• “He always communicated with me and was very supportive. He made me feel that he really cared for me and my family’s needs.”

• “Sweet heart/very attentive”

• “Attentive, kind, caring, and compassionate from beginning to end.”

Client received guidance and advice (n = 2)

• “Really helped me get my rent paid which was the main objective. She also gave me guidance on how to get my electric bill paid. What helped me with was tremendous.”

51

Satisfaction with Individual Service Plan Homelessness prevention clients were asked to rate their agreement with three statements pertaining to their individual service plans (ISPs):

• I am satisfied with my individual service plan

• I feel that I can accomplish my individual service plan

• My individual service plan has helped me achieve what I want Clients were asked to rate how much they agreed with each statement. Only four clients responded, and thus, frequencies rather than percentages are reported. As illustrated in Figure 16, the majority either strongly agree or agree that they are satisfied with their ISP, can accomplish their ISP, and that their ISP has helped them achieve what they want. Figure 16. Satisfaction with ISP

Note: Satisfied n = 4; I can accomplish n = 4, ISP has helped n = 4.

Only seven people responded to the open-ended question; “Is there anything that would have helped you to better work towards, or achieve your individual service plan?” Of those who did provide input, responses included:

• “Have a more clear plan”

• “We did not do a plan”

• “You guys help me with what I need.”

3

1

0 0 0

2

1

0

1

0

1

2

0

1

00

1

1

2

2

3

3

4


Satisfied with ISP I can accomplish my ISP ISP has helped me achieve what I want

52

Satisfaction with SMART Goals Homelessness prevention clients were asked to rate their agreement with three statements pertaining to their SMART goals:

• “I am satisfied with my SMART goals”

• “I feel that I can accomplish my SMART goals”

• “My SMART goals have helped me achieve what I want” As illustrated in Figure 17, results were approximately equally divided with some being satisfied, feeling they can accomplish their SMART goals, and being helped by their SMART goals, whereas the other half of clients expressed the opposite. Figure 17. Satisfaction with SMART Goals

Note: Satisfied, n = 12; I can accomplish, n = 12, SMART goals helped, n = 12.

A total of 9 people responded to the open-ended item, “Is there anything that would have helped you to better work towards, or achieve your SMART goals?” Of those who did provide input, some responses included:

• “Having SMART goal would be helpful, at this time since being housed I have not really set SMART goals with my housing navigator, like I did every week with [another navigator]”

• “No, everything went great”

• “She did an amazing job”

4

3

0

1

4

3

2

1 1

5

3

2

1 1

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Satisfied with SMART goals I can accomplish SMART goals My SMART goals have helped me

53

Usefulness of Resources POLM homelessness prevention clients were asked to rate the usefulness of resources/services, ranging from (1) very useful to (4) very useful. Raw numbers are reported below as the sample size was small. As illustrated in Table 30, two useful services reported included CalFresh/CashAID (n = 8), followed by healthcare or affordable insurance (n = 4). Table 30. Usefulness of Resources Resource/Service n Very

Useful Useful Neutral Not

Useful CalFresh/CashAID 8 8 - - - Healthcare or affordable insurance 6 4 - 1 1 Credit counseling (debt/evictions) 3 2 - - 1 Therapy (mental health) 4 1 - 1 2 Employment assistance 6 1 2 1 2 Education, GED, college 3 1 - - 2 Treatment 3 1 - - 2 Legal assistance 3 - - - 3 Domestic violence services 1 - - - 1

Changes to Quality-of-Life Indicators As illustrated in Table 31, homelessness prevention clients experienced several positive outcomes during the program. Results indicate that during their time in the homelessness prevention program, their quality of life improved overall. For example, four people used to go hungry very often who now no longer have to do so. Four people who were unemployed now have a paying job. Two people who needed mental health care and couldn’t get it before the program were now able to receive it, and two people who had difficulty getting medical care were now able to get treatment. In sum, it seems that the work done by POLM in the CV Housing First program is successfully connecting these clients to resources that improve their quality of life. Table 31. Change in Quality-of-Life Indicators Status Before

POLM During or after

POLM Got food from food pantries

39.1% (n = 9)

34.8% (n = 8)

Often go hungry

26.1% (n = 6)

8.7% (n = 2)

Had a paying job

39.1% (n = 9)

56.5% (n = 13)

Had health insurance

87.0% (n = 20)

82.6% (n = 19)

Needed medical care and/or prescriptions and couldn’t usually get it

13.0% (n = 3)

4.3% (n = 1)

Needed mental health care and/or prescriptions and couldn’t usually get it

8.7% (n = 2)

0.0% (n = 0)

54

Employment Pipeline Program POLM offers a program known as Employment Pipeline in which clients receive skills assessments, job readiness training, job referrals, job placement assistance, and self-employment support in order to successfully transition into employment and sustainable income. Only three participants responded to questions regarding satisfaction with the employment pipeline program. Of these three, all were satisfied with their employment support navigator, three know where to look for employment, and have interviewing and resume skills. However, confidence in being employed soon had mixed opinions, as illustrated in Table 32. Table 32. Satisfaction with Employment Pipeline Statement Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree Satisfied with employment support navigator

2 1 0 0 0

Know where to look or find employment

2 1 0 0 0

Now have interviewing and resume skills

3 0 0 0 0

Am now confident I will be employed soon

1 1 1 0 0

Note: n = 3. Behavioral Health Program POLM also offers a program known as Behavioral Health, in which a mobile unit provides counseling, therapy, and an array of life skills support. Only two clients utilized these services and rated them in the custom survey. Nearly all expressed satisfaction with their navigator, services, and hours of availability. Only one provided a neutral rating for services making a positive difference in getting care. Table 33. Satisfaction with Behavioral Health Statement Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree I am satisfied with my behavioral health navigator

1 1 0 0 0

I am satisfied with the services provided in this program

1 1 0 0 0

The hours of availability helped me get the services I need

0 2 0 0 0

The services made a positive difference in getting care

0 1 1 0 0

Note: n = 2.

55

CONCLUSION Through the CV Housing First program, POLM served 401 clients in their first year of operations in the Coachella Valley and Blythe. A total of 185 were served under CVAG funds, while 216 were served under leveraged funding programs. Most were dealing with long-term homelessness issues; 70% had been homeless for more than 12 months in the past three years. Evaluation results demonstrate that the program has been quite successful at addressing the issue of homelessness in the Coachella Valley. Of the 242 people who have exited the program in the first year, 81% exited to a permanent destination, such as permanent housing or rentals. Most (89%) successfully completed the program. Monthly income of those who exited more than doubled from only $629 upon program entrance to $1,496 upon exit. Custom survey data demonstrated that the homelessness prevention program helped clients obtain jobs, decrease their use of the emergency room, increase their reliance on regular doctors’ offices, and increase their food stability. Clients are less likely to go hungry and are more likely to have interviewing and resume skills that can help them get paying jobs in the future. Clients expressed great satisfaction and gratitude towards the program, especially the homelessness prevention program. As one client stated, “Your services made a big difference in our lives and everyday living. Without your services we would have been homeless.” Clearly, CV Housing First has made a difference in the lives of hundreds of people in the first year of operation. HARC strongly recommends continued evaluation going forward; these accomplishments will only grow and increase as time goes on, and true change takes years to measure. Based on our experience conducting this evaluation, HARC has several suggestions for improving the evaluation in the future: Participation from Other Agencies There are other models/agencies being employed in the Valley. Having their participation in administering custom surveys and providing HMIS data would enable a more comprehensive picture of how homelessness is being addressed in the Valley and help illustrate that complementary services—not a one-size-fits all approach—are an important part of the solution. Performance Metrics An area to evaluate in the future includes the extent to which persons exiting to permanent destinations return to homeless situations within 6 to 12 months, and within 2 years.11 It is clear that many people going through POLM are exiting successfully, but this measure would help to determine if people return to homelessness in the future. Long-term data collection is difficult but would help measure this important concept of recidivism.

11 HUD Exchange, (March, 2018). System Performance Measures Programming Specs and Table Shells. https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4483/system-performance-measures-tools/

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4483/system-performance-measures-tools/

56

It would also be useful to incorporate estimates of the number of homeless people, and how that changes over time, into future reports. This can include data from the annual point-in-time count for sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons, as well as an evaluation of the annual counts of sheltered persons in HMIS for all agencies in the Valley. Custom Survey Measures The custom survey should continue to be administered to all CV Housing First clients (and those at other agencies, if possible). This will allow the results to provide insight into not just the homelessness prevention program, but other programs as well. Medical Usage One important piece of the custom survey is the data on medical usage (e.g., ER visits, ambulance rides, usual source of care). Having more data on these variables, especially from clients in several programs, will allow for a better estimation behavioral change. With a large enough sample size, a lengthier data collection period, and participation from hospitals to provide cost estimates, the evaluation could include a cost effectiveness measure. That is, with enough data and precise estimates of the service costs of treating homeless people, we could calculate cost savings due to reduced medical usage. CVAG should consider adapting the custom survey to assess not only the frequency of medical usage, but also the cause (e.g., was the ER visit due to gunshot wounds, fever, broken bones, etc.). Police Encounter Estimation Another area to keep measuring, per the custom survey, includes police encounters in terms of both contact and arrests. Unfortunately, the current sample was not able to provide insight into this area. Having longer periods of data collection would allow us to collect this information and draw conclusions about how CV Housing First is impacting local police, and, potentially, the cost savings that stem from the program.

ITEM 7C

Staff Report Subject: Homeless Emergency Assistance Program (HEAP) Funding Contact: Cheryll Dahlin, Management Analyst ([email protected]) Recommendation: Each City in the Coachella Valley and Blythe to declare a shelter crisis by November 15, 2018 and Direct staff to apply for HEAP eligible projects for CV Housing First. Background: On August 28, 2018, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, acknowledging that homeless individuals are unable to obtain shelter, passed a resolution declaring a shelter crisis in the unincorporated areas of the County. This resolution allows the County to receive funds from the State of California’s Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP). Authorized by Senate Bill (SB) 850, HEAP is a $500 million block grant program designed to provide direct assistance to cities and counties, and the Continuum of Care that serves them, to address the homelessness crisis throughout California. In order to directly apply for funding, or to use HEAP funding for rental assistance, rental subsidies, or capital expenses in a city, a city must declare a shelter crisis pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 8698) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. To date, the cities of Palm Springs and Cathedral City have declared a shelter crisis. CVAG, as a council of governments, cannot declare a shelter crisis on behalf of the region. In 2017 Point in Time Count, the cities in the Coachella Valley the number of unsheltered persons range from 0 to 138. Regionally, there were 526 (32%) unsheltered individuals in the 4th Supervisorial District of Riverside County out of 1638 throughout the County. CVAG staff recommends that all cities declare a shelter crisis and those that have an insignificant number to declare a shelter crisis for the region. CVAG has long-time recognized homelessness as a regional issue through the work of the Homelessness Committee. Currently, the CV Housing First Program could be augmented with HEAP funding for activities, such as outreach and behavioral health needs, etc.. HEAP funds shall align and comply with the core component of California’s Housing First policy. Additionally, CVAG encourages all entities in the Coachella Valley and Blythe that have projects eligible for HEAP funding to apply. HEAP funds are intended to support immediate emergency assistance to people experiencing homelessness. Eligible uses include, but are not limited to the following:

• Homelessness prevention activities • Criminal justice diversion programs for homeless individuals with mental health needs;


• Establishing or expanding services meeting the needs of homeless youth or youth at-risk of homelessness

• Emergency aid

The County’s Continuum of Care ran by the County of Riverside Department of Public Social Services. DPSS will provide additional information and notices about this process as it is finalized. Timeline September 5, 2018 State releases the HEAP Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) September 20, 2018 Continuum of Care Board of Governance Meeting to determine

priorities October 1, 2018 DPSS releases Request for Proposals October 22, 2018 Proposals due to DPSS by 12:00 p.m. - noon November 15, 2018 Continuum of Care Board of Governance Meeting to finalize

applicants City Shelter Declarations Due December 15, 2018 DPSS submits application to State December 31, 2018 State final deadline for Round 1.

