Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03282017 - Board of supervisorsCALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS ROOM 107, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 FEDERAL D. GLOVER, CHAIR, 5TH DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF, VICE CHAIR, 4TH DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA, 1ST DISTRICT CANDACE ANDERSEN, 2ND DISTRICT DIANE BURGIS, 3RD DISTRICT DAVID J. TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 335-1900 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. The Board of Supervisors respects your time, and every attempt is made to accurately estimate when an item may be heard by the Board. All times specified for items on the Board of Supervisors agenda are approximate. Items may be heard later than indicated depending on the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES March 28, 2017                  9:00 A.M. Convene, Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- "Real education should consist of drawing the goodness and the best out of our own students. What better books can there be than the book of humanity?" ~ Cesar Chavez Present: Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor; Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Absent: John Gioia, District I Supervisor Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator Sharon Anderson, County Counsel CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.99 on the following agenda) – Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Supervisor or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.   PRESENTATIONS (5 Minutes Each)   PRESENTATION proclaiming April 2-8, 2017 as National Crime Victims Rights Week in promotion of victims rights and to recognize crime victims and those who advocate on their behalf. (Mark Peterson, District Attorney)     AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) DISCUSSION ITEMS   D.1 WORKSHOP on Community Choice Energy, including presentation of the Final Technical Study for    March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 1 D.1 WORKSHOP on Community Choice Energy, including presentation of the Final Technical Study for Community Choice Energy prepared by the firm MRW & Associates and program presentations by MCE and East Bay Community Energy, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (Jason Crapo, Conservation and Development Department; Mark Fulmer, Principal with MRW & Associates)       Presenters: Dan Kalb, City of Oakland Councilmember and Board of Directors of EBCE , and Albert Lopez, Planning Director for Alameda County for EBCE; Dawn Weiz, for MCE. Speakers: Don Tatzin, City of Lafayette; Bruce Jensen, Alameda County planning department; Byron Pakter, Optony Inc.; Kevin Wilk, MCE; Alexandra McGee, MCE; Lisa Chang, resident of Alamo; Jenna Famular, MCE; Barbara Stebbins, EBCE; Anne Olivia, California Nurses Association; Lynda Deschabeault, Contra Costa Climate Leaders; Catherine de Neergaard, Quaker Earthcare Witness; Michael P. Cass, City of Concord principal planner; Charles Davidsen, resident of Hercules; Harry Thurston, resident of Antioch; Mathew Renner, resident of E. Richmond Heights; Carol Weed, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance. RECEIVED presentation on the Final Technical Study for Community Choice Energy prepared by the firm MRW & Associates; RECEIVED presentations from MCE and East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) concerning their Community Choice Energy programs; AUTHORIZED the County Administrator to request a deadline extension from MCE applicable to all Contra Costa jurisdictions;and SET May 2, 2017, to CONTINUE discussion of this item and provide direction to staff.   D. 2 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    There were no items removed for discussion.   D. 3 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    There were no requests to speak at public comment.   D. 4 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS 1. Agency Negotiators: David Twa and Bruce Heid. Employee Organizations: Contra Costa County Employees’ Assn., Local No. 1; Am. Fed., State, County, & Mun. Empl., Locals 512 and 2700; Calif. Nurses Assn.; Service Empl. Int’l Union, Local 1021; District Attorney’s Investigators Assn.; Deputy Sheriffs Assn.; United Prof. Firefighters, Local 1230; Physicians’ & Dentists’ Org. of Contra Costa; Western Council of Engineers; United Chief Officers Assn.; Service Employees International Union Local 2015; Contra Costa County Defenders Assn.; Probation Peace Officers Assn. of Contra Costa County; Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys’ Assn.; and Prof. & Tech. Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO; Teamsters Local 856. 2. Agency Negotiators: David Twa. Unrepresented Employees: All unrepresented employees. B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(1)) Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District v. County of Contra Costa, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N16-0477 1. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 2 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(2): two potential cases D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 1700 and 1750 Oak Park Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Agency Negotiator: Karen Laws, Principal Real Property Agent Negotiating Parties: Contra Costa County and Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District Under negotiation: Price and payment terms    There were no reports from Closed Session.   11:00 a.m. 24th Annual Cesar E. Chavez Commemorative Celebration The Board intends to start the celebration at the scheduled time. Agenda items that are not heard before 11:00 a.m. may be continued to later in the day at the discretion of the Board Chair.   D.5 PROGRAM      ADJOURN    Adjourned today's meeting at 1:35 p.m.   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute On-Call Concrete Services Contracts with Kerex Engineering, Inc., and Sposeto Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $150,000 each, for various road and flood control maintenance work projects, Countywide. (100% Local Road and Flood Control Funds)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) Engineering Services   C. 2 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/100 approving the third extension of the subdivision agreement for subdivision SD04-08918, for a project being developed by Thomas/DeNova, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 3 ACCEPT the 2016 Annual Report for the Iron Horse Corridor Committee, as recommended by the    March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 3 C. 3 ACCEPT the 2016 Annual Report for the Iron Horse Corridor Committee, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Concord, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Alamo, Danville, and San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) areas. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 4 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/104 approving the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement for subdivision SD14-09367, for a project being developed by Michael McGhee, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Rodeo area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) Special Districts & County Airports   C. 5 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/107 of Initiation ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Report and related proceedings for levy and collection of assessments for Countywide Landscaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) Fiscal Year 2017/2018, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. (100% Countywide Landscaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) Funds)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 6 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a long-term lease with Conco Aviation Center, LLC, guaranteed for 20 years by Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc., for the lease of the County-owned hangar located at 700 Sally Ride Drive, Concord, for an initial payment of $250,000, and monthly rent of between $12,000 and $20,949. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 7 RECEIVE report concerning the final settlement of James Lee vs. Contra Costa County; and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $75,000, as recommended by the Risk Manager. (100% Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 8 DENY claims filed by David Gaines, Robin Gaines, Victor Gutierrez, Kelly Moriarty, Reed Robertson, Adam Vancil, et al., Nicholas Ventimiglio, and Darnell Washington. DENY amended claims filed by Viking Insurance a subrogee of Brian Farley and Reed Robertson. DENY late claims filed by Tadeusz Wyrzykowski (2), and Ron Kooyman.      March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 4  AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) Honors & Proclamations   C. 9 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/99 proclaiming April 2-8, 2017 as National Crime Victims Rights Week in promotion of victims rights and to recognize crime victims and those who advocate on their behalf, as recommended by the District Attorney.       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 10 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/64 recognizing the 2017 Youth Hall of Fame honorees of the 24rd Annual Cesar E. Chavez Commemorative Celebration, as recommended by the Cesar Chavez Committee.        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 11 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/105 recognizing the City of San Ramon, the San Ramon Library Foundation and the Contra Costa County Library upon the reopening of the newly renovated San Ramon Library, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 12 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/114 recognizing the East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Chief Hugh Henderson upon his retirement for his 38 years of public service to Contra Costa County, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis.       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) Ordinances   C. 13 INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2017-04 amending the County Ordinance Code to exclude from the merit system the new classification of Sheriff's Chief of Management Services-Exempt, WAIVE READING, and FIX April 25, 2017 for adoption. (No Fiscal Impact) (Continued from March 21, 2017)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) Appointments & Resignations   C. 14 APPOINT Kevin Van Buskirk to the District IV seat on the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.    March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 5    AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 15 APPOINT Andrew Chahrour to the Appointee Seat III on the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 16 ACCEPT the resignation of Robert Saydah, DECLARE a vacancy in the Appointee 3 seat on the County Service Area P-5 Citizens Advisory Committee,and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 17 ACCEPT the resignation of Wade Harper, DECLARE a vacancy in City #1 Alternate seat on the Hazardous Materials Commission, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 18 APPOINT Charles Davidson to the District V Representative seat and Mark Thomson to the District V Alternate seat on the Contra Costa County Sustainability Commission, as recommended by Supervisor Glover.        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) Appropriation Adjustments   C. 19 Health Services (0451) / Fleet ISF (0064): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5055 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $27,309 from Behavioral Health Services Division – Conservator/Public Guardian to General Services – ISF Fleet Services for the purchase of a vehicle for client transportation and support in the Conservator/Public Guardian Office. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 20 Health Services (0460) / Fleet ISF (0064): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5061 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $26,000 from Public Health Senior Nutrition Program to General Services – ISF Fleet Services for the purchase of a replacement vehicle for the Senior Nutrition Program. (100% Local)        March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 6  AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) Intergovernmental Relations   C. 21 AUTHORIZE staff to send a letter to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction regarding the reform of school siting practices, as recommended by the Legislation Committee.       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 22 ADOPT a position of "Support" on the following five bills: AB 210 (Santiago): Homeless Multidisciplinary Personnel Team, a bill that authorizes counties to establish a multidisciplinary team to facilitate the expedited identification, assessment, and linkage of homeless individuals to housing and supportive services and to allow provider agencies to share information for the purpose of coordinating services; AB 211 (Bigelow): State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fees, a bill that reinstates annual reporting requirements regarding the expenditure of state responsibility area (SRA) fire fees; AB 236 (Maienschein): CalWORKs: Housing Assistance, a bill that adopts changes to CalWORKs housing assistance for temporary shelter to remove the requirement that the assistance only be available for a consecutive period of time, increase the daily assistance amount, and make the assistance available to certain families receiving reunification services through the child welfare services system; AB 435 (Thurmond): Child Care Subsidy Plans: County of Contra Costa, a bill that authorizes the County of Contra Costa to develop and submit an individualized county child care subsidy plan; and SB 222 (Hernandez): Inmates: Health Care Enrollment, a bill that requires the suspension of Medi-Cal benefits to end on the date a person is no longer an inmate of a public institution or is no longer otherwise eligible for benefits under the Medi-Cal program, as recommended by the Legislation Committee.        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) Personnel Actions   C. 23 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21841 to establish the following classifications and allocate them to the Salary Schedule: Airport Safety Officer I (represented), and reclassify one Airport Operations Technician (represented) position to Airport Safety Officer I; Airport Safety Officer II (represented), and reclassify one Airport Operations Specialist (represented) position to Airport Safety Officer II; Airport Safety Officer III (represented), and reclassify five Airport Operations Specialist (represented) positions and the incumbents to Airport Safety Officer III; Airport Safety Officer IV (represented), and reclassify three Lead Airport Operations Specialist (represented) positions and the incumbents to Airport Safety Officer IV, all in the Public Works Department. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)       RELISTED to a future date uncertain.   C. 24 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22043 to increase hours of one part time (24/40) Patient Financial Services Specialist position (represented) to full time in the Health Services Department. (85% TB grant; 15% General Fund)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 7  AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 25 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22044 to cancel one Clerk - Experienced Level position (represented) and add one Account Clerk – Experienced Level position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 26 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22045 to add one Health Services Information Technology Manager position (represented) and cancel one Information Systems Manager I position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 27 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22048 to add one Mental Health Community Support Worker II position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Mental Health Services Act)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 28 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22049 to cancel one Development Center Director position (represented) and add one Health Services Administrator – Level C position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Whole Person Care program revenues)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Leases   C. 29 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a lease with RIO Properties I, LLC, for 14,041 square feet of rentable office space for the Health Services Department – Information Technology Division, at 2380 Bisso Lane, Suite B in Concord, at an initial annual rent of $264,528, for the first year with an annual increase thereafter, for a term of 12 years with one ten-year renewal term under the terms and conditions set forth in the lease. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 30 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in the amount of $5,000 from East Bay Community Foundation for Rodeo Library services, pursuant to the local refinery Good Neighbor Agreement, for the period July 1 through December 31, 2017. (No Library Fund match)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 8  AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 31 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to apply for and accept funding in an amount up to $10,000 from the California State Arts Council for the Veterans Initiative in the Arts program for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (50% in-kind, 50% cash match)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 32 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Veterans Service Officer, or designee, to apply for and execute a contract to accept grant funding from the California Department of Veterans Affairs in an amount not to exceed $45,000, to provide mental health outreach and support services through the Veterans Voices television production for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (No County match)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a subcontract agreement, including modified indemnification language, with the Association of Bay Area Governments to accept grant funding in an amount not to exceed $152,093 from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to support marketing, education, and outreach for energy efficiency programs, for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017. (100% CPUC Grant Funds, No County match)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the State of California, Department of Health Care Services, effective December 31, 2016, to extend the term through December 31, 2020 with no change in the original payment limit of $1,594,000, to allow the County to continue providing local health initiative program services. (No County match)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 35 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to accept, a grant from John Muir Health, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $50,000 for respite care services for homeless adults at the Philip Dorn Respite Center, for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017. (No County match)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an interagency agreement with West Contra Costa Unified School District, to pay County an amount not to exceed $539,005 to provide school-based mobile clinic services, for the period December 19, 2016 through August 31, 2020. (No County match)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 9 C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, a contract with the California Department of Public Health, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $551,117 for the County Public Health HIV/AIDS Surveillance Project, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. (No County match)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 38 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount not to exceed $1,000 from the California Arts Council for Arts Commission to provide professional development activities for the period June 1, 2017 through January 1, 2018. (No County match)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective January 1, 2017, with the California Department of Education, to increase the payment limit by $500,000 to a new payment limit of $3,134,386 for general childcare and development program services, with no change to the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (No County match)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 40 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective January 1, 2017, with the California Department of Education, to decrease the payment limit by $500,000 to a new payment limit of $9,091,851 to provide State preschool services, with no change to the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (No County match)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Catholic Council for the Spanish Speaking of the Diocese of Stockton, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $28,000 to provide food services to the childcare program at El Concilio Preschool, for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018. (No County match)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute contracts with various agencies, including modified indemnification language, for use of the Sheriff's Range Facility for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. (100% User Fee revenue)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Public    March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 10 C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a purchase order amendment with Royal Wholesale Electric Co., to increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $190,000 for will-call electrical parts and supplies for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2019, Countywide. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Child's Best Interest, to extend the term from August 31 through November 30, 2017 and increase the payment limit by $43,125 to a new payment limit of $199,375, for increased ombudsman services. (10% County, 45% State, 45% Federal)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective March 1, 2017, with STAND! For Families Free of Violence, to increase the payment limit by $15,000 to a new payment limit of $218,470 for additional shelter-based services to domestic violence victims and their families for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (38% General Fund; 62% local revenues)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective May 1, 2017, with George Lee, M.D., to increase the payment limit by $250,000 to a new payment limit of $1,735,000 for additional hours of anesthesiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with University of California San Francisco in an amount not to exceed $306,218 to provide local evaluation services of the Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative / Lethality Assessment Program for the period March 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018. (100% Federal)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Carey & Co., effective March 28, 2017, to extend the term through December 1, 2017 and increase the payment limit by $49,000 to a new payment limit of $879,000, for additional construction administration services for the Exterior Renovations at 625 Court Street, Martinez Project. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Iraj Babaee (dba Advanced Hearing Systems) in an amount not to exceed $150,000 to provide audiology/hearing aid services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2019. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)      March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 11  AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective March 1, 2017, with Seneca Family of Agencies, to increase the payment limit by $461,372 to a new payment limit of $1,261,919 for additional services to increase placement stability of children, for the period August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2017. (39% County, 49% State, 12% Federal)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Dialysis Access Center, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $400,000 to provide dialysis services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2019. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Touchstone Counseling in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide outpatient psychotherapy services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2019. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with Apheresis Care Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $400,000 to provide therapeutic apheresis (collection of specific blood components) services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period April 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. (100% Hospital Enterprise I Fund)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with Jackson & Coker Locum Tenens, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, to provide temporary help physicians at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers and the County’s Martinez Detention Facility for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC, to extend the term from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2018 with no change to the payment limit of $85,000, for continuing independent registered municipal financial advisor services. (Bond Transaction Proceeds and Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Funds)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an amendment    March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 12 C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an amendment with Infectious Disease Doctors Medical Group, Inc., effective March 1, 2017, to increase the payment limit by $10,000 to a new payment limit of $260,000 to provide additional hours of infectious disease consulting services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective April 1, 2017, with Nicole C. Hickey, M.D., to increase the payment limit by $46,000 to a new payment limit of $421,000 to provide additional hours of pulmonary services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of May 15, 2016 through May 14, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $352,000 to provide residential board and care services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center patients in the Patch Program, for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. (100% County)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Justice Benefits Incorporated, Ltd. to extend the term from May 31, 2017 to May 31, 2018, with no change to the original payment limit of $300,000, for continued training and Title IV-E claiming assistance. (100% Commission Fees)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Infectious Disease Doctors Medical Group, APC, in an amount not to exceed $260,000 to provide infectious disease consulting and training at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 61 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective April 1, 2017, with Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, to increase the payment limit by $105,000 to a new payment limit of $210,000 to expand the residency training program in family medicine at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of May 1, 2013 through June 30, 2019. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and    March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 13 C. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Director, a purchase order with OmniPro Systems, Inc. of San Francisco in an amount not to exceed $653,530 to procure 500 personal computers over the period March 15 through June 30, 2017. (10% County; 48% State; 42% Federal)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Director, a purchase order with OmniPro Systems, Inc. of San Francisco in an amount not to exceed $179,170 to procure 700 computer drives and power supplies for upgrading desktop personal computers over the period March 15 through June 30, 2017. (10% County; 48% State; 42% Federal)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 64 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective March 1, 2017, with Aspiranet, to increase the payment limit by $73,870 to a new payment limit of $250,000 with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, to provide additional therapeutic behavioral services; and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $36,935 to a new payment limit of $125,000, with no change in the term of the automatic extension through December 31, 2017. (50% Mental Health Realignment; 50% Federal funds)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 65 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective March 1, 2017, with Anka Behavioral Health, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $961,107 to a new payment limit of $4,214,592, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, to provide additional mental health services; and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $480,554 to a new payment limit of $2,107,296, through December 31, 2017. (35% Federal Financial Participation; 65% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 66 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective April 1, 2017, with Community Options for Families and Youth, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $200,000 to a new payment limit of $2,353,912 with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, to provide additional therapeutic behavioral services; and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $1,176,956, through December 31, 2017. (43% Federal EPSDT; 29% County Realignment; 28% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 67 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective April 1, 2017, with Performance Logic, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $93,500 to a new payment limit of $183,370 with no change in the original term of September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2018, to provide additional software consulting and maintenance services to the Health Services Information Systems Unit. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 14 C. 68 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective April 1, 2017, with API Healthcare Corporation, to increase the payment limit by $203,508 to a new payment limit of $691,008 with no change in the original term of June 30, 2016 through June 29, 2019, to provide additional software consulting and maintenance services for the Department’s Patient Classification and Staffing and Scheduling Systems. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 69 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District $33,000 for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Fire First Responder medical equipment, medical supplies and EMS training to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District for Fiscal Year 2016-17. (100% Measure H Funds, CSA EM-1, Zone A)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 70 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with Global Healthcare Exchange in an amount not to exceed $70,000 for a contract management system to assist with purchase order payments and pricing at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, for the period March 28, 2017 through March 27, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 71 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order amendment with Direct Systems Support, to increase the payment limit by $169,000 to a new payment limit of $355,000 to provide support services for IBM and Lenovo servers for the period March 21, 2016 through December 28, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 72 AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to purchase, on behalf of the Health Services Department, 500 Safeway gift cards in the amount of $15 each for a total payment limit of $7,500 to use as incentives for consumer participation as allowed under Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 73 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective March 1, 2017, with Isaac Burns, MFT, to increase the payment limit by $78,000 to a new payment limit of $108,000 with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018, to provide additional specialty mental health services. (50% Federal, 50% State)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 74 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective March 1, 2017, with Paul Kramer, MFT, to increase the payment limit by $185,000 to a new payment limit of $225,000 with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018, to provide additional specialty mental health services. (50% Federal, 50% State)     March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 15    AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 75 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order amendment with West Interactive, to increase the payment limit by $70,000 to a new payment limit of $150,000 with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, for TeleVox client appointment reminder software. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 76 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with Staff Care, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $5,469,000, to provide temporary locum tenens physician services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 77 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with Vista Staffing Solutions, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,575,000, to provide temporary locum tenens physicians at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2019. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 78 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the Contra Costa County Bar Association to increase the payment limit by $1,300,000 to a new payment limit of $4,950,000 with no change to the term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, for the continued provision of criminal conflict defense services. (100% General Fund) (Continued from March 21, 2017)        AYE: District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT), District II Supervisor Candace Andersen (RECUSE) C. 79 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with John Murdock and Associates, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $231,000 to provide specialized forensic services for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2019. (100% Agency User fees)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 80 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Superior Mechanical Services, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $50,000 to a new payment limit of $140,000 with no change to the term of August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2017, to provide home weatherization equipment and services to low income residents throughout Contra Costa County. (100% State and Federal Weatherization Program funds)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 16 C. 81 Acting as the Governing Board of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Fire Chief, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with American Medical Response West, effective April 1, 2017, to update Ambulance Unit Hour Rates for emergency ambulance services, pursuant to provisions in the service plan, with no change to original term or payment limit. (Cost Neutral)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C. 82 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute an amendment to the ground lease and an amendment to the revocable grant agreement and related documents between the County and SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County to allow a change in the use of the Lyle Morris Center in Antioch from transition to permanent affordable housing. (100% Federal funds)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 83 ACCEPT the Contra Costa County 2016 General Plan Annual Progress Report and DIRECT staff to forward the report to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and the California Department of Housing and Community Development, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director.       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 84 ACCEPT the 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director.        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 85 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/26 rescinding existing Land Conservation Contract AP20-70, approving and authorizing the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute new Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005 for the Property identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 006-190-009 in the Tassajara Valley area, and authorizing related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (Donald and Wendy Cooper, Owner) (100% Applicant Fees)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 86 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/25 rescinding existing Land Conservation Contract AP20-70, approving and authorizing the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute new Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004, for the Property identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 006-190-010 in the Tassajara Valley area, and authorizing related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (Jeff and Angie Pedersen, Owners) (100% Applicant Fees)       March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 17  AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 87 ACCEPT the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Community Facilities District Tax Administration Report on County of Contra Costa Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities), as required by the California Government Code, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. (100% Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 Funds)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 88 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Substantial Amendment to the County's FY 2016/17 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan by changing the scope of work for the improvements to the Ambrose Recreation & Park District Community Center located at 3105 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point area, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Federal funds)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 89 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to Issue Request for Proposals in an amount not to exceed $175,000 for ombudsman services for the period December 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. (10% County, 48% State, 42% Federal)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 90 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority Advisory Committee members $24 per meeting, not to exceed 3 meetings per month for a total cost of $5,976 in stipends to defray meeting attendance costs for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. (50% Federal, 50% State)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 91 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Diablo Medical Training, to provide its phlebotomy students supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2020. (Non-financial agreement)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 92 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with San Jose State University to provide supervised field instruction to its dietitian, occupational therapy and speech pathology students at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. (Non-financial agreement)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 93 DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully    March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 18 C. 93 DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully depreciated vehicles and equipment no longer needed for public use, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 94 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an interagency agreement with Planned Parenthood Shasta Diablo, Inc. dba Planned Parenthood Northern California, to provide training at their site for County’s Family Medicine Residency Program, for the period July 1, 2016 through July 1, 2021. (Non-financial agreement)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 95 REFER to the Finance Committee the an evaluation of policy options for reviewing Master Compensation Agreements submitted for approval by Successor Agencies of former Redevelopment Agencies throughout the County, as recommended by the County Administrator. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 96 APPROVE Resolution No. 2017/115 designating Public Works Department positions authorized to sign applications and file with the California Emergency Management Agency for obtaining federal financial assistance, Countywide. (100% California Emergency Management Agency Funds)       AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 97 CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999, and most recently approved by the Board on March 7, 2017, regarding the issue of homelessness in Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 98 CONTINUE the emergency actions originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on January 26 and February 14, 2017, and most recently continued by the Board on March 14, 2017, regarding the hazardous conditions caused by a series of severe rainstorms in Contra Costa County, as recommended by the County Administrator.        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT) C. 99 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute the Maintenance of    March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 19 C. 99 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute the Maintenance of Effort Certification Form for Fiscal Year 2016/17 as required by Chapter 886, Statutes of 1994 to receive Proposition 172 (public safety sales tax increment) funds, and to submit the Certificate to the County Auditor-Controller, as recommended by the County Administrator. (100% State Proposition 172 Funds)        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District I Supervisor John Gioia (ABSENT)   GENERAL INFORMATION The Board meets in all its capacities pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 24-2.402, including as the Housing Authority and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Persons who wish to address the Board should complete the form provided for that purpose and furnish a copy of any written statement to the Clerk. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the Clerk of the Board to a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, First Floor, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553, during normal business hours. All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Board to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time the Board votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board. Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 651 Pine Street Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553; by fax: 925-335-1913. The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at (925) 335-1900; TDD (925) 335-1915. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, Room 106. Copies of recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900, to make the necessary arrangements. Forms are available to anyone desiring to submit an inspirational thought nomination for inclusion on the Board Agenda. Forms may be obtained at the Office of the County Administrator or Office of the Clerk of the Board, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Applications for personal subscriptions to the weekly Board Agenda may be obtained by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900. The weekly agenda may also be viewed on the County’s Internet Web Page: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Mary N. Piepho) meets quarterly on the fourth Monday of the month at 12:30 p.m. at Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Federal D. Glover) meets on the first Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez.March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 20 Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:30 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Federal Glover) To be determined The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Mary N. Piepho) meets on the first Thursday of the month at 11:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Federal D. Glover) meets on the second Monday of the month at 11:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Mary N. Piepho) meets on the first Thursday of the month at 1:30 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. Airports Committee See above Family & Human Services Committee See above Finance Committee See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee See above Internal Operations Committee See above Legislation Committee See above Public Protection Committee See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee See above PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 21 AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BGO Better Government Ordinance BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCCPFD (ConFire) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCRMC Contra Costa Regional Medical Center CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as DSRIP Delivery System Reform Incentive Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT Early State Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et alii (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development HHS (State Dept of ) Health and Human Services HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HR Human Resources March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 22 HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IHSS In-Home Supportive Services Inc. Incorporated IOC Internal Operations Committee ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LLC Limited Liability Company LLP Limited Liability Partnership Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1 LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MAC Municipal Advisory Council MBE Minority Business Enterprise M.D. Medical Doctor M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist MIS Management Information System MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SEIU Service Employees International Union SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 23 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 24 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE presentation on the Final Technical Study for Community Choice Energy (Technical Study) (Attachment A) prepared by the firm MRW & Associates; 1. RECEIVE presentations from MCE and East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) concerning their Community Choice Energy programs; 2. Set May 2, 2017, to CONTINUE discussion of this item and provide direction to staff.3. FISCAL IMPACT: MCE, EBCE and PG&E Options The options of joining MCE or East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), or remaining with existing PG&E service will involve no direct costs to the County or cities within the County that decide to implement one of these options. However, under these options it is unlikely the County and Contra Costa cities will be reimbursed for any of the consulting expense and County staff costs already incurred to evaluate Community Choice Energy (CCE) options, which so far total approximately $400,000. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Jason Crapo, 925-674-7722 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.1 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Community Choice Energy Workshop March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 25 FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) Contra Costa JPA Option Creating a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of the County and cities solely within Contra Costa County for the purpose of CCE would require the County and participating cities to identify a funding source to support approximately $2 million in additional start-up costs and secure a source of credit, or "working capital," on the order of $20 million to bridge the new JPA to the point where it generates sufficient revenue from customer electricity accounts to become self-supporting. Out-of-pocket expenses incurred by these jurisdictions would be reimbursable by the newly created JPA. The most likely source of funding for the estimated $2 million in additional start-up costs for a Contra Costa JPA option would be a loan from the County to the JPA, which could be repaid to the County by the JPA, potentially with interest, within the first few years after the JPA is established. The County and/or the other member jurisdictions of the JPA would also likely be required to provide a credit guarantee for all or a portion of the "working capital" line of credit (estimated at $20 million) which would be used to secure power purchase contracts and other necessary expenses prior to the JPA becoming financially self-sufficient. A budget for the various start-up activities associated with implementing a new Contra Costa JPA for the purpose of CCE are outlined in more detail in Attachment B to this report, which was prepared by the County's CCE consultant LEAN Energy, based on LEAN's direct experience with start-up costs for recently created CCE JPAs in neighboring Bay Area counties. BACKGROUND: Introduction On January 17, 2017, County staff and consultants presented the Draft Technical Study of Community Choice Energy (Draft Technical Study) to the Board of Supervisors (Board) for consideration. At that meeting, the Board directed County staff as follows: Provide presentations to interested Contra Costa cities on the Draft Technical Study Request that the CCE program initiated in Alameda County, East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), provide additional information to the County to clarify the membership process for Contra Costa jurisdictions interested in seeking membership in EBCE Accept public comments on the Draft Technical Study through the comment period ending January 31, 2017, and then work with MRW & Associates to finalize the Technical Study for presentation to the Board and Contra Costa city councils during the months of March and April 2017 At its January 17, 2017 meeting, the Board also indicated to staff that, among the CCE options evaluated in the Technical Study, the Board has a strong preference for the options that involve joining an existing CCE program (either MCE or EBCE) compared to the option of creating a new joint powers authority for this purpose within Contra Costa County. This report begins by providing general background on the development of CCE in California and prior Board action to initiate the Technical Study in partnership with 14 cities in Contra Costa County, and then provides an update on actions taken by County staff following direction given by the Board at its meeting on January 17, 2017. Community Choice Energy in California Community Choice Energy (CCE) is described in State law as Community Choice Aggregation. CCE involves cities, counties, or a joint powers authority (JPA) comprised of cities and/or counties, pooling ("aggregating") retail electricity customers for the purpose of procuring and selling electricity. Under a CCE program, the CCE entity would become the default electricity provider to all electricity customers within the service area. Costumers would have the ability to opt out of service from the CCE program and continue to receive service from the March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 26 incumbent electrical utility. Customers may also switch back later, though a nominal fee may be charged. In Contra Costa County, the incumbent electrical utility is Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The incumbent utility retains responsibility for operating and maintaining the electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure. Following the launch of CCE programs in Marin County in 2010 and Sonoma County in 2014, most other counties in the Bay Area and many counties throughout California are now in the process of studying or implementing CCE programs. Napa County joined the CCE program initiated in Marin County, MCE, in early 2016. The City and County of San Francisco launched a CCE program in May 2016, and San Mateo County launched its program in October 2016. Alameda County and Santa Clara County have both established JPAs for this purpose, with the intent to launch programs in the coming months. Prior Board Action to Initiate CCE Technical Study On March 15, 2016, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board) directed County staff to work with interested cities in Contra Costa County to conduct the Technical Study of Community Choice Energy. The Board directed staff to request that each participating city contribute financially towards the cost of the Technical Study in an amount proportional to the size of that city's population. During the spring of 2016, County staff negotiated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the 14 cities within the County that are currently not members of a CCE program (five cities within the County are members of the CCE program initiated in Marin County known as MCE). The MOU was approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 21, 2016, and has been executed by 13 of the 14 cities named in the MOU (the city of Orinda did not execute the MOU). Nine of the cities that are parties to the MOU are designated in the MOU as Funding Cities and have agreed to contribute financially towards the cost of the Technical Study in an amount proportionate to their population size. As described in the MOU, the Funding Cities will reimburse the County for their share of costs following completion of the Technical Study. The nine cities contributing financially towards the cost of the Technical Study are Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Martinez, Moraga, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, and San Ramon. The five cities that contributed data but decided not to contribute funding for the Technical Study are Antioch, Hercules, Oakley, Orinda and Pinole. MRW & Associates (MRW) was selected as the consultant to perform the Technical Study through a competitive process following the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) that was administered by the County Department of Conservation and Development and the County's Purchasing Division in the Public Works Department. As specified in the MOU, responses to the RFP were reviewed by an Evaluation Committee comprised of representatives from the County Department of Conservation and Development, the County Administrator's Office, and the cities of Brentwood, Danville, and Pittsburg. The Evaluation Committee was unanimous in its selection of MRW as the most qualified of the responsive firms to perform the Technical Study. Following the selection of MRW by the Evaluation Committee, the County negotiated a contract with MRW to perform the Technical Study. This contract was approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 16, 2016. Scope of Technical Study Consistent with direction County staff received from the Board of Supervisors when the Board authorized the Technical Study on March 15, 2016, the scope of the Technical Study includes a comparison of three different CCE program alternatives that could be implemented by participating jurisdictions in Contra Costa County to the fourth option of remaining with existing service from PG&E. The three CCE alternatives considered in the study are: Form a new joint powers authority (JPA) of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of implementing CCE; 1. Join the existing program known as MCE by seeking membership in its JPA;2. Join the new JPA established for the purpose of CCE in Alameda County known as East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). 3. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 27 Energy (EBCE). The technical study analyzes electrical load data that the County has requested and obtained from PG&E for the unincorporated area and the 14 participating cities. The technical study projects the electricity rates that might be charged by a new CCE program in Contra Costa County to its customers under several energy procurement scenarios and compares these projected rates to PG&E's projected rates. The study assesses the potential for a CCE program to lower greenhouse gas emissions generated from energy use within the participating jurisdictions compared to current PG&E service, and the extent to which a CCE program could stimulate economic activity within the County through reduced electricity rates and construction of local renewable energy generation facilities. Finally, the study includes a comparison among the three CCE program alternatives considered and the option of continuing with existing PG&E service, and presents the tradeoffs associated with each of these four options. Main Findings of the Technical Study The main findings of the Technical Study (found in its Executive Summary) are as follows: Jurisdictions in Contra Costa County participating in the Technical Study have several options for implementing a Community Choice Energy (CCE) program that would likely result in lower GHG emissions, increased local renewable energy generation, and increased local job creation compared to remaining with current electricity service from the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). 1. The electricity rates charged under various CCE scenarios available to the jurisdictions covered in the Technical Study would likely be similar to or less than the rates charged by PG&E for comparable service. The degree to which CCE rates are reduced below comparable PG&E rates depends in large part on the extent to which the CCE pursues policy objectives other than rate minimization in its energy procurement practices. Competing policy objectives may include increasing the supply of locally generated renewable energy, promoting energy efficiency, and maximizing local employment generated from a CCE program. 2. Contra Costa County contains enough technically feasible locations to meet a significant proportion of electricity demand for the area studied through locally generated renewable energy. Forty percent of the technically feasible sites fall within the Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative area. 3. The implementation of a CCE program within the studied area is projected to create roughly 500 to 700 new jobs within Contra Costa County and the surrounding region compared to remaining with current PG&E service, depending on the CCE option implemented. 4. The Technical Study compares three CCE program alternatives to current PG&E service and identifies the tradeoffs associated with these four alternatives. The decision of which program alternative to implement will require policy makers to balance costs and potential risks and benefits of each option. Public Comments and Changes to the Final Technical Study The Draft Technical Study was released to interested parties and the general public and posted on the County website on December 1, 2016. The County received public comments on the Draft Technical Study during a comment period that extended from December 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017. During this time, several organizations and individuals submitted written comments. All of the written comments on the Draft Technical Study are provided as attachments to this staff report. In addition, during the months of December 2016 and January 2017, the County and several cities posted an on-line survey regarding CCE on their websites. Over 300 residents and businesses within the County responded to the survey. A report of the survey results can be found as Attachment K to this staff report. In addition to answering the survey questions, over 100 survey respondents submitted narrative remarks on the Draft Technical Study and CCE generally. These comments can be found in Attachment L. Given the large number of comments submitted on the Draft Technical Study, staff prepared a Comment Summary (Attachment M) to help organize this information, and to provide responses to several categories of questions and comments that were raised by survey respondents and other commenters. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 28 Several of the comments on the Draft Technical Study submitted to the County resulted in MRW making changes to the Final Technical Study. These changes include: Responding to comments from MCE, MRW reevaluated its assumptions regarding the cost of building local renewable generating facilities, resulting in an increase in the assumed cost for such projects; Also responding to comments from MCE, MRW revised the discussion of governance and voting representation on MCE's Board of Directors; Responding to comments from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), MRW added additional information to substantiate the potential for a new CCE program in Contra Costa County to procure sufficient amounts of electricity from large hydroelectric generators to meet the GHG reduction levels projected in the Study. Next Steps At its meeting on January 17, 2017, the Board indicated a strong preference for joining either MCE or EBCE compared to the option of creating a new joint powers authority within Contra Costa County for the purpose of CCE. Should the Board wish to implement a CCE program within the County, the next step would be to decide if the County should begin the process of seeking membership in either MCE or EBCE, and to give direction to County staff to take the required steps to seek membership in one of these programs. As described in the Technical Study, MRW finds that both MCE and EBCE have the potential to provide jurisdictions in Contra Costa County the commonly held objectives of a CCE program: provide electricity that is derived from renewable sources to a greater degree than current PG&E service at a competitive price, and stimulate local economic development through build-out of local renewable energy generating facilities. The distinctions between MCE and EBCE are primarily related to organizational and governance issues. MCE is a mature organization with experienced staff, and has a track record of successful CCE program operation since 2010. However, because MCE is a well-established program and many important formative program decisions have already been made. EBCE, by contrast, is a very new program that has not yet hired staff or begun providing electrical service to customers, and therefore has no record of performance to evaluate. However, the fact that EBCE is in its initial stages of development offers Contra Costa jurisdictions an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of creating a new CCE program. Both MCE and EBCE would require Contra Costa jurisdictions to share governance with a large number of jurisdictions outside the County. Tradeoffs between MCE and EBCE are further discussed at length in Chapter 7 of the Technical Study. MCE and EBCE have both provided written guidance for Contra Costa jurisdictions interested in seeking membership in their programs (Attachments N and O). Both programs are offering membership to Contra Costa jurisdictions at no charge. Both programs require jurisdictions seeking membership to complete a number of procedural steps, which include adoption of a resolution and ordinance, no later than June 30, 2017 (MCE's inclusion period deadline is May 31, 2017, but MCE staff has indicated that MCE will consider requests from Contra Costa jurisdictions to extend its deadline to June 30, 2017) and staff recommends that this extension be requested at this time. County staff estimates it would take roughly 6 weeks to complete the required procedural steps following direction from the Board to move forward with seeking membership in either MCE or EBCE. The Board's last meeting in June 2017 is on June 20. Therefore, should the Board decide to move forward with seeking membership in either MCE or EBCE during 2017, staff recommends the Board provide such direction to staff at its meeting on May 2, 2017. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 29 CLERK'S ADDENDUM Presenters: Dan Kalb, City of Oakland Councilmember and Board of Directors of EBCE , and Albert Lopez, Planning Director for Alameda County for EBCE; Dawn Weiz, for MCE. Speakers: Don Tatzin, City of Lafayette; Bruce Jensen, Alameda County planning department; Byron Pakter, Optony Inc.; Kevin Wilk, MCE; Alexandra McGee, MCE; Lisa Chang, resident of Alamo; Jenna Famular, MCE; Barbara Stebbins, EBCE; Anne Olivia, California Nurses Association; Lynda Deschabeault, Contra Costa Climate Leaders; Catherine de Neergaard, Quaker Earthcare Witness; Michael P. Cass, City of Concord principal planner; Charles Davidsen, resident of Hercules; Harry Thurston, resident of Antioch; Mathew Renner, resident of E. Richmond Heights; Carol Weed, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance. RECEIVED presentation on the Final Technical Study for Community Choice Energy prepared by the firm MRW & Associates; RECEIVED presentations from MCE and East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) concerning their Community Choice Energy programs; AUTHORIZED the County Administrator to request a deadline extension from MCE applicable to all Contra Costa jurisdictions;and SET May 2, 2017, to CONTINUE discussion of this item and provide direction to staff. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Final Technical Study Attachment B - Budget Estimate for CCE Program Start Up Attachment C - MCE Comments 1 Attachment D - MCE Comments 2 Attachment E - IBEW Comments Attachment F - Jim Moita Comments Attachment G - Carol Weed et al Comments Attachment H - Sierra Club Comments Attachment I - El Sobrante Comments Attachment J - Scott Rafferty Comments Attachment K - CCE Survey Final Results Attachment L - Survey Comments Attachment M - Comment Summary Table Attachment N - MCE Inclustion Letter Attachment O - EBCE Inclusion Letter Attachment P - County Staff PowerPoint Presentation Attachment Q - EBCE PowerPoint Presentation Attachment R - MCE Powerpoint Presentation MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Correspondence Received March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 30 Technical Study for Community Choice Energy Program in Contra Costa County Prepared by: With MRW & Associates, LLC 1814 Franklin Street, Ste 720 Oakland, CA 94612 Economic Development Research Group Boston, MA Sage Renewables San Francisco, CA March, 2017 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 31 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 . MRW & Associates, LLC Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ i Loads and Forecast ........................................................................................................................ ii CCE Power Supplies ....................................................................................................................... iii Local Renewable Development ........................................................................................................... iv CCE Rate Analysis Results .............................................................................................................. iv Scenarios 1 and 3 (Simple Renewable Compliance) ........................................................................... iv Scenarios 2 and 4 (Accelerated RPS) .................................................................................................... v Macroeconomic and Job Impacts .................................................................................................. vii Comparative Analysis of CCE Options .......................................................................................... viii Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 What is a CCE? ...............................................................................................................................1 Assessing CCE Feasibility ................................................................................................................2 Chapter 2: Economic Study Methodology and Key Inputs ....................................................... 4 Contra Costa County Loads and CCE Load Forecasts ........................................................................6 CCE Supplies ..................................................................................................................................9 Power Supply Cost Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 12 Local Solar Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 15 Local Solar Modeled in the CCE Scenarios ......................................................................................... 21 Greenhouse Gas Costs ....................................................................................................................... 21 Other CCE Supply Costs ...................................................................................................................... 21 PG&E Rate and Exit Fee Forecasts ................................................................................................. 22 PG&E Bundled Generation Rates ....................................................................................................... 22 PG&E Exit Fee Forecast ...................................................................................................................... 23 Pro Forma Elements and CCE Costs of Service ............................................................................... 24 Pro Forma Elements ........................................................................................................................... 24 Startup Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Administrative and General Cost Inputs ............................................................................................ 26 Cost of Service Analysis and Reserve Fund ........................................................................................ 26 Chapter 3: Cost and Benefit Analysis .................................................................................... 28 Scenario 1 (Minimum RPS Compliance)......................................................................................... 28 CCE Average Costs .............................................................................................................................. 28 Residential Bill Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 29 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 30 Scenario 2 (Accelerated RPS) ........................................................................................................ 31 CCE Average Costs .............................................................................................................................. 31 Residential Bill Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 32 GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................................... 33 Scenario 3 (Minimum RPS Compliance plus Local Procurement) .................................................... 34 CCE Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 34 Residential Bill Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 35 GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................................... 35 Scenario 4 (Accelerated RPS plus Local Procurement).................................................................... 36 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 32 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 . MRW & Associates, LLC CCE Average Costs .............................................................................................................................. 36 Residential Bill Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 37 GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 4: Sensitivity of Results to Key Inputs ...................................................................... 39 Lower Participation Sensitivity ..................................................................................................... 39 Higher Local Renewable Power Prices Sensitivity .......................................................................... 40 Higher Renewable Power Prices Sensitivity ................................................................................... 40 Higher Exit Fee (PCIA) Sensitivity .................................................................................................. 41 Lower PG&E Portfolio Cost Sensitivity .......................................................................................... 41 Higher Natural Gas Prices Sensitivity ............................................................................................ 42 Stress Case and Sensitivity Comparisons ....................................................................................... 42 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 45 Chapter 5: Macroeconomic Impacts ..................................................................................... 46 How a CCE interacts with the Surrounding Economy ..................................................................... 46 Job Impacts of Proposed CCE Scenarios ........................................................................................ 47 Overview of Scenario Effects ............................................................................................................. 47 Resulting Impacts on Jobs .................................................................................................................. 50 Allocation of Earned Income Gains ............................................................................................... 55 Chapter 6: Other Risks ......................................................................................................... 58 Financial Risks to CCE Members .................................................................................................... 58 Procurement-Related Risks .......................................................................................................... 59 Legislative and Regulatory Risks ................................................................................................... 60 PCIA Uncertainty .......................................................................................................................... 60 Impact of High CCE Penetration on the PCIA ................................................................................. 61 Impact of High CCE Penetration on Low-Carbon (Hydro) Resources ............................................... 61 Bonding Risk ................................................................................................................................ 62 Chapter 7: Comparative Analysis of CCE Options .................................................................. 63 Rates ........................................................................................................................................... 64 GHG Reduction ............................................................................................................................ 65 Local Economic Benefits ............................................................................................................... 65 CCE Governance: Voting ............................................................................................................... 66 CCE Governance: Other ................................................................................................................ 69 Timing and Process to Join/Form .................................................................................................. 70 Costs to Join the CCE .................................................................................................................... 71 Exiting the CCE ............................................................................................................................. 71 Remaining With PG&E .................................................................................................................. 72 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 73 Chapter 8: Other Issues Investigated .................................................................................... 75 Synergies on the Northern Waterfront ......................................................................................... 75 “Minimum” CCE Size? .................................................................................................................. 76 Individuals and Communities Self-Selecting 100% Renewables ...................................................... 77 Competition with a PG&E Solar Choice Program ........................................................................... 78 Differences Between the Analyses for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties ................................... 79 Chapter 9: Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 82 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 33 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 . MRW & Associates, LLC List of Acronyms AAEE Additional Achievable Energy Efficiency CAISO California Independent System Operator CBA Collective Bargaining Agreement CCA Community Choice Aggregation CCE Community Choice Energy CEC California Energy Commission CPUC California Public Utilities Commission EE Energy Efficiency EBCE East Bay Community Energy ESPs Energy Service Providers FY Fiscal Year GHG Greenhouse Gas GRP Gross Regional Product GWh Gigawatt-hour (= 1,000 MWhs) IOU Investor-Owned Utility I/T Information Technology JEDI Jobs and Economic Impact (model) JPA Joint Powers Authority kWh Kilowatt-hour MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt-hour NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory PCIA Power Charge Indifference Adjustment PEIR Programmatic Environmental Impact Report PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric REC Renewable Energy Credit REMI Regional Economic Modeling Inc RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard SB 350 Senate Bill 350 TURN The Utility Reform Network March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 34 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 i MRW & Associates, LLC Executive Summary Main Findings 1. This study finds that the jurisdictions in Contra Costa County studied1 in this report have several options for implementing a Community Choice Energy (CCE) program that would likely result in lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, increased local renewable energy generation, and increased local job creation compared to remaining with current electricity service from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2. The electricity rates charged under various CCE scenarios available to the jurisdictions covered in this study would likely be similar or less than the rates charged by PG&E for comparable service. The degree to which CCE rates are reduced below comparable PG&E rates depends in large part on the extent to which the CCE pursues policy objectives other than rate minimization in its energy procurement practices. Competing policy objectives may include increasing the supply of locally generated renewable energy, promoting energy efficiency, and maximizing local employment generated from a CCE program. 3. This study finds that Contra Costa County includes enough technically feasible locations to meet a significant proportion of electricity demand for the area studied through locally generated renewable energy. Forty percent of the technically feasible sites fall within the Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative area. 4. The implementation of a CCE program within the studied area is projected to create between 500 and 700 new jobs within Contra Costa County compared to remaining with current PG&E service, depending on the CCE option implemented. 5. This study compares three CCE program alternatives to current PG&E service and identifies the tradeoffs associated with these four alternatives. The decision of which program alternative to implement will require policy makers to balance costs and potential risks and benefits of each option, which are described in detail. Purpose of this Study Community Choice Energy is described in State law as “Community Choice Aggregation.” California Assembly Bill 117, passed in 2002, established Community Choice Aggregation in California to provide the opportunity for local governments or special jurisdictions to procure or provide electric power for their residents and businesses. On March 15, 2016, the Contra Costa County (County) Board of Supervisors directed County staff to work with cities within the County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E for conducting a technical study of options for 1 The communities constituting the “Contra Costa CCE” throughout the report are Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Hercules, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, and unincorporated County. They do not include those communities already being served by the Community Choice Aggregator, MCE (El Cerrito, Lafayette, Richmond, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek). March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 35 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 ii MRW & Associates, LLC implementing CCE within the County’s unincorporated area and the 14 cities within the County not currently participating in a CCE program. The Board of Supervisors further directed the CCE technical study to compare alternatives for implementing CCE (i.e., establishing a Contra Costa County-Only CCE or joining one of the neighboring CCEs – MCE, formerly Marin Clean Energy, or East Bay Community Energy) to the option of remaining with PG&E. To assess whether a stand-alone CCE is “feasible” in Contra Costa County, the local objectives must be laid out and understood. Based on the specifications of the initial request for proposals and input from the County, this study: • Quantifies the electric loads that a Contra Costa County CCE would serve; • Includes analysis of in-county renewable generation; • Compares the rates that could be offered by the CCE to PG&E’s rates; • Calculates the macroeconomic development and employment benefits of CCE formation; and • Compares the benefits and risks of forming a CCE or joining a neighboring CCE versus remaining on PG&E bundled service. Loads and Forecast Figure ES-1 provides a snapshot of Contra Costa County bundled electric load in 2015 by city and by rate class.2 As the figure shows, total bundled electricity load in 2014 from Contra Costa County was approximately 4,000 GWh. The unincorporated areas of the County represented 25% of County load, and the cities of Concord and Pittsburg were together responsible for another 25%. Residential and commercial customers made up most the County load, with smaller contributions from the industrial and public sectors. 2 “Bundled” load includes only load for which PG&E supplies the power; it excludes load from Direct Access customers, load in the jurisdiction of another CCE provider, and load met by customer self-generation. This excludes load originating in the cities of El Cerrito, Lafayette, Richmond, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek, which are served by MCE. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 36 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 iii MRW & Associates, LLC Figure ES-1. PG&E’s 2015 Bundled Load in Contra Costa County CCE Power Supplies The CCE’s primary function is to procure supplies to meet the electrical loads of its customers. By law, the CCE must also supply a certain portion of its sales to customers from eligible renewable resources. This Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires 33% renewable energy supply by 2020, increasing to 50% by 2030. The CCE may additionally choose to source a greater share of its supply from renewable sources than the minimum requirements, or may seek to otherwise reduce the environmental impact of its supply portfolio. The CCE may also use its procurement function to meet other objectives, such as sourcing a portion of its supply from local projects to promote economic development in the County. The four supply scenarios considered in this analysis are summarized in Table ES-1. Table ES-1: Four Scenarios Modeled3 Scenario: 1 2 3 4 % RPS-Eligible in 2020 33% 50% 33% 50% % RPS-Eligible in 2030 50% 80% 50% 80% Share of RPS-Eligible from Local Resources 0% 0% 50% 50% 3 Customer-sited solar is not considered RPS-eligible in California and is not included in the RPS procurement in these scenarios. Customer-sited solar is incorporated in this analysis as a reduction to the CCE’s load. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 37 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 iv MRW & Associates, LLC Local Renewable Development The CCE may choose to contract with or develop renewable projects within Contra Costa County to promote economic development or reap other benefits. This study found 1,395 parcels that met the established criteria and 1,875 individual sites within the identified parcels where either a solar shade structure, large rooftop, or ground mounted system could be developed. Table ES-2 shows the total solar PV generation capacity within the County based on the methodology and assumptions in Chapter 3. Table ES-2. Total PV Solar Generation Potential and Build Cost Ground Mount Shade Structure Roof Mounted Total PV Capacity (MW) 1,891 1,320 144 3,355 PV Production (GWh) 3,025 2,113 230 5,369 Build Cost ($ Millions) $3,417 $3,977 $371 $7,660 Build Cost ($/Watt) $1.99 $3.10 $2.62 $2.56 No of PV Systems 845 886 144 1,875 CCE Rate Analysis Results Scenarios 1 and 3 (Simple Renewable Compliance) In Scenario 1, the CCE meets the mandated 33% RPS requirement in 2020 and the 50% RPS requirement in 2030, plus the 55% proposed target between 2030 and 2038. Annual GHG emissions are 50% lower on average than PG&E’s forecasted annual GHG emissions by assuming a fraction of the non-RPS power is provided by large hydroelectric resources. Figure ES-2 summarizes the results of Scenario 1. The figure shows the total average cost of the Contra Costa County CCE to serve its customers (vertical bars) and the comparable PG&E generation rate (line).4 Of the CCE cost elements, the greatest cost is for non-renewable generation (including large hydroelectric), followed by the cost for renewable generation, which increases over the years per the RPS requirements. Another important CCE customer cost is the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), which is the mandated charge that State regulators require PG&E to impose on all CCE customers.5 4 All rates are in nominal dollars. Note that these are NOT the full rates shown on PG&E bills. They are only the generation portion of the rates. Other parts of the rate, such as transmission and distrib ution, are not included, as customers pay the same charges for these components regardless of who is providing their power. 5 Per current regulations, the PCIA fee is expected to decrease in most years beginning in 2019 and to have less of an impact on CCE customer rates over time as resources expire from PCIA eligibility for CCE customers. However, given that PCIA regulations are subject to change, the possibility that PCIA rates may not decrease as expected is considered in the High PCIA scenario. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 38 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 v MRW & Associates, LLC Under Scenario 1, the differential between PG&E generation rates and the average cost for the Contra Costa County CCE to serve its customers (aka the CCE rates) is positive in each year (i.e., CCE rates are lower than PG&E rates). As a result, Contra Costa County CCE customers’ average generation rate (including contributions to the CCE’s reserve fund) can be set at a level that is lower than PG&E’s average customer generation rate in each year. Scenario 3 is the same as Scenario 1 except that by 2028 one-half of the renewable power is provided by local resources. The differential between PG&E generation rates and Contra Costa County CCE customer rates in Scenario 3 is lower than in Scenario 1; the expected Contra Costa County CCE rates continue to be lower than the forecast PG&E generation rates for all years from 2018 to 2038. Figure ES-2. Scenario 1 Forecast Average CCE Cost and PG&E Rates, 2018-2038 Scenarios 2 and 4 (Accelerated RPS) Under Scenario 2, the Contra Costa County CCE starts with 50% of its load being served by renewable sources in 2017, and increases this at a quick pace to 80% renewable energy content by 2030. Scenario 4 is the same as Scenario 2 except that by 2027 one-half of the renewable power is provided by local resources. The differential between PG&E generation rates and Contra Costa County CCE customer rates in Scenarios 26 and 4 is narrower than in Scenarios 1 and 3. Still, the expected Contra Costa County CCE rates continue to be lower on average than the forecast PG&E generation rates for all years from 2018 to 2038. However, for Scenario 4—very high local renewable penetration— 6 After 2033, the Contra Costa County CCE rates are lower for Scenario 2 than Scenario 1. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 39 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 vi MRW & Associates, LLC the modeling suggests that the CCE might not be able to beat PG&E rates in the 2025-2030 timeframe. (See Chapter 3 for details). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Scenarios 1 and 3, we include enough GHG-free hydroelectric power so that the Contra Costa County CCE’s GHG emissions rate is about half of PG&E’s GHG emissions rate. This requires using large hydroelectric power for 35% of the CCE’s generation portfolio, on average, from 2018 to 2038. Though this large hydroelectric power would not qualify for RPS requirements, it is considered a non-GHG emitting resource.7 Under Scenarios 2 and 4 these additions of large hydro power are not needed once the high renewable targets are met. The result is a portfolio that averages 20% large hydro from 2018 to 2038. Tables ES-4 shows GHG emissions from 2018-2038 for the Contra Costa County CCE in each Scenario and what PG&E’s emissions would be for the same load if no CCE were formed. Overall, the CCE is projected to reduce GHG emissions from the County by about half. This result is due in large part to not only the assumed renewable generation, but also the hydroelectric power assumed to be part of the CCE’s supply mix. Note that the analysis assumes “normal” hydroelectric output for PG&E. During the drought years, PG&E’s hydro output has been at about 50% of normal, and the utility has made up these lost megawatt-hours through additional gas generation. This means that the “normal” PG&E emissions shown here are lower than the “current” emissions. If, as is expected by many experts, the recent drought conditions are closer to the “new normal”, then PG&E’s GHG emissions in the first 8 years would be approximately 30% higher. Depending on whether the CCE were similarly affected by limited hydroelectric supply, the CCE’s emissions may increase as well. Table ES-4. Comparative GHG total emissions for PG&E and Contra Costa CCE GHG emissions PG&E (KTonnes)8 Contra Costa CCE (KTonnes) Savings (%) Scenario 1 5,882 2,957 50% Scenario 2 5,882 2,693 54% Scenario 3 5,882 2,957 50% Scenario 4 5,882 2,693 54% 7 While there is a limited supply of uncontracted large hydroelectric power, other operating CCEs have been successful in procuring this resource. To account for the limit ed supply, we added a 10% premium to the cost of this power. 8 Thousands of metric tons. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 40 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 vii MRW & Associates, LLC Macroeconomic and Job Impacts The local economic development and jobs impacts for the four scenarios were analyzed using the dynamic input-output macroeconomic model developed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). The model accounts for not only the impact of direct CCE activities (e.g., local project installations for two of the four scenarios, program administration), but also how the rate savings that County households and businesses might experience with a CCE ripple through the local economy, creating more jobs and regional economic growth. A CCE can also offer positive economic development and employment benefits to the County. The CCE could create approximately 500 to 700 additional annual jobs on average in the County plus an additional 50 to 400 jobs in the neighboring counties, depending on the scenario. The job impacts include not just the stimulus from program-related effects but jobs resulting from multiplier effects and competitiveness effects. Scenario 4 – with the smallest of net rate savings for the County’s electric customers contains the largest investment for small solar across the local economy. Figure ES-3 illustrates this through high-level results expressed as annual job changes for the Scenario 4. Figure ES-3. Scenario 4 Regional Annual Jobs Impacts, 2018 to 2038 The economic activity generated by the CCE results in incremental employment in a variety of sectors. Figure ES-4 shows the estimated job impacts (direct and indirect) by sector for Scenario 4 in 2021 (the year in which the CCE’s assumed solar investment is maximum). March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 41 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 viii MRW & Associates, LLC Figure ES-4. Contra Costa Job Impacts by Sector Scenario 4, 2021 Comparative Analysis of CCE Options Having the County and cities within the County form their own Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and CCE Program is not the only possibility for CCE participation. First, the County and/or its cities may join MCE (formerly Marin Clean Energy). In fact, five cities in the County—El Cerrito, Lafayette, Richmond, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek—are already members of MCE. These cities joined between 2012 and 2016, and have full standing on MCE’s board of directors. Second, the County and/or its cities could join East Bay Community Energy (Alameda County, EBCE). While this CCE has just been formed—the JPA board met for the first time in January 2017—it intends to begin delivery of power in early 2018. Furthermore, the County and each city need not join one or the other CCE en masse, but instead can join one or the other CCEs individually (or neither). Table ES-5 below provides a qualitative summary of the differences and similarities among these options. While a quantitative comparison would appear to provide more rigor, in this case it would provide only false precision. First and foremost, two of the potential CCE options are with entities which, while potentially viable, do not yet exist. Without power contracts, portfolios, or procurement guidelines and policies, it would be unwise to claim that EBCE or a potential Contra Costa-only CCE would have rates or greenhouse gas emissions higher or lower than the other. Comparisons against MCE can be somewhat more reasonably asserted; however, MCE’s stated goals—greater renewable energy content, lower greenhouse gas emissions, local generation, and comparable rates—are nearly identical to those stated by EBCE, making long- range rate and emissions distinctions immaterial. Thus, the qualitative comparisons provided in 0 50 100 150 200 250 Forestry, Fishing, & Rel. Activities Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation & Warehsg Information Finance & Insur. Real Estate & Rental-Leasing Professl, Scientific, & Tech Srvcs Management of Companies &… Admin. & Waste Mngmnt Srvcs Educ. Srvcs Health Care & Social Assist Arts, & Recreation Hotels & Food Services Other Services Local Govt 2021 Direct non-direct March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 42 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 ix MRW & Associates, LLC the table do not provide sharp distinctions between the CCE options.9 All these options are expected to provide similar rates and GHG emissions, with differences arising from variations in the priorities and procurement decisions of the individual governance boards. What truly distinguishes these options are primarily governance options (i.e., in-county only versus shared with other entities) and the amount of risk assumed (i.e., developing or signing on with a new CCE versus joining one with a record of satisfactory performance). Table ES-5. Comparison of Contra Costa CCE Options Criterion Form CCCo JPA Join MCE Join EBCE Stay with PG&E Rates Likely lower Likely Lower Likely Lower Base GHG Reduction Potential Over Forecast Period Some Some Some Base Local Control/Governance Greatest Some Some None Local Economic Benefit Potential Greatest Some Some Minimal Start Up Costs/Cost to Join Low, but greater risk10 None None None Level of Effort Greatest Minimal Greater None Program Risks Greatest Minimal Some Base Timing (earliest) Late-2018 Late-2017 Mid-2018 N/A 9 Differences between the CCE options and the option to stay with PG&E are more marked and better quantifiable, given that information on PG&E’s power portfolios, pro curement plans, and costs are at least partially available through various filings and applications PG&E has made before the CPUC. The comparisons provided above between the CCE’s rates and PG&E’s rates takes advantage of this information and market data o n power procurement costs to develop quantitative comparisons between the CCE and PG&E options. 10 Start-up costs incurred by the County or others are likely to be reimbursed by the JPA. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 43 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 x MRW & Associates, LLC Conclusions Overall, a CCE in Contra Costa County appears feasible. Given current and expected market and regulatory conditions, a Contra Costa County CCE should be able to offer its residents and businesses electric rates that are less than those available from PG&E. Sensitivity analyses suggest that these results are relatively robust. Only when very high amounts of local renewable energy are assumed in the CCE portfolio, combined with other negative factors such as higher PCIA rates, higher prices for local renewable power, or lower PG&E costs, do PG&E’s rates become consistently more favorable than the CCE’s. A Contra Costa County CCE would also be well positioned to help facilitate greater amounts of renewable generation to be installed in the County. Because the CCE would have a much greater interest in developing local solar than PG&E, it is much more likely that such development would occur with a CCE in the County than without it. The CCE can also reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the County if the CCE prioritizes this goal. Because PG&E’s supply portfolio has significant carbon-free generation (from large hydroelectric and nuclear generators), the CCE would need to contract for significant amounts of hydroelectric or other carbon-free power above and beyond the required qualifying renewables to reduce the County’s GHG footprint from electricity use. This analysis assumes that the CCE procures enough GHG-free generation to halve PG&E’s GHG emissions rate, subject to constraints on the minimum share of market supplies in the CCE portfolio. A CCE can also offer positive economic development and employment benefits to the County. At the peak, the CCE could create approximately 500 to 700 new jobs in the County plus additional jobs in neighboring counties. What may be surprising is that many of the economic benefits can come from reduced rates: residents and, more importantly, businesses can spend and reinvest their bill savings, and thus generate greater economic impacts. While the analytical focus of this report has been on a stand-alone Contra Costa County CCE, that is not the only choice for Contra Costa communities (not already in MCE). Overall, there is insufficient data to suggest that a stand-alone Contra Costa CCE would offer lower rates or greater GHG savings than joining MCE or EBCE. Either forming or joining a CCE would likely offer modestly lower rates, more local economic development, and similar or lower GHG emissions than remaining with PG&E. Joining MCE would likely result in the quickest and least risky path to CCE implementation, however at a loss of local input into CCE policy formation. Because it has yet to be formed, joining with EBCE would take longer than joining the already- established MCE, but would offer greater input into the CCE’s policies and formation. Although all the CCE program options available to the jurisdictions studied would likely provide both environmental and economic benefits compared to PG&E, continuing service from PG&E remains an option for not only a community but also for any individual or business whose community has selected CCE service. PG&E is an experienced power provider and is regulated by the State. Furthermore, remaining with PG&E does not require the jurisdiction to take any action. Lastly, simply because a Contra Costa community does not join a CCE in 2017 or 2018 does not necessarily preclude it from doing so in the future, although waiting may result in an “entry fee” or perhaps a higher PCIA rate. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 44 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 1 MRW & Associates, LLC Chapter 1: Introduction On March 15, 2016, the Contra Costa County (County) Board of Supervisors directed County staff to work with cities within the County to obtain electrical load data from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for the purpose of conducting a technical study of options for implementing Community Choice Energy (CCE) within the County’s unincorporated area and the 14 cities within the County not currently participating in a CCE program. The Board of Supervisors further directed the CCE technical study to compare the following alternatives for implementing CCE to the option of remaining with current electrical service from PG&E: 1. Form a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of CCE; 2. Form a new JPA in partnership with Alameda County and interested cities in both counties; and 3. Join the existing CCE program initiated in Marin County, known as Marin Clean Energy (MCE). The County and the 14 Contra Costa cities not currently participating in a CCE program all authorized the collection of load data from PG&E for this technical study. In addition, the County and the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Pittsburg, and San Ramon, and the Towns of Danville and Moraga, contributed funding for the completion of this study. What is a CCE? California Assembly Bill 117, passed in 2002, established Community Choice Aggregation (also known as Community Choice Energy or “CCE”) in California, for the purpose of providing the opportunity for local governments or special jurisdictions to procure or provide electric power for their residents and businesses. Under existing rules administered by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), PG&E must use its transmission and distribution system to deliver the electricity supplied by a CCE in a non-discriminatory manner. That is, it must provide these delivery services at the same price and at the same level of reliability to customers taking their power from a CCE as it does for its own full-service customers. By state law, PG&E also must provide all metering and billing services such that customers receive a single electric bill each month from PG&E, which would differentiate the charges for generation services provided by the CCE from the charges for PG&E delivery services. Money collected by PG&E on behalf of the CCE must be remitted in a timely fashion (e.g., within 3 business days). As a power provider, the CCE must abide by the rules and regulations placed on it by the State and its regulating agencies, such as maintaining demonstrably reliable supplies, fully cooperating with the State’s power grid operator, and meeting renewable procurement requirements. However, the State has no rate-setting authority over the CCE; the CCE may set rates as it sees fit so as to best serve its constituent customers. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 45 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 2 MRW & Associates, LLC Per California law, when a CCE is formed all the electric customers within its boundaries will be placed, by default, onto CCE service. However, customers retain the right to return to PG&E service at will, subject to whatever administrative fees the CCE may choose to impose. California currently has five active CCE Programs: MCE, serving Marin County and selected neighboring jurisdictions, including five cities in Contra Costa County; Sonoma Clean Power, serving Sonoma County; CleanPowerSF, serving San Francisco City and County; Peninsula Clean Energy, serving San Mateo County; and Lancaster Choice Energy, serving the City of Lancaster (Los Angeles County). Numerous other local governments are also investigating CCE formation, including Alameda County; Los Angeles County; Monterey Bay region; Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura Counties; ; the City of Davis and Yolo County; and Humboldt County to name a few. Assessing CCE Feasibility In order to assess whether a CCE is “feasible” in Contra Costa County, the local objectives must be laid out and understood. Based on the specifications of the initial request for proposals and input from the County, this study: • Quantifies the electric loads that a Contra Costa County CCE would serve; • Estimates the costs to start-up and operate the CCE; • Considers four scenarios with differing assumptions concerning the amount of GHG-free power and local renewable power being supplied to the CCE so as to assess the costs, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and local economic development opportunities possible with the CCE; • Includes analysis of in-county renewable generation; • Compares the rates that could be offered by the CCE to PG&E’s rates; • Quantitatively explores the rate competitiveness of the four scenarios to key input variables, such as the cost of natural gas; • Calculates the macroeconomic development and employment benefits of CCE formation; and • Compares the benefits and risks of forming a CCE or joining a neighboring CCE versus remaining on PG&E bundled service. For comparison, the differences in the results between this study and that conducted for Alameda County will be described and underlying reasons explained. The communities constituting the “Contra Costa CCE” in this study are: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Hercules, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, and unincorporated County. They do not include the communities already being served by the Community Choice Energy provider MCE (El Cerrito, Lafayette, San Pablo, Richmond and Walnut Creek). This study was conducted by MRW & Associates, LLC (MRW). MRW was assisted by Sage Renewables, which conducted the local renewable energy potential study, and by Economic Development Research Group, which conducted the macroeconomic and jobs analysis contained in the study. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 46 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 3 MRW & Associates, LLC This study is based on the best information available at the time of its preparation, using publicly available sources for all assumptions to provide an objective assessment regarding the prospects of CCE operation in the County. It is important to keep in mind that the findings and recommendations reflected herein are substantially influenced by current market conditions within the electric utility industry, which are subject to sudden and significant changes. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 47 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 4 MRW & Associates, LLC Chapter 2: Economic Study Methodology and Key Inputs This Chapter summarizes the key inputs and methodologies used to evaluate the cost- effectiveness and cost-competitiveness of a Contra Costa CCE relative to PG&E under different scenarios.11 It considers the regulatory requirements that a Contra Costa County CCE would need to meet (e.g., compliance with renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requirements), the resources that the County has available or could obtain to meet these requirements, and the PG&E rates against which the CCE would compete. It also describes the pro forma analysis methodology that is used to evaluate the financial feasibility of the CCE. The load and rate forecasts go out twenty years—through 2038. While all forecasting contains an element of uncertainty, the years beyond 2030 are particularly uncertain and should be seen as broadly indicative and not predictive. Understanding the interrelationships of all the tasks and using consistent and coherent assumptions throughout are critical to developing a meaningful analysis. Figure 1 shows the analysis elements (blue boxes) and major assumptions (red ovals) and how they relate to each other. As the figure illustrates, there are numerous interrelationships between the tasks. For example, the load forecast is a function of not only the load analysis, but also of projections of economic activity in the County. Two important points are highlighted in this figure. First, it is critical that wholesale power market assumptions are consistent between the CCE and PG&E. While there are reasons that one might have lower or higher costs than the other for a particular product (e.g., CCEs can use tax- free debt to finance generation projects while PG&E cannot), both will participate in the wider Western U.S. gas and power markets and therefore will be subject to the same underlying market forces. Applying different power cost assumptions to the CCE than to PG&E, such as simply escalating PG&E rates while deriving the CCE rates using a bottom-up approach, would produce erroneous results. Second, virtually all elements of the analysis feed into the economic and jobs assessment. As is described in detail in Chapter 5, this Study uses a state-of-the art macroeconomic model that can account for numerous activities in the economy, which allows for a much more comprehensive—and accurate—assessment than a simple input-output model. 11 The relative costs and merits of joining CCEs in neighboring counties are addressed in Chapter 7.) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 48 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 5 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 1. Task Map March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 49 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 6 MRW & Associates, LLC Contra Costa County Loads and CCE Load Forecasts MRW used PG&E bills from 2015 for all PG&E bundled service customers within the Contra Costa County region as the starting point for developing electrical load and peak demand forecasts for the Contra Costa County CCE program.12 Figure 2 provides a snapshot of Contra Costa County bundled load in 2015 by city and by rate class. PG&E’s total electricity load in 2015 from these customers was approximately 4,000 GWh.13 The unincorporated areas of the County represented 25% of County load, and the cities of Concord and Pittsburg were together responsible for another 25%. Residential and commercial customers made up most of the County load, with smaller contributions from the industrial and public sectors (Figure 3). This same sector-level distribution of load is also apparent at the jurisdictional level for most cities (Figure 2), except for the City of Pittsburg, which has a significant industrial-sector footprint. Figure 2. PG&E’s 2015 Bundled Load in Contra Costa County by Jurisdiction and Rate Class 12 Detailed monthly usage data provided by PG&E to Contra Costa County. “Bundled” load includes only load for which PG&E supplies the power; it excludes load from Direct Access customers, load in the jurisdiction of another CCE provider, and load met by customer self-generation. This excludes load originating in the cities of El Cerrito, Lafayette, Richmond, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek, which are served by MCE . 13 As determined from bill data provided by PG&E. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 50 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 7 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 3. PG&E’s 2015 Bundled Load in Contra Costa County by Rate Class To estimate CCE loads from PG&E’s 2015 bundled loads, MRW assumed a CCE participation rate of 85% (i.e., 15% of customers opt to stay with PG&E) and a three-year phase in period from 2018 to 2020, with 33% of potential CCE load included in the CCE in 2018, 67% in 2019, and 100% in 2020. To forecast CCE loads through 2038, MRW used a 0.4% annual average growth rate, consistent with the California Energy Commission’s most recent electricity demand forecast for PG&E’s planning area.14 The CCE load forecast is summarized in Figure 4, which shows annual projected CCE loads by class. To estimate the CCE’s peak demand in 2015,15 MRW multiplied the load forecast for each customer class by PG&E’s 2015 hourly ratio of peak demand to load for that customer class.16 MRW extended the peak demand forecast to 2038 using the same growth rates used for the load forecast. The peak demand forecast is summarized in Figure 5. 14 California Energy Commission. Form 1.1c California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2015 - 2025, Mid Demand Baseline Case, Mid AAEE Savings. January 20, 2015 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014_energypolicy/documents/demand_forecast_cmf/LSE_and_BA/ 15 Peak demand is the maximum amount of power the CCE would use at any time during the year. It is measured in megawatts (MW). The CCE must have enough power plants on (or contracted with) at all times to meet 115% o f the expected peak demand. 16 Data obtained from PG&E’s dynamic load profiles for Public, Industrial, Commercial , and Residential customers (https://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/energy_use_prices.shtml) and static load profiles for Pumping and Streetlight customers (https://www.pge.com/nots/rates/2016_static.shtml#topic2 ). March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 51 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 8 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 4: CCE Load Forecast by Class, 2018-203817 Figure 5. CCE Peak Demand Forecast, 2017-2038 17 Load forecasted assumes 85% participation and three -year phase-in. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 52 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 9 MRW & Associates, LLC CCE Supplies The CCE’s primary function is to procure supplies to meet the electrical loads of its customers. This requires balancing energy supply and demand on an hourly basis. It also requires procuring generating capacity (i.e., the ability to provide energy when needed) to ensure that customer loads can be met reliably.18 In addition to meeting the energy and capacity needs of its customers, the CCE must meet other procurement objectives. By law, the CCE must supply a certain portion of its sales to customers from eligible renewable resources. This Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires 33% renewable energy supply by 2020, increasing incrementally to 50% by 2030. According to PG&E’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant retirement application, PG&E may commit to purchasing additional renewable supply, targeting up to 55% of the total generation between 2030 and 2038, which the CCE would presumably at least match. The CCE may additionally choose to source a greater share of its supply from renewable sources than the minimum requirements, or may seek to otherwise reduce the environmental impact of its supply portfolio. The CCE may also use its procurement function to meet other objectives, such as sourcing a portion of its supply from local projects to promote economic development in the County. The Contra Costa County CCE would be taking over these procurement responsibilities from PG&E for those customers who do not opt out of the CCE to remain bundled customers of PG&E. To retain customers, the CCE’s offerings and rates must compete favorably with those of PG&E. The CCE’s specific procurement objectives, and its strategy for meeting those objectives, will be determined by the CCE through an implementation plan, startup activities, and ongoing management of the CCE. A primary purpose of this portion of the study is to assess the feasibility of establishing a CCE to serve Contra Costa County based on a forecast of costs and benefits. This forecast requires making certain assumptions about how the CCE will operate and the objectives it will pursue. To address the uncertainty associated with these assumptions, we have evaluated four different supply scenarios and have generally made conservative assumptions about the ways in which the CCE would meet the objectives discussed above. In no way does this study prescribe actions to be taken by the CCE should one be established. The four supply scenarios that we considered in this analysis are summarized in Table 1 and are described as follows: 1. Minimum RPS Compliance: The CCE meets the mandated 33% RPS requirement in 2020 and the 50% RPS requirement in 2030, plus the 55% RPS target after 2030. Annual GHG emissions from the CCE portfolio are halved relative to PG&E’s bundled portfolio 18 The California Public Utilities Commission requires that CCEs and other load serving entities demonstrate that they have procured resource adequacy capacity to meet at least 115% of their expected peak load. Because Contra Costa County falls within the Greater Bay Area Local Reliability Area, the Contra Costa County CCE must also meet its share of local resource adequacy requirements. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 53 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 10 MRW & Associates, LLC through the addition of large hydroelectric power purchases, subject to a constraint that 5% of the CCE supply come from non-renewable market sources.19,20 2. Accelerated RPS: The CCE’s supply portfolio is set at 50% RPS in the first year and increases to 80% RPS by 2030. As in Scenario 1, the remaining supply is a mix of hydroelectric power and market purchases aimed at halving PG&E’s annual emissions subject to a 5% minimum supply from market purchases. 3. Minimum RPS Compliance plus Local: The CCE meets the mandated 33% RPS requirement in 2020 and the 50% RPS requirement in 2030, plus the 55% RPS target after 2030. In addition, 50% of the total RPS generation is provided by local resources by 2030. Large hydroelectric and market supplies, and thus GHG emissions, are the same as in Scenario 1. 4. Accelerated RPS plus Local: The CCE’s supply portfolio is set at 50% RPS in the first year and increases to 80% RPS by 2030. In addition, 50% of the total RPS generation is provided by local resources by 2030. Large hydroelectric and market supplies, and thus GHG emissions, are the same as in Scenario 2. Table 1: RPS-Eligible Procurement and GHG Emissions in Each Scenario21 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Percent RPS-Eligible in 2020 33% 50% 33% 50% Percent RPS-Eligible in 2030 50% 80% 50% 80% Share of RPS-Eligible from Local Resources 0% 0% 50% 50% GHG Emissions compared to PG&E 50% Lower 54% Lower 50% Lower 54% Lower 19 For all scenarios we assume a minimum 5% non-renewable market supply to reflect operating constraints that require flexible, dispatchable generation on the system and in local areas. The CCE may be able to reduce emissions further through the use of energy storage or other measures to reduce the need for non-renewable power supplies, likely at additional cost. 20 The availability and cost risks of large hydropower are discussed in Chapter 6, Impact of High CCE Penetration on Low-Carbon (Hydro) Resources. 21 Customer-sited solar is not considered RPS-eligible in California and is not included in the RPS procurement in these scenarios. Customer-sited solar is incorporated in this analysis as a reduction to the CCE’s load. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 54 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 11 MRW & Associates, LLC To evaluate these scenarios, we assumed a simple portfolio consisting of RPS-eligible resources and additional GHG-free resources in an amount dictated by the particular scenario, with the balance of supply provided by non-renewable wholesale market purchases. In each case, we assumed that the RPS portfolio was predominately supplied with solar and wind resources, which are currently the low-cost sources of renewable energy. We assumed that solar and wind each contribute 45% of the renewable energy supply on an annual basis. To provide resource diversity and partly address the need for supply at times when solar and wind production are low, we assumed the remaining 10% of renewable supply would be provided by higher-cost baseload renewable resources, such as geothermal or biomass. In the early years, the CCE would have to purchase its required renewable power from the market and existing resources. However, the study assumes that the CCE would contract with new renewable resources, such that by 2030 most of its renewable power would come from new resources. Figures 6 and 7 show the assumed build-out of these new resources under the first (Minimum RPS Compliance) and the fourth (Accelerated RPS plus Local) scenarios described above. Figure 6. Scenario 1 CCE Build-Out March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 55 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 12 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 7. Scenario 4 CCE Build-Out Power Supply Cost Assumptions As discussed above, the CCE would procure a portfolio of resources to meet its customers’ needs, which would consist of a mix of renewable and non-renewable (i.e., wholesale market) resources. As shown in Figure 8, the products to be purchased by the CCE consist generally of energy, capacity, and renewable attributes (which for counting purposes take the form of renewable energy credits, or Category 1 RECs).22 22 RECs are typically bundled with energy deliveries from renewable energy projects, with each REC representing 1 MWh of renewable energy. A limited number of unbundled RECs may be used to meet RPS requirements. For the purpose of this study we have not considered unbundled RECs and have rather estimated costs based on renewable energy contracts where the RECs are bundled. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 56 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 13 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 8. Power Supply Cost Elements The CCE will procure supplies from the same competitive market for resources as PG&E. Thus, we assume that the costs for renewable and non-renewable energy and for resource adequacy (RA) capacity for the CCE are the same as for new purchases made by PG&E (discussed further in our forecast of PG&E rates). Wholesale market prices for electricity in California are largely driven by the cost of operating natural gas power plants, as these plants typically have the highest operating costs and are the marginal units. Market prices are a function of the efficiency of the marginal generators, the price of natural gas, and the cost of GHG allowances. MRW developed forecasts of these elements to derive a power price forecast to determine costs for the CCE and PG&E. Large hydroelectric power prices are based on the market price forecast with a 10% premium to reflect the value of GHG benefits, flexibility, and increasing demand from load serving entities seeking clean power like the CCE. Capacity prices are based on prices for RA contracts reported by the CPUC and on the cost to build a new combustion turbine power plant. MRW developed a forecast of non-local utility scale renewable generation prices starting from an assessment of the current market price for renewable power. For the current market price, MRW relied on wind and solar contract prices reported by California municipal utilities and CCEs in 2015 and early 2016, finding an average price of $49/MWh for the solar contracts, $55/MWh for wind power and $80/MWh for geothermal.23 We used these prices as the starting point for our forecast of CCE renewable energy procurement costs. For geothermal, which is a 23 MRW relied exclusively on prices from municipal utilities and CCEs because investor -owned utility contract prices from this period are not yet public. We included all reporte d wind and solar power purchase agreements, excluding local builds (which generally come at a price premium), as reported in California Energy Markets, an independent news service from Energy Newsdata, from January 2015-January 2016 (see issues dated July 31, August 14, October 16, October 30, 2015, and January 15, 2016). Power Supply Costs Renewable Power Energy Excess Supply Capacity RECs Non- Renewable Power Energy Natural Gas Greenhouse Gas Allowances Capacity March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 57 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 14 MRW & Associates, LLC relatively mature technology, we assumed that new contract prices would simply escalate with inflation. Solar and wind prices are a function of technology costs, which have generally been declining over time; financing costs, which have been very low in recent years; and tax incentives, which significantly reduce project costs, but phase out over time. In the near-term we would not expect prices to increase as technology costs and continued tax incentives provide downward pressure and likely offset any increase in financing costs or other competitive pressure from an increasing demand for renewable energy in California. For utility scale wind prices, we relied on an expert elicitation survey24 developed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). According to this survey, wind prices will decrease 24% by 2030 and 35% by 2050.25 For solar, we held prices constant in nominal dollars through 2020. Beyond 2020, with increasing competitive pressure due to the drive to a 50% RPS and the anticipated phase-out of federal tax incentives (offset in part by declining technology costs), we would expect prices to increase somewhat and have assumed they escalate at the rate of inflation. In addition, we also considered a high solar cost scenario based on work performed by LBNL on the value of tax incentives. In the high scenario, we assume that costs increase with the phase-out of federal tax incentives, without being offset by declining technology costs. Figure 9 shows the resulting solar price forecasts for the two scenarios. Figure 9. Large-Scale Non-Local Solar Price Forecast 24 “Expert Elicitation Survey of Future Wind and Energy Costs,” Nature Energy, September 12, 2016. 25 Relative to the 2014 wind prices. MRW also added the annual inflation increase. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 58 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 15 MRW & Associates, LLC Local Solar Analysis Pivotal to the evaluation of the local economic impacts of a Contra Costa CCE is an understanding of how much renewable energy can be developed within the County. This assessment focused on identifying local solar photovoltaic (PV) siting potential. Wind and biomass energy were also evaluated, but were determined to be less feasible for Contra Costa County. The solar PV assessment is based on a comprehensive desktop review of countywide parcel data, geographic features, and solar energy potential. Table 2 shows the total solar PV generation capacity within the County based on the methodology and assumptions described below. Table 2. Total PV Solar Generation Potential and Build Cost Ground Mount Shade Structure Roof Mounted Total PV Capacity (MW26) 1,891 1,320 144 3,355 PV Production (GWh) 3,025 2,113 230 5,369 Build Cost ($ Millions) $3,417 $3,977 $371 $7,660 Build Cost ($/Watt) $1.99 $3.10 $2.62 $2.56 No. of PV Systems 845 886 144 1,875 Generation capacity was determined for the three types of possible solar PV installations: Ground-Mount, Shade Structure/Carport, and Roof Mount. The findings show that the County has a solar PV generation capacity of 3,355 MW and annual solar electricity production potential of 5,369 GWh. Figure 10 shows the aggregate Solar PV supply curve for all County jurisdictions. Note that the costs shown in Table 2 and Figure 10 are “build costs.” Additional soft costs, particularly the acquisition or opportunity cost of the land upon which the ground-mount solar is located, are highly site-specific and not included in these values. These can add up to 50% to the cost of local solar projects, and are accounted for in the CCE scenario modeling. 26 Local solar PV capacity measured at the panel (i.e., pre-inverter). March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 59 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 16 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 10. Aggregate Solar PV Supply Build Cost Curve, All County Siting Analysis To assess the potential locations in Contra Costa County where solar PV could be developed, this study utilized a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based desktop review, incorporating aerial imagery and land-based data. The collected data was analyzed and potential solar PV development sites were identified from criteria established through industry knowledge and input from County stakeholders. The agreed upon criteria are as follows: • The minimum acceptable parcel size is three acres. Smaller parcels will not be able to hold an economically viable project. If a potential solar PV system size is below 500 kW it was excluded from the list of potentially feasible sites and overall solar energy capacity.27 Again, this measure ensures only realistic and economically feasible sites are identified. • Based on input from the County, only specific tax codes and zoning areas were evaluated. For example, areas such as Open Space or Parks have sufficient land area for solar PV 27 Residential and other small rooftop solar are accounted for in the California Energy Commission sales forecast used to develop the CCE’s demand forecast. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 60 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 17 MRW & Associates, LLC projects, but zoning restrictions would not allow for the development of these projects, and these areas were removed from the approved scope. • In addition to size and tax/zoning code designations, areas with poor ground quality (marshland), excessive tree density, or excessive sloping would prohibit cost-effective solar PV development and were removed from the analysis. • Lastly, sites with existing solar were removed from the pool of potential parcels/sites. Within each identified parcel is the potential for three different types of solar PV development. On impervious land, such as a parking lot, it was assumed that solar PV carports would be installed. On grassland or bare land areas, this analysis assumed a ground-mounted solar PV system would be installed. Lastly, roof-mounted solar PV was assumed for any buildings found in the parcel data that matched the approved criteria. Countywide, 92% of potential installation sites were found to be either carport or ground-mount sites, with only 8% of the sites amenable to roof-mounted PV (Figure 11). The size of the estimated solar PV system was found by analyzing the total land area against the needed land required for solar PV development. Figure 11. Potential Solar PV Sites by Installation Type Carport 47% Ground- mount 45% Rooftop 8% March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 61 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 18 MRW & Associates, LLC This study found 1,395 parcels that met the established criteria and 1,875 individual sites within the identified parcels where either a solar shade structure, rooftop, or ground-mounted system could be developed. Table 3 shows the individual sites organized by type of solar PV system for each jurisdiction in Contra Costa County.28 This assessment also calculated the amount of solar energy production for each of the potential sites identified. The amount of energy production was found by multiplying the estimated system size by an average solar yield. The average solar energy yield was created by designing sample projects that matched the estimated system size in the solar software platform Helioscope. Because Contra Costa County has a variety of solar exposure, multiple sites across the County were designed/tested to find an average yield. Based on our testing, the average yield for Contra Costa County is 1,600 (kWh/kW). The resulting amount of potential PV production per jurisdiction is also provided in Table 3. 28 For maps, please see https://www.dropbox.com/s/cb3rig66shny68j/Contra%20Costa%20CCE%20Solar%20Siting%20DRAFT%20Repor t%20SA%202016-11-15%20Reduced%20Size.pdf?dl=0. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 62 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 19 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 3. Potential PV Production and Build Cost by Location Jurisdiction PV Potential (MW) PV Production (GWh) Build Cost ($ Millions) Alamo 14 23 $30,779,000 Antioch 462 739 $1,010,374,000 Brentwood 287 460 $599,685,000 Clayton 38 62 $71,171,000 Concord 370 593 $900,603,000 Crockett 58 93 $125,187,000 Danville 80 129 $177,801,000 El Cerrito 29 48 $73,161,000 El Sobrante 19 31 $42,020,000 Hercules 90 144 $200,511,000 Lafayette 8 13 $23,641,000 Martinez 313 502 $654,701,000 Moraga 24 39 $55,957,000 Oakley 121 194 $285,786,000 Orinda 22 36 $43,554,000 Pinole 47 77 $126,870,000 Pittsburg 314 502 $705,202,000 Pleasant Hill 60 96 $164,364,000 Port Costa 8 13 $13,501,000 Richmond 502 804 $1,261,541,000 Rodeo 35 57 $85,874,000 San Pablo 191 307 $459,784,000 San Ramon 158 254 $384,634,000 Walnut Creek 95 152 $269,795,000 Grand Total 3,355 5,369 $7,766,496,000 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 63 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 20 MRW & Associates, LLC Ranking After the feasible solar sites and the corresponding solar PV capacity were identified, each site was ranked. The ranking was weighted based on how important it was to the actual feasibility of developing the site for solar PV and based on input from County stakeholders. The ranking consisted of the following measures as shown in the figure below. Figure 12. Weighted Ranking Categories An overall ranking score was then applied to each individual site to illustrate the best and worst sites for solar PV development. Sites were then grouped in tiers one through five, with one being the best. In addition to the ranking score, industry knowledge indicates the best sites to develop a feasible solar PV project will be larger than 1 MW, located on government land, and will be a ground-mounted solar array, the most cost-effective installation type. The table below shows the key characteristics of the ranking analysis. Table 4. Ranking Values for All Sites Ranking Tier Sum of PV Production (GWh) Sum of Total Price Average Build Price per Watt 1 1,309 $1,591,810,000 $2.13 2 1,167 $1,578,770,000 $2.37 3 1,105 $1,622,236,000 $2.57 4 868 $1,251,547,000 $2.56 5 919 $1,722,142,000 $3.07 32% 16%24% 28% PRICE TIER BROWNFIELD SITE NORTHERN WATERFRONT AREA PROXIMITY TO SUBSTATION March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 64 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 21 MRW & Associates, LLC Local Solar Modeled in the CCE Scenarios To estimate the contribution of local solar to a Contra Costa CCE's supply costs, we used the supply curve shown in Figure 10. To translate the $/kW costs in the figure to $/MWh generation costs, we used the pro forma model contained in the CPUC's RPS Calculator and the cost and performance assumptions provided by Sage for the County. For example, the lowest-cost projects at $1,350/kW were estimated to have a generation cost of $98/MWh ($68/MWh for build costs and $30/MWh for soft and land acquisition/opportunity costs). The generation cost was assumed to scale with installed cost. Because it is unlikely that all the identified sites would be developed in order of their increasing cost (and some sites may never be developed regardless of economics), we assumed that 50% of the capacity identified in the cost curve would be developed for the purpose of conservatively estimating average costs at each level of local solar penetration. We calculated the average price for the cumulative developed capacity forecast for each year (again, counting only 50% of the capacity of each developed project towards the cumulative total). For Scenarios 3 and 4, we assumed that 50% of the CCA's RPS supply would be provided by local solar by 2027, adding 620 MW of local solar under Scenario 3 and 990 MW under Scenario 4 by 2030. (Scenarios 1 and 2 do not include any local solar.) Greenhouse Gas Costs MRW estimated that the price of GHG allowances would equal the auction floor price stipulated by the California Air Resources Board’s cap-and-trade regulations, consistent with recent auction outcomes.29 Table 5. GHG Allowances price30 Total GHG costs were calculated by multiplying the allowance price by the amount of carbon emitted per megawatt-hour for each assumed resource. For “system” purchases, MRW assumed that the GHG emissions corresponded to a natural gas generator operating at the market heat rate. This worked out to be, on average over 2018-2038, approximately $1.5/MWh delivered.31 Other CCE Supply Costs The CCE is expected to incur additional costs associated with its procurement function. For example, if the CCE relies on a third-party energy marketing company to manage its portfolio it will likely incur broker fees or other expenses equal to roughly 5% of the forecasted contract costs. The CCE would also incur costs charged by the California Independent System Operator 29 California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Article 5, Section 95911 . Auction results available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/results_summary.pdf. 30 For 2017, the amount listed corresponds to the GHG allowance price for PG&E according to the most recent ERRA 2017 update. Pacific Gas & Electric ERRA 2017, A.16-06-003, Testimony November 2, 2016, Table 12-1. 31 The amount of GHG emissions will depend on the generation portfolio. $1.50/MWh corresponds to the GHG emissions costs under Scenario 1. 2017 2018 2019 2025 2030 2035 2038 $/tonne 13.2 14.7 15.9 24.4 34.7 49.8 61.8 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 65 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 22 MRW & Associates, LLC (CAISO) for ancillary services (activities required to ensure reliability) and other expenses. MRW added 5.5% to the CCE’s power supply cost to cover these CAISO costs. Finally, we added an expense associated with managing the CCE’s renewable supply portfolio. Based on an analysis of the expected CCE load shape and the typical generation profile of California solar and wind resources, we observed that there will be hours in which the expected deliveries from renewable contracts will be greater than the CCE’s load in that hour. This results from the amount of renewable capacity that must be contracted to meet annual RPS targets and the variability in renewable generation that leads to higher deliveries in some hours and lower deliveries in other hours. When high renewable energy deliveries coincide with low loads, the CCE will need to sell the excess energy, likely at a loss, or curtail deliveries, and will potentially have to make up those renewable energy purchases during higher load hours to comply with the RPS. The result is that the procurement costs will be somewhat higher than simply contracting with sufficient capacity to meet the annual RPS. PG&E Rate and Exit Fee Forecasts MRW developed a forecast of PG&E’s bundled generation rates and CCE exit fees in order to compare the projected rates that customers would pay as Contra Costa County CCE customers to the projected rates and fees they would pay as bundled PG&E customers. PG&E Bundled Generation Rates To ensure a consistent and reliable financial analysis, MRW developed a 20-year forecast of PG&E’s bundled generation rates using market prices for renewable energy purchases, market power purchases, greenhouse gas allowances, and capacity that are consistent with those used in the forecast of Contra Costa County CCE’s supply costs. MRW additionally forecast the cost of PG&E’s existing resource portfolio, adding in market purchases only when necessary to meet projected demand. MRW assumed that near-term changes to PG&E’s generation portfolio would be driven primarily by increases to the Renewable Portfolio Standard requirement in the years leading up to 2030 and by the retirement of the Diablo Canyon nuclear units at the end of their current license periods in 2024 and 2025. More information about this forecast is provided in Appendix B. MRW forecasts that, on average, PG&E’s generation rates will increase faster than inflation through 2038, with 2038 rates more than 20% higher than today’s rates when considered on a constant dollar basis (i.e., assuming zero inflation). Underlying this result are three distinct rate periods: 1. An initial period of faster rate growth from 2018 to 2022 (1% annually above inflation); 2. A period of rate decline from 2023 to 2025 (3.5% annually below inflation), primarily due to the retirement of Diablo Canyon32; and 3. A period of steeper rate growth between 2026 and 2030 (3.5% annually above inflation), primarily due to the replacement of Diablo Canyon with more expensive resources: energy efficiency, renewable generation, and fuel-fired generation. In addition, the retirement of Diablo Canyon increases the demand in capacity with a consequent increase 32 More information can be found in Appendix C March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 66 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 23 MRW & Associates, LLC in capacity prices. 4. A final period of moderate rate growth through 2038 (1% annually above inflation), primarily due to the replacement of high-cost renewable power contracts currently in PG&E’s portfolio with new lower-priced contracts (reflecting the significant fall in renewable power prices in recent years). PG&E’s bundled generation rates in each year of MRW’s forecast are shown in Figure 13, on both a nominal and constant-dollar basis. Figure 13: PG&E Bundled Generation Rates, nominal and constant-dollar forecasts PG&E Exit Fee Forecast In addition to the bundled rate forecast, MRW developed a forecast of the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (“PCIA”), which is a PG&E exit fee that is charged to CCE customers. The PCIA is intended to pay for the above-market costs of PG&E generation resources that were acquired, or which PG&E committed to acquire, prior to the customer’s departure to CCE. The total cost of these resources is compared to a market-based price benchmark to calculate the “stranded costs” associated with these resources, and CCE customers are charged what is determined to be their fair share of the stranded costs through the PCIA. MRW forecasted the PCIA charge by modeling expected changes to PCIA-eligible resources and to the market-based price benchmark through 2038, using assumptions consistent with those used in the PG&E rate model. Based on our modelling, we expect the PCIA to decline in most years until it drops off completely around 2034. MRW’s forecast of the residential PCIA charge through 2038 is summarized in Table 6. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 67 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 24 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 6. PG&E Residential PCIA Charges 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2038 ¢/kWh 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 In its Diablo Canyon retirement application, PG&E proposed an additional exit fee, dubbed the “Clean Energy Charge” (CEC) which CCE customers would pay to offset some of the incremental costs PG&E would incur for developing its greener portfolio. This proposal was later withdrawn. Furthermore, no party participating in the proceeding supported this charge. Because of the lack of support for the “CEC,” and the fact that PG&E’s application would have allowed CCEs to get out of the charge by procuring renewable power above and beyond the RPS requirement, we do not quantify or include this hypothetical charge in the analysis. Pro Forma Elements and CCE Costs of Service MRW conducted a pro forma analysis to evaluate the expected financial performance of the CCE and the CCE’s competitive position vis a vis PG&E. The analysis was conducted on a forward- looking basis from the expected start of CCE operations in 2018 through the year 2038, with several cases considered to address uncertainty in future circumstances. Pro Forma Elements Figure 14 provides a schematic of the pro forma analysis, outlining the input elements of the analysis and the output results. The analysis involves a comparison between the generation- related costs that would be paid by Contra Costa County CCE customers and the generation- related costs that would be paid by PG&E bundled service customers. Costs paid by CCE customers include all CCE-related costs (i.e., supply portfolio costs and administrative and general costs) and exit fee payments that CCE customers will be required to make to PG&E. As discussed in previous sections, supply portfolio costs are informed and affected by CCE loads, by the requirements the CCE will need to meet (or will choose to meet) such as with respect to renewable procurement, and by CCE participation levels, which can vary depending on whether or not all cities in the County choose to join the CCE. Administrative and general costs are discussed further below. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 68 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 25 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 14. Pro forma Analysis Startup Costs Table 7 shows the estimated CCE startup costs. They are based on the experience of existing CCEs as well as other CCE technical and feasibility assessments. Working capital is set to equal one hundred days of CCE revenue33, or approximately $22 million. This amount would cover the timing lag between when invoices for power purchases (and other account payables) must be remitted and when income is received from the customers. Initially, the working capital is provided to the CCE on credit from a bank. Typical power purchase contracts require payment for the prior month’s purchases by the 20th of the current month. Customers’ payments are typically received 60 to 90 days from when the power is delivered. These startup costs are assumed to be financed over 5 years at 5% interest. 33 The working capital has been calculated in base to Scenario 1. Inputs: selection of cities, scenarios, and sensitivity cases Load Forecast PG&E Generation Rate Forecast Supply Costs Forecast Adm. Costs Forecast Assessment of CCE viability and CCE customer rates vs. PG&E customer rates (also accounts for reserve fund contributions) Exit fees Forecast Local renewable cost forecast Generation Rates paid by Contra Costa County CCE Customers (also accounts for debt interest) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 69 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 26 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 7. Estimated Start-Up Costs Item Cost Technical Study $200,000 JPA Formation/Development $100,000 Implementation Plan Development $50,000 Power Supplier Solicitation & Contracting $75,000 Staffing $700,000 Consultants and Legal Counsel $400,000 Marketing & Communications $250,000 PG&E Service Fees $75,000 CCA Bond $100,000 Miscellaneous $300,000 Total $2,250,000 Working Capital $21,500,000 Total $23,750,000 Administrative and General Cost Inputs Administrative and general costs cover the everyday operations of the CCE, including costs for billing, data management, customer service, employee salaries, contractor payments, and fees paid to PG&E. MRW conducted a survey of the financial reports of existing CCEs to develop estimates of the costs that would be faced by a Contra Costa County CCE. Administrative and general costs are phased in from 2018 to 2020, as the CCE operations expand to cover the entire territory of the County; after that, costs are escalated by 2% each year to account for the effects of inflation. Administrative and general costs are unchanged under the three renewable level scenarios, but do vary based on how many cities join the CCE and the number of participating customer accounts. As previously mentioned, a 15% opt-out rate has been assumed for customer participation. Cost of Service Analysis and Reserve Fund To determine annual CCE costs and the rates that would need to be charged to CCE customers to cover these costs, MRW summed the two categories of CCE costs (i.e., supply portfolio costs, and administrative and general costs) and added in debt financing to cover start-up costs and initial working capital. Financing was assumed to be for a five-year period at an interest rate of 5%. These costs were divided by projected CCE loads to develop the average rate the CCE would need to charge customers to cover its costs (“minimum CCE rate”). To establish the Contra Costa County CCE rate, MRW adjusted the minimum CCE rate, if needed, based on the competitive position of the CCE. In particular, when the total CCE March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 70 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 27 MRW & Associates, LLC customer rate (i.e., the minimum CCE rate plus the PG&E exit fee) was below the projected PG&E generation rate,34 MRW increased the minimum CCE rate up to the amount needed to meet the reserve refund targets while still maintaining a discount. MRW used the surplus CCE revenue from these rate increases (“Reserve Fund”) in order to maintain Contra Costa County CCE competitiveness with PG&E rates in years in which total CCE customer rates would otherwise be higher than PG&E generation rates.35 34 For this analysis, MRW used the average of the projected PG&E generation rates across all rate classes, weighted by the projected Contra Costa County CCE load in each rate class. 35 MRW applied a Reserve Fund cap of 15% of the annual operating cost. After this cap was reached, no further rate increases were applied for the purpose of Reserve Fund contributions. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 71 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 28 MRW & Associates, LLC Chapter 3: Cost and Benefit Analysis As described in the prior chapter, as part of the pro forma analysis, MRW calculated Contra Costa County CCE rates that would, where feasible, cover CCE costs and maintain long-term competitiveness with PG&E. This chapter uses those rates to compare the costs and benefits of the Contra Costa County CCE across four scenarios: (1) Minimum RPS Compliance, (2) Accelerated RPS, (3) Minimum RPS Compliance plus Local Procurement, and (4) Accelerated RPS plus Local Procurement. Costs and benefits are evaluated by comparing total CCE customer rates (including PG&E exit fees) to PG&E generation. Scenario 1 (Minimum RPS Compliance) Under Scenario 1, the Contra Costa County CCE meets all RPS requirements (including California State Senate Bill 350 and Diablo Canyon retirement proposal requirements), and 35% of the total load over the 20-year period is met through large hydroelectricity.36 CCE Average Costs Figure 15 summarizes the results of this scenario. The vertical bars represent the total Contra Costa County CCE customer rate and the green line represents a comparable PG&E generation rate.37 Non-renewable generation (including large hydroelectric) is responsible for the bulk of the CCE's costs. Renewable generation costs will continue to increase throughout the forecast period due to the increasing RPS standards. Regarding customer costs, the PCIA exit fee is expected to decrease after 2020. Finally, the GHG allowance purchases represent a small portion of the total costs because 60% of the non-renewable generation is met by hydroelectricity. This non-carbon emitting resource therefore limits the need to purchase GHG allowances. Note that this figure and the analogous ones to follow do not account for contributions to a rate reserve fund or other potential CCE activities such as energy efficiency or other community programs. Under Scenario 1, the differential between PG&E generation rates and Contra Costa County CCE customer rates is positive in each year (i.e., CCE rates are lower than PG&E rates). As a result, Contra Costa County CCE customers’ average generation rates (including contributions to the reserve fund) can be set at a level that is lower than PG&E’s average customer generation rate in each year. The annual differential between the PG&E rate and the total CCE customer rate is expected to vary significantly over the course of this period (Figure 15). During the initial period from 2018-2022, the differential between the two rates increases (i.e., the CCE becomes more cost-competitive) as PG&E’s rates rise, and the exit fees charged to Contra Costa County CCE customers fall as PG&E-owned gas plants expire from PCIA eligibility. Beginning in 2024, the rate differential narrows due to a decrease in PG&E generation rates stemming from the closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. After 2026, the difference between the two rates is 36 60% of the non-RPS generation in average for 2018-2038. 37 All rates are in nominal dollars. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 72 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 29 MRW & Associates, LLC expected to increase as PG&E’s generation rates continue to increase and exit fees decline with the expiration of additional resources from PCIA eligibility. Figure 15. Scenario 1 Forecast Average CCE Cost and PG&E Rates, 2018-203838 Residential Bill Impacts Table 8 shows the average annual savings for residential customers under Scenario 1. The average annual bill for the residential customer on the Contra Costa County CCE program will be on average 8% lower than the same bill on PG&E rates. Note that these rate impacts assume that a rate stabilization reserve is funded during the first few years of the CCE’s existence. Table 8. Scenario 1 Savings for Residential CCE Customers Residential Monthly Consumption (kWh) Bill with PG&E ($) Bill with Contra Costa County CCA ($) Savings ($) Savings (%) 2018 500 121 121 0 0% 2020 500 129 124 5 4% 2030 500 189 171 18 10% 2038 500 254 227 27 11% 38 This chart does not include the reserve fund. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 73 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 30 MRW & Associates, LLC Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Scenario 1, we model the Contra Costa County CCE to be 50% below PG&E’s GHG emission rate. It can meet this goal by using large hydroelectric power to meet 35% of its resource needs (60% of the non-RPS load). Though this large hydro power would not qualify for RPS requirements, it is nevertheless a non-carbon emitting resource. Figure 16 shows the Contra Costa CCE’s generation portfolio mix (vertical bars) and GHG emissions rate (brown line) under Scenario 1, along with PG&E’s GHG emissions rate for comparison (blue line). Additional GHG savings can occur if additional renewables are added to the portfolio (see Scenarios 2 and 4) or if a greater fraction of GHG-free resources (like large hydro) is used. PG&E GHG emissions are relatively low due to the diversity in PG&E’s electric mix. In addition to renewable generation, over 40% of PG&E’s supply portfolio is made up of nuclear and large hydroelectric generation, both of which are considered GHG-free generation technologies. PG&E’s GHG emissions rate is expected to fall between 2018 and 2020 due to increases in RPS procurement. In 2025, the retirement of the Diablo Canyon nuclear generation plant is expected to more than double PG&E’s GHG emission rate as the utility increases its gas-fired generation to make up for a share of the loss.39 In the following years PG&E’s GHG emissions are expected to decrease as PG&E ramps up renewable procurement to meet its mandated RPS goals and the additional RPS procurement required under the Diablo Canyon retirement proposal.40 In this scenario, the CCE’s emissions rate is set to be approximately 50% of PG&E’s in each year, subject to a 5% minimum supply from market purchases. 39 Even if PG&E replaces the nuclear generation with renewable power and other GHG -free resources, as proposed, the new renewable resources will need to be balanced by flexible reso urces, which are likely to be at least in part provided by fossil-fueled power and which will therefore increase PG&E’s GHG emissions. 40 Starting in 2030, the required RPS increases from 50% to 55% under PG&E’s proposal. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 74 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 31 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 16. Scenario 1 Contra Costa County CCE Supply Portfolio (vertical bars) and GHG Emissions (lines) (“Normal” PG&E Hydro Conditions) Scenario 2 (Accelerated RPS) Scenario 2, from a renewable procurement perspective, is a more aggressive scenario. Under this scenario, the Contra Costa County CCE starts with 50% of its load served by renewable sources in 2018, and rapidly increases to 80% of its load served by renewable sources in 2030. In addition, between 2018 and 2038 Contra Costa County will provide an average of 20% of its supply though large hydroelectric sources41. CCE Average Costs Figure 17 summarizes the results for this scenario. The vertical bars represent the Contra Costa County CCE customer rate, and the green line represents the PG&E generation rate. In this scenario, the renewable power cost is the single largest element of the CCE rate, reflecting the higher renewable content of this scenario. Non-renewable generation and the PCIA exit fee are the second and third most expensive components, respectively. As in Scenario 1, the PCIA exit fee is expected to decrease in most years beginning in 2020. Because of this scenario's larger share of GHG-free generation between 2028 and 2038, the GHG allowance purchases are an even lower portion of the total costs. Compared to Scenario 1, Scenario 2 exhibits a lower differential between PG&E's and the CCE's customer generation rates between 2018 and 2033. After 2033, the price of renewable generation is expected to undercut the wholesale electricity market for non-RPS supplies, rendering a higher 41 50% of the non-RPS generation for 2018-2028. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 75 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 32 MRW & Associates, LLC differential in Scenario 2 than in Scenario 1. With respect to PG&E's rates, this differential will continue to follow a similar pattern: positive for all years from 2018 to 2038. And as was the case in Scenario 1, Scenario 2 enables the CCE to reliably price its average generation rates lower than those of PG&E. Figure 17. Scenario 2 Forecast Average CCE Cost and PG&E Rates, 2018-203842 Residential Bill Impacts Table 9 summarizes the average annual savings for residential customers under Scenario 2. For the 2018-2038 period, the average annual bill for a residential customer of the Contra Costa County CCE program will be 8% lower than the same bill under PG&E rates. This is a little less than, but close to, the bill savings under Scenario 1. Note that these rate impacts assume that a rate stabilization reserve is funded during the first few years of the CCE’s existence. Thus, even though a “gap” between the CCE costs and PG&E rates can be seen in Figure 17, the bill savings in 2018 is zero, as the additional CCE funds are assume to go to the reserve rather than as a customer bill savings. 42 This chart does not include the reserve fund. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 76 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 33 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 9. Scenario 2 Savings for Residential CCE Customers Residential Monthly Consumption (kWh) Bill with PG&E ($) Bill with Contra Costa County CCE ($) Savings ($) Savings (%) 2018 500 121 121 0 0% 2020 500 129 125 4 3% 2030 500 189 172 17 9% 2038 500 254 225 29 11% GHG Emissions Under Scenario 2, we model the Contra Costa County CCE to at least as much carbon-free generation as PG&E. As in Scenario 1, in years where the assumed renewables would not result in the CCE halving PG&E’s GHG emissions, we add large hydroelectric generation to the CCE’s resource portfolio to make up the difference, subject to a 5% minimum supply from market purchases. In other years when the CCE’s RPS targets are sufficient to provide GHG savings relative to PG&E, we assume that emissions are further reduced by sourcing 50% of the non- RPS supply from large hydro. The result is a portfolio that averages 20% large hydro. Figure 18 compares the Scenario 2 GHG emissions from 2018-2038 for the Contra Costa County CCE with what PG&E’s emissions would be for the same load if no CCE were formed. Because Scenario 2 has a higher renewable generation target (80% by 2030), the hydroelectric generation necessary to achieve the same GHG emissions reduction is lower. As a result of trading off large hydro for RPS-eligible energy, GHG emissions in Scenario 2 are the same as Scenario 1 through 2027, after which the CCE's portfolio will produce less than half the GHG emissions compared to PG&E. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 77 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 34 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 18. Scenario 2 Contra Costa County CCE Supply Portfolio (vertical bars) and GHG Emissions (lines) (“Normal” PG&E Hydro Conditions) Scenario 3 (Minimum RPS Compliance plus Local Procurement) Scenario 3 is identical to Scenario 1, save for a greater portion of locally sourced renewables. Under Scenario 3, local renewables increase annually, reaching 50% of the renewable supply by 2027 and continues at 50% through 2038. CCE Costs Figure 19 summarizes the results for this scenario. The vertical bars represent the Contra Costa County CCE customer rate, and the green line represents the PG&E generation rate. As with Scenario 1, the non-renewable cost is the largest component of the CCE’s rates, followed by renewable generation costs. The latter are greater than in Scenario 1 due to the higher prices of local generation resources. As with previous scenarios, the PCIA exit fee is the third largest expenditure and it is expected to decrease most years after 2020. As with Scenario 1, the costs associated with GHG allowance purchases are responsible for a marginally larger percentage of the CCE's total costs between 2028 and 2038. This is mostly due to the lower share of GHG-free emissions. The Scenario 3 differential between PG&E generation rates and Contra Costa County CCE rates falls below the differential in Scenarios 1 and 2. However, the CCE rates are expected to be lower than PG&E's generation rates for the entire forecast period, which will allow the CCE to collect reserve fund contributions annually from 2018 to 2038. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 78 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 35 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 19. Scenario 3: Forecast Average CCE Cost and PG&E Rates, 2018-2038 Residential Bill Impacts Table 10 summarizes the average residential bill impacts under Scenario 3. Between 2018 and 2038, the annual bill for a residential customer of the Contra Costa County CCE program will be, on average, 4.5% lower than a corresponding PG&E bill. Table 10. Scenario 3 Savings for Residential CCE Customers Residential Monthly Consumption (kWh) Bill with PG&E ($) Bill with Contra Costa County CCA ($) Savings ($) Savings (%) 2018 500 121 121 0 0% 2020 500 129 126 3 2% 2030 500 189 179 10 5% 2038 500 254 236 18 7% GHG Emissions The emissions pattern for Scenario 3 is identical to Scenario 1 due to the equal GHG-free generation proportion. The only difference is that part of this generation is provided by local sources. Figure 20 shows the GHG emissions from 2018-2038 for the Contra Costa County CCE March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 79 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 36 MRW & Associates, LLC under Scenario 3. Note that GHG emissions from the Contra Costa CCE supply and PG&E supply are the same as in Scenario 1. Figure 20. Scenario 3 Contra Costa County CCE Supply Portfolio (vertical bars) and GHG Emissions (lines) (“Normal” PG&E Hydro Conditions) Scenario 4 (Accelerated RPS plus Local Procurement) Scenario 4 is the same scenario as Scenario 2 but with a more substantial portion of the generation sourced from local renewable sources: increasing annually and achieving 50% of the total RPS supply by 2027 through 2038. CCE Average Costs Figure 21 summarizes the results for this scenario. The vertical bars represent the Contra Costa County CCE customer rate, and the green line represents the PG&E generation rate. Under Scenario 4, the cost for renewables forms the largest component of the CCE’s rates and grows steadily to account for nearly 60% of the total CCE rate in 2030. Non-renewable generation is the next largest cost component of the rate, followed by the PCIA exit fee, which is expected to decrease in most years beginning 2020. As with Scenario 2, the costs for GHG allowance purchases in Scenario 4 are a smaller portion of total costs because of more RPS power. The differential between PG&E generation rates and Contra Costa County CCE customer rates from 2018 to 2038 in Scenario 4 is the lowest of the four scenarios. This is because Scenario 4 has the most expensive supply portfolio, comprised of more locally sources renewables. Similar to the other scenarios, in Scenario 4 the collection of the reserve fund contributions at the end of 2038 is positive. Contra Costa County CCE rates in Scenario 4 are forecasted to be lower than expected PG&E generation rates for all years from 2018 to 2038, except from 2025 to 2030. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 80 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 37 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 21. Scenario 4: Forecast Average CCE Cost and PG&E Rates, 2017-2038 Residential Bill Impacts Table 11 summarizes the average residential bill impacts under Scenario 4. Over the study period, the annual bill for a residential customer of the Contra Costa County CCE program will be, on average, 1% lower than the same bill under PG&E rates under Scenario 4. However, the higher local renewable costs coupled with their assumed high usage cause the CCE’s rates to exceed PG&E’s in some years. In particular, from 2025 through 2030, the total CCE rates (CCE rate plus PCIA) is projected to be higher than the PG&E generation rate. This implies that very aggressive pursuit of local renewables must be carefully weighed against their additional costs. However, it should also be noted that the study assumed a conservative $30/MWh adder on top of the build costs of local solar projects to account for costs of land acquisition/ opportunity costs. If a significant fraction of the local projects does not have these higher soft costs, then this higher level of local renewables can be developed at competitive rates. Table 11. Scenario 4 Savings for Residential CCE Customers Residential Monthly Consumption (kWh) Bill with PG&E ($) Bill with Contra Costa County CCA $) Savings ($) Savings (%) 2018 500 121 121 0 0% 2020 500 129 128 1 0.7% 2030 500 189 199 -10 -5% 2038 500 254 242 12 5% March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 81 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 38 MRW & Associates, LLC GHG Emissions The GHG emissions pattern for Scenario 4 is the same as Scenario 2 due to the scenarios having the same shares of GHG-free generation; the only difference being that local solar generation is assumed to replace solar supplies from more distant locations. Figure 22 compares the GHG emissions from 2018-2038 for the Contra Costa County CCE under Scenario 4 with what PG&E’s emissions would be for the same load were no CCE formed. Figure 22. Scenario 4 Contra Costa County CCE Supply Portfolio (vertical bars) and GHG Emissions (lines) (“Normal” PG&E Hydro Conditions) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 82 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 39 MRW & Associates, LLC Chapter 4: Sensitivity of Results to Key Inputs In addition to the base case forecast described above, MRW has assessed alternative cases to evaluate the sensitivity of the results to possible conditions that would have an impact on Contra Costa County CCE’s technical study. The metric considered to compare the alternative sensitivity cases to the base case is the differential between the annual average generation rates for PG&E bundled customers and for Contra Costa County CCE customers over the first ten years (2018-2028).43 The latter 10 years were not included as they are both uncertain and skew the average results due to the widening gap between modeled PG&E’s rates and the CCE’s average cost. The base-case analysis (Chapter 3 –Scenario 1) was developed as a reasonable and conservative assessment of the Contra Costa County CCE. In addition to the base case analysis, MRW analyzed alternative cases to address seven risks: (1) low participation, (2) higher local renewable power prices, (3) higher renewable power prices, (4) higher natural gas prices, (5) lower PG&E portfolio costs, (6) higher PCIA charges, and (7) a combination of these six risks (stress scenario). Lower Participation Sensitivity This sensitivity case evaluates the impact of lower participation on the CCE program. Lower participation could be due to a higher customer opt-out rates, or if some of the cities included in the study choose not to participate in the CCE program. If fewer customers join, CCE rates will generally be higher because about $7 million of annual CCE costs are invariant to the amount of CCE load. In the Lower Participation sensitivity, we assume that the load for the Contra Costa County CCE is 70% of the potential load.44 Average administration costs in this scenario are 12% higher than in the base case scenario. These higher administration costs do not have a big impact on the CCE rates because administration costs are a small part of the total CCE rate (5% on average). The impact of this sensitivity case is to reduce the 2018-2028 average rate differential by 0.07¢/kWh relative to the base case. Table 12. Lower Participation Sensitivity Results, 2018-2028 Period 2018-2028 Average Admin costs (¢/kWh) Average rate differential (¢/kWh) Base 0.45 1.86 Low participation 0.51 1.79 43The Contra Costa County CCE rate includes the PG&E exit fees (PCIA charges) that will be charged to CCE customers but does not include the rate adjustment for the reserve fund or other possible CCE activities. 44 In the base case we considered 85% of the potential load. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 83 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 40 MRW & Associates, LLC Higher Local Renewable Power Prices Sensitivity This sensitivity case evaluates the impact of higher local renewable power prices on the CCE’s financial viability. As discussed in Appendix B, in the base case, the solar local renewable power price starts at $98/MWh in 2018 and it increases following the price curve. In the Higher Local Renewable Power Prices sensitivity, we assume that local renewable prices would be 20% higher than the base case prices. These higher prices affect only CCE rates for Scenario 3 and Scenario 4 (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 do not include local generation), reducing the 2018-2028 average rate differential by 0.3¢/kWh relative to the base case. Table 13. Higher Local Renewable Power Prices Sensitivity Results, 2018-202845 Period 2018-2028 Average local renewable prices ($/MWh) Average rate differential (¢/kWh) Scenario 3 114.30 1.14 High local renewable prices 137.20 0.85 Higher Renewable Power Prices Sensitivity This sensitivity case evaluates the impact of higher renewable power prices on the CCE’s financial viability. As discussed in Appendix B, in the base case, renewable power prices are flat in nominal dollars through 2022, based on the assumption that projected declines in renewable development costs will offset increases associated with the expected expiration of federal renewable tax credits.46,47 In the Higher Renewable Power Prices sensitivity, we assume that renewable prices would be flat in nominal dollars through 2022 if it were not for the tax credit expirations and add the impact of the tax credit expirations to the base case prices. Average renewable power prices in this scenario are 0-10% higher than in the base case scenario through 2021, about 20% higher in 2021 and 2022, and 30% higher after 2022 when the solar investment tax credit is reduced to 10%. These higher prices affect both the CCE and PG&E, but they have a greater effect on the CCE because PG&E has significant amounts of renewable resources under long-term contract. The impact of this sensitivity case is to reduce the 2018-2028 average rate differential by 0.35¢/kWh relative to the base case. 45 Results for Scenario 3. 46 The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) which is commonly used by solar developers, is scheduled to remain at its current level of 30% through 2019 and then to fall over three years to 10%, where it is to remain. The federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), which is commonly used by wind developers, is scheduled to be reduced for facilities commencing construction in 2017-2019 and eliminated for subsequent construction. U.S. Department of Energy. Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC). http://energy.gov/savings/business- energy-investment-tax-credit-itc; U.S. Department of Energy. Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC). http://energy.gov/savings/renewable-electricity-production-tax-credit-ptc 47 The base case forecast would also be consistent with a scenario in which the tax credit expirations a re delayed. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 84 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 41 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 14. Higher Renewable Power Prices Sensitivity Results, 2018-2028 Average RPS prices ($/MWh) Resulting average rate differential (¢/kWh) Base 53.2 1.86 High renewable prices 65.1 1.51 Higher Exit Fee (PCIA) Sensitivity PG&E’s PCIA exit fees are subject to considerable uncertainty. Under the current methodology, PCIA rates can swing dramatically from one year to the next, and this methodology is currently under review and may be adjusted in the coming years. MRW therefore evaluated a stress case in which PCIA rates do not fall after 2018, as anticipated in the base case, but instead remain at 2018 levels through 2028. This increases the 2028 PCIA by more than 300% of its base case value. The impact of this sensitivity case is to reduce the 2018-2028 average rate differential by 0.86¢/kWh relative to the base case. Table 15. Higher PCIA Exit Fee Sensitivity Results, 2018-2028 Average PCIA prices (¢/kWh) Resulting average rate differential (¢/kWh) Base 1.5 1.86 High PCIA 2.4 1.00 Lower PG&E Portfolio Cost Sensitivity While changes to natural gas prices and renewable power prices affect both the CCE and PG&E, dampening the impact on the CCE’s cost competitiveness, reductions to the costs to operate and maintain PG&E’s nuclear and hydroelectric facilities would provide cost savings to PG&E that would not be offset by cost savings to the CCE. MRW considered a case in which PG&E’s overall generation rates are 10% below the base case, driven by reductions to PG&E’s nuclear and hydroelectric portfolio costs. Under such a scenario, the 2018-2028 average rate differential would be reduced by 1.12¢/kWh relative to the base case scenario. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 85 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 42 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 16. Lower PG&E Portfolio Sensitivity Results, 2018-2038 Average PG&E Rate (¢/kWh) Resulting average rate differential (¢/kWh) Base 11.2 1.86 Low PG&E portfolio costs 10.1 0.74 Higher Natural Gas Prices Sensitivity Natural gas prices have been low and relatively steady over the last few years, but they have historically been quite volatile and subject to significant swings from local supply disruptions (e.g., Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005). MRW analyzed a gas price sensitivity case using the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s High Scenario natural gas prices forecast,48 which is on average 50% higher than MRW’s base case forecast for the period 2018-2028. Natural gas price increases affect power supply costs for both a Contra Costa County CCE and PG&E; however, the nuclear and hydroelectric capacity in PG&E’s resource mix makes PG&E less sensitive than a Contra Costa County CCE to changes in natural gas prices. The net effect of higher natural gas prices is therefore to increase CCE rates relative to PG&E rates49 (i.e., reduce the average rate differential). Under the sensitivity conditions considered, the 2018-2038 average rate differential decreases relative to the base case by 1.68¢/kWh. Table 17. Higher Natural Gas Prices Sensitivity Results, 2018-2028 Average PG&E Rate (¢/kWh) Resulting average rate differential (¢/kWh) Base 11.2 1.86 Low PG&E portfolio costs 10.1 0.18 Stress Case and Sensitivity Comparisons All rate differentials (i.e., the CCE’s competitive positions) are lower in the sensitivity cases than in the base case scenario for all years from 2018 to 2028 (Table 18). To evaluate a more extreme scenario, MRW developed a stress case that combines all the sensitivity cases: (1) low 48 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “2015 Annual Energy Outlook,” Table 13 49 For Scenarios 2 and 4 the high gas natural prices case has less negative impact due to the high proportion of renewable generation. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 86 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 43 MRW & Associates, LLC participation, (2) higher local renewable power prices, (3) higher renewable power prices, (4) higher natural gas prices, (5) lower PG&E portfolio costs, and (6) higher PCIA charges. The 2018-2028 average rate differential for this stress case is negative, at -4.08¢/kWh, meaning that CCE customer costs would exceed PG&E customer costs under this scenario. Table 18. Stress Test Results, 2018-2028 Resulting average rate differential (¢/kWh) Base 1.86 Stress Scenario -2.3 Figure 23. Difference Between PG&E Customer Rates and CCE Customer Rates Under Each Sensitivity Case, 2018-202850 Figure 23 shows the difference between the PG&E customer rates and the Contra Costa County CCE customer rates (including exit fees) in the base case, and in each of the sensitivity scenarios, for each year from 2018 to 2028. As Figure 23 illustrates, CCE customer rates are lower than PG&E customer rates in each of the individual sensitivity cases in each year. For the High Natural Gas Price sensitivity case, in 2023 the rate differential drops due to an increase on the 50 The chart plots the sensitivity cases for Scenario 1, therefore it does not reflect the effect of the High Price Local sensitivity (it only applies to Scenario 3 and 4). March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 87 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 44 MRW & Associates, LLC PCIA, as the PCIA is highly sensitive to the natural gas prices. Under the Stress Scenario case, the rate differential is negative for each year (i.e., CCE rates are higher than PG&E generation rates). The results shown above reflect the Minimum RPS Compliance supply scenario (Scenario 1). MRW additionally evaluated each sensitivity scenario under the four alternative supply scenarios: (1) Minimum RPS Compliance, (2) Accelerated RPS, (3) Minimum RPS Compliance plus Local Procurement, and (4) Accelerated RPS plus Local Procurement. Figure 24 depicts the average rate differentials for 2018-2028 for each sensitivity case under the four supply scenarios. Figure 24. Difference Between PG&E Customer Rates and CCE Customer Rates Under Each Sensitivity Case and Supply Scenario, 2018-2028 Average Looking at 2018-2028, Scenario 1 (Minimum RPS Compliance) is the least costly scenario for the CCE, and therefore has the best rate differential under most of the sensitivity cases considered.51 Scenario 2 (Accelerated RPS), though still quite competitive with PG&E, fares slightly worse, with a rate differential approximately 10-20% lower than in Scenario 1 for most of the sensitivity cases considered. The one exception is the High Natural Gas Price sensitivity case, in which Scenario 1 has worse results than Scenario 2. This is due to the higher gas-fired generation content in Scenario 1, which makes the supply portfolio more susceptible to volatility in natural gas prices than Scenario 2. For most of the sensitivity cases, rate differentials for 51 This is only looking at the period 2018-2028. From 2028-2033 the rates show the same pattern between the four scenarios. If we consider the period 2033-2038, Scenario 2 would be the least costly scenario. After 20 33 the prices of renewable generation are expected to be lower than the wholesale electric market, which makes Scenario 2 les s costly than Scenario 1 in the period 2033-2038. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 88 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 45 MRW & Associates, LLC Scenario 3 are lower than Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Scenario 4 is the costliest scenario, with rate differentials much lower than the other three scenarios. In the stress case, Contra Costa County CCE customer rates exceed PG&E customer rates on average over the 2018-2028 period for all four scenarios, with the negative rate differential being highest in Scenario 4 at -4.5¢/kWh. Conclusions Under Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, Contra Costa County CCE customer rates compare favorably to PG&E rates in all years from 2018 to 2038. As modeled, in Scenario 4 Contra Costa County CCE customer rates would be higher than PG&E rates from about 2025 and 2030. Under Scenarios 1 and 2 (simple RPS compliance), Contra Costa County CCE customer rates remain below PG&E rates under all but the most extreme sensitivity case considered. Scenario 3 rates could meet or beat PG&E’s under all but the high natural gas and stress cases. Under the stress case, irrespective of the supply scenario considered, CCE rates are higher than PG&E rates. While the stress case may appear extreme given that it involves seven adverse sensitivities simultaneously occurring, cost volatility in the power industry is well established, and the possibility of adverse conditions arising in an isolated year should be understood and planned for in any CCE venture. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 89 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 46 MRW & Associates, LLC Chapter 5: Macroeconomic Impacts This chapter discusses the job impacts within Contra Costa County for each of the four scenarios. All four scenarios modeled showed positive economic and job impacts. The mix and amount of jobs created would depend upon policy decisions made by the CCE board, primarily trading off the economic stimulus from lower electricity bills versus the direct jobs created by local (higher cost) renewable energy projects sponsored by the CCE. To understand just how job impacts can come about, and the extent of those changes (positive or negative), a brief description of elements associated with the CCE and how they influence the existing economy is provided. How a CCE interacts with the Surrounding Economy The establishment and operation of a CCE creates a new set of spending elements (also referred to as “demands”) as a community changes the type of electricity generation they want to purchase, where the new mix of generation is to be located, adjustments necessary for existing generating assets of the provider utility, and implications on customers’ bills because of retail rate differentials. Some of these new elements have temporary effects, while others have long- term effects. Investment in locally sited solar will result in temporary direct creation of jobs whereas subsequent maintenance will support some on-going direct jobs. Regardless of the duration, when a direct job is created in a sector, there will be a multiplier response on “backwardly-linked” jobs with supplier businesses if the supplier is present in the economy. The new elements include: • Administration – direct jobs, long-term effect. County staffing, professional-technical services and I/T-database services • Net Rate Savings (or bill savings) – long-term effect. County households have an increase in their spending ability, County commercial and industrial energy customers experience a reduction in their costs-of-doing business which makes them each more competitive, garnering more business that requires more employees, and municipal energy customers can provide more local services which require more local government staff. • New Renewable Capacity Investment within County & Surrounding counties – direct jobs, short-term, two of the four scenarios. • New Renewable Operations within County & Surrounding counties – direct jobs, long-term, two of the four scenarios. • Net Generating Capacity and Operations offsets for PG&E outside of county – direct jobs, short and long-term, none because we are not focused on the rest of California economy. To frame expectations around how many direct jobs can be created in the County from the above CCE elements, consideration must be given to (a) how much of the spending associated with the CCE scenario is fulfilled by a within-county business or resident workforce, and (b) what do these locally-fulfilled dollars represent in terms of current annual County business activity (e.g., is this a large spending event?). March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 90 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 47 MRW & Associates, LLC Job Impacts of Proposed CCE Scenarios We examine each of the four scenarios for their influence on the County economy and the economy of the four surrounding counties combined (a ring region comprised of Alameda, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Solano counties). The basis for including the surrounding counties is (i) interdependence of the economies in terms of business-to-business transactions (in part due to proximity) and labor commuting flows (both in and out), as well as (ii) the siting of 50 percent of the proposed CCE funded small-scale solar projects beyond Contra Costa County. The scenario structures assume no electric customer participation from beyond Contra Costa County therefore the proposed bill savings are allocated across customer segments solely within Contra Costa County. The possible sources of initial job change in any of the scenarios include: • CCE Administration spending 2018 to 2038 (within Contra Costa County) • Bill Savings less Customer’s expense for on-site solar deployed 2018 to 2038 (within Contra Costa County) • Investment in small-scale Solar 2018 to 2030 (Contra Costa and the 4-county ring region) • O&M spending on small-scale Solar 2018 to 2038 (Contra Costa and the 4-county ring region) Only scenarios 3 and 4 include investment for small-solar projects in Contra Costa County and the surrounding region of counties. Once each regional economy experiences its initial change related to any of the above scenario elements, a macroeconomic forecasting tool (the REMI model52) captures impacts from inter-regional transactions (of commuters, of business sales), and impacts from changes in Contra Costa County’s relative cost-of-living and cost-of-doing business resulting from bill savings, and impacts associated with multiplier effects. Overview of Scenario Effects It is helpful to understand how the various scenarios “stack up” in terms of the four sources that will exert an influence on the local economies. Table 19 presents the cumulative (2018 to 2038) stimuli - bill savings, administrative spending, and where relevant, demands related to investment, O&M. The amounts are a roll-up of nominal values. Scenario 1 poses the greatest amount of Rate Savings for County CCE customers ($2,390 million), and Scenario 4 poses the largest amount of solar investment demand ($827 million) for in-county installations. Ensuing O&M spending (Scenarios 3 and 4) will increase as the investment demand increases. None of the displaced renewable capacity by PG&E (investments under the “business-as-usual” or “without CCE” case) occurs in either Contra Costa or the surrounding 4 counties. 52 Regional Economic Models, Inc. of Amherst, MA. www.remi.com March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 91 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 48 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 19. CCE Scenario Economic Characteristics (2018-2038, Millions of nominal dollars)53 Scen. Net Rate savings County customers CCE Small Solar Investment CCE Small Solar O&M Contra Costa County Neighboring Counties Contra Costa County Neighboring Counties 1 $2,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 $2,251 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 $1,485 $456 $456 $234 $234 4 $542 $827 $827 $375 $375 Figure 25 presents the estimated net rate savings for various customer-segments in the County by CCE scenario. The rate savings benefit accrues foremost to the residential segment, followed by the commercial segment. The municipal segment has fairly constant rate savings regardless of scenario. In addition to the magnitude of overall net rate savings and local solar-related business opportunities, this segment distribution across customer segments influences part of the job impact response (amidst solar investments). Households spend money saved on electric bills on other consumer basket items, which would include a mix of goods and services, some local, some imported, which all rely on different jobs at different wages. Commercial or industrial electric customers experience a savings as making their operations more cost competitive, which returns some positive (though not equal across all type of activities) market share growth (e.g., more sales which means more jobs and other inputs to their operations). Municipal segment savings allow the state/local government entity to redirect dollars into other forms of public spending. 53 Net Rate Savings are net of customer out-of-pocket for on-site solar additions under Scenarios 3 and 4. For the County projects, 25 percent of the investment is paid by Industrial customers, 25 percent by Commercial customers, with the balance funded by outside investors. Small -solar projects in the surrounding counties are assumed to be funded by outside investors. Under scenarios 1 and 2 net is equal to gross rate savings. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 92 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 49 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 25. Cumulative net Rate Savings in Contra Costa County, Proposed CCE structures The opportunity for the small-solar investment episode (2018 through 2030), for scenarios 3 and 4, to generate “within region” job requirements is determined by how much of the investment dollars connect with (procure from) ‘within region’ construction labor and businesses that provide project components. The allocations of small-solar investment dollars into these two major types of purchases (with additional breakdown on non-labor expenditures) is done using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) small-solar PV JEDI model54 (CA) allocation. As shown in Table 20 for scenarios 3 and 4, no less than 50 percent of the various budgets enlists local workforce, and firms that provide supplies or services. 54 The Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) models are user -friendly screening tools that estimate the economic impacts of constructing and operating power plants, fuel production facilities, and other projects at the local (usually state) level. JEDI results are intended to be estimates, not precise predictions. See: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/about_jedi.html -$500 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc4 MUNI IND COM'L RES March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 93 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 50 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 20. Local Fulfillment of CCE Budgets (millions of nominal dollars) CCA Admin Solar Invest Solar O&M CCA Admin Solar Invest Solar O&M Scenario 1 Scenario 3 Budget $316 N/A N/A $316 $456 $233 In-County locally procured $189 N/A N/A $189 $234 $146 % capture local 60% N/A N/A 60% 51% 63% Surrounding Counties locally procured N/A N/A N/A N/A $234 $146 % capture local N/A N/A N/A N/A 51% 63% Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Budget $316 N/A N/A $316 $ 827 $375 In-County locally procured $189 N/A N/A $189 $425 $235 % capture local 60% N/A N/A 60% 51% 63% Surrounding Counties locally procured N/A N/A N/A N/A $450 $219 % capture local N/A N/A N/A N/A 51% 63% Resulting Impacts on Jobs This section will present several views of the job impacts by scenario. As shown in Table 21, Scenario 1 yields the largest annual job impact for the County over the interval – the result of the maximum rate savings under the CCE program. Job impacts are not limited to the direct job requirements from a CCE but include jobs resulting from multiplier effects and competitiveness effects. Scenario 4 – with the smallest of net rate savings for the County’s electric customers poses the largest investment for small -solar across the 5-county economy. This compensates for the reduced role of the rate savings and thus Scenario 4 yields an annual job gain for the 5- county economy, 886 jobs (compared to Scenario 1 with 731). The largest absolute job gain is in Scenario 3, with a total of 922 annual average jobs. As the amount of small solar investment increases (with subsequent O&M spending to follow), the percent of job impact that occurs within the surrounding multi-county region increases (Scenario 4 has 44%). The County’s annual job increase under Scenario 4 however is moderated when compared to Scenario 1. This is understood by (i) all CCE customers’ realizing smaller rate savings when the CCE attempts to invest in local solar, combined with (ii) commercial/industrial businesses in the County picking up 50 percent of the solar investment cost. Also, influencing the “surrounding county region” job impact is the fact that a neighboring economy (the County) is experiencing lower electric bills (regardless of the magnitude) and a solar installation “boom” – namely, economic stimulating events. This can create a positive bounce for the surrounding counties on some of the March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 94 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 51 MRW & Associates, LLC background business (supplier) transactions as well as with working-age households who commute into the County (this point is illustrated in Figure 26). And when the surrounding region is host to its own solar installation boom, this will engage the Contra Costa County economy as well. Table 21. Average Annual Employment Impacts 2018 through 2038 (Jobs) Scenario Contra Costa Surrounding 4 Counties All 5 counties % in Region 1 681 50 731 7% 2 571 48 619 7% 3 654 268 922 29% 4 474 412 886 44% For Scenario 4 (with the smallest net rate savings and the highest local solar-investment/O&M spend) a time-path of the resulting job impacts is shown in Figure 26. To be clear, the results are not depicting cumulative job impacts, simply a plot of each year’s resulting impact. After 2030, no more solar installations occur in either region.55 The surrounding region remains slightly buoyed with job impacts due to some continued O&M spending and feedback from the Contra Costa economy that is still benefitting now from gross rate savings (no more project expenses) and some O&M spending. Figure 26. Scenario 4 – Annual Job Impacts, 2018 to 2038 55 This is because the targeted renewable penetration was met and no new generation is needed by the CCE. If the study looked further out, then replacement solar would begin to have an effect and generate jobs. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 95 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 52 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 27 helps explain ‘the dip’ in the above blue series of positive job impacts (for Contra Costa) between 2024 and 2030. The estimated forecast of net rate savings follows such a trajectory (becoming negative between 2023 and 2030, when some customers bear a portion of the investment cost plus CCE rates are slightly higher than PG&E’s) and even the local capture on the solar investment comes off a local maximum in 2020 and a global maximum in 2027 (the latter occurs in the surrounding region as well). Figure 27. Scenario 4 – Contra Costa’s “Local” Benefit Figure 28 shows what contributes to Contra Costa’s job impact under Scenario 4. The dark blue line is the line from Figure 26. Through 2030, the largest influence on the County’s positive job impacts is the stimulus of solar project investment. Afterwards it is the role of net Rate Savings exerted through the customers’ roles in the local economy that creates local jobs. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 96 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 53 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 28. Scenario 4 – Contra Costa Job Impact by Source A look at two points in the policy interval illustrates the types of jobs that comprise the impact results. In 2020 there are about 700 additional jobs (when solar investment is at a maximum with little of the net rate savings realized) and in 2038, about 600 additional jobs in the County (after the investment hang-over is past and only a small influence is exerted through O&M and administrative spending, and the County economy is still experiencing a ramp up of rate savings). Figure 29 shows a pattern and an order of magnitude for each of the snapshot years that is indicative of the major CCE influence on the County’s industry base. In 2020, County job additions are explained foremost by the predominant effect emanating from the CCE scenario – namely solar project investment and program administration (net rate savings are negative at this point as a result of C/I customers paying for part of the solar investment cost). So, jobs occur in Construction, in State/Local Government, in Professional Technical Services, and with Wholesale suppliers. Project developer overhead payments (part of the investment cost) is why job additions are showing for Management of Companies and Enterprises. But not all of the job additions in these sectors are directly related to solar installations. Some of these – as well as jobs gains in other non-investment sectors like health care, and food establishments, and retail – are the result of the initial labor income gains (construction paychecks) which drives added household spending (the induced stage of economic multiplier effects), and some are the result of increases in “within county” business-to-business transactions and elevated business needs from the adjacent region (the indirect stage of multiplier effects.) -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 ThousandsINV/O&M/Admin from net Bill Savings total March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 97 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 54 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 29. Scenario 4 - Jobs added Among Contra Costa Sectors, 2020 and 2038 In 2038, (the orange series) the predominant ‘economy’ effect from the CCE is the net rate savings with a majority benefitting the residential segment. Households will redirect these savings into additional household spending (e.g., health care, retail, food establishments). But the municipal segment receives savings as well which drives additional public spending and requires some growth in staff in addition to the local government staff to administer the CCE (an average of 23 administrative staff). Commercial and industrial sectors also experience some job increases as their bill savings improve their bottom lines and grow their respective market shares for business. The pronounced gain in local government jobs is more than the (averaged) 23 staff mentioned above. By 2038 the County will have retained a significant number of its working-age residents that would otherwise have out-migrated (under the business-as-usual case) due to a combination of relative employment opportunities and inflation adjusted wages. The CCE activity creates job opportunity, mitigates in-county inflation (vis a vis bill savings) so there is real wage appreciation, and helps stem the tide of out-migration of key working-age cohorts. This further bolsters the positive population growth the County was forecast to have (under the BAU case), and local government spending (and staffing) increase on a per capita basis. In addition, the S/L government activity increases as the productive capacity of the County grows (in terms of dollars of gross regional product). The Construction sector posts strong job increases but now it is more the response to growth in the County (due to CCE influences) and this sector is key during investment (for both residential and non-residential structures) responses to close the gap between actual and optimal capital requirements in a growing economy. 0 50 100 150 200 250 Forestry, Fishing, and Related Activities Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation and Warehousing Information Finance and Insurance Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, and Technical… Management of Companies and Enterprises Administrative and Waste Management… Educational services; private Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services Other Services, except Public Administration Local Govt 2038 2020 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 98 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 55 MRW & Associates, LLC Allocation of Earned Income Gains A majority but not all jobs added in Contra Costa County will be held by the County’s working- age resident households. The same is true for jobs added in the 4-county surrounding region. Which means the household spending effects from the take-home pay on the above impacted jobs occur where the worker resides. The above job impacts are measured by place-of-work. The commuter from another county registers the induced effects of their earned income on a place-of- residence basis. Again, we focus on Scenario 4 in the year 2020 (year of maximum investment activity that is split 50:50 across both regions). Before we even allocate the impacts across the County boundary, it is helpful to reveal the broad commuting propensity (this is not industry-specific but rather across all activities within an economy) for these two interconnected regions. These relationships are captured in County data on personal (earned) income flows and the journey-to- work data – both federally collected. Table 22 shows the extent of linkage on earned income generated in one region and where its workers reside. Table 22. Earnings-Commuter Reliance between Contra Costa County and the Surrounding region Earnings Place-of-Work Contra Costa Surrounding region Worker resides Contra Costa 79% 8.5% Surrounding Counties 15% 73% Elsewhere 6% 18% 100% 100% Based on each of the model region’s reliance on jobs situated beyond their border there will be “earned income” imported for both Contra Costa and the surrounding region since both economies experience job increases under the CCE activity. For workplace earnings generated in Contra Costa County, 15 percent is earned by residents of the surrounding counties (we ignore the elsewhere because it is not part of our macroeconomic consideration). Likewise, of workplace earnings generated in the surrounding counties region, 8.5 percent is by commuters from Contra Costa County. Table 23 shows for 2020 the extent of extra jobs and earnings that will be held by a worker who resides in the other region. Of the 700 jobs added in Contra Costa County in 2020, 83 of these jobs (and $7 million of earnings) belong to commuters from the adjacent region. Of the 584 jobs added in the surrounding region in 2020, 41 of these jobs (and $4 million of earnings) belong to commuters from Contra Costa County. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 99 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 56 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 23. Scenario 4 - Earnings Impact by Place-of-Residence, 202056 Scenario 4, Year 2020 Place-of-Work Contra Costa County Surrounding region Job impact 700 580 Earnings impact $48 million $42 million Earnings per Job $86,000 $87,500 % Commuter earnings (Surrounding counties) 15% na % Commuter earnings (Contra Costa) Na 8.5% Impact Commuter earnings for Surrounding counties $7 million na Impact Commuter earnings for Contra Costa Na $4 million Equiv. # of Surrounding County Commuters 83 na Equiv. # of Contra Costa Commuters Na 41 Last, a high-level decomposition of the job impact result in the County is shown in Figure 30 for Scenario 1 (the highest customer savings, no investment in local solar capacity) and Scenario 4. Under Scenario 1 the County realizes most job creation through the effects of rate savings on the County’s economy. This response is 5-fold of what Scenario 4 would show as a job impact from rate savings. On the other hand, Scenario 4 exhibits a 5-fold job creation impact from the combined investment/O&M/administration effects. Including job creation impacts in the adjacent region of the four surrounding counties, Scenario 4 produces over 100 more jobs (average annual) than Scenario 1. This is predominantly explained by the surrounding region being the location for 50 percent of the small-solar investment that the CCE might choose to fund. 56 Earnings per job are weighted estimates. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 100 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 57 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 30. Average Annual Job Impact in Contra Costa County by Source Conclusion A CCE can also offer positive economic development and employment benefits to the County. At the peak, the CCE could create approximately 500 to 700 new jobs in the County plus additional jobs in neighboring counties. For Scenarios 1 and 2, the main driver behind the job growth is the general economic stimulus from injecting more dollars into the local economy via reduced electric rates. When costlier, locally-built renewable projects are emphasized, like in Scenarios 3 and 4, the general economic stimulus driver is replaced by the direct jobs and stimulus created by locally-sited and sourced renewable projects. Because Contra Costa County’s economy is not isolated, CCE formation can have positive effects in neighboring counties, too. This is particularly for the Scenarios emphasizing locally- built renewables, where workers would commute to jobsites in Contra Costa County. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 INV/O&M/Admin Net Bill Savings All Effects 5-county economyJobs Scenario 1 Scenario 4 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 101 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 58 MRW & Associates, LLC Chapter 6: Other Risks Aside from the risks identified above, the CCE or the political jurisdictions that are part of the CCE could be at risk for several other reasons. This section addresses some of those risks, which are summarized in Table 24.57 Table 24. Summary of CCE Risks Risk Magnitude Mitigation Financial Risks to CCE Members Low Keep CCE JPA’s financial obligations separate from jurisdiction’s Procurement-Related Risks (i.e., can’t meet rate or GHG targets) Medium-low Enter into balanced portfolio of power contracts Legislative and Regulatory Risks High Monitor and advocate at Legislature and CPUC PCIA Uncertainty High Establish rate-stabilization fund to account for volatile PCIA PCIA Policy Uncertainty High Monitor and advocate at Legislature and CPUC Availability/price of low-carbon resources Medium Enter into balanced portfolio of power contracts Bonding Risk Low Monitor and advocate at CPUC Financial Risks to CCE Members A CCE is effectively an association of various political subdivisions. The formation documents for the CCE define the rights and responsibilities of each member of the CCE. Given the large number of political subdivisions that might participate in a Contra Costa County CCE, MRW assumes that the Contra Costa County CCE would be formed under a Joint Powers Authority, in much the same way as MCE and Sonoma Clean Power. The CCE will ultimately take on various financial obligations. These include obtaining start-up financing, establishing lines of credit, and entering into contracts with suppliers. Because a CCE will take on such financial obligations, it is likely very important to the prospective member political subdivisions that the financial obligations of the CCE cannot be assigned to the members. 57 Note that this section does not provide legal opinion regarding specific risks, especially those related to the formation or the structure of the Joint Powers Authority under which MRW assumes the CCE will be established. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 102 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 59 MRW & Associates, LLC Thus, it is critical that the Joint Powers Authority and any other structuring documents are carefully drafted to ensure that the member agencies are not jointly obligated on behalf of the CCE (unless a member agency chooses to bear such obligations). The CCE should obtain competent legal assistance when developing the formation documents.58 Nonetheless, starting up a CCE often requires a credit-worthy entity to backstop its initial financing. Some, such as CleanPowerSF, use the balance sheet from its existing power enterprise to backstop initial financing. Others have relied upon their host county as a backstop to initial financing. For example, MCE’s initial bank loans for working capital were guaranteed by Marin County and the Town of Fairfax. After approximately six years, the CCE had demonstrated its creditworthiness and the guarantees were lifted. Still, the JPA cannot place any financial obligations or risks onto any of its members without that member’s approval. Procurement-Related Risks Because a CCE is responsible for procurement of supply for its customers, the CCE must develop a portfolio of supply that meets the resource preferences of its customers (e.g., ratio of renewable versus non-renewable supply) while controlling risks (e.g., ratio of short-term versus long-term purchase agreements) and meeting regulatory mandates (e.g., resource adequacy and RPS requirements). Thus, it is tempting to assume that customers would prefer a fully hedged supply portfolio. However, such insurance comes at a cost and a CCE must be mindful of the potential competition from PG&E. Thus, the CCE’s portfolio must be flexible while meeting the needs of its customers. The CCE will likely need to negotiate a flexible supply arrangement with its initial set of suppliers. Such an arrangement is important because the CCE’s loads are highly uncertain during CCE ramp-up. Without such an arrangement, the CCE faces the risk of either under- or over- procuring renewable or non-renewable supplies. Excessive mismatches between supply and demand of these different products could expose the CCE’s customers to significant purchases or sales in the spot markets. These spot purchases could have a large impact on the CCE’s financials. The CCE will by necessity have to procure a certain amount of short-term supplies. These short- term supplies bring with them price volatility for that element of the supply portfolio. While this volatility is not unexpected, the CCE must be mindful that such volatility could increase the need for reserve funds to help buffer rate volatility for the CCE’s customers. Funding such reserve funds could be challenging in this time of low gas prices (resulting in high PCIA charges). The CCE will be entering the renewable market at an interesting time. While all LSEs must meet the expanded RPS targets by 2030, at least the IOUs are currently over-procured relative to their 2020 RPS targets. Whether the IOUs will attempt to sell off some of their near-term renewable supplies is unknown. However, if the IOUs believe that this is a good time to acquire additional 58 Cities such as El Cerrito and Benicia conducted legal analyses when they were considering joining MCE. which should also be consulted. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 103 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 60 MRW & Associates, LLC renewables, the CCE could face stiff competition for renewable supplies, meaning that the green portfolio costs for the CCE might be higher than expected. Finally, it should be noted that as greater levels of renewables are developed to meet the State’s very aggressive RPS goals, it is possible that the traditional peak period will change. Adding significant amounts of solar could depress prices during the middle of the day. This could result in the need to try to sell power to out-of-state market participants during the middle of the day, possibly even at a loss. It could also result in the curtailment of renewable resources (even resources owned or controlled by the CCE). This could force the CCE to acquire greater levels of renewable supplies, thereby increasing costs. Legislative and Regulatory Risks As noted above, the CCE must meet various procurement requirements established by the State and implemented by the CPUC or other agencies. These include procuring sufficient resource adequacy capacity of the proper type and meeting RPS requirements that are evolving.59 Additional rules and requirements might be established. These could affect the bottom line of the CCE. PCIA Uncertainty Assembly Bill 117, which established the CCE program in California, included a provision that states that customers that remain with the utility should be “indifferent” to the departure of customers from utility service to CCE service. This has been broadly interpreted by the CPUC to mean that the departure of customers to CCE service cannot cause the rates of the remaining utility “bundled” customers to go up. To maintain bundled customer rates, the CPUC has instituted an exit fee, known as the “Power Charge Indifference Adjustment” or “PCIA” that is charged to all CCE customers. The PCIA is intended to ensure that generation costs incurred by PG&E before a customer transitions to CCE service are not shifted to remaining PG&E bundled service customers. Even though there is an explicit formula for calculating the PCIA, forecasting the PCIA is difficult, because many of the key inputs to the calculation are not publicly available, and the results are very sensitive to these key assumptions. For PG&E, the PCIA has varied widely; for example, at one time the PCIA was negative. Current CCEs have chosen to have customers bear the financial risk associated with the level of exit fees they will pay to PG&E. Thus, for a customer taking CCE service to be economically better off (i.e., pay less for electricity), the sum of the CCE charges plus the PCIA must be lower than PG&E’s generation rate. This risk can be mitigated in two ways. First, as discussed in more detail elsewhere, a rate stabilization fund can be created. Second, the CCE can actively monitor and vigorously participate in CPUC proceedings that impact cost recovery and the PCIA. 59 Rules to establish RPS requirements under the new 50% RPS mandate are currently being debated at the CPUC. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 104 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 61 MRW & Associates, LLC Impact of High CCE Penetration on the PCIA Currently, the PCIA calculation is based on the cost and value of a utility's portfolio, without regard to how much of that portfolio is to be paid for by bundled customers and how much by Direct Access (DA) and CCE customers. As such, the PCIA is not affected by the number of DA/CCE customers. Currently, for bundled customers the rate impacts associated with fluctuating PCIAs are relatively small, but this will change as the number of DA/CCE customers grows. At some point, bundled customers' rates may experience marked volatility as the impacts of the annual PCIA rate swings reverberate to bundled rates. This may be unacceptable to ratepayer advocates and the Commission. The PCIA rate volatility in part reflects changes to the utilities’ generation costs, which are appropriately reflected in bundled customers’ rates. But, often to a large degree, it reflects changes to the market price benchmark, which should not be relevant to bundled customer rates. For example, for a utility with flat RPS costs, a reduction to the market price benchmark for renewable power would increase the RPS-related PCIA, which would reduce bundled rates, even though there was no change in RPS costs. This could also happen in the reverse direction, increasing bundled rates when there is no increase in underlying generation costs. Once DA/CCE load gets large enough that there are real stranded contracts, we suspect that the Commission is going to look much more closely at the value of these stranded contracts (and how to get the most value for them). Impact of High CCE Penetration on Low-Carbon (Hydro) Resources Virtually all the CCEs forming in California include carbon reduction as a goal. As the analysis has shown, CCEs will likely need to purchase both RPS-eligible power and other carbon-free power to meet their goals, namely large hydropower. This has been the approach used by MCE, Peninsula Clean Power, and Silicon Valley Clean Power, who all beat PG&E’s GHG emissions rate through contracts for hydropower. This increased demand for carbon-free hydropower can change the “supply-demand” balance and in theory increase the cost of these resources. However, to put this in perspective, the amount of hydropower assumed in the technical study is very modest compared to its availability. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, hydroelectric facilities generated approximately 128,000 GWh of electricity, and over the past 5 (drought) years, California hydroelectric resources generated 25,000 GWhs of electricity. In contrast, the technical study assumed only 0.4-1.5 GWh/year of hydropower—well under one percent of the available resource. Furthermore, the assumed hydro premium, $10/MWh over standard market power, is much higher than the current $1.50-$2.50/MWh premiums being seen. Thus, a certain amount of market tightening is already built into the study. Nonetheless, to address this risk, the Contra Costa County CCE should consider locking in longer-term contracts for non-RPS eligible resources early in the process so as to guarantee their availability at a reasonable price in the longer term when there could be greater demand for them. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 105 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 62 MRW & Associates, LLC Bonding Risk Pursuant to CPUC Decision 05-12-041, a new CCE must include in its registration packet evidence of insurance or bond that will cover such costs as potential re-entry fees, specifically, the cost to PG&E if the CCE were to suddenly fail and be forced to return all its customers back to PG&E bundled service. Currently, a bond amount for CCEs is set at $100,000. This $100,000 is an interim amount. In 2009, a Settlement was reached in CPUC Docket 03-10- 003 between the three major California electric utilities (including PG&E), two potential CCEs (San Joaquin Valley Power Authority and the City of Victorville), and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) concerning how a bonding amount would be calculated. The settlement was vigorously opposed by MCE and San Francisco and never adopted. Since then, the issue of CCE bond requirements has not been revisited by the CPUC.60 If it is, the bonding requirement will likely follow that set for Energy Service Providers (ESPs) serving direct access customers. This ESP bond amount covers PG&E’s administrative cost to reintegrate a failed ESP’s customers back into bundled service, plus any positive difference between market-based costs for PG&E to serve the unexpected load and PG&E’s retail generation rates. Because the ESP bonding requirement has been in place, retail rates have always exceeded wholesale market prices, and thus the ESP’s bond requirement has been simply equal to a modest administrative cost. If the ESP bond protocol is adopted for CCEs, during normal conditions, the CCE Bond amount will not be a concern. However, during a wholesale market price spike, the bond amount could potentially increase to millions of dollars. But the high bond amount would likely be only short term, until more stable market conditions prevailed. Also, it is important to note that high power prices (that would cause a high bond requirement) would also depress PG&E’s exit fee and would also raise PG&E rates, which would in turn likely provide the CCE sufficient headroom to handle the higher bonding requirement and keep its customers’ overall costs competitive with what they would have paid had they remained with PG&E. As discussed above, JPA member entities would not be individually liable for any increase in the bond amount. 60 On January 30, 2017 the CPUC set a pre-hearing Conference to begin a process to address CCE bonding requirements. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 106 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 63 MRW & Associates, LLC Chapter 7: Comparative Analysis of CCE Options Having the County and cities within the County form their own JPA and CCE Program is not the only possibility for CCE participation. First, the Counties and/or its cities may join Marin Clean Energy (MCE). In fact, 5 cities in the County—El Cerrito, Lafayette, Richmond, San Pablo, Walnut Creek—are already members of MCE. These cities joined between 2013 and 2016, and have full standing on MCE’s Board of Directors. Second, the County and/or its cities could join the East Bay Community Energy (Alameda County) CCE. While this CCE has just been formed, with its JPA board having been seated in January 2017, it aims to begin power delivery in late 2017. Furthermore, the County and each city need not joint one or the other CCE en masse, but instead can join one or the other CCEs individually (or neither). This chapter presents the benefits and drawbacks of joining either MCE or EBCE, forming a new CCE with the County and the cities not currently in MCE (which has been the focus of most of the analysis in this report), or remaining with PG&E. To the extent possible, this chapter considers the rate-competitiveness, GHG reduction, local economic development, local control and governance, cost risks, and CCE formation timing of each option. Some of the benefits may depend upon how much of the County chooses which path. Each community chooses for itself; thus, it is possible to have some join MCE, some join EBCE, and others remain on PG&E service. To the extent that it matters, this will be highlighted in the sections that follow. Note that MRW & Associates are not attorneys, and that the MCE and EBCE JPA agreements are legal documents. Therefore, nothing herein should be interpreted as a legal opinion – only an informed lay-reading of the documents. MRW would strongly recommend that Contra Costa County and any city considering becoming a member of MCE or EBCE have its counsel conduct a thorough review of the respective JPA and related documents prior to committing to a CCE. Table 25 below summarizes our results. While it is desirable to quantify some (or all) of the criteria, to do so would be an exercise in false precision. First and foremost, two of the potential CCE options are with entities which, while potentially viable, do not exist. Without power contracts, portfolios, or procurement guidelines and policies, it would be unwise to claim that EBCE or a potential Contra Costa-only CCE would have rates or greenhouse gas emissions higher or lower than the other. Comparisons against MCE can be somewhat more reasonably asserted; however, its stated goals—greater renewable energy content, lower greenhouse gas emissions, local generation, and comparable rates—are nearly identical to those stated by EBCE, so as to make long-range rate and emissions distinctions immaterial. This contrasts with PG&E, whose power portfolios, procurement plans, and costs are readily available through various filings and applications it has made before the CPUC. Thus, the qualitative comparisons provided in the table do not provide sharp distinctions between the CCE options. All these options are expected to provide similar rates and GHG emissions, with differences arising from variations in the priorities and procurement decisions of the individual governance boards. What truly distinguishes these options are primarily governance options (i.e., in-county only versus shared with other entities) and the amount of risk assumed (i.e., developing or signing on with a new CCE versus joining one with a record of satisfactory performance). Each of the lines on the table are discussed in greater detail in the sections that follow. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 107 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 64 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 25. Comparison of Contra Costa CCE Options Criterion Form CCCo JPA Join MCE Join EBCE Stay with PG&E Rates Likely lower Likely Lower Likely Lower Base GHG Reduction Potential Over Forecast Period Some Some Some Base Local Control/Governance Most Some Some None Local Economic Benefit Potential Greatest Some Some Minimal Start Up Costs/Cost to Join Low, but greater risk61 None62 None62 None Level of Effort Greatest Minimal Greater None Program Risks Greatest Minimal Some Base Timing (earliest) Late-2018 Late-2017 Mid-2018 N/A Rates In general, any of the three CCE options can result, in the long run, with rates that are at or slightly below those of PG&E. This is not to say that in some years PG&E’s rates may be lower, or that one CCE option would consistently have rates that are lower than the others. Rather, given that a CCE’s rates are a function if its communities’ values—amount of local renewable generation, promotion of energy efficiency or distributed generation, overall rate minimization— and that two of the three CCEs being compared do not yet exist, let alone have rate or procurement policies, MRW cannot assert that one CCE option will have lower rates than the other two. Both MCE and EBCE have commitments to higher-cost local renewable development, which suggests that they are willing to trade off somewhat lower rates for other benefits. A 61 Start-up costs provided by the County or others are likely to be reimbursed by the JPA. 62 Costs already spent for consulting/technical study will likely not be reimbursed. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 108 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 65 MRW & Associates, LLC Contra Costa CCE that focuses more on rate reduction could in principle offer marginally lower rates than the other two. GHG Reduction For climate action planning and reporting purposes, the amount of GHG reduction that can be attributed to a CCE formation is a function of the difference between the average GHG emissions from PG&E and that of the CCE. PG&E’s power portfolio is already relatively “clean,” with large fractions coming from not only qualifying renewables but also nuclear power (through 2024) and large hydroelectric generators. As Table 26 shows, 59% of PG&E’s 2015 power came from GHG-free resources. This number would be closer to 67% GHG-free but for the poor hydroelectric generation due to the ongoing drought.63 Therefore, for any CCE to have a reduced average carbon footprint requires not only the same or greater amount of qualifying renewable generation, but additional sources of GHG-free generation. Table 26. PG&E and MCE Power Content (2015) PG&E 2015 MCE 2015 Eligible renewable 30% 56% Large Hydro 6% 12% Nuclear 23% 0% GHG-Free subtotal 59% 68% Unspecified/Market 17% 25% Natural Gas 25% 12% Fossil subtotal 41% 32% An approach taken by some of the currently operating Northern California CCEs is to (a) use more qualifying renewable generation than PG&E, and (b) contract with and use power from large hydroelectric resources. This is shown in MCE’s power content mix, and to the extent possible, what was modeled here for Contra Costa County and for MRW’s study of an Alameda County CCE. Given that both MCE and EBCE have made GHG reductions a very high priority, one can reasonably assume that either will have some GHG-emissions benefit relative to PG&E, but there is no concrete rationale to assume that either MCE or EBCE will have a significantly-lower GHG emissions rate than the other. Local Economic Benefits As noted earlier in the report, the amount of local economic benefits is a function of rate reduction and local construction and CCE staffing. The number of local renewable energy projects will be a function of at least two factors. The first is any cost competitiveness advantage of renewable resources in the County; i.e., others will want to build renewable generation in the County because of cost advantages (including interconnection ease). Second, local generation 63 However given climate change, one can sensibly argue that the lower -than-historic-average hydroelectric output in California seen over the past few years may be more predictive than the historical average. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 109 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 66 MRW & Associates, LLC development will be fostered by a preference for local generation by the CCE serving Contra Costa County. While all three CCE options have expressed a preference for “local” renewables, the extent to which these three programs might develop local renewable generation facilities within the County remains uncertain. MCE has already invested in Contra Costa County, with a new utility-scale solar project in Richmond and numerous individuals taking advantage of its rooftop solar program. Nonetheless, in the long run MRW would expect that a Contra Costa CCE would have the greatest interest in developing in-county renewables and thus could potentially have the greatest positive economic impact. Teaming with either of the other CCEs would dilute the interest, as the CCE would have to consider economic development in its non- Contra Costa communities as well. Given the particularly strong interest of the EBCE group in local renewables, the notion that “local” might encompass the whole “East Bay,” and the fact that Contra Costa cities might have greater say in the formation of generation polities with a new group like EBCE than a more established one like MCE all suggest that EBCE might be more responsive in developing in-county renewables than MCE. On the other hand, MCE has a commanding head start, having already developed renewable projects in the County. Contra Costa County makes up but a small fraction of PG&E’s service area. While PG&E’s local community engagement is admirable, it cannot focus on the County in a way that a smaller CCE can. As such, any of the three CCE scenarios will likely result in greater local economic benefits than remaining with PG&E. CCE Governance: Voting How each community is represented on a CCE’s governing board (generally a board of directors) is laid out in its JPA agreement. Per its current JPA agreement, EBCE will have a two-stage vote: under most circumstances, each board member (each representing a single entity) would have one vote, regardless of his or her entity’s size. That is, both Oakland and Piedmont would have an equal vote. In the event of a non-unanimous affirmative vote, three cities can call for a weighted vote. In that case, each Representative Board Member’s vote would be weighted according to the size (in kilowatt-hours) of the entity being represented. These two voting shares are shown in Table 27. As noted in Table 28 if EBCE consisted of Alameda County alone, the combination of the three largest entities (Oakland, Fremont, plus Hayward or Berkeley) could carry the weighted vote. If all of Contra Costa County joined EBCE, then it would take the five largest entities (Oakland, Fremont, Hayward, Unincorporated Contra Costa County plus Berkeley or Concord) to carry the vote. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 110 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 67 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 27. EBCE Voting Shares, With and Without Contra Costa64 County Simple Voting Load-Weighted Voting* Alameda Only Alameda + Contra Costa Alameda Only Alameda + Contra Costa Oakland 8.3% 3.7% 24.8% 17.5% Fremont 8.3% 3.7% 16.2% 11.4% Hayward 8.3% 3.7% 10.1% 7.1% Berkeley 8.3% 3.7% 8.5% 6.0% San Leandro 8.3% 3.7% 6.4% 4.5% Livermore 8.3% 3.7% 6.2% 4.4% Unincorporated Ala. 8.3% 3.7% 6.4% 4.5% Other Alameda Cities 41.7% 18.5% 14.9% 8.3% Alameda Total 100.0% 44.4% 100.0% 63.6% Unincorporated C.C. 3.7% 9.0% Concord 3.7% 5.1% Pittsburg 3.7% 4.6% Antioch 3.7% 3.7% San Ramon 3.7% 3.2% Brentwood 3.7% 2.1% Danville 3.7% 1.7% Martinez 3.7% 1.4% Pleasant Hill 3.7% 1.4% Oakley 3.7% 1.1% Orinda 3.7% 1.0% Hercules 3.7% 0.7% Pinole 3.7% 0.6% Moraga 3.7% 0.5% Clayton 3.7% 0.3% Contra Costa Total N/A 55.6% N/A 36.4% *Only in cases where called upon by 3 Board Members Table 28. EBCE Minimum Cities Needed to Carry Weighted Vote Alameda Only 3 cities Oakland, Fremont + Hayward or Berkeley Alameda + Contra Costa 5 cities Oakland, Fremont, Hayward, Unincorporated Contra Costa Co. + Berkeley or Concord 64 It should be noted that two cities in Alameda County opted to not join the CCE at this time. Should they join, that could change the voting shares. Similarly, if not all Contra Costa jurisdictions join either MCE or EBCE, the voting shares will be different. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 111 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 68 MRW & Associates, LLC MCE’s voting structure differs from EBCE’s in two important ways. First, each board member’s vote is a weighted. Half of each board member’s weighting is equal to his or her entity’s share of MCE’s total load. The other half is an equal share for each entity. Thus, if a community is one of 26 members representing 18% of MCE’s load, the board member’s vote would be 10.9% (18%x(1/2) + (1/26)x(1/2)= 9% + 1.9% = 9.9%) Second, multiple entities have the option to be represented by a single board member. For example, Napa County and all the towns/cities within the County are represented by a single board member. This consolidated seat allows for potentially less administrative burden on the represented entities and “streamlines communication and policy setting.” On the other hand, it effectively requires the communities with a joint board member to vote as a bloc, and while the bloc maintains the same voting share, it can reduce the “voice” of the communities: one person to speak on their behalf rather than, say, five, or six (or more). Table 29 shows what the voting shares might be if all the Contra Costa communities joined MCE and each claimed its own board member. Together, the Contra Costa communities (including those already in MCE) would represent 71% of MCE’s load and have a total 62% of the voting share. Table 29. MCE Voting Shares With Each Contra Costa Community Having Its Own Board Member VOTING SHARES Entity Share Load Share Voting Share Antioch 1.3% 2.8% 4.1% Brentwood 1.3% 1.6% 2.9% Clayton 1.3% 0.3% 1.5% Concord 1.3% 3.9% 5.2% Danville 1.3% 1.3% 2.6% Hercules 1.3% 0.6% 1.8% Martinez 1.3% 1.1% 2.4% Moraga 1.3% 0.4% 1.6% Oakley 1.3% 0.8% 2.1% Orinda 1.3% 0.8% 2.0% Pinole 1.3% 0.5% 1.7% Pittsburg 1.3% 3.5% 4.7% Pleasant Hill 1.3% 1.0% 2.3% San Ramon 1.3% 2.4% 3.7% Unincorporated Contra Costa County 1.3% 6.8% 8.1% New Contra Costa Members 19.2% 27.6% 46.8% Existing MCE Contra Costa Members 6.4% 8.0% 14.4% TOTAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 25.6% 35.6% 61.2% Rest of MCE 24.4% 14.4% 38.8% March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 112 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 69 MRW & Associates, LLC CCE Governance: Other The proposed EBCE JPA Agreement also calls for a formal Community Advisory Committee (Section 4.9). The relevant section states that the purpose of the Committee: “shall be to advise the Board of Directors on all subjects related to the operation of the CCA Program … with the exception of personnel and litigation decisions. The Community Advisory Committee is advisory only, and shall not have decision-making authority… The Board shall appoint members of the Community Advisory Committee from those individuals expressing interest in serving, and who represent a diverse cross- section of interests, skill sets and geographic regions.” The Chair of the Community Advisory Committee will serve as a non-voting ex officio member of the EBCE Board of Directors. MCE has no analogous official community advisory committee originating from its JPA agreement. Nonetheless, there is a “Community Power Coalition” that provides input to MCE (see, https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/community-power-coalition/). The Coalition works “on a variety of issues ranging from local renewable energy project development – like MCE Solar One in Richmond – to outreach for MCE’s Spanish-speaking constituents, to environmental justice and consumer protection issues affecting MCE’s low-income customers.” The recitals to EBCE’s JPA agreement lay out what can be described as its envisioned values. Besides offering competitive rates and lowering greenhouse gasses, this includes (Recitals, Section 6): • Establishing an energy portfolio that prioritizes the use and development of local renewable resources and minimizes the use of unbundled renewable energy credits; • Promoting an energy portfolio that incorporates energy efficiency and demand response programs and has aggressive reduced consumption goals; • Demonstrating quantifiable economic benefits to the region (e.g. union and prevailing wage jobs, local workforce development, new energy programs, and increased local energy investments); • Recognize the value of workers in existing jobs that support the energy infrastructure of Alameda County and Northern California. The Authority, as a leader in the shift to a clean energy, commits to ensuring it will take steps to minimize any adverse impacts to these workers to ensure a “just transition” to the new clean energy economy; • Delivering clean energy programs and projects using a stable, skilled workforce through such mechanisms as project labor agreements, or other workforce programs that are cost effective, designed to avoid work stoppages, and ensure quality; • Promoting personal and community ownership of renewable resources, spurring equitable economic development and increased resilience, especially in low income communities; • Provide and manage lower cost energy supplies in a manner that provides cost savings to low-income households and promotes public health in areas impacted by energy production; and March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 113 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 70 MRW & Associates, LLC • Create an administering agency that is financially sustainable, responsive to regional priorities, well managed, and a leader in fair and equitable treatment of employees through adopting appropriate best practices employment policies, including, but not limited to, promoting efficient consideration of petitions to unionize, and providing appropriate wages and benefits. Contra Costa communities considering joining EBCE should consider these enunciated values prior to committing to membership. Timing and Process to Join/Form The timing required to serve Contra Costa businesses and residents vary markedly among the CCE options. The quickest path the CCE service would be to join with MCE. The first step for a community to join MCE is for its governing body or representative (e.g., city manager) to provide MCE a non-binding letter of interest. The entity’s governing body would then need to adopt a resolution requesting MCE membership; have a first reading of an ordinance to join MCE; execute a memorandum of understanding between the entity and MCE to address preliminary data and communication issues; and provide a signed request for PG&E to provide MCE its load data. These steps would need to occur during MCE’s “inclusion period” which currently runs from December 1, 2016 through May 31, 2017. Only communities in Contra Costa County are eligible to request MCE membership during this period. MCE would then evaluate the impact of the new load on its system. If the net result of adding the new community is that MCE’s rates would increase, then that community’s membership would be tabled until a future date. If the MCE analysis shows that adding the community is favorable, then the MCE Board would vote to accept (or not) the community into MCE. At that point, the local ordinance for MCE membership would receive a second reading and adoption. MCE would them modify its official Implementation Plan to reflect the new community, and submit the updated plan to the California Public Utilities Commission. Once approved (none have been rejected), the phase-in of the community into MCE can occur. Based on MCE’s currently Inclusion Period, Contra Costa County and the jurisdictions not already served by MCE could begin MCE service as early as late 2017. Although it has just recently formed, the EBCE board has extended an offer to interested Contra Costa communities to join EBCE. In a letter from Chris Bazar, Director, Alameda County Community Development Agency, EBCE would welcome Contra Costa members into its Phase 2 or Phase 3 rollout.65 The current EBCE JPA documents states in Section 3.1, Addition of Parties: Subject to Section 2.2, relating to certain rights of Initial Participants, other incorporated municipalities and counties may become Parties upon (a) the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of such incorporated municipality or county requesting that the incorporated municipality or county, as the case may be, become a member of the 65 The letter suggests that Phase 2 would commence in the summer of 2018 and Phase 3 in Fall 2018 or Spring 2019. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 114 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 71 MRW & Associates, LLC Authority, (b) the adoption by an affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors of the entire Board satisfying the requirements described in Section 4.12, of a resolution authorizing membership of the additional incorporated municipality or county, specifying the membership payment, if any, to be made by the additional incorporated municipality or county to reflect its pro rata share of organizational, planning and other pre-existing expenditures, and describing additional conditions, if any, associated with membership, (c) the adoption of an ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) and execution of this Agreement and other necessary program agreements by the incorporated municipality or county, (d) payment of the membership fee, if any, and (e) satisfaction of any conditions established by the Board.. Thus, a Contra Costa community would need to adopt a resolution requesting membership in the EBCE, the board of Directors of EBCE would have to vote to authorize the applying community’s membership, followed by the applying entity passing an ordinance to join. To be part of the Phase 2 rollout, a City would have need to have an ordinance passed by June 30, 2017. Implementing a Contra Costa County only CCE would likely have a time line similar to joining EBCE. If the County and its cities were committed to this path, it could potentially begin service as early as 2018. This is consistent with Peninsula Clean Energy, which went from putting out an RFP for a technical study to Phase 1 implementation in 18 months (April 2, 2015 to October 1, 2016). A more measured timeline would suggest that a new Contra Costa CCE would spend much of 2017, planning and generating local support, with implementation beginning in late 2018 or 2019. Costs to Join the CCE This section discusses direct, non-reimbursable costs to cities for joining either EBCE or MCE. So far, cities joining MCE have not had to pay for any of the costs incurred by MCE to plan for or integrate their load. They have often spent on the order of $10,000 to $15,000 for consultants to evaluate the risks to the city and its residents and businesses that could come from joining MCE. Both MCE and EBCE have extended a no-cost opportunity to join to the Contra Costa jurisdictions who are not already members of MCE. The start-up costs for a new Contra Costa CCE would be significant—Alameda County has committed $3.4 million to its effort. However, consistent with other CCEs, these costs would be initially reimbursed to the County and funding cities by a loan taken out by the CCE’s JPA, which would in turn be paid down via CCE rates over the initial few years. As such, the only “cost to join” a Contra Costa CCE felt by any individual city would be indirect at best (i.e., asked to backstop any CCE loads with the entities’ credit). Exiting the CCE MCE’s JPA Section 7.0 lays out the process and ramifications of a MEC member withdrawing from the JPA. First, an entity may withdraw from the JPA within 30 days of its notification of joining the JPA, assuming that MCE has not entered into any wholesale power agreements to serve the entity. (Section 7.1.1.1) After MCE has entered into wholesale power agreements to serve the entity, the entity may withdraw from MCE, effective the beginning of the JPA’s fiscal March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 115 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 72 MRW & Associates, LLC year by giving at least 6 months’ written notice of its intent to withdraw. The withdrawing entity may be subject to “certain continuing liabilities” as laid out in Section 7.3: 7.3 Continuing Liability; Refund. Upon a withdrawal or involuntary termination of a Party, the Party shall remain responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or liabilities arising from the Party’s membership in the Authority through the date of its withdrawal or involuntary termination, it being agreed that the Party shall not be responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or liabilities arising after the date of the Party’s withdrawal or involuntary termination. In addition, such Party also shall be responsible for any costs or obligations associated with the Party’s participation in any program in accordance with the provisions of any agreements relating to such program provided such costs or obligations were incurred prior to the withdrawal of the Party. The Authority may withhold funds otherwise owing to the Party or may require the Party to deposit sufficient funds with the Authority, as reasonably determined by the Authority, to cover the Party’s liability for the costs described above. Any amount of the Party’s funds held on deposit with the Authority above that which is required to pay any liabilities or obligations shall be returned to the Party. Neither the precise calculation of the liabilities nor now it would be collected is specified. The proposed EBCE JPA Agreement contains no language concerning a community’s exit from EBCE or the JPA. Remaining With PG&E Although this study suggests CCE program options would likely produce both environmental and economic benefits for the jurisdictions included in the study, continuing service with PG&E remains an option for not only a community but also for any individual or business whose community has selected CCE service (i.e., each individual account maintains its right to opt-out of CCE service). There are benefits of remaining with PG&E, even at a community level. First, remaining with PG&E takes no city action. Thus, a city’s leadership and staff can concentrate their limited resources on matters that may be more pressing. Second, PG&E is regulated by the State via the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which oversees its power procurement and approves its rates. While CCEs are partially regulated by the CPUC (e.g., ensuring that the CCE complies with any applicable laws), they are not subject to rate regulation. Some may see State oversight as a benefit, with an official “watchdog” overseeing power supply and procurement, while others might see the local CCE board accountability as a benefit. Third, PG&E is much larger than any of the CCE options that Contra Costa communities might pursue, which (as discussed) might reduce community input and value but also provide some economies of scale. For example, one poor power contract entered might have significant rate or operational ramifications for a CCE. For PG&E, given its size, the impact of that same poor contract would be diluted. Lastly, simply because a Contra Costa community does not join a CCE in 2017 or 2018 does not necessarily preclude it from doing so in the future, although waiting may result in an “entry fee” or perhaps a high PCIA rate. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 116 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 73 MRW & Associates, LLC Summary The following lays out the principal benefits and risks of each of the options considered. Potential Benefits of Forming Contra Costa CCE (relative to joining MCE or EBCE) • More local control (voting shares not diluted) • Can form JPA and policies to fully reflect County interests and values • Greatest potential for local economic development (due largely to more local control) • Even if formed, individuals may still select PG&E as their power provider Potential Risks/Downsides of Forming Contra Costa CCE (relative to joining MCE or EBCE) • Commitment of County and city resources to establish a new CCE agency • Higher risks due lack of experience, fewer partners • Would need to establish programs, contractors, credit, etc. • Longest time line to begin enrolling customers • Given MCE’s presence in five Contra Costa communities, potential customer confusion with multiple CCEs in the same county Potential Benefits of joining MCE (relative to joining EBCE) • Five other Contra Costa County communities have already joined • Established, successful program • Credit capacity and programs in place • Likely easier transition/implementation • Able to enroll customers sooner than EBCE • Programs that create jobs and economic benefits could be implemented more quickly Potential Risks/Downsides of joining MCE (relative to joining EBCE) • May have less Board representation (if all of Contra Costa County and its jurisdictions are represented by a shared seat) • May be less of a “fit” compared to East Bay identification and sensibilities (or, for some cities, this may be a benefit) • Programs are already in place; less/minimal input into their formation • Joining a large board serving a very diverse customer base and geography Potential Benefits of joining EBCE (relative to joining MCE) • Coming in closer to the “ground floor" — opportunity to influence policy direction and program development • May be more mission or cultural alignment (East Bay vs. Marin) (or perhaps for some communities, not) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 117 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 74 MRW & Associates, LLC • Board will more likely be one seat per member jurisdiction (not a shared seat) • Weighted voting process is a little clearer • EBCE working on a local development business plan with emphasis on local power production in the East Bay Potential Risks/Downsides of joining EBCE (relative to joining MCE) • Take longer to enroll County communities • Take longer for job-creating programs to get up and running • May be a small fish among some very large fish (Oakland, Hayward) • Union focused policies may be difficult for some (or preferable) • Given MCE’s presence in five Contra Costa communities, potential customer confusion with multiple CCEs in the same county Potential Benefits of Remaining with PG&E (relative to joining or forming a CCE) • Experienced provider • State regulatory protection • Continuity- same firm provides all services • No action needed by City/County—status quo • May be able to join a CCE at a later date (but perhaps at some cost) Potential Risks/Downsides Benefits of Remaining with PG&E (relative to joining or forming a CCE) • Higher GHG emissions • Less local renewable generation • Higher electricity rates than CCE rates under most scenarios • Less local control • Less local input into policies and offerings • Less local economic development March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 118 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 75 MRW & Associates, LLC Chapter 8: Other Issues Investigated Synergies on the Northern Waterfront Contra Costa County has an ongoing initiative to economically develop its Northern Waterfront. The Northern Waterfront stretches from the City of Hercules at San Pablo Bay, along the southern shore of the Carquinez Straight and Suisun Bay, and out to the San Joaquin Delta region of Oakley. The County’s Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative is a regional cluster-based economic development strategy with a goal of creating 18,000 new jobs by 2035. The Initiative leverages existing competitive advantages and assets by focusing on advanced manufacturing sub-sectors in five targeted clusters (advanced transportation fuels, bio- tech/bio medical, diverse manufacturing, food processing, and clean tech). To assess the potential positive impacts a CCE might have on this Area, the study looked at the Northern Waterfront to assess local generation potential within the area. Of the potential 3,350 MW of solar resources in the County, approximately 40% lies within the Northern Waterfront. As shown in Table 30, there are over 700 potential solar sites in the area, which could theoretically generate over 2,000 GWhs. Of these sites, over 800 MW have the highest potential ranking, meaning that they are the most appropriate for actual development. In fact, all the local solar capacity specified in Scenarios 3 or 4 could be met at sites in the Northern Waterfront alone. Table 30 Solar Potential in the Northern Waterfront Location Solar Sites PV Potential (MW) PV Production (GWh) Build Cost ($ Thousands) Antioch 189 327 524 $747,130 Concord 108 191 306 $442,015 Crockett 21 58 93 $125,187 Hercules 52 90 144 $200,512 Martinez 139 300 480 $629,130 Oakley 43 76 121 $178,390 Pinole 17 24 39 $57,208 Pittsburg 153 298 477 $679,851 Rodeo 14 35 57 $85,875 Grand Total 736 1,400 2,241 $3,145,298 How much solar could actually be sited in the Northern Waterfront would depend upon (a) the degree to which there is competition for sites for perhaps higher-value projects and (b) the CCE’s policies toward fostering local projects. In addition to this renewable potential, the Northern Waterfront also hosts six major power plants (Table 31). In addition to these, the refineries in the area also generate much of their own power. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 119 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 76 MRW & Associates, LLC A Contra Costa CCE could contract with one of more of these facilities to provide the CCE’s Resource Adequacy Requirements or a portion of its energy needs. Alone, a Contra Costa CCE would not be able to use all—or even most—of the power produced by any of these or other major power plant of this magnitude (e.g., the cancelled Oakley power plant). Table 31. Natural Gas Power Plants in the Northern Waterfront Plant Location Capacity (MW) Year in Service Owner Type Crockett Cogen Crocket 275 1995 Steam-Cogen Los Medanos Pittsburg 555 2001 Calpine Combined cycle -Cogen Delta Energy Facility Pittsburg 887 2002 Calpine Combined cycle Gateway Antioch 530 2009 PG&E Combined cycle March Landing Antioch 760 2013 NRG Combined cycle Pittsburg Pittsburg 1,029 1970s NRG Steam, combined cycle “Minimum” CCE Size? MRW’s analysis above assumed that all eligible Contra Costa County cities join the Contra Costa County CCE program with a participation rate of 85% from each city, resulting in an anticipated CCE load of about 3.6 million MWh per year.66 If fewer customers join, CCE rates will generally be higher because about $7 million of annual CCE costs are invariant to the amount of CCE load. Along with the number of customers, the customer make-up is also important. For example, a higher share of residential customers would improve the competitiveness of the CCE, while a higher share of commercial customers or industrial customers would weaken the competitiveness of the CCE. Because cities vary in their distribution of customers by rate class, a city opting out of the CCE could affect the competitiveness of the CCE due to both the reduction in CCE load and the shift in customer make-up. To identify the “minimum” load needed for CCE customer rates to be no higher than PG&E customer rates, we will analyze only the period between 2018 and 2030. The “minimum” load for this period is approximately 440,000 MWh per year, assuming the average customer portfolio for Contra Costa County and Supply Scenario 1. This value was estimated by assuming that the fixed costs remained the same (i.e., did not scale with sales) and then lowering the sales until the hypothetical reduced CCE’s rates were equal to PG&E’s. As shown in Figure 31, this is roughly the load from the big cities (Concord and Pittsburg) and is much smaller than the load from the unincorporated area. As long as two medium-sized cities or one larger city joins the CCE, this “minimum” load will be met. It is not a true minimum, however, because the true minimum depends on the make-up of the customer portfolio; for example, for the stand-alone city of Pittsburg,67 due to its load with more industrial proportion, the CCE program would not be cost- competitive. 66 In the alternate supply scenarios, the “minimum” annual load assuming the average customer portfolio for Contra Costa County and the base case is 550,000 MWh (Scenario 2). 67 See Figure 2. Pittsburg is the only city with this highly industrial profile. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 120 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 77 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 31. Potential load (85% participation) per city Individuals and Communities Self-Selecting 100% Renewables The existing CCEs all offer customers an option to choose to receive 100% of their power from renewable resources in exchange for a rate premium. However, each CCE’s program is different. MCE Clean Energy has offered its “Deep Green” at a rate premium of 1¢/kWh because its inception. Sonoma Clean Power offers its “Evergreen” option at approximately the same price as PG&E’s “Solar Choice” rate. Lancaster Choice Energy offers its Smart Choice as a fixed monthly premium rather than a variable rate. In all cases, only a very modest number of CCE customers—on the order of a few percent—have selected the 100% green rate option. Table 32. CCE 100% Green Rate Premiums CCE Rate Option Increment Above Default Rate Marin Clean Energy Deep Green 1¢/kWh Sonoma Clean Power EverGreen 3.5¢/kWh Lancaster Choice Energy Smart Choice $10/month Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100 1¢/kWh CleanPowerSF SuperGreen 2¢/kWh Potential Contra Costa Co. CCE TBD ~1.5¢/kWh March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 121 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 78 MRW & Associates, LLC Any full renewable pricing option offered by the Contra Costa County CCE would have to be set by the CCE’s management. The value shown in Table 32, ~1.5¢/kWh, is the average incremental cost of green power used in the CCE supply assessment (Scenario 2) over the study period. (Initially, it would have to be ~1.9¢/kWh.) The number of customers selecting the rate would not impact the economics of the CCE customer who remain on the standard rate. • Separate CCE opt-out notifications would be needed. A key feature of the opt-out notification is the price comparisons against PG&E. As the default rate would be different for these communities, a different notice would have to be sent. This would simply increase the start-up cost for the CCE, the increment could be paid for by the city electing a different default rate. • Having a higher default rate might increase the number of oft-outs in the community. • PG&E’s billing system would have to be able to handle city- or zip code-specific default options. That is, as new residential or businesses move to a self-selected green community, the billing system would need to know to default them on a different rate schedule than a customer in a different CCE community. This may or may not be an issue. Competition with a PG&E Solar Choice Program PG&E has been offering a solar choice program known as Green Tariff Shared Renewable Program since February 2015.68 The program was established under Senate Bill 43, and pursuant to Decision 15-01-051 from the CPUC, to extend access to renewable energy to ratepayers that are currently unable to install onsite generation.69 It offers homes and businesses the option to purchase 50% or 100% of their energy use from solar resources. The program provides those with homes or apartments or businesses that cannot support rooftop solar the opportunity to meet their electricity requirements through renewable energy and support the growth of renewable energy resources. PG&E’s current Solar Choice program costs residential customers an additional 3.58¢/kWh. Given that MRW projects that the CCE can offer 100% green power at ~1.5¢/kWh over its own Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 rate (which is projected to be less than PG&E’s), we do not believe PG&E’s Community Solar Program will be price competitive with similar CCE product options. The program is open for enrollment until subscriptions reach 272 MW or January 1, 2019, whichever comes first.70 While this does limit the ability for PG&E to provide a 100% renewable 68 PG&E website http://www.pge.com/en/b2b/energysupply/wholesaleelectricsuppliersolicitation/RFO/Co mmunitySolarChoice.page? WT.mc_id=Vanity_communitysolarchoice. Accessed 5/16/2016 69 California Public Utilities Commission, Decision 15-01-051, p.3 70 Solar Choice Program FAQs website, https://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solar/choice/faq/index.page Accessed, 5/16/2016 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 122 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 79 MRW & Associates, LLC option in the long-run, at the start of the CCE this program it provides an opportunity for customers who desire 100% renewable power to remain with PG&E. Differences Between the Analyses for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties In the first half of 2016, MRW prepared a similar CCE analysis for Alameda County.71 Although the fundamental approach and results of study and this one are the same, there are several differing assumptions resulting in differing results. If we compare the results of the present study with the results obtained in the Alameda CCE study, we observe that the savings for CCE customers are very similar in both studies, though PG&E rates and CCE rates are both approximately 1¢/kWh higher in the current study than in the prior study (Table 33). Table 33. Average prices for 2018-2030 Scenario 1 for Contra Costa and Alameda County CCE programs Average Period 2018-2030 Contra Costa County Alameda County Price natural gas ($/MMBtu) 5.70 4.90 Wholesale ($/MWh) 51.30 44.80 PG&E Capacity ($/MWh) 74 39 CCE Capacity ($/MWh) 52 39 Wind ($/MWh) 56 57 Solar Distant ($/MWh) 51 51 Solar Local ($/MWh) 98 74 % Local Solar by 2030 25% 10% PG&E rate (¢/kWh) 11.7 10.4 PCIA rate (¢/kWh) 1.4 1.4 CCE rate (¢/kWh) 9.4 8.3 Difference CCE-PGE (¢/kWh) 2.3 2.1 The results of the present study for Contra Costa County differ from the prior results for Alameda County because we updated our forecast to reflect new PG&E rate filings and other public forecasts. The main changes between the models are as follows: • Bundled Load Forecast: As a result of increased interest in CCE, PG&E’s most recent bundled load forecasts are 3% below the previously available forecasts for 2017 and an average of 25% below the previously available forecasts over the 2018-2030 period (see Figure 32).72 Less load reduces PG&E’s procurement costs, increases the share of fixed costs 71 The final version of the Alameda CCE technical study was published on July 1, 2016. