At the time this triennial review began, there were over 90 boards, committees, and commissions that had been established by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Over two-thirds of these bodies were discretionary, and the remainder of the bodies were required by either state or federal law or a Joint Powers Agreement. In Resolution No. 2002/377, in adherence to the Maddy Act, the Board established a requirement that it review its advisory bodies every three years to identify which ones should be abolished or consolidated. The County Administrator’s Office completed the last review in 2005.   
  
On March 6, 2007, the Board of Supervisors referred the matter of the review of its advisory bodies to the Internal Operations Committee. The purpose of the review was the evaluate whether the advisory bodies were working in a manner that is consistent with their mission, whether they work in accordance with County goals and objectives, and whether they receive an appropriate level of guidance and support.  
  
On May 7, 2007, CAO staff presented its work plan for the study to the Internal Operations Committee. At that time, the Committee approved the work plan; directed staff to research other studies of boards and commissions; and directed staff to advise the advisory body members/commissioners about the study and invite their input.   
  
On September 24, 2007, CAO staff provided a status report on the study to the IO Committee. The advisory body members/commissioners were informed about the review during the July 31, 2007 Advisory Body Training conducted by CAO and County Counsel staff. On December 7, 2007 staff of the advisory bodies were provided a 35 question survey to distribute to members for their input.   
  
On August 11, 2008, CAO staff provided findings and recommendations to the Internal Operations (IO) Committee for the 30 Phase I Discretionarybodies. On September 15, 2008, CAO staff provided findings and recommendations to the IO Committee for the 12 Phase I Mandatedbodies. On March 11, staff provided findings and recommendations to IO related to 27 Phase II bodies.   
  
On June 23, 2009, staff provided the Board of Supervisors with a status report of the study, covering all bodies that had been reviewed by the IO Committee to that point. The Board considered the findings and recommendations and provided further direction to staff to abolish the Human Relations Commission and the Loan and Grant Review Panel and continue to look for consolidation opportunities. For a Summary of IO Committee and Board actions, see Attachments A and B.  
  
The final phase of the triennial review (the completion of Phase II) was considered by the IO Committee on September 21, 2009 and included the following elements:  
  
1. Analysis of 11 Phase II Municipal Advisory Councils  
2. Review of 4 Joint Powers Authorities  
3. Results of research on advisory body reviews in other cities/counties  
  
  
Final Phase II Findings and Recommendations  
  
Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs)  
  
With regard to the 11 Municipal Advisory Councils in existence at the start of the study (a 12th MAC was subsequently established on August 11, 2009 for the Alamo community), a comprehensive review of the MACs’ operations and functions had been performed by a subcommittee of the Board of Supervisors that was established on December 20, 2005. Over the course of several years, the Ad Hoc MAC Committee recommended policies to the Board for the purpose of improving consistency in the composition, powers, and operations of the County’s MACs. The final set of MAC Policies were adopted by the Board on December 16, 2008.   
  
Given the comprehensive nature of the review of MACs by the Ad Hoc MAC Committee, the analysis of the 11 MACs for the purpose of this triennial review was abbreviated. The IO Committee recommendation for the purpose of this study is the development of a Bylaws template for those MACs that are currently functioning without an adopted set of Bylaws or the amendment of existing Bylaws, as needed, to make them consistent with, but not duplicative of, Board-adopted policies.  
  
Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs)  
  
After examining the materials provided by advisory body staff and follow-up discussions with staff, staff concluded its review of the Phase II JPA advisory bodies and submitted recommendations and findings on the attached spreadsheet, with which the IO Committee concurred (Attachment B, second tab).   
  
Results of research on advisory body reviews in other cities/counties  
  
In August 2008, CAO staff enlisted the support of the Urban Counties Caucus to survey member counties about any board/commission reviews undertaken in the prior three years. The survey asked the following questions:  
  
1) How did you determine which bodies are discretionary and which ones are mandated (by state and federal law)?   
  
a) Do you have a list you can share with us?  
  