Fiscal Impact: This one-time funding is intended to support immediate emergency assistance to people experiencing homelessness. The County of Riverside Continuum of Care (CoC) is expected to receive a total allocation of $9,791,805, based on a formula that takes into consideration the homeless point in time count data collected annually. Attachments:

1. HEAP Sample Resolution 2. HEAP Frequently Asked Questions 3. HEAP Program Guidance

Sample Resolution: Declaration of a Shelter Crisis

(Required for HEAP funds)

RESOLUTION NO. _____________ RESOLUTION OF [insert name of local governing body, e.g. City Council or County Board of Supervisors] OF THE [insert name of jurisdiction, e.g. City or County here] ________________, STATE OF CALIFORNIA declaring a shelter crisis pursuant to SB 850 (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018 and Government Code § 8698.2). The ____________ [insert name of local governing body, e.g. City Council or County Board of Supervisors] Finds: WHEREAS, California’s Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and the members of the California Legislature have recognized the urgent and immediate need for funding at the local level to combat homelessness; and WHEREAS, The Governor and Legislature have provided funding to local governments under the Homeless Emergency Aid Program as part of SB 850 and the 2018-19 Budget Act (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018); and WHEREAS, The Governor and Legislature require jurisdictions seeking an allocation through the Homeless Emergency Aid Program to declare a Shelter Crisis pursuant to Government Code §8698.2; and WHEREAS, the County of Riverside has established a plan to end homelessness adopted by the Board of Supervisors in February of 2018 and has undertaken multiple efforts at the local level to combat homelessness; and WHEREAS [insert name of city] is additionally a part of regional efforts to combat homelessness through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (“CVAG”) which include the cities of Blythe, Coachella, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage, the County of Riverside, and two tribal nations, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Cabazon Band of Mission Indians; and WHEREAS, [insert name of city] finds that 526 persons within the CVAG region are homeless and living without shelter in the 2017 Point in Time Count; WHEREAS, [insert name of city] finds that [Insert the 2017 Point in Time Count for the jurisdiction] persons within the [insert name of city or county here] are homeless and living without shelter; WHEREAS, [insert name of city] finds that the number of homeless in the CVAG region is significant, and these persons are without the ability to obtain shelter; WHEREAS, [insert name of city or county here] finds that the health and safety of unsheltered persons are threatened by a lack of shelter; and

WHEREAS, the Council of the City of [insert name of city] affirms the CVAG region’s commitment to combating homelessness and creating or augmenting a continuum of shelter and service options for those living without shelter in our communities; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE [insert name of city council or county board of supervisors here] __________________, CALIFORNIA, that a shelter crisis pursuant to Government Code §8698.2 exists in [insert name of city or county here], and authorizes the [insert: City’s or County’s] participation in the Homeless Emergency Aid Program.

HOMELESS EMERGENCY AID PROGRAM (HEAP)

Frequently Asked Questions

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor Secretary Alexis Podesta, Council Chair

Ginny Puddefoot, Executive Officer

Updated September 1, 2018

Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) – Frequently Asked Questions FAQ2 https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/ Updated 9/1/18

Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP)

Frequently Asked Questions

This document is a supplementary resource to the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) Program Guidance document. Refer to the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC) website at bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/ for more details or contact the Council for specific questions not answered here at [email protected]. HEAP Applications Q: Who is eligible to apply for HEAP funds? A: The HEAP Program Guidance-Attachment B-Formula Funding Estimates

identifies the 11 large cities and 43 Continuums of Care (CoC) that are eligible to apply for HEAP funds. Individual persons, cities (not identified as one of the 11 large cities), counties, and/or nonprofit organizations are not eligible to apply directly to HCFC for HEAP funds. Those interested in receiving HEAP funds will apply directly to their local CoC. HCFC encourages interested applicants to collaborate with their local CoC to determine the best use of funds and how funds will be disbursed.

Q: How do CoCs and large cities apply for HEAP funds? A: There will be two separate applications. One for CoCs and another for the 11 large

cities. The applications are scheduled to be released on September 5, 2018. All applications will be completed and submitted online. The application does not have a “save” feature to allow for partial completion of the application. Applications must be completed and submitted in one sitting. Once the application is successfully submitted, the applicant will receive a confirmation email that includes a copy of the application, a tracking number and a checklist of documents to be submitted to HCFC. The applicant must reply to the email and attach all items listed on the checklist for the application to be deemed complete. An application map and instructions were released on August 17, 2018 and can be found on the HCFC website https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/. The application map is a tool designed to assist HEAP applicant entities collect the information necessary to complete the application ahead of the release of the official HEAP application. This should make completion of the actual application in one sitting easier.

https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/


https://cabcsh.sharepoint.com/sites/BCSHGrantManagementTeamSite/Shared%20Documents/HEAP/HEAP%20FAQs/[email protected]



Q: As we are developing plans for use of HEAP funds, some of our jurisdictions will be ready to go sooner than others. Can we submit our application separately as the plans for each jurisdiction are completed up until the deadline?

A: No. Only one application may be submitted by the CoC or large city per round. Upon approval of the application, there will be a single disbursement of the total distribution of funds allocated to each CoC or large city, as stated in HEAP Program Guidance Attachment B-Formula Funding Estimates.

Q: Please define “local collaborative effort” and what type of supporting

documentation is required. A: CoCs must demonstrate that a local collaborative effort has been conducted prior

to application submission. A local collaborative process may include, but is not limited to, public meetings, regional homeless taskforce meetings, letters of support with signatures of endorsement and/or an adopted homelessness plan. Collaborative partners, at a minimum, should include representatives of local homeless service providers, homeless youth programs, law enforcement, behavioral health, and city and county public officials. Supporting documentation of collaboration may include, but is not limited to, sign-in sheets, agendas, meeting minutes and/or public comment logs.

Q: Will we lose our allocation if we do not request it all in Round 1? A: Not completely, however, the allocations in Round 2 will be reduced to a

proportional share of the HEAP funds remaining after Round 1. Funds not applied for in Round I will be redistributed between the 43 CoCs and 11 large cities in Round 2, using the same formula distribution methodology used in Round 1.

Q: Will the 11 large cities share the $150 million evenly? A: No. The 11 large cities’ funds are allocated in proportion to the percentage of

homeless people in the large cities’ jurisdictions, based on the 2017 HUD PIT, as stated in the HEAP Program Guidance Attachment B-Formula Funding Estimates.

Q: Are the 11 large cities also eligible to receive funds from the CoC? A: Yes. The 11 large cities may receive a share of HEAP funding through the CoC if

they have declared a shelter crisis and the collaborative process results in an additional allocation for that city.

Q: Will an AE be able to reprogram funds from one eligible activity and/or

jurisdiction to another after the application is approved and funds are disbursed?

A: Yes. There will be a change request document available to submit changes to the original application. These changes must be approved by HCFC prior to implementation. This document will be posted on the HCFC website at a later date. Please note that reprogrammed funds between jurisdictions can only be reallocated to jurisdictions that had a shelter crisis declaration in place at the time the funds were initially awarded.



Administrative Entity Q: Who is the Administrative Entity (AE) for purposes of applying for HEAP

funds? A: For the allocations made to the 11 large cities pursuant to Health and Safety Code

Section 50213(c), those cities are the AE.

For all other allocations made directly to a Continuum of Care (CoC) the AE means a unit of general purpose local government (city, county or a city that is also a county) or a nonprofit organization that has (1) previously administered federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) COC funds as the collaborative applicant pursuant to Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and (2) been designated by the CoC to administer program funds. For this application, COC and AE are used interchangeably.

Point-in-Time Count Q: Can the jurisdiction use a homeless count different from the HUD Point-in-

Time (PIT) count to apply for HEAP funding? A: No. The statute specifically recognizes the 2017 HUD PIT count as the basis for

determining the allocation structure for the program. Health and Safety Code Section 50210(f) states the “Homeless point-in-time count” means the 2017 homeless point-in-time counts pursuant to Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” The PIT numbers are identified in the HEAP Program Guidance Attachment B-Formula Funding Estimates.

Shelter Crisis Declaration Q: Who has the authority to declare a shelter crisis? A: The only entities that may declare a shelter crisis are cities, counties, and cities

that are also counties, through their governing bodies, as defined in Government Code Section 8698. A CoC, or a Joint Powers Authority that acts as the CoC, may not declare a shelter crisis.

Q: Who qualifies for a waiver and what is the process to file a waiver? A: Based on the 2017 HUD PIT, if a CoC has fewer than 1,000 homeless people, the

cities and counties that are part of the CoC are exempt from declaring a shelter crisis [Health and Safety Code Section 50212(b)]. Once the on-line application is submitted, CoCs that qualify for a waiver will be required to submit, by email, the waiver form along with all other documents indicated.

Q: Can the county declare a shelter crisis that covers all jurisdictions within the

county? A: No. A county may not declare a shelter crisis that covers all jurisdictions within the

county. The county may declare a shelter crisis for the unincorporated areas of the county.



Q: Do all the counties or cities that the AE represents have to declare a shelter crisis in order for the AE to submit a HEAP application?

A: No. Not all jurisdictions must declare a shelter crisis for an application to be submitted or to be awarded funds. However, only the jurisdictions that have declared a shelter crisis are eligible to receive HEAP funds from their CoC. As stated in Health and Safety Code Section 50212(a), “In order to be eligible for program funds, an [AE] shall demonstrate that …the jurisdiction or jurisdictions that the [AE] represents for which funding is requested have, at the time of the award, declared a shelter crisis.” As stated previously, CoCs that are eligible for a waiver will submit the waiver(s) during the application process.

Q: Is the city or county, as the AE for the CoC, required to pass a Board or

Council resolution for HEAP? A: No. The only Board or Council resolutions required are the shelter crisis

declarations, if a city or county wants to be a direct recipient of HEAP funds through their CoC (or directly, in the case of the 11 large cities). CoCs that are eligible for a waiver are exempt from declaring a shelter crisis.

Q: Will the CoC’s allocation be reduced by a percentage for every city that does

not declare a shelter crisis? A: No. The allocation is not based on the number of cities within a CoC that declare

a shelter crisis. The allocations are based on the 2017 HUD PIT count for the CoC in its entirety and a formula distribution methodology was used to determine the allocation for each CoC and the 11 large cities.