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/cca/documents/Feas -TechAnalysisDRAFT5312016.pdf 72 The sources for the 2017 bundled load forecasts are PG&E’s 2017 preliminary and final ERRA forecasts. (The June 2016 preliminary forecast was used in the Alameda County CCE study, and the November 2016 final forecast March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 123 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 80 MRW & Associates, LLC paid by remaining bundled customers, and increases the revenue provided to bundled customers from CCE exit fees. These effects mostly offset each other, resulting in little net change to bundled rates.73 • Natural gas prices: Projections for natural gas prices are about $0.80/MMBtu higher than they were in the spring when the Alameda County report was developed. The higher natural gas prices increase wholesale market prices by $7/MWh (14%). • Diablo Canyon Retirement application: In July 2016, PG&E, together with other entities, submitted a proposal to retire the two units of Diablo Canyon when their licenses expire in November 2024 and August 2025. Per the proposal, PG&E would replace Diablo Canyon production with energy efficiency and greenhouse gas-free generation resources. These resources would include the following: (1) 2,000 GWh of load reduction from additional energy efficiency to be installed by January 2025, (2) 2,000 GWh of load reduction or generation from GHG-free generation resources to be on-line between 2025 and 2030, and (3) a voluntary commitment from PG&E to meet a 55% RPS for 2031-2045 (instead of the 50% requirement currently in effect). The joint proposal estimated that the retirement of Diablo Canyon would result in a need for new generation capacity (“load-resource balance”) around 2030, which is about five years earlier than previously anticipated. was used in the present study.) The sources for the 2018-2030 bundled load forecasts are PG&E’s RPS plans for 2015 (filed in January 2016, used for Alameda County) and for 2016 (draft filed in Augus t 2016, used for Contra Costa). 73 CCE exit fees are designed so that bundled customers’ rates are not affected by CCE departures. In practice, some impact is likely in one direction or the other, and the magnitude and direction of this impact may each vary year by year. Figure 32: Bundled Load Forecasts used in the Alameda and Contra Costa County Analyses March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 124 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 81 MRW & Associates, LLC The new energy efficiency resources together with other costs of the nuclear plant retirement would be recovered through non-generation rates (mostly Public Purpose Program and Nuclear Decommissioning charges), and the new RPS resources would be recovered through a new “Clean Energy Charge” applied to all PG&E retail customers. For those load serving entities that are willing to commit to procuring the equivalent new RPS resources, PG&E has proposed a “self-provision” option that would exempt existing DA and CCE loads from the Clean Energy Charge. In the analysis for Contra Costa County, MRW assumed that Contra Costa CCE would choose the “self-provision” option. MRW assumed for this study that the Diablo Canyon retirement proposal would be adopted, though the proposal is under evaluation by the Commission and is subject to modification. Based on this proposal, we modified the PG&E and Contra Costa County CCE power supply forecasts as follows:74 1) PG&E’s RPS requirements were increased for 2030-2038 from 50% to 55%,75 2) Contra Costa County CCE’s RPS requirements were increased for 2030-2038 to 55% (vs. the 50% that was used in the Alameda County CCE study), and 3) We began increasing the price of capacity five years earlier than we had in the Alameda County CCE study, reflecting the earlier load-resource balance date due to the retirement of Diablo Canyon. For both Alameda and Contra Costa counties, MRW assumed that the CCEs would build their own power plants (alone or in combination with other public entities) in place of purchasing market capacity when market prices rise above the cost of a new self-build. On February 27, 2017, PG&E withdrew portions of its Diablo Canyon retirement proposal. In particular, PG&E states it will still pursue GHG-free replacement resources, but will do so in a different CPUC proceeding. MRW does not believe that this change has a material impact on this analysis. 74 We also accounted for the changes in the Public Purpose Program and Nuclear Decommissioning fees in our calculation of the Residential bills. 75 The generation share of the 2025-2030 commitment for 2,000 GWh of load reduction or GHG -free generation was assumed to be subsumed by procurement needed to meet a 50% RPS by 2030 and therefore did not result in incremental renewable generation in our model. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 125 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March, 2017 82 MRW & Associates, LLC Chapter 9: Conclusions Overall, a CCE in Contra Costa County appears feasible. Given current and expected market and regulatory conditions, a Contra Costa County CCE should be able to offer its residents and business electric rates that are less than that available from PG&E. Sensitivity analyses suggest that these results are relatively robust. Only when very high amounts of local renewable energy are assumed in the CCE portfolio (Scenario 4), combined with other negative factors, do PG&E’s rates become consistently more favorable than the CCE’s. A Contra Costa County CCE would also be well positioned to help facilitate the installation of greater amounts renewable generation in the County. Because the CCE would have a much greater interest in developing local solar than PG&E, it is much more likely that such development would actually occur with a CCE in the County than without it. The CCE can also reduce the amount greenhouse gases emitted by the County, but only under certain circumstances. Because PG&E’s supply portfolio has significant carbon-free generation (large hydroelectric and nuclear generators), the CCE must contract for significant amounts of carbon-fee power above and beyond the required qualifying renewables in order to actually reduce the County’s electric carbon footprint. Therefore, if carbon reductions are a high priority for the CCE, a concerted effort to contract with hydroelectric or other carbon-free generators would be needed. A CCE can also offer positive economic development and employment benefits to the County. At the peak, the CCE could create approximately 500 to 700 new jobs in the County, plus an additional 200 jobs in the neighboring counties if local renewable development is prioritized. While the analytical focus of this report has been on a stand-alone Contra Costa County CCE for those communities not already in MCE that is not the only, nor necessarily best, choice for these communities. Overall, there is insufficient data to suggest that a stand-alone Contra Costa CCE would offer lower rates or greater GHG savings that joining MCE or EBCE. Either forming or joining a CCE would likely offer modestly lower rates and more local economic development that remaining with PG&E. Joining MCE would likely result in the quickest and least risky path to CCE implementation, however with diminished local input into CCE policy formation. Because it has yet to be formed, joining with EBCE would take longer and involve more uncertainty than joining the already-established MCE, but would offer greater input into the CCE’s policies and formation. Although this study suggests CCE program options would likely produce both environmental and economic benefits for the jurisdictions included in the study, continuing service with PG&E remains an option for not only a community but also for any individual or business whose community has selected CCE service. PG&E is an experienced power provider and is regulated by the state. Furthermore, remaining with PG&E takes no city action. Lastly, simply because a Contra Costa community does not join a CCE in 2017 or 2018 does not necessarily preclude it from doing so in the future, although waiting may result in an “entry fee” or perhaps a high PCIA rate. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 126 Technical Study for Community Choice Energy Program in Contra Costa County Appendices Prepared by: With MRW & Associates, LLC 1814 Franklin Street, Ste 720 Oakland, CA 94612 Economic Development Research Group Boston, MA Sage Renewables San Francisco, CA March 2017 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 127 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County Appendix A. Loads and Forecast Appendix B. Power Supply Cost Appendix C. Forecast of PG&E’s Generation Rates Appendix D. Detailed CCA Rates Appendix E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs Appendix F. About the REMI Policy Insight Model Appendix G. Proforma Tables Appendix H. MCE’s Joint Powers Agreements Appendix I. MCE’s approval for inclusion of Contra Costa Appendix J. EBCE’s Joint Powers Agreement Appendix K. EBCE’s offer for inclusion of Contra Costa March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 128 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC A-1 Appendix A. Loads and Forecast 2014 Load (MWh) Residential Commercial Industrial Public Street lights + Pumping UNINCORPORATED 454,716 252,156 237,085 63,574 19,925 CONCORD 269,024 242,584 53,969 18,228 885 PITTSBURG 145,304 134,197 225,362 14,807 1,635 ANTIOCH 270,761 109,487 18,340 18,694 1,077 SAN RAMON 172,364 140,696 32,012 14,458 4,461 BRENTWOOD 150,827 66,635 0 16,407 4,970 DANVILLE 133,085 51,478 0 11,944 1,394 MARTINEZ 86,638 61,730 6,372 6,121 1,140 PLEASANT HILL 82,411 67,087 0 5,905 1,270 OAKLEY 96,389 18,236 0 12,431 901 ORINDA 58,779 14,719 0 39,747 215 HERCULES 48,162 32,749 0 2,751 700 PINOLE 36,629 26,028 0 5,877 963 MORAGA 40,593 8,818 0 3,701 456 CLAYTON 31,795 4,759 0 1,808 661 TOTAL 2,077,476 1,231,360 573,139 236,454 40,652 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 129 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC B-1 Appendix B. Power Supply Cost MRW has developed a bottoms-up calculation of Contra Costa County CCA’s power supply costs, separately forecasting the cost of each power supply element. These elements are renewable energy, non-renewable energy (including power production costs and greenhouse gas costs), resource adequacy (RA) capacity (both renewable and non-renewable supplies) and related costs (e.g., CAISO expenses and broker fees).1 Figure 1 illustrates the components of Contra Costa County CCA’s expected supply costs. Figure 1: Power Supply Cost Forecast Renewable Power Cost Forecast MRW developed a forecast of renewable generation prices starting from an assessment of the current market price for renewable power. For the current market price, MRW relied on wind and solar contract prices reported by California municipal utilities and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) entities in 2015 and early 2016, finding an average price of $52 per MWh for these contracts.2 1 MRW included a 5.5% adder in the power supply cost for CAISO costs (ancillary services, etc.), and a 5% premium for contracted supplies to reflect broker fees and similar expenses. 2 MRW relied exclusively on prices from municipal utilities and CCAs because investor-owned utility contract prices from this period are not yet public. We included all reported wind and solar power purchase agreements, excluding local builds (which generally come at a price premium), as reported in California Energy Markets, an Power Supply Costs Renewable Power Energy and Capacity Over- generation Non- Renewable Power Energy Power Production Greenhouse Gas Capacity March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 130 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC B-2 To forecast the future price of renewable purchases, MRW considered a number of factors:  Researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) developed a set of forecasts of utility-scale solar costs based on market data and preliminary data from other research efforts.3 Their base case forecast predicts a 3.8% annual decline in utility-scale solar capital costs on a nominal basis, from $1,932/kW-DC in 2016 to $1,652/kW-DC in 2020, with costs then remaining roughly constant in nominal dollars through 2030.4 Additional scenarios predict even steeper price declines, with the most aggressive scenario predicting an 11% annual nominal decline through 2020, with increases at the rate of inflation after that.  The federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which is commonly used by solar developers, is scheduled to remain at its current level of 30% through 2019 and then to fall over three years to 10%, where it is to remain.5 The federal Production Tax Credit, which is commonly used by wind developers, is scheduled to be reduced for facilities commencing construction in 2017-2019 and eliminated for subsequent construction.6 The loss of these credits would put upward pressure on prices.  NREL and LBNL researchers predicted in 2015 that the cost increase associated with an ITC reduction would be roughly offset by other solar cost reductions even if the full reduction to 10% were to be implemented by 2018, rather than spread out through 2022 as is currently planned.7  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers conducted a study anticipating a reduction of the wind costs of 24% by 2030 and 35% by 2050.8 independent news service from Energy Newsdata, from January 2015-January 2016 (see issues dated July 31, August 14, October 16, October 30, 2015, and January 15, 2016). 3 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Impact of Federal Tax Policy on Utility-Scale Solar Deployment Given Financing Interactions, September 28, 2015, Slide 16. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65014.pdf 4 Ibid. Costs converted to nominal dollars using the inflation forecast used throughout the rate forecast model (U.S. EIA’s forecast of the Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator). 5 U.S. Department of Energy. Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC). http://energy.gov/savings/business- energy-investment-tax-credit-itc 6 U.S. Department of Energy. Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC). http://energy.gov/savings/renewable- electricity-production-tax-credit-ptc 7 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Impact of Federal Tax Policy on Utility-Scale Solar Deployment Given Financing Interactions, September 28, 2015, Slide 28. 8 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory . Expert elicitation survey on future wind and energy costs. Nature Energy, September 12th, 2016. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 131 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC B-3  The production tax credit has been extended six times from 2000-2014,9 and the solar ITC has been extended three times since 2007.10 Further tax credit extensions are therefore plausible.  The major California investor-owned utilities have significantly slowed their renewable procurement because lower-than-expected customer sales and higher-than-expected contracting success rates have led to procurement in excess of the RPS requirements through 2020. When the utilities start ramping their procurement back up to meet the 50%-by-2030 RPS requirement, the supply-demand balance in the market may shift, resulting in higher-than-expected prices unless an increase in suppliers and development opportunities matches the increase in demand. Given the potential upward price pressures from tax credits that are currently expected to expire and from higher demand for renewable power to meet the 50%-by-2030 requirement and the potential downward price pressures from falling renewable development costs, the possibility for lower cost procurement through the use of RECs, and the possibility that the expiry of the tax credits will be further delayed, it is unclear whether renewable prices will continue to fall (as NREL, LBNL, and others are predicting) or will start to stabilize and rise. MRW has addressed this uncertainty by considering two scenarios for this sensitivity case:  In the solar base renewable cost forecast, MRW used the $48.5 per MWh average price of recent municipal utility and CCA solar contracts as the price through 2022 (in nominal dollars), which will increase with inflation in subsequent years. This results in a solar price of $57 per MWh in 2030, and of $67 per MWh in 2038. In the wind base renewable cost forecast, MRW used the $55.0 per MWh average price of recent municipal utility and CCA solar contracts as starting point, and extended it applying an annual decrease of 2% through 2030 and 1% through 2038, offset by inflation. This results in a wind price of $57 per MWh in 2030, and of $62 per MWh in 2038.  In the high renewable cost scenario, MRW increased both wind and solar base case prices to account for the expected expiration of the tax credits, resulting in average a price of $75 per MWh in 2030 and $86 per MWh in 2038. These scenarios provide a reasonable window of renewable price projections based on current market conditions and analysts’ expectations. MRW used these same renewable prices to calculate PG&E’s renewable power costs. However, as described in Appendix B in the PG&E forecast, these renewable energy prices are used only 9 Union of Concerned Scientists. Production Tax Credit for Renewable Energy. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/production-tax-credit-for.html 10 Solar Energy Industries Association. Solar Investment Tax Credit. http://www.seia.org/policy/finance-tax/solar- investment-tax-credit; and U.S. Department of Energy. Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC). http://energy.gov/savings/business-energy-investment-tax-credit-itc March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 132 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC B-4 for incremental power that is needed above PG&E’s existing RPS contracts. For Contra Costa County CCA, these prices are used as the basis for its entire RPS-eligible portfolio. MRW additionally included a premium for the portion of Contra Costa County CCA’s RPS portfolio assumed in each scenario to be located in Contra Costa County County. While solar energy is anticipated to provide the largest share of incremental supply located in-county, the solar resource in Contra Costa County is not as strong as in the areas being developed to supply the contracts discussed above. As a result, the cost of solar generation in Contra Costa County is expected to be higher than the assumed contract prices for non- Contra Costa County supplies. Based on information provided in the CPUC’s current RPS calculator, combined with SAGE inputs (performance assumptions and capital cost of the projects11), the current cost for solar generation in Contra Costa County is expected to be approximately $98 per MWh. In addition, it is assumed the local solar generation cost will scale with installed capacity. Non-Renewable Energy Cost Forecast MRW separated the costs of non-renewable energy generation into two components: power production costs and greenhouse gas costs. The forecast methodologies for these cost elements, described below, are consistent with the forecast methodologies used for these cost elements in the PG&E rate forecast. Since natural gas generation is typically on the margin in the California wholesale power market, power production costs for market power are driven by the price for natural gas. MRW forecasted natural gas prices based on current NYMEX market futures prices for natural gas, projected long-term natural gas prices in the EIA’s 2016 Annual Energy Outlook,12 and PG&E’s tariffed natural gas transportation rates.13 MRW used a standard methodology of multiplying the natural gas price by the expected heat rate for a gas-fired unit and adding in variable operations and maintenance costs to calculate total power production costs. In addition to power production costs, the cost of energy generated in or delivered to California also includes the cost of greenhouse gas allowances that, per the state’s cap-and-trade program, must be procured to cover the greenhouse gases emitted by the energy generation. MRW estimated the price of GHG allowances to equal the auction floor price stipulated by the ARB’s cap-and-trade regulation, consistent with recent auction outcomes.14 MRW estimated the 11 Capital cost for local solar projects in Contra Costa County, according to SAGE price curve, is $1,350 per kW installed for the first 400MW solar installed in the county. MRW calculated the average price for the cumulative developed capacity forecast for each year (counting only 50% of the capacity of each developed project towards the cumulative total). The total $1,350for kW installed doesn’t include the soft and land acquisition/opportunity costs. 12 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “2016 Annual Energy Outlook,” Table 13. 13 Pacific Gas & Electric, Burnertip Transporation Charges. Tariff G-EG, Advice Letter 3664-G, January 2016 and Tariff G-SUR, Advice Letter 3699-G, April 2016. 14 California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Article 5, Section 95911. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 133 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC B-5 emissions rate of Contra Costa County CCA non-renewable power supply based on an estimated heat rate for market power multiplied by the emissions factor for natural gas combustion.15 Capacity Cost Forecast for Non-Renewable Power To estimate Contra Costa County CCA’s capacity requirements, MRW developed a forecast of Contra Costa County CCA’s peak demand in each year and subtracted the net qualifying capacity credits provided by Contra Costa County CCA’s renewable power purchases. This is appropriate because the renewable energy prices used in this analysis reflect prices for contracts that supply both energy and capacity. If Contra Costa County CCA purchases renewable energy via energy-only contracts, Contra Costa County CCA’s need for capacity will be greater than forecasted here, but these higher costs will be fully offset by the lower costs for the renewable energy. MRW estimated current peak demand for Contra Costa County CCA’s load using the 2015 monthly bills for all the current PG&E clients in Contra Costa County County16 and PG&E’s class-average load profiles. We forecasted changes to this peak demand based on the Contra Costa load forecast.17 We calculated capacity requirements as 115% of the expected peak demand in order to include sufficient capacity to fulfill resource adequacy requirements. We applied a consistent methodology to obtain the peak demand growth rates and capacity requirements for PG&E. To estimate the cost of Contra Costa County CCA’s capacity needs, MRW priced capacity purchases at the median price of recent Resource Adequacy purchases, escalated with inflation.18 To estimate the cost of Contra Costa County CCA’s capacity needs, MRW considered two time periods: the period before system load-resource balance when there is excess capacity on the system, and the period following system-load resource balance when additional supply must be developed. MRW assumed a system load-resource balance year of 2030.19 Through 2025, MRW priced capacity at the median price of recent resource adequacy purchases, escalated with inflation. MRW increased the capacity price incrementally starting in 2026 to reflect an increase in the market price for capacity during the transition from the lower near-term prices to the higher post-load-resource balance prices. MRW assumed that Contra Costa County CCA would 15 U.S. EIA. Electric Power Annual (EPA), February 16, 2016, Table A.3. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_a_03.html 16 Monthly bills corresponding to 2015 for all the clients in Contra Costa County provided by PG&E. 17 California Energy Commission. Demand Forecast. PG&E Forecast Zone Results Mid Demand Case, Sales Forecast, Central Valley Region. December 14, 2015. 18 CPUC 2013-2014 Resource Adequacy Report Final, August 5, 2015, page 23 Table 11. 19 According to the assumption adopted by the CPUC in December 2015 for long-term forecasting purposes, the load resource balance year was 2035. MRW opted to advance this to 2030 due to the retirement of the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 134 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC B-6 build its own power plant (alone or in combination with other public entities) in place of purchasing market capacity when market prices rise above the cost of a new self-build. In MRW’s model, this occurs in 2030. From this point on, MRW assumed that the market price for Contra Costa County CCA’s capacity would be equal to the levelized fixed cost of a new advanced combustion turbine developed by a publicly owned utility, minus levelized gross margins from energy sales. A similar methodology was used to forecast the cost of capacity for PG&E; however, PG&E’s post-load-resource balance price forecast is based on the price of a combustion turbine developed by a merchant developer (see Appendix C). March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 135 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC C- 1 Appendix C. Forecast of PG&E’s Generation Rates MRW developed a forecast of PG&E’s generation rates for comparison with the rates that Contra Costa County CCA will need to charge to cover its costs of service. MRW developed the forecast for the years 2018-2038 using publicly available inputs, including cost and procurement data from PG&E, market price data, and data from California state regulatory agencies and the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The structure of the rate forecast model and the basic assumptions and inputs used are described below. Generation Charges PG&E’s generation costs fall into four broad categories: (1) renewable generation costs, (2) fixed costs of non-renewable utility-owned generation, (3) fuel and purchased power costs for non- renewable generation, and (4) capacity costs. Each of these categories is evaluated separately in the rate forecast model, and underlying these forecasts is a forecast of PG&E’s generation sales. Sales Forecast PG&E’s generation cost forecast is driven in large part by the amount of generation that PG&E will need to obtain to meet customer demand. To forecast PG&E’s electricity sales, MRW started with the 2016-2030 sales forecast that PG&E provided in its August 2016 Renewable Energy Procurement Plan (“RPS Plan”) filing with the CPUC.20 This forecast predicts an 8% annual sales reduction through 2020, a 2% reduction per year from 2021-2028, and a rather anemic sales growth of 0.2% per year from 2029-2030.21 MRW extended the sales forecast through 2038, maintaining this 0.2% increase per year. Renewable Generation The starting point for MRW’s analysis is PG&E’s “RPS Plan,” in which PG&E discusses its plan for meeting California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) targets and provides the annual amount and cost of renewable generation currently under contract through 2030. PG&E’s RPS Plan shows that PG&E’s current renewable procurement is in excess of the RPS requirement in each year through 2026. After 2022, PG&E’s renewable generation from current contracts falls below the RPS requirements, but PG&E is projected to have enough banked Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) from excess renewable procurement in prior years to meet the RPS requirements until 2034. 20 Pacific Gas & Electric. Renewables Portfolio Standard 2016 Renewable Energy Procurement Plan (Draft Version). August 8, 2016. Appendix D. 21 The near-term decline in sales in PG&E’s forecast is likely attributable to the growth in CCA, in which a municipality procures electric power on behalf of its constituents instead of having them purchase their power from PG&E. While customers in the jurisdictions of these municipalities have the option to opt-out of CCA and to continue to procure power from PG&E, so far, most CCA-eligible customers have not elected for this option. CCA customers continue to procure electricity delivery services from PG&E; it is only generation services that they obtain through the CCA. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 136 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC C- 2 MRW adopted PG&E’s RPS Plan forecast of the amount and cost of renewable generation that is currently under contract. For the period starting in 2034 when PG&E’s RPS Plan shows a need for incremental renewable procurement to meet RPS requirements, MRW added in the necessary renewable generation to meet current statutory requirements (i.e., 33% of procurement in 2020, increasing to 50% of procurement in 2030, and to 55% of procurement in 2031).22 To project PG&E’s cost of this incremental renewable generation, MRW used the same renewable prices used for Contra Costa County CCA’s renewable power cost forecast (see Appendix B). Fixed Cost of Non-Renewable Utility-Owned Generation PG&E’s rates include payment for the fixed costs of the PG&E-owned non-renewable generation facilities, which are primarily natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric power plants. Because these costs are not tied to the volume of electricity that PG&E sells, their annual escalation is not driven by the price of fuel and other variable inputs. Instead, they escalate at a rate that stems from a combination of cost increases and depreciation reductions. These escalation rates are determined in General Rate Case (GRC) proceedings, which occur roughly every three years. As a starting point for the forecast, MRW used the proposed 2017 fixed costs for these facilities.23 For the period between 2018 and 2020, MRW increased the fixed cost based on PG&E’s 2017 GRC settlements.24 For subsequent years, MRW estimated in the base case that PG&E’s generation fixed costs would increase by the 6.2% annual average growth rate approved and implemented for these cost over the last ten years.25 These escalation rates are in nominal dollars (i.e., some of the escalation is accounted for by inflation). 22 MRW additionally allowed for the purchase of additional renewable generation when renewable prices are below market prices, subject to some purchase limits, including a 50% cap on renewable generation relative to the entire generation portfolio. This leads to additional renewable purchases from 2027-2029 in the Low Renewable Price scenario. Starting in 2030, the RPS requirement is 50%, and no additional renewable purchases are allowed, per the rules of the model, in order to maintain grid reliability. 23 Pacific Gas & Electric. Annual Electric True-Ups for 2017. Advice Letter 4902 E-A. September 13, 2016. Table 2 and Pacific Gas & Electric 2017 GRC Settlements, A.15-09-001, Appendix A and B. 24 Pacific Gas & Electric 2017 GRC Settlements, A.15-09-001, Appendix A and B 25 Historic growth rates calculated from Pacific Gas & Electric Advice Letters 2706-E-A, AL 3773-E, 4459-E, 4647- E, and 4755-E. New power plant costs were excluded from these calculations since costs of new plants are offset, at least in part, by a reduction in fuel and purchased power costs. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 137 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC C- 3 Table 1: PG&E’s Generation Fixed Costs, 2011-201626 (Nominal $ Million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Generation Fixed Costs 1,400 1,530 1,550 1,710 1,860 1,840 Annual Cost Increase 9% 1% 10% 9% -1% MRW made adjustments to this GRC forecast to account for the retirement of the Diablo Canyon nuclear units at the end of the units’ current licenses in 2024 and 2025. Fuel and Purchased Power Costs for Non-Renewable Generation Each spring, PG&E files a forecast with the CPUC of its fuel and purchased power costs for the upcoming year in its “ERRA” filing, which PG&E updates and finalizes in November. MRW relied on PG&E’s November 2017 ERRA testimony,27 adjusted to remove renewable generation costs, as the starting point for the forecast of fuel and purchased power costs for PG&E’s non- renewable generation. To escalate these costs through the forecast period, MRW forecasted changes to natural gas prices and greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program compliance costs, which are the major drivers of change to these costs. The natural gas price forecast is based on current NYMEX market futures prices for natural gas, forecasted natural gas prices in the U.S. EIA’s 2016 Annual Energy Outlook, and PG&E’s tariffed natural gas transportation rates. This forecast is the same forecast used in the forecast of Contra Costa County CCA’s wholesale power costs (see Appendix B). Cap-and-trade program compliance costs are estimated based on (1) PG&E’s forecast of carbon dioxide emissions in 2017;28 (2) a forecast of PG&E’s fossil generation supply, developed by subtracting expected renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation from PG&E’s projected wholesale power requirement; and (3) a forecast of greenhouse gas allowance prices. The greenhouse gas allowance price forecast is the same as used in the forecast of Contra Costa County CCA wholesale power costs and is based on the auction floor price stipulated by the ARB’s cap-and-trade regulation (see Appendix B). 26 2011-2013: CPUC Decision 11-05-018, pages 2 and 15; and 2014-2016: CPUC Decision 14-08-032, Appendix C, Table 1 and Appendix D, Table 1. 27 PG&E Update To Prepared 2017 Energy Resource Recovery Account and Generation Non-Bypassable Charges Forecast and Greenhouse Gas Forecast Revenue and Reconciliation, filed with the CPUC in proceeding A.1 6-06- 003 on Nov 2, 2016, Table 11-3. 28 PG&E Update To Prepared 2017 Energy Resource Recovery Account and Generation Non-Bypassable Charges Forecast and Greenhouse Gas Forecast Revenue and Reconciliation, filed with the CPUC in proceeding A.1 6-06- 003 on Nov 2, 2016, Table 12-2. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 138 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC C- 4 The MRW rate model calculates total fuel and purchased power costs by escalating natural gas prices based on the natural gas price forecast described above, escalating nuclear fuel prices based on the EIA forecast of fuel costs for nuclear plants, escalating water costs for hydroelectric projects and the capacity costs of power purchase contracts with inflation, and pricing market power at the same market power price used for Contra Costa County CCA’s purchases. The model then sums the cost for each of these resources and adds in projected cap-and-trade compliance costs to this total cost. Capacity Costs PG&E must procure capacity to meet 115% of its anticipated peak demand in order to fulfill its resource adequacy requirement. PG&E’s own power plants can be used to meet this requirement, as can power plants with which PG&E has contracts. To estimate PG&E’s capacity requirements, MRW started with the Capacity Supply Plan that PG&E submitted to the California Energy Commission in 2015,29 which forecasts PG&E’s peak demand and existing capacity resources for each of the years 2013-2024. With limited exception,30 MRW used PG&E’s data where publicly available and extended the forecasts to 2038. In extending these forecasts, we used assumptions that are consistent with those used in our assessments of energy sales and costs, including load growth escalation and the projected retirement of PG&E’s nuclear plant. We also added in anticipated capacity from new renewable procurement and from new energy storage and adjusted the calculation to account for the portion of Resource Adequacy credits that is allocated to non-bundled customers. As with the Contra Costa County CCA’s capacity cost forecast, MRW priced capacity at the median price of recent Resource Adequacy capacity sales, escalated with inflation.31 Rate Development Following the methodologies described above, MRW developed a forecast of PG&E’s generation revenue requirement and divided these expenses by the expected PG&E sales in order to obtain a forecast of the system-average generation rate. We calculated annual escalators based on these system-average rates and applied them to the generation rates that are currently in effect for each customer class.32 29 California Energy Commission, Energy Almanac, Utility Capacity Supply Plans from 2015. September 4, 2015 30 The two main exceptions are that 1) MRW increased energy efficiency and demand response growth to comply with SB 350 requirements to double energy efficiency by 2030 and the anticipated contin uation of CPUC demand response initiatives, and 2) MRW accounted for the energy efficiency and renewable capacity expected to be installed because of the Diablo Canyon retirement application. 31 CPUC 2013-2014 Resource Adequacy Report Final, August 5, 2015, page 23 Table 11. 32 PG&E Advice Letter AL-4805-E, effective March 24, 2016. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 139 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC D- 1 Appendix D. Detailed CCA Rates Case-Legend Base BASE Low participation LP High price local LOC High renewable prices RPS High natural gas price GAS Low PG&E portfolio costs LPGE High PCIA PCIA Stress Scenario STRS March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 140 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC D- 2 Scenario Sensitivity Case Rates (¢/kWh) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 1 BASE CCA gen 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.4 8.8 9.3 9.9 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.7 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.1 1 BASE Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 BASE CCA Res Fund 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 BASE PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 1 LP CCA gen 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.9 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.8 12.1 12.4 12.8 13.2 1 LP Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 LP CCA Res Fund 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 LP PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 1 LOC CCA gen 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.4 8.8 9.3 9.9 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.7 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.1 1 LOC Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 LOC CCA Res Fund 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 LOC PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 1 RPS CCA gen 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.8 8.1 8.5 8.6 8.8 9.2 9.7 10.2 10.8 11.4 11.8 12.2 12.5 12.9 13.2 13.6 14.0 14.4 1 RPS Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 RPS CCA Res Fund 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 RPS PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.1 11.5 12.2 12.9 13.8 14.9 15.7 16.5 17.3 17.3 17.8 18.4 18.7 19.4 1 GAS CCA gen 8.1 8.5 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.6 10.0 10.4 10.8 11.3 11.9 12.3 12.6 12.9 13.3 13.7 14.2 14.6 15.0 1 GAS Exit fees 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 3.4 2.4 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 GAS CCA Res Fund 0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 GAS PG&E gen 10.5 10.9 11.0 11.4 11.9 11.0 11.3 11.8 12.3 12.9 13.5 14.3 15.3 15.4 15.8 16.2 16.7 17.1 17.7 18.3 19.0 1 LPGE CCA gen 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.4 8.8 9.3 9.9 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.7 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.1 1 LPGE Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 LPGE CCA Res Fund 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 LPGE PG&E gen 9.1 9.5 9.6 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.2 9.8 10.2 10.7 11.4 12.1 13.0 13.2 13.6 14.0 14.5 14.9 15.3 15.8 16.4 1 PCIA CCA gen 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.4 8.8 9.3 9.9 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.7 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.1 1 PCIA Exit fees 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 141 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC D- 3 1 PCIA CCA Res Fund 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 PCIA PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 1 STRS CCA gen 8.2 8.7 9.1 9.6 9.9 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.8 11.2 11.7 12.3 12.9 13.3 13.7 14.1 14.6 15.0 15.4 15.9 16.4 1 STRS Exit fees 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 1 STRS CCA Res Fund 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 STRS PG&E gen 9.4 9.8 9.9 10.2 10.7 9.9 10.2 10.6 11.3 11.8 12.4 13.2 14.0 14.3 14.8 15.3 15.7 16.2 16.8 17.4 18.1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 142 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC D- 4 Scenario Sensitivity Case Rates (¢/kWh) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2 BASE CCA gen 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.3 8.6 9.1 9.5 10.0 10.6 10.8 11.1 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.1 12.4 12.7 2 BASE Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 BASE CCA Res Fund 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2 BASE PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 2 LP CCA gen 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.7 9.1 9.6 10.1 10.6 10.9 11.1 11.4 11.7 11.9 12.2 12.5 12.8 2 LP Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 LP CCA Res Fund 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2 LP PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 2 LOC CCA gen 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.3 8.6 9.1 9.5 10.0 10.6 10.8 11.1 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.1 12.4 12.7 2 LOC Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 LOC CCA Res Fund 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2 LOC PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 2 RPS CCA gen 7.3 7.5 7.6 8.2 8.5 9.1 9.2 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.6 12.3 12.5 12.8 13.1 13.4 13.7 14.0 14.4 14.7 2 RPS Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 RPS CCA Res Fund 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 RPS PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.1 11.5 12.2 12.9 13.8 14.9 15.7 16.5 17.3 17.3 17.8 18.4 18.7 19.4 2 GAS CCA gen 8.0 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.3 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.6 9.9 10.3 10.8 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.2 12.5 12.8 13.1 13.4 13.8 2 GAS Exit fees 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 3.4 2.4 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 GAS CCA Res Fund 0.3 0.0 -0.1 0.0 1.4 -1.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 GAS PG&E gen 10.5 10.9 11.0 11.4 11.9 11.0 11.3 11.8 12.3 12.9 13.5 14.3 15.3 15.4 15.8 16.2 16.7 17.1 17.7 18.3 19.0 2 LPGE CCA gen 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.3 8.6 9.1 9.5 10.0 10.6 10.8 11.1 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.1 12.4 12.7 2 LPGE Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 LPGE CCA Res Fund 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2 LPGE PG&E gen 9.1 9.5 9.6 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.2 9.8 10.2 10.7 11.4 12.1 13.0 13.2 13.6 14.0 14.5 14.9 15.3 15.8 16.4 2 PCIA CCA gen 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.3 8.6 9.1 9.5 10.0 10.6 10.8 11.1 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.1 12.4 12.7 2 PCIA Exit fees 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 143 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC D- 5 2 PCIA CCA Res Fund 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2 PCIA PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 2 STRS CCA gen 8.2 8.6 9.0 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.2 10.5 10.9 11.4 11.9 12.4 13.0 13.4 13.7 14.0 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.4 15.8 2 STRS Exit fees 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2 STRS CCA Res Fund 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 STRS PG&E gen 9.4 9.8 9.9 10.2 10.7 9.9 10.2 10.6 11.3 11.8 12.4 13.2 14.0 14.3 14.8 15.3 15.7 16.2 16.8 17.4 18.1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 144 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC D- 6 Scenario Sensitivity Case Rates (¢/kWh) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 3 BASE CCA gen 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.8 8.1 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.6 10.3 10.8 11.4 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.1 13.4 13.7 14.1 14.4 14.8 3 BASE Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 BASE CCA Res Fund 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 BASE PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 3 LP CCA gen 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.9 8.2 8.6 8.8 9.1 9.6 10.3 10.8 11.4 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.1 13.4 13.7 14.1 14.4 14.8 3 LP Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 LP CCA Res Fund 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 LP PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 3 LOC CCA gen 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.9 8.3 8.8 9.1 9.4 10.1 10.8 11.4 12.0 12.6 13.0 13.4 13.8 14.1 14.5 14.8 15.1 15.5 3 LOC Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 LOC CCA Res Fund 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 LOC PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 3 RPS CCA gen 7.1 7.4 7.6 8.2 8.6 9.3 9.6 10.0 10.6 11.4 12.0 12.6 13.4 13.8 14.2 14.7 15.0 15.4 15.8 16.1 16.5 3 RPS Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 RPS CCA Res Fund 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 RPS PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.1 11.5 12.2 12.9 13.8 14.9 15.7 16.5 17.3 17.3 17.8 18.4 18.7 19.4 3 GAS CCA gen 8.1 8.6 9.0 9.5 9.8 10.1 10.3 10.6 11.2 11.8 12.3 12.9 13.5 13.9 14.3 14.7 15.1 15.5 15.9 16.3 16.7 3 GAS Exit fees 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 3.4 2.4 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 GAS CCA Res Fund 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 GAS PG&E gen 10.5 10.9 11.0 11.4 11.9 11.0 11.3 11.8 12.3 12.9 13.5 14.3 15.3 15.4 15.8 16.2 16.7 17.1 17.7 18.3 19.0 3 LPGE CCA gen 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.8 8.1 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.6 10.3 10.8 11.4 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.1 13.4 13.7 14.1 14.4 14.8 3 LPGE Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 LPGE CCA Res Fund 0.0 1.1 -0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 -0.1 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 LPGE PG&E gen 9.1 9.5 9.6 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.2 9.8 10.2 10.7 11.4 12.1 13.0 13.2 13.6 14.0 14.5 14.9 15.3 15.8 16.4 3 PCIA CCA gen 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.8 8.1 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.6 10.3 10.8 11.4 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.1 13.4 13.7 14.1 14.4 14.8 3 PCIA Exit fees 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 145 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC D- 7 3 PCIA CCA Res Fund 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.5 -0.7 -0.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 -0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 PCIA PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 3 STRS CCA gen 8.3 8.9 9.4 10.1 10.5 11.2 11.6 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.2 14.9 15.6 16.2 16.7 17.2 17.6 18.1 18.5 19.0 19.5 3 STRS Exit fees 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3 STRS CCA Res Fund 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 STRS PG&E gen 9.4 9.8 9.9 10.2 10.7 9.9 10.2 10.6 11.3 11.8 12.4 13.2 14.0 14.3 14.8 15.3 15.7 16.2 16.8 17.4 18.1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 146 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC D- 8 Scenario Sensitivity Case Rates (¢/kWh) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 4 BASE CCA gen 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.2 9.6 10.3 11.1 12.0 12.6 13.2 13.9 14.1 14.4 14.6 14.9 15.2 15.5 15.7 16.1 4 BASE Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 BASE CCA Res Fund 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.6 -0.7 -0.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 4 BASE PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 4 LP CCA gen 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.3 8.8 9.3 9.6 10.3 11.0 11.9 12.5 13.1 13.7 14.0 14.2 14.5 14.8 15.0 15.3 15.6 15.9 4 LP Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 LP CCA Res Fund 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 4 LP PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 4 LOC CCA gen 7.4 7.7 8.0 8.5 9.1 9.7 10.2 11.0 11.9 12.9 13.6 14.2 15.0 15.2 15.5 15.8 16.1 16.3 16.6 16.9 17.2 4 LOC Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 LOC CCA Res Fund 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.3 -1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4 LOC PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 4 RPS CCA gen 7.4 7.8 8.1 8.9 9.6 10.6 11.1 11.9 12.9 14.0 14.7 15.4 16.3 16.6 16.9 17.2 17.5 17.9 18.2 18.5 18.9 4 RPS Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 RPS CCA Res Fund 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 -0.6 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.1 4 RPS PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.5 11.4 11.1 11.5 12.2 12.9 13.8 14.9 15.7 16.5 17.3 17.3 17.8 18.4 18.7 19.4 4 GAS CCA gen 8.1 8.6 9.0 9.6 9.9 10.2 10.6 11.3 12.1 13.0 13.5 14.1 14.7 15.0 15.3 15.7 16.0 16.3 16.6 17.0 17.3 4 GAS Exit fees 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 3.4 2.4 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4 GAS CCA Res Fund 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4 GAS PG&E gen 10.5 10.9 11.0 11.4 11.9 11.0 11.3 11.8 12.3 12.9 13.5 14.3 15.3 15.4 15.8 16.2 16.7 17.1 17.7 18.3 19.0 4 LPGE CCA gen 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.2 9.6 10.3 11.1 12.0 12.6 13.2 13.9 14.1 14.4 14.6 14.9 15.2 15.5 15.7 16.1 4 LPGE Exit fees 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 LPGE CCA Res Fund 0.0 1.1 -0.5 1.0 0.1 -0.5 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 4 LPGE PG&E gen 9.1 9.5 9.6 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.2 9.8 10.2 10.7 11.4 12.1 13.0 13.2 13.6 14.0 14.5 14.9 15.3 15.8 16.4 4 PCIA CCA gen 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.2 9.6 10.3 11.1 12.0 12.6 13.2 13.9 14.1 14.4 14.6 14.9 15.2 15.5 15.7 16.1 4 PCIA Exit fees 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 147 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC D- 9 4 PCIA CCA Res Fund 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.6 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 PCIA PG&E gen 10.1 10.6 10.7 11.3 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.4 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.1 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.3 4 STRS CCA gen 8.4 9.0 9.6 10.5 11.2 12.1 12.7 13.7 14.8 16.1 16.8 17.5 18.3 18.7 19.0 19.4 19.8 20.2 20.6 21.0 21.4 4 STRS Exit fees 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 4 STRS CCA Res Fund 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 STRS PG&E gen 9.4 9.8 9.9 10.2 10.7 9.9 10.2 10.6 11.3 11.8 12.4 13.2 14.0 14.3 14.8 15.3 15.7 16.2 16.8 17.4 18.1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 148 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC E- 1 Appendix E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs In Chapter 3 of the report, MRW provided an estimate of Contra Costa County CCA’s annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and compared these with the emissions for the same load under the PG&E supply portfolio. The methodology used to calculate both figures is included in this appendix, along with an estimate of Contra Costa County CCA’s cost of emissions from purchased power (“indirect emissions”). Methodology for calculating Contra Costa County CCA’s indirect GHG emissions GHG emissions for Contra Costa County CCA will be indirect since the CCA does not plan to generate its own power (i.e., the emissions are embedded in fossil-fuel power that the CCA purchases). These emissions are estimated based on (1) a forecast of the emissions rate for Contra Costa County CCA’s fossil generation supply and (2) a forecast of the amount of Contra Costa County CCA’s fossil generation supply, developed by subtracting expected renewable and hydroelectric generation from the projected wholesale power requirement to serve the CCA’s load.33 MRW calculated the emissions rate for Contra Costa County CCA’s fossil generation supply by estimating the amount of natural gas that will need to be burned to generate the CCA’s fossil generation and the GHG emissions rate for natural gas combustion.34 The amount of natural gas needed was estimated based on the average heat rate for the marginal generation plants on the CAISO system. MRW used public data from CAISO’s OASIS platform and Platt’s Gas Daily reports to calculate this average heat rate for 2015.35 MRW extended the forecast to 2030 using the expected changes to the average heat rate in California from the EIA’s 2016 Annual Energy Outlook.36 MRW estimated the total annual GHG emissions for the Contra Costa County CCA program as a product of the total energy purchased at wholesale electric market (kWh) and the rate of GHG emissions (tonnes CO2-equivalent/kWh). 