2) In the course of your review, did your Board eliminate, suspend, or consolidate any bodies, and if so, which ones, and were any eliminated outright or by phase-out?  
  
3) In analyzing the bodies, please define the evaluation criteria used in your review.  
  
4) Was there a Survey done for staff and board/commission members; and if so, how was the survey conducted?  
  
5) Did your Board examine what other counties have done with respect to evaluating advisory bodies?  
  
6) How did you involve the public in the review process?  
  
7) How much staff resources were dedicated to the undertaking?  
  
The Counties of Ventura and San Diego provided responses. Staff also received a report in May 2009 regarding Los Angeles County’s review of their commissions and committees. LA County retained a consultant to review the County’s 95 commissions; 11 were recommended for elimination.   
  
The most helpful idea to come out of the survey from San Diego County was their "Sunset Review Process," which is summarized as follows:   
  
"On a yearly basis or prior to July 1, the Clerk of the Board sends out a “Sunset Review” notification to contact persons on one-fourth of all active Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCCs). The Sunset Review process ensures that citizen advisory committees which are formed by the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to Federal or State mandate, County Ordinance, Joint Powers Agreements, Regulatory Code, Board Order, Board Action, or Board Resolution, are reviewed for need and effectiveness on a routine, scheduled basis.   
  
The advisory committee shall, by December 1 of that same year, review the establishing ordinance, policy, or resolution; develop a recommendation for continuance, deletion, make any necessary revisions and provide a written report to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.   
  
This shall include an evaluation of the committee's level of involvement in County programs relative to the duties and responsibilities defined in their establishing authority, actions accomplished or completed on issues assigned to the committee by the Board of Supervisors, and/or status of goals set by the committee; the justification for continuance (if recommended), with appropriate goals and timetables for the term of continuance; a budget analysis of the County cost and the benefit to the County of the committee; and citation of the appropriate government codes mandating the committee and its activities (where applicable).  
  
Contact persons listed for various advisory BCCs are responsible reviewing BCCs for need of continued existence and effectiveness in accordance with Board of Supervisors Policy A-74.  
  
Clerk of the Board consolidates reports on those advisory boards and submit such report to the Board of Supervisors and the CAO. The CAO will review the committee responses, receive input from appropriate departments, and recommend changes for the Board's consideration before or during the next scheduled budget deliberations."  
  
Staff also received an extensive amount of information from the City of Concord from a review of their commissions undertaken in 2004 to address options for streamlining and reorganization. Staff recommendations included streamlining the recruitment process, reducing the frequency of meetings, reducing commission size, lengthening the terms of commission members, and reorganizing various commissions to consolidate functions.  
  
Finally, an intern from Supervisor Glover’s office, Dana Cruz, who spent part of his internship with the CAO’s office performed research on the various advisory bodies in each county in California. He created a hyper-linked spreadsheet that not only lists each body within each county but links the name of the body to the on-line information about body. (See Attachment C.)   
  
Summary of Triennial Review Recommendations  
  
To summarize the triennial review, notable IO Committee recommendations concerning the Phase I Discretionarybodies included the following:  
  
1. The Agricultural Task Forceis staffed by the Conservation and Development Department. However, over the course of its existence, its mission has become more aligned with the responsibilities of the Agriculture Department and should be transitioned to that department.   
  
2. The Contra Costa Commission for Womenhas no staff support, and no budget has been provided since FY 2004-05. The IO Committee recommended that the Commission be restructured to a smaller size (from 26 members to 9 through attrition) and that a Work Plan and a financial plan be developed to support its activities.  
  
3. The Countywide Youth Commissionhad its budget eliminated for FY 2008-09 due to a required reduction for the UC Cooperative Extension department. The CAO recommended suspending the Commission in the Recommended Budget.   
  