Distribution of HEAP Funds Q: Can a jurisdiction that has not declared a shelter crisis be a direct recipient

of HEAP funds from the CoC? A: No. CoCs cannot disburse HEAP funds directly to a jurisdiction that has not

declared a shelter crisis. Each jurisdiction (city, county, or city that is also a county) within the area represented by an AE must declare a shelter crisis if the jurisdiction wishes to be a recipient of HEAP funding. Further clarity regarding the specific requirements surrounding declaration of a shelter crisis is available in Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 8698) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

Q: How quickly will HEAP funds be disbursed? A: At this time, HCFC expects to disburse the HEAP funds within 60 days of the date

the application is submitted and deemed complete. A completed application includes the supporting documentation requested in the application. The approval process may extend beyond 60 days if the supporting documentation is incomplete and/or if there is a delay in the AE returning the signed standard agreement.

Q: Will we receive our HEAP fund allocation all at once? A: Yes. One hundred percent of the allocation will be disbursed once the standard

agreement is executed. Funds will be issued directly to the AE.



Q: What happens if we do not spend all of the program funds? A: As stated in Health and Safety Code Section 50215(b)(2), “One hundred percent

of program funds shall be contractually obligated by June 30, 2021. Any funds not expended by that date shall be returned to the agency and revert to the General Fund.”

Eligible Uses of HEAP Funds Q: Do the programs I administer using HEAP funds need to comply with

California’s Housing First policy? A: Yes. In compliance with the requirements established under SB 1380 (Chapter

6.5 of Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), HCFC will require in all standard agreements that any program paid for wiith HEAP funds shall align and comply with the core components of Housing First as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8255(b).

Q: What are some examples of allowable uses for the HEAP funds? A: The parameters of the program are intentionally broad, and the examples provided

are not exhaustive. CoCs and the 11 large cities are encouraged to be creative and craft programs that meet specific needs that have been identified in their communities. Applicants must include in the application how the proposed activity is directly related to providing immediate emergency assistance to people experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of homelessness, and that those uses are aligned with California’s Housing First policy. Eligible uses include, but are not limited to: Services: Street outreach, health and safety education, criminal justice diversion programs, prevention services, navigation services, and operating support for short-term or comprehensive homeless services. Rental assistance or subsidies: Housing vouchers, rapid re-housing programs, and eviction prevention strategies. Capital improvements: Emergency shelter, transitional housing, drop-in centers, permanent supportive housing, small/tiny houses, and improvements to current structures that serve homeless individuals and families. Some communities are discussing solutions to address homelessness and the public health crisis by using funds for handwashing stations or public toilet and shower facilities.

Q: Can HEAP funds be used for capital projects such as construction of interim

shelters or permanent supportive housing? A: In general, HEAP funds can be used for capital projects. However, the HEAP

funds are intended to provide immediate emergency assistance to people experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of homelessness. In addition, there are expenditure deadlines and other requirements such as: 1. Fifty percent of funds must be contractually obligated by January 1, 2020 and

one hundred percent of funds must be expended by June 30, 2021 [Health and Safety Code Section 50215(b)(1-2)].

2. HEAP funds cannot be used for capital projects in jurisdictions that have not declared a shelter crisis.



3. Shelter or housing projects must follow Housing First policies as stated in SB 1380 (Chapter 6.5 of Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code).

Q: Are building projects, including new or renovation construction, paid for

with HEAP funds subject to state prevailing wage? A: HCFC considers HEAP funds to be “public funds” as that term is used in Labor

Code § 1720. Nevertheless, there are a variety of factors that may affect whether a project will be required to pay state prevailing wage. It is recommended that applicants consult with an attorney and/or the Department of Industrial Relations to determine whether a planned building project will be required to pay state prevailing wage.

Q: Can HEAP funds be used to provide services in jurisdictions that do not

declare a shelter crisis? A: Yes. CoCs, cities, counties, and nonprofit organizations may expend HEAP funds

for services that serve homeless individuals and families across jurisdictional lines. Counties may use HEAP funds allocated by the CoC to fund county activities that serve all county residents. HEAP funds cannot be used for rental assistance, rental subsidies or capital projects in jurisdictions that have not declared a shelter crisis.

Ineligible uses of HEAP Funds Q: What are the restrictions or ineligible uses of HEAP funds? A: Generally, if HEAP funds are used to pay for activities that serve homeless

individuals or families or those at imminent risk of homelessness, the uses are allowed, with the following restrictions:

1. Jurisdictions that have not declared a shelter crisis may not be the direct recipient of HEAP funding.

2. CoCs, cities, counties, and nonprofit organizations may not use HEAP funds for capital projects, such as building or expanding a shelter or navigation center, or for rental assistance, within a jurisdiction that has not declared a shelter crisis.

3. HEAP funds cannot be used to fund HMIS infrastructure or improvements. 4. At least five percent of HEAP funds must be used to establish or expand

services meeting the needs of homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness [Health and Safety Code Section 50214(c)].

5. Administrative costs are capped at five percent of program funds. This does not include staff costs directly related to carrying out program activities [Health and Safety Code 50214(b)].

6. HEAP funds cannot be used to create a strategic plan for addressing homelessness.

7. HEAP funds cannot be expended after June 30, 2021. Any long-term projects that would require payment after that date are not appropriate uses of HEAP funds.

8. Expenditures not intended for the purposes of providing aid for persons who are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness are not appropriate uses of HEAP funds.



This is not an exhaustive list of examples of ineligible uses. Contact the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council with any questions about use eligibility for HEAP funds: [email protected].

Homeless Youth Set-Aside Q: What is the definition of “Homeless Youth”? A: Consistent with other state and federal definitions, HCFC considers “homeless

youth” to mean an unaccompanied homeless individual who is not older than 24, for purposes of HEAP. Homeless individuals not older than 24 who are parents are included in this definition.

Q: Can we use more than five percent of our allocation for homeless youth? A: Yes. The five percent set-aside is a minimum amount. The CoCs and 11 large

cities may choose to spend additional funds for this target population. It will be important for CoCs and the 11 large cities to collaborate with youth advocates and service providers to determine the most appropriate activities to address youth homelessness.

Q: Are we required to use the homeless youth set-aside for separate programs

for homeless youth or can we incorporate it into other homelessness programs?

A: No, it does not have to be used for separate programs. However, the services provided for adults who are homeless may not be appropriate interventions or services for youth. HCFC strongly encourages the CoCs and 11 large cities to collaborate with those who work directly with this population, such as schools and educators, youth program providers, after school programs, and community centers to determine the best use of funds.

Reporting Requirements Q: What are the program reporting requirements? A: As stated in Health and Safety Code Section 50215(a)(1), “No later than January

1, 2020, each recipient of program funds shall submit to the agency a report.” HCFC will include reporting requirements in the standard agreement executed prior to distribution of HEAP funds to each large city or CoC. At this time, the reporting requirements include contract expenditures, the number of homeless individuals served by program funds, and the progress toward state and local homelessness goals. An additional report will be due no later than January 1, 2021, with a final report due shortly after June 30, 2021. AEs will need to submit confirmation that no less than 50 percent of program funds have been contractually obligated by January 1, 2020.

Q: How will the State monitor the program? A: HCFC will use the report submitted on or before January 1, 2020 to ensure that

AEs are on track to expend 100 percent of program funds by June 30, 2021. In addition to the reporting requirements above, it is expected that CoCs and large cities will provide direct oversight to recipients of HEAP funds.


https://cabcsh.sharepoint.com/sites/BCSHGrantManagementTeamSite/Shared%20Documents/HEAP/HEAP%20FAQs/[email protected]

CC~~~ ~@~00 I~ HOMELESS COORDINATING AND FINANCING COUNCIL

HOMELESS EMERGENCY AID PROGRAM (HEAP)

Program Guidance

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor Secretary Alexis Podesta, Council Chair

Ginny Puddefoot, Executive Officer

August 7, 2018

~&~~~@ D ~& HOMELESS COORDINATING AND FINANCING COUNCIL

Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) Grant Program Guidance – August 2018

The California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC) is pleased to announce the launch of the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP). HEAP is a $500 million block grant program designed to provide direct assistance to cities and counties to address the homelessness crisis throughout California. HEAP is authorized by Senate Bill (SB) 850, which was signed into law by Governor Brown in June 2018. This overview provides a program timeline with key milestones and delineates when stakeholders may expect program deliverables. Available Funding HEAP funding is divided into three categories for distribution.

Category for Distribution Funded Amount Eligible Applicants Continuum of Care – Based on Point in Time Count Ranges [SB 850: Section 2, Chapter 5, 50213 (a)]

$250,000,000 Continuum of Care (CoC)

Continuum of Care – Based on Percent of Homeless Population [SB 850: Section 2, Chapter 5, 50213 (b)]

$100,000,000 Continuum of Care (CoC)

City / City that is also a County – Based on Population [SB 850: Section 2, Chapter 5, 50213 (c)]

$150,000,000 Large Cities (LCs) with a population over 330,000

Eligible Uses HEAP funds are intended to provide funding to Continuums of Care (COCs) and large cities (LCs) with populations over 330,000, so they may provide immediate emergency assistance to people experiencing homelessness. Eligible uses include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Homelessness prevention activities, b. Criminal justice diversion programs for homeless individuals with mental health needs, c. Establishing or expanding services meeting the needs of homeless youth or youth at

risk of homelessness, and d. Emergency aid.

The parameters of the program are intentionally broad to allow local communities to be creative and craft programs that meet the specific needs they have identified. All activities must directly benefit the target population. Expenditure Deadlines The HEAP statute mandates that 50 percent of the awarded funds must be contractually obligated by January 1, 2020. Additionally, 100 percent of the funds must be expended by June 30, 2021. Unexpended funds must be returned to the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (BCSH) and will revert to the General Fund. Finally, administrative costs are Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) – Program Guidance H2 https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/


capped at five percent of program funds, but this does not include staff costs directly related to carrying out program activities. Eligible Applicants For the HEAP program, an Administrative Entity (AE) is the CoC. The CoC is the eligible applicant for HEAP funding for the same geographic boundaries for which it administers federal Department of Housing and Urban Development CoC funds. LCs with populations over 330,000 are also eligible applicants. Please refer to the California Department of Finance website for population estimates. LC grant applicants will enter into a contract with BCSH and administer their own funds separately, however, they will still be expected to collaborate with their CoC. Shelter Crisis Declaration The shelter crisis declaration is required for all cities and counties within a CoC that wish to receive HEAP funds, except for CoCs with fewer than 1,000 homeless people, based on the 2017 Point in Time count. Each incorporated city must declare a shelter crisis pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 8698) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Counties may declare a shelter crisis only for the unincorporated areas of the county. The declaration is a resolution that must be adopted by the governing body of a jurisdiction or jurisdictions within a CoC or LC. A sample resolution has been provided (see attachment A). If a CoC has fewer than 1,000 homeless people, they may submit with their application a waiver exempting all cities and the counties that are part of the CoC from declaring a shelter crisis. Pre-Application Program Timeline Beginning in early August, the HEAP team will begin the distribution of key program information and documents. These pre-application materials will help inform the local collaborative process and assist stakeholders as they plan their applications.

Program Guidance, Timeline, Sample Shelter Crisis Resolution, Funding Allocations August 3, 2018 The guidance document includes a program timeline, sample

resolution and funding allocation spreadsheet. HEAP Frequently Asked Questions August 10, 2018 The FAQs will be updated on a regular basis on the HCFC

website: http://www.bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/ Sample Application and Instructions August 17, 2018 An application map will be released in advance of the HEAP

Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). The map will track to the application. The map, once completed will make the application process seamless.