33 MRW assumed no GHG emissions for the renewable and hydroelectric supply. 34 The GHG emissions rate for natural gas combustion is obtained from U.S. EIA. Electric Power Annual (EPA), February 16, 2016, Table A.3. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_a_03.html 35 MRW calculated the average heat rate of the marginal generation plants in 2015 by dividing the monthly average wholesale electric market price, net of operations and maintenance costs and GHG emissions costs, by the monthly average natural gas price. For the electricity prices, we used the average of the 2015 hourly locational marginal price for node TH_NP15_GEN-APND; for the natural gas prices, we used the average of burnertip natural gas price for PG&E. 36 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “2016 Annual Energy Outlook,” Table 55.20, Western Electricity Coordinating Council. (Note that EIA does not provide a forecast of the marginal heat rate.) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 149 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC E- 2 Methodology for calculating GHG emissions under PG&E’s supply portfolio MRW calculated the GHG emissions for the Contra Costa County CCA load under the PG&E supply portfolio by summing the emissions from all resources in PG&E’s portfolio. MRW assumed no GHG emissions from renewable power, hydroelectric power, or nuclear generation. In order to maintain a consistent comparison, MRW used the same emissions rate to calculate the emissions from PG&E’s fossil-fuel power as used for the Contra Costa County CCA wholesale market purchases. In order to support the analysis on Chapter 3 of the report, Figure 2 shows the PG&E portfolio. Before the closure of the Diablo Canyon, MRW estimated 80%-90% of PG&E’s generation portfolio based on non-fuel-fired resources. After 2025, the non-fuel-fired resources share falls to 70% according MRW estimates. Figure 2 PG&E’s generation portfolio37 37 Before 2025 the hydroelectric generation is below its potential because MRW estimated that PG&E sells the over- procurement in hydroelectric power. MRW has assumed a minimum of fuel -fired generation to facilitate the RPS integration according to PG&E’s Diablo Canyon retirement application, A.16-08-006. Table 2-3. In addition, after 2026 MRW estimated the price of the wholesale electric market below PG&E’s new RPS prices. In those conditions, according to MRW assumptions, PG&E would procure up to 50% of its portfolio f rom renewable resources. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 150 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC E- 3 GHG allowance prices and GHG indirect costs MRW developed a forecast of the prices for GHG allowances based on the auction floor price stipulated by the ARB’s cap-and-trade regulation, consistent with recent auction outcomes.38 Table 2 GHG Allowances price, $ per allowance39 2017 2018 2019 2025 2030 2035 2038 $/tonne 13.2 14.7 15.9 24.4 34.7 49.8 61.8 MRW used these GHG allowances prices to calculate both PG&E’s GHG allowances costs (direct and indirect), which are included in the PG&E rate forecast, and Contra Costa County CCA’s indirect GHG costs. The indirect GHG costs for Contra Costa County CCA will be included in the cost of the wholesale market energy purchases. MRW estimated that these costs will be, on average, $12 per MWh delivered over the 2018-2038 period. 38 California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Article 5, Section 95911. 39 For 2017, the amount listed corresponds to the GHG allowance price for PG&E according to the most recent ERRA 2017 update. Pacific Gas & Electric ERRA 2017, A.16-06-003, Testimony November 2, 2016, Table 12-1. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 151 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC F- 1 Appendix F. Ab out the REMI Policy Insight Model A software analysis forecasting model developed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) of Amherst Massachusetts in the mid 1980’s. It has a broad national customer base among public agencies, academic institutions, and the private-sector. It is also used in Canada (NRCan), and among other international clients. The model configuration used for this study consisted of 18 aggregate private-sector industries, plus a farm sector, a combined state/local government sector and two federal government sectors. Economic Impacts Identified with the REMI Model The REMI Model Alternative Forecast Compare Forecasts Control Forecast What are the effects of the Proposed Action? Baseline values for all Policy Variables Policy Action March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 152 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC F- 2 In the above figure, the central box “The REMI model” is the engine for predicting the economic and demographic dimensions of a region-of-impact (here Contra Costa County County) under no-action (or Control forecast) and with a proposed CCA (alternative forecast). The engine is a combination structural econometric model, part input-output transactions, all with general equilibrium features – meaning an economy can encounter a disruption (positive or negative), and over time (typically 1-3 years depending on the scale of the region and the size of the shock) re-adjust back to an equilibrium. The diagram below depicts the organization of the REMI regional model in terms of the major blocks functioning in an economy and the arrows denote the feedback accounted for. Keep in mind this portrayal is at a very high-level, sparing the industry-specific details. Scenario specific changes are inserted through policy variable levers into the appropriate block of the model. There is another important dimension of economic response for the key region-of-impact that effectively layers on top of the below diagram – interactions with another regional economy. That additional region - rest of California -was explicitly modeled at the same time. The REMI model captures the flows of monetized goods and services, and commuter labor between regions when one (or both) is shocked by introduction of a CCA. Core Logic of the REMI Model March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 153 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC G- 1 Appendix G. Proforma Tables Scenario 1 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Expenses Cost of Power (including losses)$73,495,453 $151,069,291 $238,312,375 $248,611,457 $257,237,071 $265,886,720 $274,183,543 $279,728,463 $294,209,869 $310,824,883 $329,903,546 $350,515,984 $373,621,644 $386,946,608 $399,254,590 $411,812,091 $425,651,977 $439,658,506 $454,135,582 $468,721,683 $484,831,280 O&M/A&G Costs $9,081,989 $11,047,477 $14,037,456 $14,312,982 $14,596,957 $14,871,929 $15,146,845 $15,425,482 $15,722,408 $16,025,074 $16,333,641 $16,648,197 $16,968,859 $17,295,746 $17,628,978 $17,968,678 $18,314,999 $18,668,042 $19,027,938 $19,394,819 $19,768,820 Energy Efficiency Programming Costs Total Expenses $82,577,443 $162,116,767 $252,349,831 $262,924,440 $271,834,028 $280,758,650 $289,330,388 $295,153,945 $309,932,277 $326,849,957 $346,237,187 $367,164,181 $390,590,503 $404,242,354 $416,883,567 $429,780,769 $443,966,976 $458,326,548 $473,163,520 $488,116,502 $504,600,100 Debt Service $0 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue Requirement $82,577,443 $167,605,774 $257,838,838 $268,413,446 $277,323,035 $286,247,656 $289,330,388 $295,153,945 $309,932,277 $326,849,957 $346,237,187 $367,164,181 $390,590,503 $404,242,354 $416,883,567 $429,780,769 $443,966,976 $458,326,548 $473,163,520 $488,116,502 $504,600,100 Total Load, MWh 1,177,121 2,366,944 3,607,181 3,623,598 3,641,698 3,652,169 3,659,921 3,666,956 3,680,582 3,694,258 3,707,985 3,721,763 3,735,593 3,749,473 3,763,406 3,777,390 3,791,426 3,805,514 3,819,655 3,833,848 3,848,093 Contra Costa CCA Customer Charges, $/MWh (before Reserve Fund Adjustment) Average Contra Costa CCA generation $70.2 $70.8 $71.5 $74.1 $76.2 $78.4 $79.1 $80.5 $84.2 $88.5 $93.4 $98.7 $104.6 $107.8 $110.8 $113.8 $117.1 $120.4 $123.9 $127.3 $131.1 PG&E average exit fees for CCA load $23.7 $19.1 $22.9 $16.6 $16.6 $15.7 $14.6 $12.6 $9.1 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.1 $3.1 $1.7 $0.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total CCA customer rate $93.8 $89.9 $94.3 $90.6 $92.7 $94.1 $93.6 $93.1 $93.3 $96.4 $100.4 $104.6 $109.7 $110.9 $112.4 $114.4 $117.1 $120.4 $123.9 $127.3 $131.1 PG&E average gen rate for CCA load, $/MWh $101.5 $105.7 $106.6 $112.7 $115.5 $113.8 $113.3 $109.2 $113.2 $119.2 $126.3 $134.2 $144.0 $146.7 $151.0 $155.7 $160.8 $165.0 $170.5 $176.0 $182.5 Reserve Fund Adjustment Target $12,386,616 $25,140,866 $38,675,826 $40,262,017 $41,598,455 $42,937,148 $43,399,558 $44,273,092 $46,489,842 $49,027,494 $51,935,578 $55,074,627 $58,588,575 $60,636,353 $62,532,535 $64,467,115 $66,595,046 $68,748,982 $70,974,528 $73,217,475 $75,690,015 Reserve Fund Adjustment Potential Reserve potential $9,037,817 $37,373,117 $44,318,310 $79,873,437 $82,994,739 $72,190,684 $72,076,358 $58,860,584 $73,135,250 $84,142,452 $96,221,651 $110,201,860 $128,194,145 $134,215,487 $145,270,805 $156,288,619 $165,801,447 $169,687,264 $178,229,235 $186,523,044 $197,789,460 Potential Reserve additions $9,037,817 $16,103,049 $13,534,960 $1,586,191 $1,336,438 $1,338,693 $462,410 $873,533 $2,216,750 $2,537,652 $2,908,084 $3,139,049 $3,513,948 $2,047,778 $1,896,182 $1,934,580 $2,127,931 $2,153,936 $2,225,546 $2,242,947 $2,472,540 Subtractions from reserve fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reserve fund total $9,037,817 $25,140,866 $38,675,826 $40,262,017 $41,598,455 $42,937,148 $43,399,558 $44,273,092 $46,489,842 $49,027,494 $51,935,578 $55,074,627 $58,588,575 $60,636,353 $62,532,535 $64,467,115 $66,595,046 $68,748,982 $70,974,528 $73,217,475 $75,690,015 Contra Costa CCA Customer Charges, $/MWh (with Reserve Fund Adjustment) Rate adjustment from Reserve Fund $7.7 $6.8 $3.8 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.1 $0.2 $0.6 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 Average Contra Costa CCA rate $77.8 $77.6 $75.2 $74.5 $76.5 $78.7 $79.2 $80.7 $84.8 $89.2 $94.2 $99.5 $105.5 $108.4 $111.3 $114.3 $117.7 $121.0 $124.5 $127.9 $131.8 PG&E average exit fees for CCA load $23.7 $19.1 $22.9 $16.6 $16.6 $15.7 $14.6 $12.6 $9.1 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.1 $3.1 $1.7 $0.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total CCA customer rate $101.5 $96.7 $98.1 $91.1 $93.1 $94.4 $93.8 $93.4 $93.9 $97.1 $101.2 $105.5 $110.6 $111.5 $112.9 $114.9 $117.7 $121.0 $124.5 $127.9 $131.8 Note: Reserve fund revenue is used to reduce CCA rates if (i) CCA rates are lower than PG&E rates or (ii) the reserve fund reaches the ceiling of half a year of expenses. Contra Costa CCA CO2 emissions Emissions (Tonnes/MWh)0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Total emissions (Tonnes)48,104 76,449 70,394 71,051 71,298 72,351 73,983 158,002 195,517 194,741 195,332 196,074 197,642 162,803 163,997 165,333 166,460 167,595 168,634 170,197 171,328 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 154 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC G- 2 Scenario 2 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Expenses Cost of Power (including losses)$75,667,208 $155,562,573 $244,603,605 $253,936,224 $262,178,133 $270,821,465 $279,147,605 $288,420,808 $302,569,437 $318,621,199 $336,840,252 $356,586,893 $378,456,407 $388,844,347 $399,378,659 $410,314,502 $421,560,027 $432,993,327 $444,699,721 $456,541,793 $469,291,025 O&M/A&G Costs $9,081,989 $11,047,477 $14,037,456 $14,312,982 $14,596,957 $14,871,929 $15,146,845 $15,425,482 $15,722,408 $16,025,074 $16,333,641 $16,648,197 $16,968,859 $17,295,746 $17,628,978 $17,968,678 $18,314,999 $18,668,042 $19,027,938 $19,394,819 $19,768,820 Energy Efficiency Programming Costs Total Expenses $84,749,197 $166,610,049 $258,641,061 $268,249,207 $276,775,090 $285,693,394 $294,294,450 $303,846,289 $318,291,846 $334,646,273 $353,173,892 $373,235,090 $395,425,266 $406,140,093 $417,007,637 $428,283,180 $439,875,026 $451,661,369 $463,727,659 $475,936,612 $489,059,845 Debt Service $0 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue Requirement $84,749,197 $172,099,056 $264,130,067 $273,738,213 $282,264,096 $291,182,400 $294,294,450 $303,846,289 $318,291,846 $334,646,273 $353,173,892 $373,235,090 $395,425,266 $406,140,093 $417,007,637 $428,283,180 $439,875,026 $451,661,369 $463,727,659 $475,936,612 $489,059,845 Total Load, MWh 1,177,121 2,366,944 3,607,181 3,623,598 3,641,698 3,652,169 3,659,921 3,666,956 3,680,582 3,694,258 3,707,985 3,721,763 3,735,593 3,749,473 3,763,406 3,777,390 3,791,426 3,805,514 3,819,655 3,833,848 3,848,093 Contra Costa CCA Customer Charges, $/MWh (before Reserve Fund Adjustment) Average Contra Costa CCA generation $72.0 $72.7 $73.2 $75.5 $77.5 $79.7 $80.4 $82.9 $86.5 $90.6 $95.2 $100.3 $105.9 $108.3 $110.8 $113.4 $116.0 $118.7 $121.4 $124.1 $127.1 PG&E average exit fees for CCA load $23.7 $19.1 $22.9 $16.6 $16.6 $15.7 $14.6 $12.6 $9.1 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.1 $3.1 $1.7 $0.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total CCA customer rate $95.7 $91.8 $96.1 $92.1 $94.1 $95.4 $95.0 $95.5 $95.6 $98.5 $102.2 $106.2 $111.0 $111.4 $112.5 $114.0 $116.0 $118.7 $121.4 $124.1 $127.1 PG&E average gen rate for CCA load, $/MWh $101.5 $105.7 $106.6 $112.7 $115.5 $113.8 $113.3 $109.2 $113.2 $119.2 $126.3 $134.2 $144.0 $146.7 $151.0 $155.7 $160.8 $165.0 $170.5 $176.0 $182.5 Reserve Fund Adjustment Target $12,712,380 $25,814,858 $39,619,510 $41,060,732 $42,339,614 $43,677,360 $44,144,167 $45,576,943 $47,743,777 $50,196,941 $52,976,084 $55,985,264 $59,313,790 $60,921,014 $62,551,146 $64,242,477 $65,981,254 $67,749,205 $69,559,149 $71,390,492 $73,358,977 Reserve Fund Adjustment Potential Reserve potential $6,866,063 $32,879,835 $38,027,080 $74,548,670 $78,053,677 $67,255,940 $67,112,296 $50,168,239 $64,775,682 $76,346,136 $89,284,946 $104,130,951 $123,359,382 $132,317,748 $145,146,736 $157,786,207 $169,893,397 $176,352,443 $187,665,096 $198,702,934 $213,329,715 Potential Reserve additions $6,866,063 $18,948,796 $13,804,652 $1,441,222 $1,278,883 $1,337,746 $466,807 $1,432,776 $2,166,833 $2,453,164 $2,779,143 $3,009,180 $3,328,526 $1,607,224 $1,630,132 $1,691,331 $1,738,777 $1,767,951 $1,809,944 $1,831,343 $1,968,485 Subtractions from reserve fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reserve fund total $6,866,063 $25,814,858 $39,619,510 $41,060,732 $42,339,614 $43,677,360 $44,144,167 $45,576,943 $47,743,777 $50,196,941 $52,976,084 $55,985,264 $59,313,790 $60,921,014 $62,551,146 $64,242,477 $65,981,254 $67,749,205 $69,559,149 $71,390,492 $73,358,977 Contra Costa CCA Customer Charges, $/MWh (with Reserve Fund Adjustment) Rate adjustment from Reserve Fund $5.8 $8.0 $3.8 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.1 $0.4 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.9 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 Average Contra Costa CCA rate $77.8 $80.7 $77.1 $75.9 $77.9 $80.1 $80.5 $83.3 $87.1 $91.2 $96.0 $101.1 $106.7 $108.7 $111.2 $113.8 $116.5 $119.2 $121.9 $124.6 $127.6 PG&E average exit fees for CCA load $23.7 $19.1 $22.9 $16.6 $16.6 $15.7 $14.6 $12.6 $9.1 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.1 $3.1 $1.7 $0.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total CCA customer rate $101.5 $99.8 $99.9 $92.5 $94.4 $95.8 $95.1 $95.9 $96.1 $99.2 $103.0 $107.1 $111.9 $111.9 $112.9 $114.4 $116.5 $119.2 $121.9 $124.6 $127.6 Note: Reserve fund revenue is used to reduce CCA rates if (i) CCA rates are lower than PG&E rates or (ii) the reserve fund reaches the ceiling of half a year of expenses. Contra Costa CCA CO2 emissions Emissions (Tonnes/MWh)0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Total emissions (Tonnes)48,104 76,449 70,394 71,051 71,298 72,351 73,983 158,002 195,517 194,741 179,036 161,586 144,182 144,830 145,465 146,223 146,793 147,369 147,857 148,803 149,369 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 155 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC G- 3 Scenario 3 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Expenses Cost of Power (including losses)$74,421,602 $155,059,529 $248,051,939 $262,405,554 $275,771,462 $289,759,015 $303,955,349 $316,069,786 $337,813,788 $362,649,650 $383,978,224 $406,604,081 $431,423,912 $446,808,176 $461,156,092 $475,748,288 $489,543,148 $503,482,983 $517,889,434 $532,382,737 $548,417,000 O&M/A&G Costs $9,081,989 $11,047,477 $14,037,456 $14,312,982 $14,596,957 $14,871,929 $15,146,845 $15,425,482 $15,722,408 $16,025,074 $16,333,641 $16,648,197 $16,968,859 $17,295,746 $17,628,978 $17,968,678 $18,314,999 $18,668,042 $19,027,938 $19,394,819 $19,768,820 Energy Efficiency Programming Costs Total Expenses $83,503,591 $166,107,006 $262,089,395 $276,718,537 $290,368,419 $304,630,945 $319,102,194 $331,495,267 $353,536,197 $378,674,724 $400,311,865 $423,252,278 $448,392,771 $464,103,921 $478,785,070 $493,716,965 $507,858,147 $522,151,025 $536,917,372 $551,777,556 $568,185,821 Debt Service $0 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue Requirement $83,503,591 $171,596,012 $267,578,402 $282,207,543 $295,857,426 $310,119,951 $319,102,194 $331,495,267 $353,536,197 $378,674,724 $400,311,865 $423,252,278 $448,392,771 $464,103,921 $478,785,070 $493,716,965 $507,858,147 $522,151,025 $536,917,372 $551,777,556 $568,185,821 Total Load, MWh 1,177,121 2,366,944 3,607,181 3,623,598 3,641,698 3,652,169 3,659,921 3,666,956 3,680,582 3,694,258 3,707,985 3,721,763 3,735,593 3,749,473 3,763,406 3,777,390 3,791,426 3,805,514 3,819,655 3,833,848 3,848,093 Alameda CCA Customer Charges, $/MWh (before Reserve Fund Adjustment) Average Alameda CCA generation $70.9 $72.5 $74.2 $77.9 $81.2 $84.9 $87.2 $90.4 $96.1 $102.5 $108.0 $113.7 $120.0 $123.8 $127.2 $130.7 $133.9 $137.2 $140.6 $143.9 $147.7 PG&E average exit fees for CCA load $23.7 $19.1 $22.9 $16.6 $16.6 $15.7 $14.6 $12.6 $9.1 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.1 $3.1 $1.7 $0.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total CCA customer rate $94.6 $91.6 $97.0 $94.4 $97.8 $100.6 $101.8 $103.0 $105.1 $110.5 $115.0 $119.7 $125.1 $126.9 $128.9 $131.3 $133.9 $137.2 $140.6 $143.9 $147.7 PG&E average gen rate for CCA load, $/MWh $101.5 $105.7 $106.6 $112.7 $115.5 $113.8 $113.3 $109.2 $113.2 $119.2 $126.3 $134.2 $144.0 $146.7 $151.0 $155.7 $160.8 $165.0 $170.5 $176.0 $182.5 Reserve Fund Adjustment Target $12,525,539 $25,739,402 $40,136,760 $42,331,131 $44,378,614 $46,517,993 $47,865,329 $49,724,290 $53,030,429 $56,801,209 $60,046,780 $63,487,842 $67,258,916 $69,615,588 $71,817,760 $74,057,545 $76,178,722 $78,322,654 $80,537,606 $82,766,633 $85,227,873 Reserve Fund Adjustment Potential Reserve potential $8,111,669 $33,382,879 $34,578,745 $66,079,340 $64,460,347 $48,318,389 $42,304,552 $22,519,261 $29,531,331 $32,317,684 $42,146,974 $54,113,763 $70,391,877 $74,353,919 $83,369,303 $92,352,422 $101,910,276 $105,862,787 $114,475,383 $122,861,990 $134,203,739 Potential Reserve additions $8,111,669 $17,627,733 $14,397,358 $2,194,371 $2,047,482 $2,139,379 $1,347,336 $1,858,961 $3,306,139 $3,770,779 $3,245,571 $3,441,062 $3,771,074 $2,356,673 $2,202,172 $2,239,784 $2,121,177 $2,143,932 $2,214,952 $2,229,028 $2,461,240 Subtractions from reserve fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reserve fund total $8,111,669 $25,739,402 $40,136,760 $42,331,131 $44,378,614 $46,517,993 $47,865,329 $49,724,290 $53,030,429 $56,801,209 $60,046,780 $63,487,842 $67,258,916 $69,615,588 $71,817,760 $74,057,545 $76,178,722 $78,322,654 $80,537,606 $82,766,633 $85,227,873 Alameda CCA Customer Charges, $/MWh (with Reserve Fund Adjustment) Rate adjustment from Reserve Fund $6.9 $7.4 $4.0 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.4 $0.5 $0.9 $1.0 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 Average Alameda CCA rate $77.8 $79.9 $78.2 $78.5 $81.8 $85.5 $87.6 $90.9 $97.0 $103.5 $108.8 $114.6 $121.0 $124.4 $127.8 $131.3 $134.5 $137.8 $141.1 $144.5 $148.3 PG&E average exit fees for CCA load $23.7 $19.1 $22.9 $16.6 $16.6 $15.7 $14.6 $12.6 $9.1 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.1 $3.1 $1.7 $0.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total CCA customer rate $101.5 $99.0 $101.0 $95.0 $98.4 $101.2 $102.1 $103.5 $106.0 $111.5 $115.8 $120.6 $126.2 $127.5 $129.5 $131.9 $134.5 $137.8 $141.1 $144.5 $148.3 Note: Reserve fund revenue is used to reduce CCA rates if (i) CCA rates are lower than PG&E rates or (ii) the reserve fund reaches the ceiling of half a year of expenses. Alameda CCA CO2 emissions Emissions (Tonnes/MWh)0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Total emissions (Tonnes)48,104 76,449 70,394 71,051 71,298 72,351 73,983 158,002 195,517 194,741 195,332 196,074 197,642 162,803 163,997 165,333 166,460 167,595 168,634 170,197 171,328 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 156 Community Choice Energy Technical Study Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC G- 4 Scenario 4 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Expenses Cost of Power (including losses)$77,332,918 $162,719,907 $262,070,819 $279,609,557 $297,052,506 $315,993,039 $336,528,138 $362,105,625 $391,911,928 $427,041,105 $449,571,955 $473,571,311 $500,641,660 $511,836,324 $523,149,117 $534,898,122 $546,971,922 $559,212,625 $571,745,163 $584,386,818 $598,049,458 O&M/A&G Costs $9,081,989 $11,047,477 $14,037,456 $14,312,982 $14,596,957 $14,871,929 $15,146,845 $15,425,482 $15,722,408 $16,025,074 $16,333,641 $16,648,197 $16,968,859 $17,295,746 $17,628,978 $17,968,678 $18,314,999 $18,668,042 $19,027,938 $19,394,819 $19,768,820 Energy Efficiency Programming Costs Total Expenses $86,414,907 $173,767,384 $276,108,275 $293,922,540 $311,649,463 $330,864,968 $351,674,983 $377,531,107 $407,634,337 $443,066,180 $465,905,596 $490,219,508 $517,610,519 $529,132,070 $540,778,094 $552,866,799 $565,286,921 $577,880,667 $590,773,101 $603,781,637 $617,818,279 Debt Service $0 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $5,489,006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue Requirement $86,414,907 $179,256,390 $281,597,282 $299,411,546 $317,138,469 $336,353,975 $351,674,983 $377,531,107 $407,634,337 $443,066,180 $465,905,596 $490,219,508 $517,610,519 $529,132,070 $540,778,094 $552,866,799 $565,286,921 $577,880,667 $590,773,101 $603,781,637 $617,818,279 Total Load, MWh 1,177,121 2,366,944 3,607,181 3,623,598 3,641,698 3,652,169 3,659,921 3,666,956 3,680,582 3,694,258 3,707,985 3,721,763 3,735,593 3,749,473 3,763,406 3,777,390 3,791,426 3,805,514 3,819,655 3,833,848 3,848,093 Alameda CCA Customer Charges, $/MWh (before Reserve Fund Adjustment) Average Alameda CCA generation $73.4 $75.7 $78.1 $82.6 $87.1 $92.1 $96.1 $103.0 $110.8 $119.9 $125.6 $131.7 $138.6 $141.1 $143.7 $146.4 $149.1 $151.9 $154.7 $157.5 $160.6 PG&E average exit fees for CCA load $23.7 $19.1 $22.9 $16.6 $16.6 $15.7 $14.6 $12.6 $9.1 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.1 $3.1 $1.7 $0.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total CCA customer rate $97.1 $94.8 $100.9 $99.2 $103.7 $107.8 $110.7 $115.6 $119.8 $127.9 $132.7 $137.7 $143.7 $144.2 $145.4 $147.0 $149.1 $151.9 $154.7 $157.5 $160.6 PG&E average gen rate for CCA load, $/MWh $101.5 $105.7 $106.6 $112.7 $115.5 $113.8 $113.3 $109.2 $113.2 $119.2 $126.3 $134.2 $144.0 $146.7 $151.0 $155.7 $160.8 $165.0 $170.5 $176.0 $182.5 Reserve Fund Adjustment Target $12,962,236 $26,888,459 $42,239,592 $44,911,732 $47,570,770 $50,453,096 $52,751,248 $56,629,666 $61,145,150 $66,459,927 $69,885,839 $73,532,926 $77,641,578 $79,369,810 $81,116,714 $82,930,020 $84,793,038 $86,682,100 $88,615,965 $90,567,246 $92,672,742 Reserve Fund Adjustment Potential Reserve potential $5,200,352 $25,722,501 $20,559,865 $48,875,337 $43,179,304 $22,084,365 $9,731,762 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,174,129 $9,325,771 $21,376,279 $33,202,588 $44,481,502 $50,133,145 $60,619,654 $70,857,909 $84,571,282 Potential Reserve additions $5,200,352 $21,688,106 $15,351,134 $2,672,140 $2,659,039 $2,882,326 $2,298,151 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,641,578 $1,728,233 $1,746,904 $1,813,306 $1,863,018 $1,889,062 $1,933,865 $1,951,280 $2,105,496 Subtractions from reserve fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,516,579 $24,566,809 $4,667,860 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reserve fund total $5,200,352 $26,888,459 $42,239,592 $44,911,732 $47,570,770 $50,453,096 $52,751,248 $29,234,669 $4,667,860 $0 $0 $0 $77,641,578 $79,369,810 $81,116,714 $82,930,020 $84,793,038 $86,682,100 $88,615,965 $90,567,246 $92,672,742 Alameda CCA Customer Charges, $/MWh (with Reserve Fund Adjustment) Rate adjustment from Reserve Fund $4.4 $9.2 $4.3 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.6 -$6.4 -$6.7 -$1.3 $0.0 $0.0 $20.8 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 Average Alameda CCA rate $77.8 $84.9 $82.3 $83.4 $87.8 $92.9 $96.7 $96.5 $104.1 $118.7 $125.6 $131.7 $159.3 $141.6 $144.2 $146.8 $149.6 $152.3 $155.2 $158.0 $161.1 PG&E average exit fees for CCA load $23.7 $19.1 $22.9 $16.6 $16.6 $15.7 $14.6 $12.6 $9.1 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 $5.1 $3.1 $1.7 $0.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total CCA customer rate $101.5 $104.0 $105.2 $99.9 $104.4 $108.6 $111.3 $109.2 $113.2 $126.6 $132.7 $137.7 $164.5 $144.7 $145.8 $147.4 $149.6 $152.3 $155.2 $158.0 $161.1 Note: Reserve fund revenue is used to reduce CCA rates if (i) CCA rates are lower than PG&E rates or (ii) the reserve fund reaches the ceiling of half a year of expenses. Alameda CCA CO2 emissions Emissions (Tonnes/MWh)0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Total emissions (Tonnes)48,104 76,449 70,394 71,051 71,298 72,351 73,983 158,002 195,517 194,741 179,036 161,586 144,182 144,830 145,465 146,223 146,793 147,369 147,857 148,803 149,369 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 157 Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC H- 1 Appendix H. MCE’s Joint Powers Agreements March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 158 Marin Energy Authority - Joint Powers Agreement - Effective December 19, 2008 As amended by Amendment No. 1 dated December 3, 2009 As further amended by Amendment No. 2 dated March 4, 2010 As further amended by Amendment No. 3 dated May 6, 2010 As further amended by Amendment No. 4 dated December 1, 2011 As further amended by Amendment No. 5 dated July 5, 2012 As further amended by Amendment No. 6 dated September 5, 2013 As further amended by Amendment No. 7 dated December 5, 2013 As further amended by Amendment No. 8 dated September 4, 2014 As further amended by Amendment No. 9 dated December 4, 2014 As further amended by Amendment No. 10 dated April 21, 2016 Among The Following Parties: City of American Canyon City of Belvedere City of Benicia City of Calistoga Town of Corte Madera City of El Cerrito Town of Fairfax City of Lafayette City of Larkspur City of Mill Valley City of Napa City of Novato City of Richmond Town of Ross Town of San Anselmo City of San Pablo City of San Rafael City of Sausalito City of St. Helena Town of Tiburon City of Walnut Creek Town of Yountville County of Marin County of Napa March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 159 MARIN ENERGY AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”), effective as of December 19, 2008, is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1 (Section 6500 et seq.) of the California Government Code relating to the joint exercise of powers among the parties set forth in Exhibit B (“Parties”). The term “Parties” shall also include an incorporated municipality or county added to this Agreement in accordance with Section 3.1. RECITALS 1. The Parties are either incorporated municipalities or counties sharing various powers under California law, including but not limited to the power to purchase, supply, and aggregate electricity for themselves and their inhabitants. 2. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 to 1990 levels. The California Air Resources Board is promulgating regulations to implement AB 32 which will require local government to develop programs to reduce greenhouse emissions. 3. The purposes for the Initial Participants (as such term is defined in Section 2.2 below) entering into this Agreement include addressing climate change by reducing energy related greenhouse gas emissions and securing energy supply and price stability, energy efficiencies and local economic benefits. It is the intent of this Agreement to promote the development and use of a wide range of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs, including but not limited to solar and wind energy production. 4. The Parties desire to establish a separate public agency, known as the Marin Energy Authority (“Authority”), under the provisions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) (“Act”) in order to collectively study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy programs. 5. The Initial Participants have each adopted an ordinance electing to implement through the Authority Community Choice Aggregation, an electric service enterprise agency available to cities and counties pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 (“CCA Program”). The first priority of the Authority will be the consideration of those actions necessary to implement the CCA Program. Regardless of whether or not Program Agreement 1 is approved and the CCA Program becomes operational, the parties intend for the Authority to continue to study, promote, develop, conduct, operate and manage other energy programs. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 160 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions hereinafter set forth, it is agreed by and among the Parties as follows: ARTICLE 1 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 1.1 Definitions. Capitalized terms used in the Agreement shall have the meanings specified in Exhibit A, unless the context requires otherwise. 1.2 Documents Included. This Agreement consists of this document and the following exhibits, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. Exhibit A: Definitions Exhibit B: List of the Parties Exhibit C: Annual Energy Use Exhibit D: Voting Shares 1.3 Revision of Exhibits. The Parties agree that Exhibits B, C and D to this Agreement describe certain administrative matters that may be revised upon the approval of the Board, without such revision constituting an amendment to this Agreement, as described in Section 8.4. The Authority shall provide written notice to the Parties of the revision of any such exhibit. ARTICLE 2 FORMATION OF MARIN ENERGY AUTHORITY 2.1 Effective Date and Term. This Agreement shall become effective and Marin Energy Authority shall exist as a separate public agency on the date this Agreement is executed by at least two Initial Participants after the adoption of the ordinances required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(10). The Authority shall provide notice to the Parties of the Effective Date. The Authority shall continue to exist, and this Agreement shall be effective, until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 7.4, subject to the rights of the Parties to withdraw from the Authority. 2.2 Initial Participants. During the first 180 days after the Effective Date, all other Initial Participants may become a Party by executing this Agreement and delivering an executed copy of this Agreement and a copy of the adopted ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(10) to the Authority. Additional conditions, described in Section 3.1, may apply (i) to either an incorporated municipality or county desiring to become a Party and is not an Initial Participant and (ii) to Initial Participants that have not executed and delivered this Agreement within the time period described above. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 161 2.3 Formation. There is formed as of the Effective Date a public agency named the Marin Energy Authority. Pursuant to Sections 6506 and 6507 of the Act, the Authority is a public agency separate from the Parties. The debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority shall not be debts, liabilities or obligations of the individual Parties unless the governing board of a Party agrees in writing to assume any of the debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority. A Party who has not agreed to assume an Authority debt, liability or obligation shall not be responsible in any way for such debt, liability or obligation even if a majority of the Parties agree to assume the debt, liability or obligation of the Authority. Notwithstanding Section 8.4 of this Agreement, this Section 2.3 may not be amended unless such amendment is approved by the governing board of each Party. 2.4 Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish an independent public agency in order to exercise powers common to each Party to study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy and energy-related climate change programs, and to exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to accomplishing this purpose. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Parties intend for this Agreement to be used as a contractual mechanism by which the Parties are authorized to participate as a group in the CCA Program, as further described in Section 5.1. The Parties intend that subsequent agreements shall define the terms and conditions associated with the actual implementation of the CCA Program and any other energy programs approved by the Authority. 2.5 Powers. The Authority shall have all powers common to the Parties and such additional powers accorded to it by law. The Authority is authorized, in its own name, to exercise all powers and do all acts necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and fulfill its purposes, including, but not limited to, each of the following: 2.5.1 make and enter into contracts; 2.5.2 employ agents and employees, including but not limited to an Executive Director; 2.5.3 acquire, contract, manage, maintain, and operate any buildings, works or improvements; 2.5.4 acquire by eminent domain, or otherwise, except as limited under Section 6508 of the Act, and to hold or dispose of any property; 2.5.5 lease any property; 2.5.6 sue and be sued in its own name; 2.5.7 incur debts, liabilities, and obligations, including but not limited to loans from private lending sources pursuant to its temporary borrowing powers such as Government Code Section 53850 et seq. and authority under the Act; 2.5.8 issue revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness; 2.5.9 apply for, accept, and receive all licenses, permits, grants, loans or other aids from any federal, state or local public agency; March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 162 2.5.10 submit documentation and notices, register, and comply with orders, tariffs and agreements for the establishment and implementation of the CCA Program and other energy programs; 2.5.11 adopt rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority (“Operating Rules and Regulations”); and 2.5.12 make and enter into service agreements relating to the provision of services necessary to plan, implement, operate and administer the CCA Program and other energy programs, including the acquisition of electric power supply and the provision of retail and regulatory support services. 2.6 Limitation on Powers. As required by Government Code Section 6509, the power of the Authority is subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising power possessed by the County of Marin. 2.7 Compliance with Local Zoning and Building Laws. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement or state law, any facilities, buildings or structures located, constructed or caused to be constructed by the Authority within the territory of the Authority shall comply with the General Plan, zoning and building laws of the local jurisdiction within which the facilities, buildings or structures are constructed. ARTICLE 3 AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION 3.1 Addition of Parties. Subject to Section 2.2, relating to certain rights of Initial Participants, other incorporated municipalities and counties may become Parties upon (a) the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of such incorporated municipality or such county requesting that the incorporated municipality or county, as the case may be, become a member of the Authority, (b) the adoption, by an affirmative vote of the Board satisfying the requirements described in Section 4.9.1, of a resolution authorizing membership of the additional incorporated municipality or county, specifying the membership payment, if any, to be made by the additional incorporated municipality or county to reflect its pro rata share of organizational, planning and other pre-existing expenditures, and describing additional conditions, if any, associated with membership, (c) the adoption of an ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(10) and execution of this Agreement and other necessary program agreements by the incorporated municipality or county, (d) payment of the membership payment, if any, and (e) satisfaction of any conditions established by the Board. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Authority decides to not implement a CCA Program, the requirement that an additional party adopt the ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(10) shall not apply. Under such circumstance, the Board resolution authorizing membership of an additional incorporated municipality or county shall be adopted in accordance with the voting requirements of Section 4.10. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 163 3.2 Continuing Participation. The Parties acknowledge that membership in the Authority may change by the addition and/or withdrawal or termination of Parties. The Parties agree to participate with such other Parties as may later be added, as described in Section 3.1. The Parties also agree that the withdrawal or termination of a Party shall not affect this Agreement or the remaining Parties’ continuing obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE 4 GOVERNANCE AND INTERNAL ORGANIZATION 4.1 Board of Directors. The governing body of the Authority shall be a Board of Directors (“Board”) consisting of one director for each Party appointed in accordance with Section 4.2. 4.2 Appointment and Removal of Directors. The Directors shall be appointed and may be removed as follows: 4.2.1 The governing body of each Party shall appoint and designate in writing one regular Director who shall be authorized to act for and on behalf of the Party on matters within the powers of the Authority. The governing body of each Party also shall appoint and designate in writing one alternate Director who may vote on matters when the regular Director is absent from a Board meeting. The person appointed and designated as the Director or the alternate Director shall be a member of the governing body of the Party. 4.2.2 The Operating Rules and Regulations, to be developed and approved by the Board in accordance with Section 2.5.11, shall specify the reasons for and process associated with the removal of an individual Director for cause. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Party shall be deprived of its right to seat a Director on the Board and any such Party for which its Director and/or alternate Director has been removed may appoint a replacement. 4.3 Terms of Office. Each Director shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the Party that the Director represents, and may be removed as Director by such governing body at any time. If at any time a vacancy occurs on the Board, a replacement shall be appointed to fill the position of the previous Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.2 within 90 days of the date that such position becomes vacant. 4.4 Quorum. A majority of the Directors shall constitute a quorum, except that less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time in accordance with law. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 164 4.5 Powers and Function of the Board. The Board shall conduct or authorize to be conducted all business and activities of the Authority, consistent with this Agreement, the Authority Documents, the Operating Rules and Regulations, and applicable law. 4.6 Executive Committee. The Board may establish an executive committee consisting of a smaller number of Directors. The Board may delegate to the executive committee such authority as the Board might otherwise exercise, subject to limitations placed on the Board’s authority to delegate certain essential functions, as described in the Operating Rules and Regulations. The Board may not delegate to the Executive Committee or any other committee its authority under Section 2.5.11 to adopt and amend the Operating Rules and Regulations. 4.7 Commissions, Boards and Committees. The Board may establish any advisory commissions, boards and committees as the Board deems appropriate to assist the Board in carrying out its functions and implementing the CCA Program, other energy programs and the provisions of this Agreement. 4.8 Director Compensation. Compensation for work performed by Directors on behalf of the Authority shall be borne by the Party that appointed the Director. The Board, however, may adopt by resolution a policy relating to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by Directors. 4.9 Board Voting Related to the CCA Program. 4.9.1. To be effective, on all matters specifically related to the CCA Program, a vote of the Board shall consist of the following: (1) a majority of all Directors shall vote in the affirmative or such higher voting percentage expressly set forth in Sections 7.2 and 8.4 (the “percentage vote”) and (2) the corresponding voting shares (as described in Section 4.9.2 and Exhibit D) of all such Directors voting in the affirmative shall exceed 50%, or such other higher voting shares percentage expressly set forth in Sections 7.2 and 8.4 (the “percentage voting shares”), provided that, in instances in which such other higher voting share percentage would result in any one Director having a voting share that equals or exceeds that which is necessary to disapprove the matter being voted on by the Board, at least one other Director shall be required to vote in the negative in order to disapprove such matter. 4.9.2. Unless otherwise stated herein, voting shares of the Directors shall be determined by combining the following: (1) an equal voting share for each Director determined in accordance with the formula detailed in Section 4.9.2.1, below; and (2) an additional voting share determined in accordance with the formula detailed in Section 4.9.2.2, below. 4.9.2.1 Pro Rata Voting Share. Each Director shall have an equal voting share as determined by the following formula: (1/total number of March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 165 Directors) multiplied by 50, and 4.9.2.2 Annual Energy Use Voting Share. Each Director shall have an additional voting share as determined by the following formula: (Annual Energy Use/Total Annual Energy) multiplied by 50, where (a) “Annual Energy Use” means, (i) with respect to the first 5 years following the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kilowatt hours (“kWhs”), within the Party’s respective jurisdiction and (ii) with respect to the period after the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kWhs, of accounts within a Party’s respective jurisdiction that are served by the Authority and (b) “Total Annual Energy” means the sum of all Parties’ Annual Energy Use. The initial values for Annual Energy use are designated in Exhibit C, and shall be adjusted annually as soon as reasonably practicable after January 1, but no later than March 1 of each year 4.9.2.3 The voting shares are set forth in Exhibit D. Exhibit D may be updated to reflect revised annual energy use amounts and any changes in the parties to the Agreement without amending the Agreement provided that the Board is provided a copy of the updated Exhibit D. 4.10 Board Voting on General Administrative Matters and Programs Not Involving CCA. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement or the Operating Rules and Regulations, each member shall have one vote on general administrative matters, including but not limited to the adoption and amendment of the Operating Rules and Regulations, and energy programs not involving CCA. Action on these items shall be determined by a majority vote of the quorum present and voting on the item or such higher voting percentage expressly set forth in Sections 7.2 and 8.4. 4.11 Board Voting on CCA Programs Not Involving CCA That Require Financial Contributions. The approval of any program or other activity not involving CCA that requires financial contributions by individual Parties shall be approved only by a majority vote of the full membership of the Board subject to the right of any Party who votes against the program or activity to opt-out of such program or activity pursuant to this section. The Board shall provide at least 45 days prior written notice to each Party before it considers the program or activity for adoption at a Board meeting. Such notice shall be provided to the governing body and the chief administrative officer, city manager or town manager of each Party. The Board also shall provide written notice of such program or activity adoption to the above-described officials of each Party within 5 days after the Board adopts the program or activity. Any Party voting against the approval of a program or other activity of the Authority requiring financial contributions by individual Parties may elect to opt-out of participation in such program or activity by March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 166 providing written notice of this election to the Board within 30 days after the program or activity is approved by the Board. Upon timely exercising its opt-out election, a Party shall not have any financial obligation or any liability whatsoever for the conduct or operation of such program or activity. 4.12 Meetings and Special Meetings of the Board. The Board shall hold at least four regular meetings per year, but the Board may provide for the holding of regular meetings at more frequent intervals. The date, hour and place of each regular meeting shall be fixed by resolution or ordinance of the Board. Regular meetings may be adjourned to another meeting time. Special meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 54956. Directors may participate in meetings telephonically, with full voting rights, only to the extent permitted by law. All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.). 4.13 Selection of Board Officers. 4.13.1 Chair and Vice Chair. The Directors shall select, from among themselves, a Chair, who shall be the presiding officer of all Board meetings, and a Vice Chair, who shall serve in the absence of the Chair. The term of office of the Chair and Vice Chair shall continue for one year, but there shall be no limit on the number of terms held by either the Chair or Vice Chair. The office of either the Chair or Vice Chair shall be declared vacant and a new selection shall be made if: (a) the person serving dies, resigns, or the Party that the person represents removes the person as its representative on the Board or (b) the Party that he or she represents withdraws form the Authority pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 4.13.2 Secretary. The Board shall appoint a Secretary, who need not be a member of the Board, who shall be responsible for keeping the minutes of all meetings of the Board and all other official records of the Authority. 4.13.3 Treasurer and Auditor. The Board shall appoint a qualified person to act as the Treasurer and a qualified person to act as the Auditor, neither of whom needs to be a member of the Board. If the Board so designates, and in accordance with the provisions of applicable law, a qualified person may hold both the office of Treasurer and the office of Auditor of the Authority. Unless otherwise exempted from such requirement, the Authority shall cause an independent audit to be made by a certified public accountant, or public accountant, in compliance with Section 6505 of the Act. The Treasurer shall act as the depositary of the Authority and have custody of all the money of the Authority, from whatever source, and as such, shall have all of the duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505.5 of the Act. The Board may require the Treasurer and/or Auditor to March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 167 file with the Authority an official bond in an amount to be fixed by the Board, and if so requested the Authority shall pay the cost of premiums associated with the bond. The Treasurer shall report directly to the Board and shall comply with the requirements of treasurers of incorporated municipalities. The Board may transfer the responsibilities of Treasurer to any person or entity as the law may provide at the time. The duties and obligations of the Treasurer are further specified in Article 6. 4.14 Administrative Services Provider. The Board may appoint one or more administrative services providers to serve as the Authority’s agent for planning, implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program, and any other program approved by the Board, in accordance with the provisions of a written agreement between the Authority and the appointed administrative services provider or providers that will be known as an Administrative Services Agreement. The Administrative Services Agreement shall set forth the terms and conditions by which the appointed administrative services provider shall perform or cause to be performed all tasks necessary for planning, implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program and other approved programs. The Administrative Services Agreement shall set forth the term of the Agreement and the circumstances under which the Administrative Services Agreement may be terminated by the Authority. This section shall not in any way be construed to limit the discretion of the Authority to hire its own employees to administer the CCA Program or any other program. ARTICLE 5 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION AND AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS 5.1 Preliminary Implementation of the CCA Program. 5.1.1 Enabling Ordinance. Except as otherwise provided by Section 3.1, prior to the execution of this Agreement, each Party shall adopt an ordinance in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(10) for the purpose of specifying that the Party intends to implement a CCA Program by and through its participation in the Authority. 