The IO Committee recommended that the Commission continue to operate with volunteer staff support and that funding be sought to support the commission from grant opportunities or a sponsoring organization. If a Supervisor wishes to sponsor the commission, its current status should be reviewed and recommendations on how to proceed should be developed.  
  
4. The merger of the Family & Children’s Services Advisory Committeewith the Family & Children’s Trust Committee, which was directed by the Board in 2005, has not been accomplished with regard to work program although the membership has merged. IO Committee recommended that the merger be finalized and that the Bylaws be amended to reflect the combined mission and work program of the bodies.   
  
5. The Human Relations Commissionwas suspended by the CAO on August 15, 2007. The IO Committee recommended that the Commission suspension continue. The Board subsequently recommended it be abolished at its June 23, 2009 meeting.  
  
6. The IO Committee recommended that the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committeemission of the development of a continuum of services be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Commission/Delinquency Prevention Commission, whose mission is aligned to that of JSPAC, and that the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee be abolished.  
  
7. The Loan and Grant Review Panel, which was established in 1977 to evaluate housing rehabilitation grants and loans, was recommended for elimination by the Conservation and Development Department, which suggested that another process could be developed for these purposes. Subsequently, the Board recommended it be abolished on June 23, 2009.  
  
8. The Stormwater Utility Assessment Appeals Boardhas not met since 1993. The Stormwater Utility Assessment Appeals Board could be reestablished as needed. The IO Committee concurred with the recommendation for abolishment.  
  
  
The notable IO Committee recommendation regarding the 12 Phase I Mandated bodies was the following:  
  
1. The Workforce Development Boardshould be reduced in size. There are 37 seats on the Board, and there are currently more than 20 vacancies. The IO Committee requested further information about the efficacy of the Board and additional budget information.  
  
For more detail on the Phase I recommendations and findings, see Attachment A.  
  
Notable IO Committee (and Board of Supervisors, as noted) recommendations for Phase II bodies included:  
  
1. Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area Committee: Abolish and remove from the Maddy Book. The Board of Supervisors merged its functions with the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council on 12/18/08.  
  
2. Regional Library Boards: Abolish and remove from the Maddy Book.   
  
3. County Service Area P-1 Citizens Advisory Committee: Abolish and remove from the Maddy Book. This advisory body has been dissolved and all community advisory responsibilities turned over to the Crockett Community Services District.   
  
4. Downtown El Sobrante Redevelopment PAC: Abolish and remove from the Maddy Book. The PAC has never met; it can be re-established as needed.  
  
5. East County and San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commissions: Abolished by the Board of Supervisors on August 11, 2009.  
  
6. Sanitation District No.5 Citizens Advisory Committee: Abolish and remove from the Maddy Book. This committee was dissolved in May 2008 and all responsibilities transferred to the Crockett Community Services District.   
  
7. Alamo Beautification Steering Committee for Zone 36: Abolish and remove from the Maddy Book. This committee was abolished by the Board on August 11, 2009 in connection with the establishment of the Alamo MAC.  
  
8. County Service Area R-7A Citizens Advisory Committee: Abolish and remove from the Maddy Book. This committee was abolished by the Board on August 11, 2009 in connection with the establishment of the Alamo MAC.  
  
9. County Service Area R-9 (El Sobrante): Abolish and remove from the Maddy Book. All functions of that CSA are to be transferred to the El Sobrante MAC. (To be accomplished when CSA R-9 completes their final project.)  
  
For more detail on the Phase II recommendations and findings, see Attachment B.  
  
  
This report concludes the triennial review of advisory bodies for 2005-2008.   
  
The IO Committee recommends that the Board consider adoption of a "Sunset Review Process" based on the County's of San Diego's policy. (See Attachment D.) If adopted, staff will be directed to notify staff of advisory bodies of the new process and train them to adhere to it. CAO staff is also directed to ensure implementation of all IO Committee recommendations and Board actions contained in this report.