August 20, 2018 Application instructions will be distributed along with the sample application.

Workshops/Webinars - Application Training Documents August 13 – Ongoing Outreach and technical assistance will be conducted by the

HEAP team. A detailed schedule will be posted on the HCFC website at a later date.

Application Timeline Applications will be accepted immediately upon release of the Round 1 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) beginning on September 5, 2018. The Round 2 NOFA is planned for release on February 15, 2019. If, after the second round of awards, not all funds have been

Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) – Program Guidance H3 https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/


http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/

http://www.bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/aid_program.html

claimed by all administrative entities, the BCSH shall, no later than June 15, 2019, work with the Department of Finance to identify an appropriate allocation methodology for a third round of awards or determine if any unallocated funds should revert to the General Fund.

Round 1 NOFA Release September 5, 2018 Early Applications Reviews Start*** Starting in September 2018 Early Applications Awarded Starting in September 2018 Early Distribution of Funds Begins Starting in late October 2018

Round 1 Application Cut-off Date No later than December 31, 2018 Standard Applications Awarded No later than January 2019 Standard Distribution of Funds Begins April 2019

Round 2 NOFA Release February 15, 2019 Early Applications Reviews Start*** Starting in February 2019 Early Applications Awarded Starting in February 2019 Early Distribution of Funds Begins Starting in late March 2019

Round 2 Application Cut-off Date No later than April 30, 2019 Standard Applications Awarded No later than May 2019 Standard Distribution of Funds Begins July 2019

***The HEAP team, recognizing the urgent need in cities and counties, encourages early applications and will review applications, make award decisions, and disburse funds on a rolling basis, immediately upon receipt. Application Process HEAP applications will be received through an online portal, with supporting attachments submitted via email. There are separate applications for CoCs and LCs. The applicant (CoC or LC) must submit with the application proof that a resolution declaring a shelter crisis has been approved for all jurisdictions receiving funds. Applicants must conduct a local collaborative application process to determine how HEAP funds will be utilized in the CoC or LC. The submitting entity must also demonstrate coordination with stakeholders, including but not limited to, homeless service and housing providers, law enforcement, cities, and homeless advocates whose general service area falls within the CoC or LC. The CoC or LC in turn may make sub-awards to entities it determines are qualified to carry out the eligible activities and operate within areas with approved shelter crisis status.

Special Notes Collaboration CoCs and LCs must demonstrate that a local collaborative effort has been conducted prior to application submission. A collaborative process may include, but is not limited to, a public meeting, regional homeless taskforce meeting, letters of support with signatures of endorsement, an adopted homeless plan, and an adopted budget which includes HEAP funds. Proof of a public process may include sign-in sheets, meeting minutes, agendas, and public comment logs, among other items. It is important that a wide enough range of participants are consulted as part of this process. Participants should include representatives of local homeless



service provider entities, law enforcement, behavioral health, and city and county public officials.

Homeless Youth The HEAP statute requires a minimum investment of five percent of all awards be set aside for emergency assistance for homeless youth. The HEAP team encourages and expects local CoCs and LCs to work with youth advocates and related stakeholders to consider the level of investment that makes sense for this most vulnerable segment of the target population. Contact the Program The HCFC will be providing ongoing technical assistance and training to support CoCs and LCs in successfully applying for and administering HEAP funds. Additional information regarding the HEAP program is available on the HCFC website. To receive information releases regarding the HEAP program, please register for the program listserv. If you have questions, please direct them to the HCFC inbox at [email protected].



http://www.bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/aid_program.html

http://www.bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/webapps/subscribe.php


~-

Attachment A – Sample Crisis Declaration Resolution

DRAFT Sample Resolution:

Declaration of a Shelter Crisis

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

RESOLUTION OF [insert name of local governing body, e.g. City Council or County Board of Supervisors] OF THE [insert name of jurisdiction, e.g. City or County here] _________________, STATE OF CALIFORNIA declaring a shelter crisis pursuant to SB 850 (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018 and Government Code § 8698.2).

The ____________ [insert name of local governing body, e.g. City Council or County Board of Supervisors] Finds:

WHEREAS, California’s Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and the members of the California Legislature have recognized the urgent and immediate need for funding at the local level to combat homelessness;

WHEREAS, The Governor and Legislature have provided funding to local governments under the Homeless Emergency Aid Program as part of SB 850 and the 2018-19 Budget Act (Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018);

WHEREAS, The Governor and Legislature require jurisdictions seeking an allocation through the Homeless Emergency Aid Program to declare a Shelter Crisis pursuant to Government Code §8698.2;

WHEREAS, [insert name of city or county here] has developed a homelessness plan and undertaken multiple efforts at the local level to combat homelessness;

WHEREAS, [insert name of city or county here] finds that [Insert the 2017 Point in Time Count for the jurisdiction] persons within the [insert name of city or county here] are homeless and living without shelter;

WHEREAS, [insert name of city or county here] finds that the number of homeless is significant, and these persons are without the ability to obtain shelter;

REQUIRED

WHEREAS, [insert name of city or county here] finds that the health and safety of unsheltered persons in the [insert City or County] is threatened by a lack of shelter;

WHEREAS, [insert name of city or county here] affirms the [insert: City’s or County’s] __________ commitment to combatting homelessness and creating or augmenting a continuum of shelter and service options for those living without shelter in our communities;



+--

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE [insert name of city council or county board of supervisors here] __________________, CALIFORNIA, that a shelter crisis pursuant to Government Code §8698.2 exists in [insert name of city or county here] ____________, and authorizes the [insert: City’s or County’s] _______ participation in the Homeless Emergency Aid Program.

Required: This is a specific term used in the code. Other terms such as shelter emergency, or homeless crisis are not sufficient.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the [insert governing body here] ___________ of the [insert name of city or county here] ____________, State of California at the meeting of the said [insert Board or City Council] held on the ___ day of _____________ by the following vote:

AYES: [insert name of local governing body]: __________________ NOES: [insert name of local governing body]: __________________ ABSTAIN: [insert name of local governing body]: __________________ ABSENT: [insert name of local governing body]: __________________

By: ____________________________________ ________________________, CHAIR PERSON ________________ [insert name of local governing body]

ATTEST: By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________________________

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: By: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________________________



HOMELESS COORDINATING AND FINANCING COUNCIL

Attachment B – Formula Funding Estimates

CoC Number

Jurisdiction Total Homeless, 2017

Percent of Total State Homeless, 2017

Section 50213(a) Per Jurisdiction portion of $250M

Section 50213(b) $100M Distribution Based on Percent of Homeless Population

Total of CoC Distribution per 50213(a) and (b)

50214(c) 5% Minimum Youth Set-aside Per Continuum of Care total of 50213(a) and (b)

CA-600 Los Angeles City & County 55,188 41.100% $ 40,000,000.00 $ 41,099,807.86 $ 81,099,807.86 $ 4,054,990.39 CA-601 San Diego City & County 9,160 6.822% $ 12,000,000.00 $ 6,821,668.48 $ 18,821,668.48 $ 941,083.42 CA-500 San Jose/Santa Clara City & County 7,394 5.506% $ 12,000,000.00 $ 5,506,486.54 $ 17,506,486.54 $ 875,324.33 CA-501 San Francisco 6,858 5.107% $ 12,000,000.00 $ 5,107,314.68 $ 17,107,314.68 $ 855,365.73 CA-502 Oakland, Berkeley/Alameda County 5,629 4.192% $ 12,000,000.00 $ 4,192,049.33 $ 16,192,049.33 $ 809,602.47 CA-602 Santa Ana, Anaheim/Orange County 4,792 3.569% $ 12,000,000.00 $ 3,568,715.65 $ 15,568,715.65 $ 778,435.78 CA-503 Sacramento City & County 3,665 2.729% $ 10,000,000.00 $ 2,729,412.12 $ 12,729,412.12 $ 636,470.61 CA-506 Salinas/Monterey, San Benito Counties 3,364 2.505% $ 10,000,000.00 $ 2,505,250.30 $ 12,505,250.30 $ 625,262.52 CA-504 Santa Rosa, Petaluma/Sonoma County 2,835 2.111% $ 10,000,000.00 $ 2,111,291.50 $ 12,111,291.50 $ 605,564.57 CA-608 Riverside City & County 2,406 1.792% $ 8,000,000.00 $ 1,791,805.06 $ 9,791,805.06 $ 489,590.25 CA-508 Watsonville/Santa Cruz City & County 2,249 1.675% $ 8,000,000.00 $ 1,674,883.45 $ 9,674,883.45 $ 483,744.17 CA-514 Fresno City & County/Madera County 2,016 1.501% $ 8,000,000.00 $ 1,501,362.84 $ 9,501,362.84 $ 475,068.14 CA-609 San Bernardino City & County 1,866 1.390% $ 8,000,000.00 $ 1,389,654.30 $ 9,389,654.30 $ 469,482.71 CA-606 Long Beach 1,863 1.387% $ 8,000,000.00 $ 1,387,420.13 $ 9,387,420.13 $ 469,371.01 CA-603 Santa Maria/Santa Barbara County 1,860 1.385% $ 8,000,000.00 $ 1,385,185.96 $ 9,385,185.96 $ 469,259.30 CA-510 Turlock, Modesto/Stanislaus County 1,661 1.237% $ 6,000,000.00 $ 1,236,985.95 $ 7,236,985.95 $ 361,849.30 CA-505 Richmond/Contra Costa County 1,607 1.197% $ 6,000,000.00 $ 1,196,770.88 $ 7,196,770.88 $ 359,838.54 CA-511 Stockton/San Joaquin County 1,542 1.148% $ 6,000,000.00 $ 1,148,363.84 $ 7,148,363.84 $ 357,418.19 CA-512 Daly City/San Mateo County 1,253 0.933% $ 4,000,000.00 $ 933,138.71 $ 4,933,138.71 $ 246,656.94 CA-509 Mendocino County 1,238 0.922% $ 4,000,000.00 $ 921,967.86 $ 4,921,967.86 $ 246,098.39



Attachment B – Formula Funding Estimates Continued CoC Number

Jurisdiction Total Homeless, 2017

Percent of Total State Homeless, 2017

Section 50213(a) Per Jurisdiction portion of $250M

Section 50213(b) $100M Distribution Based on Percent of Homeless Population

Total of CoC Distribution per 50213(a) and (b)

50214(c) 5% Minimum Youth Set-aside Per Continuum of Care total of 50213(a) and (b)

CA-518 Vallejo/Solano County 1,232 0.917% $ 4,000,000.00 $ 917,499.52 $ 4,917,499.52 $ 245,874.98 CA-519 Chico, Paradise/Butte County 1,195 0.890% $ 4,000,000.00 $ 889,944.74 $ 4,889,944.74 $ 244,497.24 CA-613 Imperial County 1,154 0.859% $ 4,000,000.00 $ 859,411.07 $ 4,859,411.07 $ 242,970.55 CA-611 Oxnard, San Buenaventura/Ventura

County 1,152 0.858% $ 4,000,000.00 $ 857,921.63 $ 4,857,921.63 $ 242,896.08

CA-614 San Luis Obispo County 1,125 0.838% $ 4,000,000.00 $ 837,814.09 $ 4,837,814.09 $ 241,890.70 CA-507 Marin County 1,117 0.832% $ 4,000,000.00 $ 831,856.30 $ 4,831,856.30 $ 241,592.81 CA-515 Roseville, Rocklin/Placer, Nevada Counties 979 0.729% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 729,084.44 $ 2,729,084.44 $ 136,454.22 CA-516 Redding/Shasta, Siskiyou, Lassen,

Plumas, Del Norte, Modoc, Sierra Counties 934 0.696% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 695,571.87 $ 2,695,571.87 $ 134,778.59

CA-513 Visalia/Kings, Tulare Counties 853 0.635% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 635,249.26 $ 2,635,249.26 $ 131,762.46 CA-604 Bakersfield/Kern County 810 0.603% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 603,226.14 $ 2,603,226.14 $ 130,161.31 CA-524 Yuba City & County/Sutter County 760 0.566% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 565,989.96 $ 2,565,989.96 $ 128,299.50 CA-522 Humboldt County 759 0.565% $ 2,000,000.00 $ 565,245.24 $ 2,565,245.24 $ 128,262.26 CA-525 El Dorado County 602 0.448% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 448,323.63 $ 1,448,323.63 $ 72,416.18 CA-607 Pasadena 575 0.428% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 428,216.09 $ 1,428,216.09 $ 71,410.80 CA-521 Davis, Woodland/Yolo County 459 0.342% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 341,828.15 $ 1,341,828.15 $ 67,091.41 CA-520 Merced City & County 454 0.338% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 338,104.53 $ 1,338,104.53 $ 66,905.23 CA-529 Lake County 401 0.299% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 298,634.18 $ 1,298,634.18 $ 64,931.71 CA-526 Tuolumne, Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa

Counties 367 0.273% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 273,313.57 $ 1,273,313.57 $ 63,665.68

CA-517 Napa City & County 315 0.235% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 234,587.94 $ 1,234,587.94 $ 61,729.40 CA-523 Colusa, Glen, Trinity Counties 176 0.131% $ 500,000.00 $ 131,071.36 $ 631,071.36 $ 31,553.57 CA-612 Glendale 168 0.125% $ 500,000.00 $ 125,113.57 $ 625,113.57 $ 31,255.68 CA-527 Tehama County 124 0.092% $ 500,000.00 $ 92,345.73 $ 592,345.73 $ 29,617.29 CA-530 Alpine, Inyo, Mono Counties 121 0.090% $ 500,000.00 $ 90,111.56 $ 590,111.56 $ 29,505.58



HOMELESS COORDINATING AND FINANCING COUNCIL

HEAP Large Cities Allocation

CoC Number

Jurisdiction 50213(c) Large Cities $150,000,000 Allocation

50213(c) Minimum Youth Set Aside Per Large City Allocation

CA-600 Los Angeles $ 85,013,607.00 $ 4,250,680.35 CA-601 San Diego $ 14,110397.95 $ 705,519.90 CA-500 San Jose $ 11,389,987.16 $ 569,499.36 CA-501 San Francisco $ 10,564,313.22 $ 528,215.66 CA-502 Oakland $ 8,671,116.82 $ 433,555.84 CA-602 Santa Ana $ 3,690,885.841 $ 184,544.29 CA-602 Anaheim $ 3,690,885.841 $ 184,544.29 CA-503 Sacramento $ 5,645,699.61 $ 282,284.98 CA-514 Fresno $ 3,105,519.90 $ 155,276.00 CA-606 Long Beach $ 2,869,833.12 $ 143,491.66 CA-604 Bakersfield $ 1,247,753.53 $ 62,387.68



ITEM 7E

Staff Report

Subject: Update on Right-of-Way Acquisition Activities for CV Link Contact: Martin Magaña, Director of Transportation, ([email protected]) Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director: 1) Be delegated as the official representative to take any and all actions required,

pursuant to federal and state law, to complete the Right-of-Way acquisition process and license agreement process for construction for CV Link; and

2) Have authority to spend up to $50,000 for expenditures related to Right-of-Way and construction activities for CV Link.

Transportation Committee: CONCURS (Meeting of August 27th) Technical Advisory Committee: CONCURS (Meeting of September 10th) Background: Since the Executive Committee’s certification of the CV Link Environmental Impact Report in May 2017, CVAG has been working on the next steps to get the project to construction. This has included finishing the federal environmental document, required for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and moving forward with right-of-way (ROW) acquisition activities. On September 25, 2017, the CVAG Executive Committee approved an agreement with Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) to perform ROW services related to CV Link. The EDA has extensive experience in acquiring right of way for the County and other jurisdictions. They have a strong relationship with Caltrans, which is the lead agency for CV Link’s NEPA work, and they fully understand the activities involved. The contract with the EDA includes professional services such as appraisals, escrows, titles, deeds, recording documents, fees, negotiations and any other services required to fully comply with established policies and procedures for ROW activities. CVAG staff and its engineering consultant, Mainiero Smith & Associates (MSA), has been working with the EDA on various undertakings for each parcel. This includes ordering preliminary title reports, reviewing legal plat maps and property descriptions, preparing ROW easement exhibits, ordering and reviewing appraisals, and drafting offer packages to acquire the needed ROW for CV Link. The ROW section accommodates the, typically, 14-foot-wide paved path, a 4-to-6-foot-wide pedestrian path, and buffer areas. Most of the ROW that must be secured is along the top of flood control levees that are currently in an unimproved state but used by flood control maintenance staff and vehicles.


CVAG has recently received appraisals from the EDA on various parcels of private and tribal properties. As they involve property negotiations, these need to be presented to the CVAG Executive Committee in closed session. Not all of the required ROW will be acquired in the conventional manner, such as in-fee. Some of the process will include obtaining easements from public agencies, including the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC). For on-street segments in particular, CVAG will need to secure permits from cities to use existing ROW. Most of the ROW associated with property is owned and/or controlled by flood control easements by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and/or Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. Both agencies have worked closely with CVAG in the planning of CV Link and have pledged to help ensure related right-of-way issues are properly addressed. After this item was presented to the Transportation Committee, CVAG was notified that CVWD and County Flood Control finalized and/or are very close to finalizing the licensing agreements. The license agreements have been reviewed by CVAG, CVWD and Flood Control staff and are attached for approval. They are similar in that they both provide CVAG with the legal authority to build CV Link on land that is owned or operated by either CVWD or County Flood Control. However, the CVWD agreement also includes a provision for having CVAG maintain work on the outer bank between Washington Street in La Quinta to Dillon Road in Coachella. The shape of the levee is different on this segment compared to other areas of the CV Link route, making it more logical for CVAG to maintain the outer bank as part of its other pathway maintenance work. CVWD will reimburse CVAG up to $173,320 a year for this work. As the project transitions from the planning stages to the construction phases, there will naturally be additional, bigger-ticket costs related to CV Link. Given that the Executive Committee meets intermittently throughout the year, CVAG staff is recommending that the Executive Director be given authority for right-of-way and construction-related activities for CV Link. This will help expedite the right-of-way process and ensure that the CVAG meeting schedule does not hinder the efforts to maintain progress on getting the project built. The CVAG Executive Director currently has signing authority up to $10,000, which is lower than many jurisdictions authorize for their City Managers. Having this project-specific signing authority will allow CVAG to maintain the project schedule for CV Link. CVAG staff is recommending $50,000. Having a larger signing authority is not unusual for agencies that have large capital projects. A survey of other regional transportation agencies revealed that sole source signature authority can range from $25,000 to $150,000. At the August 27, 2018, Transportation Committee meeting, it was suggested by Rancho Mirage Councilman Ted Weill that the recommendation be clarified to ensure the $50,000 authorization requires two signatures. This is consistent CVAG’s existing practices and the clarification was supported by the Transportation Committee. Fiscal Analysis CVAG has project funding available for the ROW acquisition. CVAG was awarded $2.8M funding from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for ROW activities as part of the Active Transportation Program Cycle 1 award. CVAG could not undertake certain ROW activities until Caltrans approved the CV Link federal environmental document, which occurred on July 26, 2018. This important milestone also means Alta Planning & Design can complete final design plans, which should wrap up in October 2018.

It is anticipated that ROW activities will continue as Alta completes final design and construction documents for CV Link so that CVAG can advertise for bids and procure a construction contractor(s) for construction. As soon as CVAG starts receiving acceptance from property owners on the offer packages, it will have a better representation of the what segment(s) have the potential to start construction. As mentioned above, the license agreement with CVWD also includes a provision that CVAG will be reimbursed up to $173,320 a year for maintenance work along the levee’s outer bank. This provision only applies to the segment from Washington Street in La Quinta to Dillon Road in Coachella. Attachments: License agreement with CVWD License agreement with County Flood Control

ITEM 8a

Staff Report Subject: Status of I-10 Interchange Projects Contact: Eric Cowle, Transportation Program Manager ([email protected]) Recommendation: Receive and File Background: Attached is the latest status report for I-10 interchange projects as of 5/01/2018. Completed

1) Indian Canyon @ I-10 (Mar ‘12) 4) Monterey Avenue Ramp @ I-10 (Apr ’15) 2) Gene Autry/Palm Drive @ I-10 (Mar ’12) 5) Bob Hope/Ramon @ I-10 (Sep ’11) 3) Date Palm Drive @ I-10 (May ’14)

6) Jefferson Street @ I-10 Construction complete. Caltrans working on project acceptance and closeout. Portola @ I-10 Environmental approved. Working on final design. Construction anticipated late 2019. Monroe @ I-10 Project Study Report (PSR) completed. PA & ED underway. Jackson @ I-10 Project Study Report (PSR) completed. PA & ED underway. Ave 50 @ I-10 PS&E contract under way. Dillon Road @ I-10, @ SR86 Re-validating Preliminary Design and Environmental Document. Golf Center Parkway @ I-10 PSR on hold. FISCAL ANALYSIS: Funding for all of the interchange projects has been budgeted for through the project phase indicated, and secured through various funding sources so there is no additional fiscal impact.


Lead CVAG Funded Project Description Agency PEng ENV PSE ROW CON Through Status

InterchangesAvenue 50 @ 86S COA Environmental PA & ED underwayAvenue 50 @ I-10 COA PSE PS&E at 95%, ROW initiatedJefferson @ I-10 COR Construction Construction complete. Caltrans working on acceptance and closeout.Portola @ I-10 PD/COR Construction Environmental approved. Working on final design. Construction anticipated late 2019Golf Center Parkway @ I-10 Indio PSR PSR on hold.Dillon Road @ I-10, SR86, WWR COA PSR Re-validating Preliminary Design and Environmental Document to comply w/NEPAJackson @ I-10 Indio PSR In Env. phase. Alternatives analysis complete. Final ED scheduled for 2/2020Monroe @ I-10 Indio PSR In Env. phase. Alternatives analysis complete. Final ED scheduled for 2/2020

Arterial LinksAve. 48 (Jackson St. to Van Buren St.) COA Construction NEPA process ongoing. Construction anticipated spring 2018Ave. 50 (Calhoun St. to Harrison St) COA Construction PA/ED under wayNorth Indian Canyon Widening COR/DHS/PS Construction Currently in Design. Phase I paving completed.Hwy. 111 (Rubidoux to 760' west of Madison St.) Indio Construction Construction at approximately 70%, with completion anticipated by Thanksgiving.Jackson Street Signal Improvements Indio Construction Signal work completed. Working on synchronizaion phase.Madison St. (Ave 52 to Ave 50) Indio Construction Final phase construction underway. Completion anticipated spring 2019.

BridgesAvenue 66 Grade Separation over UPRR COR Construction completing design & env processAvenue 44 Bridge over WWR Indio Construction Environmental approved. Currently under design, obtaining ROW.Avenue 50 Bridge over WWR COA Environmental Caltrans approved PES Mar 23; Hist, bio, air, noise, hydraulic studies submitted.Cathedral Canyon Bridge CC Construction Awaiting encroachment permit from RCFC. Construction anticipated 2019.Date Palm Bridge (Across WWR) CC Construction Construction underway. Completion anticipated October 2018. Dune Palms Bridge over WWR LQ Construction Environmental completed; ROW underway; Const Jan 2020Frank Sinatra Bridge over WWR RM Construction In Final Design, Construction anticipated mid-2019South Palm Canyon Bridge over Tahquitz Creek PS PSE NEPA and CEQA approved. Project is currently in Final Design. Constr spring 2019.East Palm Canyon Drive Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash PS PSE Environmental and ROW. Constr by spring of 2019.Indian Canyon (fr. Garnet to & Incl. RR Crossing) PS Construction ROW , Utility relocations and PS&E. Constr fall 2019.Ramon Bridge Widening PS Construction Continuing ROW negotiations, complete spring 2019. Constr in 2019.Vista Chino Bridge over WWR PS Prelim Engin CNS selected for Final Design, with kick-off meeting held 16 August.COR-County of Riverside; RM-Rancho Mirage; IW-Indian Wells; PD-Palm Desert, PS-Palm Springs; CC-Cathedral City; COA-Coachella LQ-La Quinta;PEng=Preliminary Engineering; Env=Environmental; PSE=Plans, Specifications and Estimate; ROW=Right of Way; CON=Construction

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTSRegionial Arterial Program - Project Status Report

9/17/2018ITEM 8b

WORK LEAD CVAG CVAG CVAG COMMITTEDPROJECT DESCRIPTION ORDER NO. AGENCY AUTHORIZED EXPENDED FUNDS REMAINING

ARTERIAL LINKSNorth Indian Canyon Drive Widening 30122 COR 3,000,000 636,490 2,363,510Jefferson Street and Varner Road (North of Interstate 10) 30142 INDIO 4,500,000 1,611,754 2,888,246Madison Street (fr. Avenue 52 to Indio Blvd.) 30194 INDIO 24,204,794 12,738,102 11,466,692SR-111 (between Rubidoux St. & 760' west of Madison St.) 30197 INDIO 6,933,355 2,285,357 4,647,999Date Palm Drive Impr. (I-10 and Varner Rd.) 30207 CC 2,337,000 464,134 1,872,866Avenue 48 (bet. Jackson St. & Van Buren St.) 30237 COACHELLA 991,500 109,484 882,016Avenue 48 (bet. Van Buren St. and Dillon Road) 30255 COR 450,000 245,315 204,685Avenue 50 (bet. SR86 and I-10) 30257 COACHELLA 1,365,000 614,374 750,626Traffic Signals Project 30260 COACHELLA 1,725,000 1,725,000 0Jackson Street Signal Improvements Project 30290 INDIO 2,655,900 2,475,631 180,269Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Program 30480 VARIOUS 10,482,884 180,489 10,302,395Portola Avenue (North of Gerald Ford Drive) PD 534,935 0 534,935 FVarner Road (Intersection Impr. at Ramon Rd.) COR 1,164,000 0 1,164,000 FVarner Road (fr. Ramon Rd. to Monterey Ave.) COR 1,870,758 0 1,870,758 FAirport Blvd. (fr. Harrison St. to Highway 111) COR 7,898,603 0 7,898,603 FFrank Sinatra Dr. Intersection @ Hwy. 111 RM 670,712 0 670,712 FMonterey Ave. Widening (Dinah Shore to Gerald Ford) ($592,727) RM 770,034 0 770,034 FPortola Avenue (Northwest of Fred Waring Drive) PD 600,000 0 600,000 FInterchange Improvement (I-10 and Avenue 50) COACHELLA 1,875,000 1,875,000Avenue 50 (bet. Calhoun St. & Harrison St.) COACHELLA 3,375,000 3,375,000Washington St. & Fred Waring Drive Intersection Improvements LQ 1,395,555 1,395,555Avenue 50 and Jackson Street Intersection Improvements INDIO 225,000 225,000Indian Canyon Drive (between Camino Parocela to Aleo Road) PS 1,500,000 1,500,000 Sub-Total - Arterial Links 80,525,030 23,086,129 57,438,901

BRIDGESCathedral Canyon Bridge 30076 CC 1,895,820 204,229 1,691,591Date Palm Drive Bridge 30077 CC 1,608,925 1,277,163 331,762Frank Sinatra Bridge over WWR 30088 RM 3,035,822 168,182 2,867,640Ramon Road Bridge Widening 30218 PS 8,146,500 714,518 7,431,982Indian Canyon (fr. Garnet to and incl. Railroad Crossing Bridge) 30235 PS 4,642,150 1,342,312 3,299,838Avenue 50 Bridge 30243 COACHELLA 1,108,500 442,663 665,837Avenue 56 Grade Separation 30247 COR 14,884,000 13,374,465 1,509,535Avenue 66 Grade Separation 30248 COR 12,597,417 2,734,559 9,862,858Avenue 44 Bridge 30308 INDIO 1,654,260 235,884 1,418,376Gene Autry (fr. I-10 to Vista Chino incl. WWR & Railroad Bridge) 30350 PS 9,304,938 8,046,164 1,258,774Vista Chino Drive Bridge 30355 PS 8,172,375 146,626 8,025,749East Palm Canyon Drive Bridge (over Palm Canyon Wash) 30360 PS 1,109,611 43,908 1,065,703South Palm Canyon Bridge (over Tahquitz Creek Channel) 30365 PS 788,850 53,001 735,849Dune Palms Road Bridge 30445 LQ 3,369,000 569,773 2,799,227 Sub-Total - Bridges 72,318,168 29,353,447 42,964,721

INTERCHANGESJefferson / I-10 Interchange 30192 COR 42,160,000 27,321,119 14,838,881Interchange Preparation Fund 30199 VARIOUS 14,239,239 5,954,743 8,284,496Avenue 50 / I-10 Interchange 30245 COACHELLA 2,300,768 1,629,362 671,406Dillon Road/I10 Interchange & Dillon Road/SR86S Interchange COACHELLA 149,239 0 149,239Portola / I-10 Interchange PD 54,075,000 0 54,075,000 Sub-Total - Interchanges 112,924,246 34,905,224 78,019,022

GRAND TOTAL $265,767,444 $87,344,801 $178,422,643

F - Future reimbursements.

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTSRegional Arterial Program - Contract Status Report

Report as at August 31, 2018ITEM 8c

WORK LEAD CVAG CVAGPROJECT DESCRIPTION ORDER NO. AGENCY AUTHORIZED EXPENDED EXCESS FUNDS

Completed Projects - Prior years 9,038,848 8,980,333 58,515Completed Small Projects 721,492 721,492 0

ARTERIAL LINKSCompleted Arterial Link Projects - Prior years 99,720,656 78,306,501 17,316,971Avenue 50 (fr. Jefferson St. to Jackson St.) 30239 INDIO 550,000 521,010 28,990Avenue 42 (fr. Golf Ctr. Pkwy. to Clinton St.) 30137 INDIO 5,000,000 3,763,076 1,236,924Miles (fr. WWR to Clinton) 30305 COR 22,425,000 22,299,654 125,346Vista Chino Drive (PSR) PS 375,000 (Project cancelled)Cook Street Widening (fr. Fred Waring to Frank Sinatra) 30176 PD 3,000,000 1,810,527 1,189,473Date Palm Drive Impr. (to and including Vista Chino Drive Intersection) 30209 CC 560,062 473,720 86,342Indian Avenue (between 20th Ave. and Dillon Road) DHS 8,547,562 (Project cancelled)SR-111 (Indian Wells) 30410 IW 12,730,337 9,432,795 3,297,542Monroe (fr. Ave. 52 to I-10) 30193 INDIO 11,925,025 10,547,633 1,377,392Washington Street / Highway 111 Intersection Improvements 30460 LQ 582,483 481,493 100,990Varner Road (fr. Adams to Jefferson) 30145 INDIO 7,209,235 5,265,370 1,943,865Fred Waring (Adams to Port Maria) 30168 COR 5,370,000 5,370,000 0 Sub-Total - Arterial Links 177,995,360 138,271,780 26,703,835

BRIDGESCompleted Bridge Projects - Prior years 23,496,200 20,922,484 2,573,716Dillon Road Grade Separation 30250 VARIOUS 2,880,854 1,153,582 1,727,272Adams Street Bridge 30450 LQ 2,414,035 2,414,035 0Indian Canyon Dr. (across White Water River Wash) 30370 PS 2,301,000 2,078,736 222,264Avenue 52 Grade Separation 30246 COACHELLA 6,215,625 6,215,625 0 Sub-Total - Bridges 37,307,714 32,784,462 4,523,252

INTERCHANGESCompleted Interchange Projects - Prior years 57,454,816 50,865,406 6,589,410Ramon / I-10 Interchange (Bob Hope to Varner) 30212 Caltrans 11,710,000 0 11,710,000 CRamon / I-10 Interim Loo p Ramp / Signal Project 30217 COR 100,000 100,000 0Bob Hope / Ramon / I-10 Interchange 30212 CALTRANS 5,215,000 963,855 4,251,145Date Palm / I-10 Interchange incl. Railroad Bridge 30210 VARIOUS 17,181,000 11,678,993 5,502,007Palm Dr. / Gene Autry / I-10 Interchange 30220 COR 25,931,000 5,997,056 19,933,944Indian / I-10 Interchange 30230 PS 3,142,835 2,604,198 538,637Monterey / I-10 Interchange 30180 PD 5,150,000 3,990,633 1,159,367 Sub-Total - Interchanges 125,884,651 76,200,141 49,684,510

MID-VALLEY PARKWAYMesquite (fr. GAT to Dinah Shore incl. Dinah Shore Bridge) 30060/70 PS/CC 15,246,583 14,520,220 726,363Dinah Shore (fr. Date Palm to Plumley) 30079 CC 780,928 780,928 0Dinah Shore (fr. Plumley to Bob Hope) 30080/82/83 MULTI 4,642,875 2,953,163 1,689,712Bob Hope (fr. Frank Sinatra to Dinah Shore) 30090 RM 1,969,000 1,141,365 827,635Airport Extension Stage II 30100 PS 2,641,600 2,635,916 5,684 Sub-Total - Mid-Valley Parkway 25,280,986 22,031,592 3,249,394

OTHERFeasibility Study (for Gene Autry/Vista Chino/Indian) 30050 PS 90,000 89,989 11 Sub-Total - Other 90,000 89,989 11

GRAND TOTAL $376,319,051 $279,079,789 $84,219,516

A - Advanced monies B - Local contributions of $200,000 by jurisdictions C- Funded by STIP

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTSRegional Arterial Program - Contract Status Report (Completed Projects)

Report as at August 31, 2018

Lead CVAG Funded Project Description Agency Design CON Through Status

Bike/Ped Safety ProjectsPalm Drive Signals and Lighting DHS Construction Construction out to bid for First Phase. Balance on HOLD pending ATP Grant results.Palm Canyon intersection Pedestrian Enhancements PS Construction Design at 95%, Construction by November 2018S. Palm Canyon, E. Palm Canyon Improvements PS Construction Design at 95%, Construction by November 2018Indian Canyon Intersection Pedestrian Enhancements PS Construction Construction under contract. Awaiting long-lead items.Date Palm Sidewalk Gaps CC Construction Design at 95%. Anticipate out to bide in September.Calhoun Street Improvements Indio Construction Construction awarded to Granite ConstructionVista Chino Signals PS Construction Construction bid opening 06 SeptemberDinah Shore Mid-block Crossing CC Construction Construction out to bid. Palm Canyon Cross-walks PS Construction Project Completed.Avenue 48 Bicycle Lanes Indio Construction On Hold. Design Complete, construction pending ATP Grant ResultsCOR-County of Riverside; RM-Rancho Mirage; IW-Indian Wells; PD-Palm Desert, PS-Palm Springs; CC-Cathedral City; COA-Coachella LQ-La Quinta;

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTSBicycle/Pedestrian Safety Program - Project Status Report

9/17/2018ITEM 8d

ITEM 8e

CVAG JURISDICTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY(JUN) JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV(DEC) DECBlythe * ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -Cathedral City * ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -Coachella * ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -Desert Hot Springs * ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -Indian Wells * ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -Indio * ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -La Quinta * ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -Palm Desert * ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -Palm Springs * ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -Rancho Mirage * ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -Riverside County * ✓✓ - ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ - - - -Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians * - ✓ - - - -Cabazon Band of Mission Indians * - - - - -

CVAG JURISDICTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECBlythe * - * - - - -Cathedral City * ✓ - ✓ * ✓ - - ✓ - -Coachella * ✓ - ✓ * ✓ - - - -Desert Hot Springs * ✓ - ✓ * ✓ - - ✓ - -Indian Wells * ✓ - ✓ * ✓ - - ✓ - -Indio * ✓ - ✓ * ✓ - - ✓ - -La Quinta * ✓ - ✓ * ✓ - - ✓ - -Palm Desert * ✓ - ✓ * ✓ - - ✓ - -Palm Springs * ✓ - ✓ * ✓ - - ✓ - -Rancho Mirage * ✓ - ✓ * ✓ - - ✓ - -Riverside County * - ✓ * ✓ - - ✓ - -Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians * ✓ - ✓ * ✓ - - - -Cabazon Band of Mission Indians * - * - - - -

AbsentNo Meeting *

Scheduled Dark Month -

2018 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE ROSTER

2018 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE ROSTER

ITEM 8f

Staff Report Subject: Request for Input for the CVAG Audit Committee Contact: Gary Leong, Deputy Executive Director ([email protected]) Recommendation: Information only Background: At its April 30, 2018 meeting, the CVAG Executive Committee approved the creation of an Audit Committee. The intent was that the Audit Committee would meet prior to the start of the audit fieldwork and could also recommend particular projects for the auditors to review. These projects could rotate from year to year upon the suggestion of the Audit Committee. The following Executive Committee and Technical Advisory Committee members were named to the Audit Committee:

1) Councilman Richard Balocco, – Indian Wells 2) Mayor Michael Wilson – Indio 3) Mayor Linda Evans – La Quinta 4) Mr. Bill Pattison – Coachella City Manager 5) Mr. Chuck Maynard – Desert Hot Springs City Manager 6) Mr. Isaiah Hagerman – Rancho Mirage City Manager

The Audit Committee held their first meeting on July 24, 2018. After a healthy discussion, the Committee decided to solicit input from the Technical Advisory Committee members and Executive Committee members on whether they have any areas of concern, topics that require special focus, or other matters that should be considered as part of the Audit Committee’s efforts. Any and all concerns should be directed to CVAG Deputy Executive Director Gary Leong by October 31, 2018. These concerns will be compiled into a list and presented to the Audit Committee, which will consider next steps. Fiscal Analysis: It is expected that if additional work is to be performed by the auditors, the auditors will likely seek additional costs to facilitate the request. Those costs cannot be determined at this time. With the establishment of the Audit Committee, the Executive Director was authorized to approve additional costs with LSL CPAs related to work requested by the new Committee.


jstueckle

Typewritten Text

jstueckle

Typewritten Text

ITEM 8g

jstueckle

Typewritten Text

ITEM 8h

Staff Report Subject: 2017 CVAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Update Contact: Eric Cowle, Transportation Program Manager ([email protected]) Recommendation: Information only Background: In February 2017, the CVAG Executive Committee established a Bike and Pedestrian Safety Program to help address the far-too-common accidents that were occurring on regional arterial roadways. After a call for projects, the Executive Committee in September 2017 approved just over $10 million in funding for 10 projects that directly address bicycle and pedestrian accidents and fatalities on CVAG’s regional arterials.

Collectively, these 10 projects address situations that are responsible for 18.3 bicycle and pedestrian accidents per year. The projects include segments where 67 accidents, including eight fatalities have occurred in recent years. The approved corridors include some of the region’s heaviest bicycle and pedestrian activity, and the proposed solutions will certainly make a difference in reducing injury and loss of life for cyclists and pedestrians. Each of the reimbursement agreements contain a Time Trigger stipulating that the project begin the construction phase by December 1, 2018. One project has been completed to date. Another six projects have either been awarded construction contracts or are pending an award. Two projects will be advertised for construction later this fall. Two of the projects – Palm Drive in Desert Hot Springs and Avenue 48 in Indio – are tied to CV Link community connectors that are seeking funding from the state’s Active Transportation Program (ATP). Notification on which ATP grants have been successful will be made by the end of December 2018. Unexpected delays have been experienced for projects that involve signalization and have been awarded construction contracts, as there are issues obtaining fabricated aluminum components (i.e., traffic signals). Lead time for these items has stretched from a typical 2-4 weeks to 16-20 weeks in some instances. Individual projects updates are as follows: City of Palm Springs The City of Palm Springs received funding for five different projects. Installing crosswalks at Palm Canyon Road and Stephens Road and Via Las Palmas has been completed. Upgrading intersections along Indian Canyon Drive has been awarded and is awaiting delivery of long-lead items. Two signalized intersections along Vista Chino and North Palm Canyon required Caltrans coordination. While Caltrans expedited their review process to accommodate CVAG’s timeline, the project is in the same position of awaiting delivery of long-lead items. The projects that involve upgrading intersections


along North Palm Canyon Drive and extending through South Palm Canyon and East Palm Canyon is at 95% design with the project going out to bid for construction later this fall. City of Indio Indio is providing a road diet, mid-block crossing, lighting and sidewalks on Calhoun Street from Highway 111 south to Doctor Carreon Boulevard. The construction contract has been awarded to Granite Construction. Work is anticipated to begin in September as the start has been delayed awaiting availability of long-lead items (signal and lighting). Adding buffered bicycle lanes on Avenue 48, between Jefferson and Jackson Streets, has been included in CVAG’s proposed Arts and Music Line ATP grant application. As noted above, the work has been placed on hold pending the notification of ATP grant awards anticipated by the end of December 2018. City of Desert Hot Springs The City of Desert Hot Springs has decided to move forward with a first phase of adding new traffic signals and lighting on Palm Drive while awaiting the status of their ATP grant request for the CV Link connector project, which includes all of Palm Drive. The construction contract will be awarded in early September. City of Cathedral City The City is adding two mid-block crossings on Dinah Shore Drive and has already advertised for construction. Work is now anticipated in November, reflecting the long lead time to obtain the signal equipment. Construction of in-fill sidewalk along Date Palm Drive will be put out for construction bids in September. Projects that do not start the construction phase by the time trigger deadline of December 2018 will require an amendment to extend the time trigger to a future date. Fiscal Impact: This is an informational update only. There is no additional fiscal impact.

ITEM 8i

Staff Report Subject: Desert Community Energy Update Contact: Katie Barrows, Director of Environmental Resources ([email protected]) Recommendation: Information only Background: Desert Community Energy was scheduled to start serving customers on August 1, 2018. At a special meeting on July 25, the Desert Community Energy Board decided to delay launch of their Community Choice Energy program. After more than two years of research and planning, the decision to delay was based on a combination of factors. Late in July, a significant upward spike in the cost of energy occurred. Energy prices are linked to the price of natural gas which increased dramatically, especially in Southern California. At the same time, Southern California Edison proposed a rate decrease. And, the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), an “exit fee” charged by utilities to CCA customers, is still being debated at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Each of these factors created uncertainty. Under these conditions, the DCE Board could not guarantee lower or competitive rates compared to Southern California Edison, one of the founding principles for the program. As it would be for any new business, the decision to delay was based on being financially prudent and mindful about the needs of DCE customers. At the time the delay decision was made, Desert Community Energy had already notified customers in Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and Cathedral City about the program. The news about the delay was communicated through a letter from DCE Board Chair Shelley Kaplan, sent to all potential DCE customers. The DCE outreach team also contacted large customers and key accounts individually. Prior to the decision to delay, Desert Community Energy had been well-received by future customers. Customers in the three cities had received two notices in the mail. The rate of customers who chose not to participate or opt out of the Community Choice program was less than 1%. Due to changes made by CPUC in late 2017, DCE now plans to launch in 2020. The DCE Board will continue to monitor market prices and other factors to determine the best schedule for a future launch. Despite the delay, the DCE Board is committed to benefits of Community Choice Energy – giving electricity customers a choice, competitive rates, local control, cleaner, carbon-free energy and more investment in local renewable resources and energy conservation programs. Fiscal Impact: This is an informational update only.


ITEM8j

Staff Report Subject: Little Morongo Wash Encampment Clean-Up in Desert Hot Springs Contact: Kathleen Brundige, Conservation Management Analyst ([email protected]) Cheryll Dahlin, Management Analyst ([email protected]) Recommendation: Information Background: The Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) is a Joint Powers Authority and sister agency of CVAG responsible for the implementation of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The CVMSHCP covers an area of approximately 1.1 million acres within eastern Riverside County and provides for long-term conservation of ecological diversity and watersheds. Illegal dumping, off highway vehicles and target shooting are just a few of the threats to conservation, so monitoring the status of CVCC lands is a year-round activity.

In December 2017, the CVCC was notified by the City of Desert Hot Springs of multiple code violations resulting from a large encampment on a CVCC parcel in Desert Hot Springs, in the center of Little Morongo Wash. The encampment had migrated there from another, nearby parcel. The individuals generated a large amount of refuse in the watershed wash area, and accumulated nine trailers, 22 automobiles, and three boats in various stages of disrepair. The CVCC worked with the City to assess the situation and develop a clean-up plan. The CVCC posted a Notice to Vacate throughout the camp on July 31, 2018, informing individuals living on the land that the camp would be dismantled, and cleanup would commence on September 4, 2018.

Prior to posting the notice, CVAG staff contacted Path of Life Ministries (POLM) to reach out to individuals in a housing crisis to offer shelter and support services. POLM began outreach through the newly expanded CV Housing First program and provided daily support for nearly eight weeks before the clean-up. There were about 20 individuals that lived in the encampment and about half were connected to services before the clean-up. Some refused assistance. POLM continued to build relationships with those at the encampment and, as the clean-up commenced, they worked with the remaining individuals to provide permanent, stabilized housing solutions through the Special Needs fund.

On September 4, 2018, CVCC contractors began clean-up around the camp as people were moving their property. CVCC offered up to 90 days of free storage for important items and documents. To prevent this encampment from happening in the future, CVCC will install a single line post and cable fence and signage to protect the property from illegal access, dumping and parking.

Having vacant land does make conservation areas prone to the development of homeless encampments. The CVCC has had to address this issue before. However, the launch of the CV Housing First program gave both CVAG and the CVCC an opportunity to deploy a coordinated



response so individuals were not just placed in a shelter or told to move along. As noted above, this response involved weeks of outreach and collaboration by multiple agencies. The result was that individuals were placed in permanent housing solutions, reconnected with families and directed to proper social services. The CVCC and CVAG hope this serves as a model to addressing any future encampments.

Fiscal Impact: CVCC Land Improvements fund has budgeted $80,000 for the cleanup and fencing of the encampment. Path of Life Ministries is contracted by CVAG for CV Housing First services. The CVAG Executive Committee approved an expansion of the services that began on July 1. These services include the new Special Needs Fund and new Outreach component that were critical to providing help to those in the encampment. Attachment: 1) Path of Life summary of encampment response

1

Cheryll Dahlin

From: Gregory Coffos <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 12:50 PMTo: Cheryll DahlinSubject: DHS Encampment Celebration Stories

Good Afternoon! Here are a few success stories that came from the DHS encampment. A couple, 54 & 56, owned a 22 ft. trailer located within the DHS encampment with no means of getting it

relocated. With a minimal income of $800 a month they were limited in options for housing and resources for anything else. Through your support our outreach team was able to engage and support this couple in need and tow them to another property with water, gas, and electric hook-ups where they could be Stabilize and allowed to live safe and secure.

A male participant, 46, living in the encampment was a previous victim of assault. As a consequence the

participant received a traumatic brain injury and now suffers severe short term memory loss after. Thanks to you support, we were able to provide the participant with special needs funding to purchase a starter for his vehicle so that he could move his vehicle. Our outreach were also able to support him as well assisting him with transportation to DMV to get his driver’s license and social security office to get his SSC.

A 48 year old male who came to California searching for work found himself struggling early in his endeavor. In this struggle the participant resorted to crime to support himself, eventually finding himself in prison. Upon release, this participant had nowhere to go and ended up homeless in the desert at the DHS encampment. With your support our outreach engaged the participant and reconnected him with his family in another state, where he is now residing.

A couple, 53 & 56, parked their RV at the DHS encampment, but when it broke down had no way of getting it out.

With a minimal income they found themselves stuck in a dire situation. With the support of CVAG, we were able to provide a special needs service to repair their RV and now they have moved into an RV park with full hooks up.

A man (55), in the middle of a family dispute ended up homeless with no resources and no income. With the

backing of CVAG, this man was reconnected with his daughter and reconciled their grievances and he is now stably housed.

A 50 year old woman with severe mental health found herself homeless in the DHS encampment with no resources. POLM outreach engaged the participant and supported her through connection to mental health services, as well as finding a resource for her to have her glasses replaced with a new prescription.

Greg Coffos, M.O.L. Coachella Valley Housing First SV

Path of Life Ministries

2

610 S. Belardo Rd. Ste. 300 Palm Springs, Ca 92264 (951) 236-2551 (951) 779-2953 Fax [email protected] www.thepathoflife.com This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure.If you have received this email in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author immediately.

ITEM 8k

Staff Report

Subject: Update on CV Link Community Connectors and ATP Cycle 4 Contact: Erica Felci, Governmental Projects Manager ([email protected]) Recommendation: Information only Background: In 2016, the CVAG Executive Committee finalized both the CV Link Conceptual Master Plan and the Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Both documents identified numerous routes across the Coachella Valley that serve as community connectors to CV Link. With the core route now funded and the design nearly completed, CVAG staff has put an increased focus on both planning and securing funding for these connector routes. These connector routes will be unique to each community, however CVAG and Alta Planning + Design have developed design templates to use as a baseline. This includes consistent signage, and cross-sections for both on-street and off-street designs. Improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians has been a driving force behind the design template. These community connectors will use color, and they have a distinctive barrier that can be illuminated with solar lights. This will increase visibility and create a physical separation between vehicles and the cyclists and pedestrians on the community connector. CVAG staff is working with Alta and its subconsultants to bring a demonstration of the barrier material to the Coachella Valley. The details are still being coordinated. But the intent is to bring a model of the proposed material – a precast plastic fixture – to the desert and install it on asphalt. This will allow CVAG and Alta to monitor its durability in the desert’s unique climate, before investing in the materials on a larger scale. Additionally, CVAG staff has worked with the member jurisdictions to apply for Cycle 4 of the state’s Active Transportation Program (ATP). Created by state legislation in 2013, ATP consolidated various funding sources into a single program to encourage active modes of transportation. ATP has become an extremely competitive program and recent awards have benefitted projects such as CV Link, the La Quinta Village complete streets network as well as Palm Drive in the City of Desert Hot Springs. ATP Cycle 4 is expected to provide about $440 million for projects. Applications were due in July. The largest grant applications from the region are both connections to CV Link:

• CV Link extension to the City of Desert Hot Springs: The City considered several routes, but ultimately submitted an application for a 15-mile route that runs along Palm Drive from CV Link to Mission Lakes Boulevard, heads west to Little Morongo Road and then connects back to Palm via Dillon Road.

• Avenue 48/ Arts & Music Line: This 10-mile project was submitted with CVAG, which worked with the cities of Coachella, Indio, La Quinta and Riverside County to develop the application.


As highlighted previously, the Arts & Music Line is a community connector to CV Link that’s located primarily along Avenue 48 between Interstate 10 and Washington Street. The eastern end will extend along Dillon Road to the Spotlight 29 Casino. The western end will extend southward along Washington Street and then further west and south along Eisenhower Drive, connecting to the Bear Creek Trailhead at the western terminus of Calle Tampico. The project’s design will incorporate both light and sound, plus provide pedestrians and cyclists safe access to the music and art festivals at the Empire Polo Grounds. The project also includes partnerships with two school districts and Goldenvoice, as the route provides an opportunity to feature students’ art and music.

Both projects are considered “large” infrastructure projects, as they exceed $7 million. While a funding match is not required in the ATP application, leveraging funds will provide both projects with up to five points automatically. It also can factor into the project’s cost effectiveness score, which is another five points. The grant applications are being reviewed through the fall, and the California Transportation Commission will announce their staff recommendations in December. In addition, CVAG provided support to the City of Palm Desert, which submitted an ATP Cycle 4 grant application for a connection along San Pablo Avenue. Although it’s a relatively short segment – the City sought funds between where CV Link runs along Magnesia Falls Drive and Fred Waring Drive – it will address the gap that will exist between CV Link and the City’s Vision San Pablo project. Fiscal Analysis: The design work related to the community connectors is funded through the contract amendment for Alta Planning + Design that the CVAG Executive Committee approved at the April 30, 2018 meeting. At the June 25 meeting, the CVAG Executive Committee authorized that previously approved CVAG transportation funds be used as a funding match for ATP Cycle 4 grant applications for Avenue 48/ Arts & Music Line and the CV Link connector in Desert Hot Springs and that additional funding be authorized to maximize the application’s leveraging points. At the time, the project costs were still being determined. This is a recap of what was presented in the applications:

• The Desert Hot Springs extension is estimated at $23.9 million and the submitted a request for $22.28 million from ATP. As part of its leverage, the City plans to use $1.215 million from the $2 million in regional funding previously approved in the 2017 Bike and Pedestrian Safety Program. The City did not want to use the entire amount as it would have resulted in additional city funds (in order to keep the 75-25 percent ratio). If the application is not funded, the City will instead proceed with the bike and pedestrian safety project originally funded along Palm Drive.

• The Arts & Music Line is estimated at $31.629 million and CVAG applied for $24.989 million in ATP funding. The application identifies $6.67 million as local/ regional leverage, which would allow CVAG and the cities to start the planning and engineering stages as soon as a grant award is announced. CVAG would reallocate the $861,575 in regional/ local funding that was approved for a project along Avenue 48 as part of the 2017 Bike and Pedestrian Safety Program. There is also funding committed to a bike-and-pedestrian improvement project near Avenue 48 and Van Buren in the City of Coachella. CVAG is working with County staff to determine how much of this funding could be factored into the Avenue 48 project and used as leverage. Once a grant is awarded, CVAG will work with cities determine the local share of the leverage, which will be split in the 75-25 percentage that is typical with regional transportation projects. Because the Avenue 48 project crosses multiple jurisdictions, the cities’ share of the leverage would be split.

• The San Pablo extension in Palm Desert did not include any CVAG funding as part of the application. The project total is $4.5 million, and the City is seeking $3.2 million in ATP funding.

Both the Avenue 48/ Arts and Music Line and the Desert Hot Springs active transportation projects are tied to priorities identified in CVAG’s Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and are therefore eligible for regional transportation funding. CVAG has transportation funding available to provide its share of the project cost match.

cdahlin

Typewritten Text

ITEM 8l

jstueckle

Typewritten Text

jstueckle

Typewritten Text

CV Housing 12 Month Report - July 2017-June 2018

jstueckle

Typewritten Text

jstueckle

Typewritten Text

jstueckle

Typewritten Text

Page 1 of 2

Prevention & Diversion Services Fiscal Progress Report: 2017/2018 Operate housing hotline to identify individuals in need, divert them from emergency shelter services, and connect them with the appropriate level of assistance.

Monthly Number of Referrals that were

1. Identified from housing hotline: 808 2. Diverted from Emergency Shelter Serv: 198 3. Connected with appropriate level of

assistance: 686 Cumulative Hotline (Unduplicated): 808 Cumulative Diversions: 198

Provide outreach/homeless intervention to those on the street.

Unique interventions and city & location of engagement Cathedral City: 24 Coachella: 47 Desert Hot Springs: 4 Indio: 141 La Quinta: 2 Palm Desert: 21 Palm Springs: 99 Rancho Mirage:5 Thousand Palms: 2 Blythe: 6 Cumulative Interventions: 351

Provide emergency rental assistance for those at risk of becoming homeless.

(HP) Unduplicated Households Diverted Via Rental Assistance and which resolution was applied: 60

Provide Rapid Rehousing to homeless individuals and families via CVAG Program.

Unduplicated Rapid Rehousing provided via CVAG Program: 6 Households

1. Number of Individuals: 5 2. Number of Families: 1

Provide Rapid Rehousing and Permanent Supportive housing to homeless individuals and families via other leveraged programs.

Unduplicated via other leveraged programs: 1. Rapid Rehousing: 36 Households

a. Individuals: 48 people b. Families: 16 families

2. Permanent Supportive: 23 Households a. Individuals: 18 b. Families: 5

Provide behavioral health support to those in housing. (CVAG and Other)

Behavioral Health Visits: 299

Page 2 of 2

Provide employment support to those in housing. (CVAG and Other)

Fiscal Employment Support: 121

Provide Crisis Stabilization Housing

Cumulative CSH Placements: 40 Cumulative CSH Bed Nights: 3,476 Cumulative POLM Shelter Placements: 43 Cumulative POLM Shelter Bed Nights: 2911