5.1.2 Implementation Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared an Implementation Plan meeting the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 and any applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations as soon after the Effective Date as reasonably practicable. The Implementation Plan shall not be filed with the Public Utilities Commission until it is approved by the Board in the manner provided by Section 4.9. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 168 5.1.3 Effect of Vote On Required Implementation Action. In the event that two or more Parties vote to approve Program Agreement 1 or any earlier action required for the implementation of the CCA Program (“Required Implementation Action”), but such vote is insufficient to approve the Required Implementation Action under Section 4.9, the following will occur: 5.1.3.1 The Parties voting against the Required Implementation Action shall no longer be a Party to this Agreement and this Agreement shall be terminated, without further notice, with respect to each of the Parties voting against the Required Implementation Action at the time this vote is final. The Board may take a provisional vote on a Required Implementation Action in order to initially determine the position of the Parties on the Required Implementation Action. A vote, specifically stated in the record of the Board meeting to be a provisional vote, shall not be considered a final vote with the consequences stated above. A Party who is terminated from this Agreement pursuant to this section shall be considered the same as a Party that voluntarily withdrew from the Agreement under Section 7.1.1.1. 5.1.3.2 After the termination of any Parties pursuant to Section 5.1.3.1, the remaining Parties to this Agreement shall be only the Parties who voted in favor of the Required Implementation Action. 5.1.4 Termination of CCA Program. Nothing contained in this Article or this Agreement shall be construed to limit the discretion of the Authority to terminate the implementation or operation of the CCA Program at any time in accordance with any applicable requirements of state law. 5.2 Authority Documents. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the affairs of the Authority will be implemented through various documents duly adopted by the Board through Board resolution, including but not necessarily limited to the Operating Rules and Regulations, the annual budget, and specified plans and policies defined as the Authority Documents by this Agreement. The Parties agree to abide by and comply with the terms and conditions of all such Authority Documents that may be adopted by the Board, subject to the Parties’ right to withdraw from the Authority as described in Article 7. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 169 ARTICLE 6 FINANCIAL PROVISIONS 6.1 Fiscal Year. The Authority’s fiscal year shall be 12 months commencing July 1 and ending June 30. The fiscal year may be changed by Board resolution. 6.2 Depository. 6.2.1 All funds of the Authority shall be held in separate accounts in the name of the Authority and not commingled with funds of any Party or any other person or entity. 6.2.2 All funds of the Authority shall be strictly and separately accounted for, and regular reports shall be rendered of all receipts and disbursements, at least quarterly during the fiscal year. The books and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection by the Parties at all reasonable times. The Board shall contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of the Authority, which shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 6505 of the Act. 6.2.3 All expenditures shall be made in accordance with the approved budget and upon the approval of any officer so authorized by the Board in accordance with its Operating Rules and Regulations. The Treasurer shall draw checks or warrants or make payments by other means for claims or disbursements not within an applicable budget only upon the prior approval of the Board. 6.3 Budget and Recovery Costs. 6.3.1 Budget. The initial budget shall be approved by the Board. The Board may revise the budget from time to time through an Authority Document as may be reasonably necessary to address contingencies and unexpected expenses. All subsequent budgets of the Authority shall be prepared and approved by the Board in accordance with the Operating Rules and Regulations. 6.3.2 County Funding of Initial Costs. The County of Marin shall fund the Initial Costs of the Authority in implementing the CCA Program in an amount not to exceed $500,000 unless a larger amount of funding is approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County. This funding shall be paid by the County at the times and in the amounts required by the Authority. In the event that the CCA Program becomes operational, these Initial Costs paid by the County of Marin shall be included in the customer charges for electric services as provided by Section 6.3.4 to the extent permitted by law, and the County of Marin shall be reimbursed from the March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 170 payment of such charges by customers of the Authority. The Authority may establish a reasonable time period over which such costs are recovered. In the event that the CCA Program does not become operational, the County of Marin shall not be entitled to any reimbursement of the Initial Costs it has paid from the Authority or any Party. 6.3.3 CCA Program Costs. The Parties desire that, to the extent reasonably practicable, all costs incurred by the Authority that are directly or indirectly attributable to the provision of electric services under the CCA Program, including the establishment and maintenance of various reserve and performance funds, shall be recovered through charges to CCA customers receiving such electric services. 6.3.4 General Costs. Costs that are not directly or indirectly attributable to the provision of electric services under the CCA Program, as determined by the Board, shall be defined as general costs. General costs shall be shared among the Parties on such basis as the Board shall determine pursuant to an Authority Document. 6.3.5 Other Energy Program Costs. Costs that are directly or indirectly attributable to energy programs approved by the Authority other than the CCA Program shall be shared among the Parties on such basis as the Board shall determine pursuant to an Authority Document. ARTICLE 7 WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION 7.1 Withdrawal. 7.1.1 General. 7.1.1.1 Prior to the Authority’s execution of Program Agreement 1, any Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority by giving no less than 30 days advance written notice of its election to do so, which notice shall be given to the Authority and each Party. To permit consideration by the governing body of each Party, the Authority shall provide a copy of the proposed Program Agreement 1 to each Party at least 90 days prior to the consideration of such agreement by the Board. 7.1.1.2 Subsequent to the Authority’s execution of Program Agreement 1, a Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority, effective as of the beginning of the Authority’s fiscal year, by giving no less than 6 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 171 months advance written notice of its election to do so, which notice shall be given to the Authority and each Party, and upon such other conditions as may be prescribed in Program Agreement 1. 7.1.2 Amendment. Notwithstanding Section 7.1.1, a Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority following an amendment to this Agreement in the manner provided by Section 8.4. 7.1.3 Continuing Liability; Further Assurances. A Party that withdraws its membership in the Authority may be subject to certain continuing liabilities, as described in Section 7.3. The withdrawing Party and the Authority shall execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, as determined by the Board, to effectuate the orderly withdrawal of such Party from membership in the Authority. The Operating Rules and Regulations shall prescribe the rights if any of a withdrawn Party to continue to participate in those Board discussions and decisions affecting customers of the CCA Program that reside or do business within the jurisdiction of the Party. 7.2 Involuntary Termination of a Party. This Agreement may be terminated with respect to a Party for material non-compliance with provisions of this Agreement or the Authority Documents upon an affirmative vote of the Board in which the minimum percentage vote and percentage voting shares, as described in Section 4.9.1, shall be no less than 67%, excluding the vote and voting shares of the Party subject to possible termination. Prior to any vote to terminate this Agreement with respect to a Party, written notice of the proposed termination and the reason(s) for such termination shall be delivered to the Party whose termination is proposed at least 30 days prior to the regular Board meeting at which such matter shall first be discussed as an agenda item. The written notice of proposed termination shall specify the particular provisions of this Agreement or the Authority Documents that the Party has allegedly violated. The Party subject to possible termination shall have the opportunity at the next regular Board meeting to respond to any reasons and allegations that may be cited as a basis for termination prior to a vote regarding termination. A Party that has had its membership in the Authority terminated may be subject to certain continuing liabilities, as described in Section 7.3. In the event that the Authority decides to not implement the CCA Program, the minimum percentage vote of 67% shall be conducted in accordance with Section 4.10 rather than Section 4.9.1. 7.3 Continuing Liability; Refund. Upon a withdrawal or involuntary termination of a Party, the Party shall remain responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or liabilities arising from the Party’s membership in the Authority through the date of its withdrawal or involuntary termination, it being agreed that the Party shall not be responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or liabilities arising after the date of the Party’s withdrawal or involuntary termination. In addition, such March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 172 Party also shall be responsible for any costs or obligations associated with the Party’s participation in any program in accordance with the provisions of any agreements relating to such program provided such costs or obligations were incurred prior to the withdrawal of the Party. The Authority may withhold funds otherwise owing to the Party or may require the Party to deposit sufficient funds with the Authority, as reasonably determined by the Authority, to cover the Party’s liability for the costs described above. Any amount of the Party’s funds held on deposit with the Authority above that which is required to pay any liabilities or obligations shall be returned to the Party. 7.4 Mutual Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of all the Parties; provided, however, the foregoing shall not be construed as limiting the rights of a Party to withdraw its membership in the Authority, and thus terminate this Agreement with respect to such withdrawing Party, as described in Section 7.1. 7.5 Disposition of Property upon Termination of Authority. Upon termination of this Agreement as to all Parties, any surplus money or assets in possession of the Authority for use under this Agreement, after payment of all liabilities, costs, expenses, and charges incurred under this Agreement and under any program documents, shall be returned to the then-existing Parties in proportion to the contributions made by each. ARTICLE 8 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 8.1 Dispute Resolution. The Parties and the Authority shall make reasonable efforts to settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement. Should such efforts to settle a dispute, after reasonable efforts, fail, the dispute shall be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with policies and procedures established by the Board. 8.2 Liability of Directors, Officers, and Employees. The Directors, officers, and employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers and in the performance of their duties pursuant to this Agreement. No current or former Director, officer, or employee will be responsible for any act or omission by another Director, officer, or employee. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the individual current and former Directors, officers, and employees for any acts or omissions in the scope of their employment or duties in the manner provided by Government Code Section 995 et seq. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the defenses March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 173 available under the law, to the Parties, the Authority, or its Directors, officers, or employees. 8.3 Indemnification of Parties. The Authority shall acquire such insurance coverage as is necessary to protect the interests of the Authority, the Parties and the public. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Parties and each of their respective Board or Council members, officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, losses, damages, costs, injuries and liabilities of every kind arising directly or indirectly from the conduct, activities, operations, acts, and omissions of the Authority under this Agreement. 8.4 Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended by an affirmative vote of the Board in which the minimum percentage vote and percentage voting shares, as described in Section 4.9.1, shall be no less than 67%. The Authority shall provide written notice to all Parties of amendments to this Agreement, including the effective date of such amendments. A Party shall be deemed to have withdrawn its membership in the Authority effective immediately upon the vote of the Board approving an amendment to this Agreement if the Director representing such Party has provided notice to the other Directors immediately preceding the Board’s vote of the Party’s intention to withdraw its membership in the Authority should the amendment be approved by the Board. As described in Section 7.3, a Party that withdraws its membership in the Authority in accordance with the above-described procedure may be subject to continuing liabilities incurred prior to the Party’s withdrawal. In the event that the Authority decides to not implement the CCA Program, the minimum percentage vote of 67% shall be conducted in accordance with Section 4.10 rather than Section 4.9.1. 8.5 Assignment. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the rights and duties of the Parties may not be assigned or delegated without the advance written consent of all of the other Parties, and any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or duties in contravention of this Section 8.5 shall be null and void. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors and assigns of the Parties. This Section 8.5 does not prohibit a Party from entering into an independent agreement with another agency, person, or entity regarding the financing of that Party’s contributions to the Authority, or the disposition of proceeds which that Party receives under this Agreement, so long as such independent agreement does not affect, or purport to affect, the rights and duties of the Authority or the Parties under this Agreement. 8.6 Severability. If one or more clauses, sentences, paragraphs or provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be unlawful, invalid or unenforceable, it is hereby agreed by the Parties, that the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby. Such clauses, sentences, paragraphs or provision shall be deemed reformed so as to be lawful, valid and enforced to the maximum extent possible. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 174 8.7 Further Assurances. Each Party agrees to execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. 8.8 Execution by Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and upon execution by all Parties, each executed counterpart shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument and as if all Parties had signed the same instrument. Any signature page of this Agreement may be detached from any counterpart of this Agreement without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of this Agreement identical in form hereto but having attached to it one or more signature pages. 8.9 Parties to be Served Notice. Any notice authorized or required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be validly given if served in writing either personally, by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid with return receipt requested, or by a recognized courier service. Notices given (a) personally or by courier service shall be conclusively deemed received at the time of delivery and receipt and (b) by mail shall be conclusively deemed given 48 hours after the deposit thereof (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) if the sender receives the return receipt. All notices shall be addressed to the office of the clerk or secretary of the Authority or Party, as the case may be, or such other person designated in writing by the Authority or Party. Notices given to one Party shall be copied to all other Parties. Notices given to the Authority shall be copied to all Parties. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 175 Exhibit A To the Joint Powers Agreement Marin Energy Authority -Definitions- “AB 117” means Assembly Bill 117 (Stat. 2002, ch. 838, codified at Public Utilities Code Section 366.2), which created CCA. “Act” means the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) “Administrative Services Agreement” means an agreement or agreements entered into after the Effective Date by the Authority with an entity that will perform tasks necessary for planning, implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program or any other energy programs adopted by the Authority. “Agreement” means this Joint Powers Agreement. “Annual Energy Use” has the meaning given in Section 4.9.2.2. “Authority” means the Marin Energy Authority. “Authority Document(s)” means document(s) duly adopted by the Board by resolution or motion implementing the powers, functions and activities of the Authority, including but not limited to the Operating Rules and Regulations, the annual budget, and plans and policies. “Board” means the Board of Directors of the Authority. “CCA” or “Community Choice Aggregation” means an electric service option available to cities and counties pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2. “CCA Program” means the Authority’s program relating to CCA that is principally described in Sections 2.4 and 5.1. “Director” means a member of the Board of Directors representing a Party. “Effective Date” means the date on which this Agreement shall become effective and the Marin Energy Authority shall exist as a separate public agency, as further described in Section 2.1. “Implementation Plan” means the plan generally described in Section 5.1.2 of this Agreement that is required under Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 to be filed with the March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 176 California Public Utilities Commission for the purpose of describing a proposed CCA Program. “Initial Costs” means all costs incurred by the Authority relating to the establishment and initial operation of the Authority, such as the hiring of an Executive Director and any administrative staff, any required accounting, administrative, technical and legal services in support of the Authority’s initial activities or in support of the negotiation, preparation and approval of one or more Administrative Services Provider Agreements and Program Agreement 1. Administrative and operational costs incurred after the approval of Program Agreement 1 shall not be considered Initial Costs. “Initial Participants” means, for the purpose of this Agreement, the signatories to this JPA as of May 5, 2010 including City of Belvedere, Town of Fairfax, City of Mill Valley, Town of San Anselmo, City of San Rafael, City of Sausalito, Town of Tiburon and County of Marin. “Operating Rules and Regulations” means the rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority. “Parties” means, collectively, the signatories to this Agreement that have satisfied the conditions in Sections 2.2 or 3.2 such that it is considered a member of the Authority. “Party” means, singularly, a signatory to this Agreement that has satisfied the conditions in Sections 2.2 or 3.2 such that it is considered a member of the Authority. “Program Agreement 1” means the agreement that the Authority will enter into with an energy service provider that will provide the electricity to be distributed to customers participating in the CCA Program. “Total Annual Energy” has the meaning given in Section 4.9.2.2. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 177 Exhibit B To the Joint Powers Agreement Marin Energy Authority -List of the Parties- City of American Canyon City of Belvedere City of Benicia City of Calistoga Town of Corte Madera City of El Cerrito Town of Fairfax City of Larkspur City of Lafayette City of Mill Valley City of Napa City of Novato City of Richmond Town of Ross Town of San Anselmo City of San Pablo City of San Rafael City of Sausalito City of St. Helena Town of Tiburon City of Walnut Creek Town of Yountville County of Marin County of Napa March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 178 Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC J- 1 Appendix I. MCE’s approval for inclusion of Contra Costa March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 179 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 180 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 181 Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC J- 1 Appendix J. EBCE’s Joint Powers Agreement March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 182 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement East Bay Community Energy Authority - Joint Powers Agreement – Effective _____________ Among The Following Parties: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 183 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -1- EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”), effective as of _________, is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1 (Section 6500 et seq.) of the California Government Code relating to the joint exercise of powers among the parties set forth in Exhibit A (“Parties”). The term “Parties” shall also include an incorporated municipality or county added to this Agreement in accordance with Section 3.1. RECITALS 1. The Parties are either incorporated municipalities or counties sharing various powers under California law, including but not limited to the power to purchase, supply, and aggregate electricity for themselves and their inhabitants. 2. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 to 1990 levels. The California Air Resources Board is promulgating regulations to implement AB 32 which will require local government to develop programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3. The purposes for the Initial Participants (as such term is defined in Section 1.1.16 below) entering into this Agreement include securing electrical energy supply for customers in participating jurisdictions, addressing climate change by reducing energy related greenhouse gas emissions, promoting electrical rate price stability, and fostering local economic benefits such as jobs creation, community energy programs and local power development. It is the intent of this Agreement to promote the development and use of a wide range of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs, including but not limited to State, regional and local solar and wind energy production. 4. The Parties desire to establish a separate public agency, known as the East Bay Community Energy Authority (“Authority”), under the provisions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) (“Act”) in order to collectively study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy programs. 5. The Initial Participants have each adopted an ordinance electing to implement through the Authority a Community Choice Aggregation program pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 (“CCA Program”). The first priority of the Authority will be the consideration of those actions necessary to implement the CCA Program. 6. By establishing the Authority, the Parties seek to: (a) Provide electricity rates that are lower or competitive with those offered by PG&E for similar products; March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 184 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -2- (b) Offer differentiated energy options (e.g. 33% or 50% qualified renewable) for default service, and a 100% renewable content option in which customers may “opt-up” and voluntarily participate; (c) Develop an electric supply portfolio with a lower greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity than PG&E, and one that supports the achievement of the parties’ greenhouse gas reduction goals and the comparable goals of all participating jurisdictions; (d) Establish an energy portfolio that prioritizes the use and development of local renewable resources and minimizes the use of unbundled renewable energy credits; (e) Promote an energy portfolio that incorporates energy efficiency and demand response programs and has aggressive reduced consumption goals; (f) Demonstrate quantifiable economic benefits to the region (e.g. union and prevailing wage jobs, local workforce development, new energy programs, and increased local energy investments); (g) Recognize the value of workers in existing jobs that support the energy infrastructure of Alameda County and Northern California. The Authority, as a leader in the shift to a clean energy, commits to ensuring it will take steps to minimize any adverse impacts to these workers to ensure a “just transition” to the new clean energy economy; (h) Deliver clean energy programs and projects using a stable, skilled workforce through such mechanisms as project labor agreements, or other workforce programs that are cost effective, designed to avoid work stoppages, and ensure quality; (i) Promote personal and community ownership of renewable resources, spurring equitable economic development and increased resilience, especially in low income communities; (j) Provide and manage lower cost energy supplies in a manner that provides cost savings to low-income households and promotes public health in areas impacted by energy production; and (k) Create an administering agency that is financially sustainable, responsive to regional priorities, well managed, and a leader in fair and equitable treatment of employees through adopting appropriate best practices employment policies, including, but not limited to, promoting efficient consideration of petitions to unionize, and providing appropriate wages and benefits. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 185 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -3- AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions hereinafter set forth, it is agreed by and among the Parties as follows: ARTICLE 1 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 1.1 Definitions. Capitalized terms used in the Agreement shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context requires otherwise. 1.1.1 “AB 117” means Assembly Bill 117 (Stat. 2002, ch. 838, codified at Public Utilities Code Section 366.2), which created CCA. 1.1.2 “Act” means the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) 1.1.3 “Agreement” means this Joint Powers Agreement. 1.1.4 “Annual Energy Use” has the meaning given in Section 1.1.23. 1.1.5 “Authority” means the East Bay Community Energy Authority established pursuant to this Joint Powers Agreement. 1.1.6 “Authority Document(s)” means document(s) duly adopted by the Board by resolution or motion implementing the powers, functions and activities of the Authority, including but not limited to the Operating Rules and Regulations, the annual budget, and plans and policies. 1.1.7 “Board” means the Board of Directors of the Authority. 1.1.8 “Community Choice Aggregation” or “CCA” means an electric service option available to cities and counties pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2. 1.1.9 “CCA Program” means the Authority’s program relating to CCA that is principally described in Sections 2.4 and 5.1. 1.1.10 “Days” shall mean calendar days unless otherwise specified by this Agreement. 1.1.11 “Director” means a member of the Board of Directors representing a Party, including an alternate Director. 1.1.12 “Effective Date” means the date on which this Agreement shall become effective and the East Bay Community Energy Authority shall exist as a separate public agency, as further described in Section 2.1. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 186 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -4- 1.1.13 “Ex Officio Board Member” means a non-voting member of the Board of Directors as described in Section 4.2.2. The Ex Officio Board Member may not serve on the Executive Committee of the Board or participate in closed session meetings of the Board. 1.1.14 “Implementation Plan” means the plan generally described in Section 5.1.2 of this Agreement that is required under Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 to be filed with the California Public Utilities Commission for the purpose of describing a proposed CCA Program. 1.1.15 “Initial Costs” means all costs incurred by the Authority relating to the establishment and initial operation of the Authority, such as the hiring of a Chief Executive Officer and any administrative staff, any required accounting, administrative, technical and legal services in support of the Authority’s initial formation activities or in support of the negotiation, preparation and approval of power purchase agreements. The Board shall determine the termination date for Initial Costs. 1.1.16 “Initial Participants” means, for the purpose of this Agreement the County of Alameda, the Cities of Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont, San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Newark, Fremont, Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. 1.1.17 “Operating Rules and Regulations” means the rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority. 1.1.18 “Parties” means, collectively, the signatories to this Agreement that have satisfied the conditions in Sections 2.2 or 3.1 such that it is considered a member of the Authority. 1.1.19 “Party” means, singularly, a signatory to this Agreement that has satisfied the conditions in Sections 2.2 or 3.1 such that it is considered a member of the Authority. 1.1.20 “Percentage Vote” means a vote taken by the Board pursuant to Section 4.12.1 that is based on each Party having one equal vote. 1.1.21 “Total Annual Energy” has the meaning given in Section 1.1.23. 1.1.22 “Voting Shares Vote” means a vote taken by the Board pursuant to Section 4.12.2 that is based on the voting shares of each Party described in Section 1.1.23 and set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement. A Voting Shares vote cannot take place on a matter unless the matter first receives an affirmative or tie Percentage Vote in the manner required by Section 4.12.1 and three or more Directors immediately thereafter request such vote. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 187 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -5- 1.1.23 “Voting Shares Formula” means the weight applied to a Voting Shares Vote and is determined by the following formula: (Annual Energy Use/Total Annual Energy) multiplied by 100, where (a) “Annual Energy Use” means (i) with respect to the first two years following the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kilowatt hours (“kWh”), within the Party’s respective jurisdiction and (ii) with respect to the period after the second anniversary of the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kWh, of accounts within a Party’s respective jurisdiction that are served by the Authority and (b) “Total Annual Energy” means the sum of all Parties’ Annual Energy Use. The initial values for Annual Energy use are designated in Exhibit B and the initial voting shares are designated in Exhibit C. Both Exhibits B and C shall be adjusted annually as soon as reasonably practicable after January 1, but no later than March 1 of each year subject to the approval of the Board. 1.2 Documents Included. This Agreement consists of this document and the following exhibits, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. Exhibit A: List of the Parties Exhibit B: Annual Energy Use Exhibit C: Voting Shares 1.3 Revision of Exhibits. The Parties agree that Exhibits A, B and C to this Agreement describe certain administrative matters that may be revised upon the approval of the Board, without such revision constituting an amendment to this Agreement, as described in Section 8.4. The Authority shall provide written notice to the Parties of the revision of any such exhibit. ARTICLE 2 FORMATION OF EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY AUTHORITY 2.1 Effective Date and Term. This Agreement shall become effective and East Bay Community Energy Authority shall exist as a separate public agency on December 1, 2016, provided that this Agreement is executed on or prior to such date by at least three Initial Participants after the adoption of the ordinances required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12). The Authority shall provide notice to the Parties of the Effective Date. The Authority shall continue to exist, and this Agreement shall be effective, until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 7.3, subject to the rights of the Parties to withdraw from the Authority. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 188 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -6- 2.2 Initial Participants. Until December 31, 2016, all other Initial Participants may become a Party by executing this Agreement and delivering an executed copy of this Agreement and a copy of the adopted ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) to the Authority. Additional conditions, described in Section 3.1, may apply (i) to either an incorporated municipality or county desiring to become a Party that is not an Initial Participant and (ii) to Initial Participants that have not executed and delivered this Agreement within the time period described above. 2.3 Formation. There is formed as of the Effective Date a public agency named the East Bay Community Energy Authority. Pursuant to Sections 6506 and 6507 of the Act, the Authority is a public agency separate from the Parties. The debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority shall not be debts, liabilities or obligations of the individual Parties unless the governing board of a Party agrees in writing to assume any of the debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority. A Party who has not agreed to assume an Authority debt, liability or obligation shall not be responsible in any way for such debt, liability or obligation even if a majority of the Parties agree to assume the debt, liability or obligation of the Authority. Notwithstanding Section 8.4 of this Agreement, this Section 2.3 may not be amended unless such amendment is approved by the governing boards of all Parties. 2.4 Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish an independent public agency in order to exercise powers common to each Party and any other powers granted to the Authority under state law to participate as a group in the CCA Program pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12); to study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy and energy-related climate change programs; and, to exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to accomplishing this purpose. 2.5 Powers. The Authority shall have all powers common to the Parties and such additional powers accorded to it by law. The Authority is authorized, in its own name, to exercise all powers and do all acts necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and fulfill its purposes, including, but not limited to, each of the following: 2.5.1 to make and enter into contracts, including those relating to the purchase or sale of electrical energy or attributes thereof; 2.5.2 to employ agents and employees, including but not limited to a Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel; 2.5.3 to acquire, contract, manage, maintain, and operate any buildings, works or improvements, including electric generating facilities; 2.5.4 to acquire property by eminent domain, or otherwise, except as limited under Section 6508 of the Act, and to hold or dispose of any property; 2.5.5 to lease any property; 2.5.6 to sue and be sued in its own name; March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 189 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -7- 2.5.7 to incur debts, liabilities, and obligations, including but not limited to loans from private lending sources pursuant to its temporary borrowing powers such as Government Code Section 53850 et seq. and authority under the Act; 2.5.8 to form subsidiary or independent corporations or entities, if appropriate, to carry out energy supply and energy conservation programs at the lowest possible cost consistent with the Authority’s CCA Program implementation plan, risk management policies, or to take advantage of legislative or regulatory changes; 2.5.9 to issue revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness; 2.5.10 to apply for, accept, and receive all licenses, permits, grants, loans or other assistance from any federal, state or local public agency; 2.5.11 to submit documentation and notices, register, and comply with orders, tariffs and agreements for the establishment and implementation of the CCA Program and other energy programs; 2.5.12 to adopt rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority (“Operating Rules and Regulations”); 2.5.13 to make and enter into service, energy and any other agreements necessary to plan, implement, operate and administer the CCA Program and other energy programs, including the acquisition of electric power supply and the provision of retail and regulatory support services; and 2.5.14 to negotiate project labor agreements, community benefits agreements and collective bargaining agreements with the local building trades council and other interested parties. 2.6 Limitation on Powers. As required by Government Code Section 6509, the power of the Authority is subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising power possessed by the City of Emeryville and any other restrictions on exercising the powers of the Authority that may be adopted by the Board. 2.7 Compliance with Local Zoning and Building Laws. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement or state law, any facilities, buildings or structures located, constructed or caused to be constructed by the Authority within the territory of the Authority shall comply with the General Plan, zoning and building laws of the local jurisdiction within which the facilities, buildings or structures are constructed and comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 190 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -8- 2.8 Compliance with the Brown Act. The Authority and its officers and employees shall comply with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et seq. 2.9 Compliance with the Political Reform Act and Government Code Section 1090. The Authority and its officers and employees shall comply with the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090 et seq, and shall adopt a Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to Government Code Section 87300. The Board of Directors may adopt additional conflict of interest regulations in the Operating Rules and Regulations. ARTICLE 3 AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION 3.1 Addition of Parties. Subject to Section 2.2, relating to certain rights of Initial Participants, other incorporated municipalities and counties may become Parties upon (a) the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of such incorporated municipality or county requesting that the incorporated municipality or county, as the case may be, become a member of the Authority, (b) the adoption by an affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors of the entire Board satisfying the requirements described in Section 4.12, of a resolution authorizing membership of the additional incorporated municipality or county, specifying the membership payment, if any, to be made by the additional incorporated municipality or county to reflect its pro rata share of organizational, planning and other pre-existing expenditures, and describing additional conditions, if any, associated with membership, (c) the adoption of an ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) and execution of this Agreement and other necessary program agreements by the incorporated municipality or county, (d) payment of the membership fee, if any, and (e) satisfaction of any conditions established by the Board. 3.2 Continuing Participation. The Parties acknowledge that membership in the Authority may change by the addition and/or withdrawal or termination of Parties. The Parties agree to participate with such other Parties as may later be added, as described in Section 3.1. The Parties also agree that the withdrawal or termination of a Party shall not affect this Agreement or the remaining Parties’ continuing obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE 4 GOVERNANCE AND INTERNAL ORGANIZATION 4.1 Board of Directors. The governing body of the Authority shall be a Board of Directors (“Board”) consisting of one director for each Party appointed in accordance with Section 4.2. 4.2 Appointment of Directors. The Directors shall be appointed as follows: 4.2.1 The governing body of each Party shall appoint and designate in writing one regular Director who shall be authorized to act for and on behalf of the Party on matters within the powers of the Authority. The governing body of each Party also shall appoint and designate in writing one alternate Director who may vote on matters when the regular Director is absent March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 191 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -9- from a Board meeting. The person appointed and designated as the regular Director shall be a member of the governing body of the Party. The person appointed and designated as the alternate Director shall also be a member of the governing body of the Party. 4.2.2 The Board shall also include one non-voting ex officio member as defined in Section 1.1.13 (“Ex Officio Board Member”). The Chair of the Community Advisory Committee, as described in Section 4.9 below, shall serve as the Ex Officio Board Member. The Vice Chair of the Community Advisory Committee shall serve as an alternate Ex Officio Board Member when the regular Ex Officio Board Member is absent from a Board meeting. 4.2.3 The Operating Rules and Regulations, to be developed and approved by the Board in accordance with Section 2.5.12 may include rules regarding Directors, such as meeting attendance requirements. No Party shall be deprived of its right to seat a Director on the Board. 4.3 Terms of Office. Each regular and alternate Director shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the Party that the Director represents, and may be removed as Director by such governing body at any time. If at any time a vacancy occurs on the Board, a replacement shall be appointed to fill the position of the previous Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.2 within 90 days of the date that such position becomes vacant. 4.4 Quorum. A majority of the Directors of the entire Board shall constitute a quorum, except that less than a quorum may adjourn a meeting from time to time in accordance with law. 4.5 Powers and Function of the Board. The Board shall conduct or authorize to be conducted all business and activities of the Authority, consistent with this Agreement, the Authority Documents, the Operating Rules and Regulations, and applicable law. Board approval shall be required for any of the following actions, which are defined as “Essential Functions”: 4.5.1 The issuance of bonds or any other financing even if program revenues are expected to pay for such financing. 4.5.2 The hiring of a Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel. 4.5.3 The appointment or removal of an officer. 4.5.4 The adoption of the Annual Budget. 4.5.5 The adoption of an ordinance. 4.5.6 The initiation of resolution of claims and litigation where the Authority will be the defendant, plaintiff, petitioner, respondent, cross complainant or cross petitioner, or intervenor; provided, however, that the Chief Executive Officer or General Counsel, on behalf of the Authority, may March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 192 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -10- intervene in, become party to, or file comments with respect to any proceeding pending at the California Public Utilities Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or any other administrative agency, without approval of the Board. The Board shall adopt Operating Rules and Regulations governing the Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel’s exercise of authority under this Section 4.5.6. 4.5.7 The setting of rates for power sold by the Authority and the setting of charges for any other category of service provided by the Authority. 4.5.8 Termination of the CCA Program. 4.6 Executive Committee. The Board shall establish an Executive Committee consisting of a smaller number of Directors. The Board may delegate to the Executive Committee such authority as the Board might otherwise exercise, subject to limitations placed on the Board’s authority to delegate certain Essential Functions, as described in Section 4.5 and the Operating Rules and Regulations. The Board may not delegate to the Executive Committee or any other committee its authority under Section 2.5.12 to adopt and amend the Operating Rules and Regulations or its Essential Functions listed in Section 4.5. After the Executive Committee meets or otherwise takes action, it shall, as soon as practicable, make a report of its activities at a meeting of the Board. 4.7 Director Compensation. Directors shall receive a stipend of $100 per meeting, as adjusted to account for inflation, as provided for in the Authority’s Operating Rules and Regulations. 4.8 Commissions, Boards and Committees. The Board may establish any advisory commissions, boards and committees as the Board deems appropriate to assist the Board in carrying out its functions and implementing the CCA Program, other energy programs and the provisions of this Agreement. The Board may establish rules, regulations, policies, bylaws or procedures to govern any such commissions, boards, or committees and shall determine whether members shall be compensated or entitled to reimbursement for expenses. 4.9 Community Advisory Committee. The Board shall establish a Community Advisory Committee consisting of nine members, none of whom may be voting members of the Board. The function of the Community Advisory Committee shall be to advise the Board of Directors on all subjects related to the operation of the CCA Program as set forth in a work plan adopted by the Board of Directors from time to time, with the exception of personnel and litigation decisions. The Community Advisory Committee is advisory only, and shall not have decision-making authority, or receive any delegation of authority from the Board of Directors. The Board shall publicize the opportunity to serve on the Community Advisory Committee, and shall appoint members of the Community Advisory Committee from those individuals expressing interest in serving, and who represent a diverse cross-section of interests, skill sets and geographic regions. Members of the Community Advisory Committee shall serve staggered four-year terms (the first term of three of the members shall be two years, and four years March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 193 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -11- thereafter), which may be renewed. A member of the Community Advisory Committee may be removed by the Board of Directors by majority vote. The Board of Directors shall determine whether the Community Advisory Committee members will receive a stipend and/or be entitled to reimbursement for expenses. 4.10 Chief Executive Officer. The Board of Directors shall appoint a Chief Executive Officer for the Authority, who shall be responsible for the day-to-day operation and management of the Authority and the CCA Program. The Chief Executive Officer may exercise all powers of the Authority, including the power to hire, discipline and terminate employees as well as the power to approve any agreement, if the expenditure is authorized in the Authority’s approved budget, except the powers specifically set forth in Section 4.5 or those powers which by law must be exercised by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall provide procedures and guidelines for the Chief Executive Officer exercising the powers of the Authority in the Operating Rules and Regulations. 4.11 General Counsel. The Board of Directors shall appoint a General Counsel for the Authority, who shall be responsible for providing legal advice to the Board of Directors and overseeing all legal work for the Authority. 4.12 Board Voting. 4.12.1 Percentage Vote. Except when a supermajority vote is expressly required by this Agreement or the Operating Rules and Regulations, action of the Board on all matters shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors on the entire Board (a “Percentage Vote” as defined in Section 1.1.20). A supermajority vote is required by this Agreement for the matters addressed by Section 8.4. When a supermajority vote is required by this Agreement or the Operating Rules and Regulations, action of the Board shall require an affirmative Percentage Vote of the specified supermajority of all Directors on the entire Board. No action can be taken by the Board without an affirmative Percentage Vote. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a tie in the Percentage Vote, an action may be approved by an affirmative “Voting Shares Vote,” as defined in Section 1.1.22, if three or more Directors immediately request such vote. 4.12.2 Voting Shares Vote. In addition to and immediately after an affirmative percentage vote, three or more Directors may request that, a vote of the voting shares shall be held (a “Voting Shares Vote” as defined in Section 1.1.22). To approve an action by a Voting Shares Vote, the corresponding voting shares (as defined in Section 1.1.23 and Exhibit C) of all Directors voting in the affirmative shall exceed 50% of the voting share of all Directors on the entire Board, or such other higher voting shares percentage expressly required by this Agreement or the Operating Rules March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 194 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -12- and Regulations. In the event that any one Director has a voting share that equals or exceeds that which is necessary to disapprove the matter being voted on by the Board, at least one other Director shall be required to vote in the negative in order to disapprove such matter. When a voting shares vote is held, action by the Board requires both an affirmative Percentage Vote and an affirmative Voting Shares Vote. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a tie in the Percentage Vote, an action may be approved on an affirmative Voting Shares Vote. When a supermajority vote is required by this Agreement or the Operating Rules and Regulations, the supermajority vote is subject to the Voting Share Vote provisions of this Section 4.12.2, and the specified supermajority of all Voting Shares is required for approval of the action, if the provision of this Section 4.12.2 are triggered. 4.13 Meetings and Special Meetings of the Board. The Board shall hold at least four regular meetings per year, but the Board may provide for the holding of regular meetings at more frequent intervals. The date, hour and place of each regular meeting shall be fixed by resolution or ordinance of the Board. Regular meetings may be adjourned to another meeting time. Special and Emergency meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 54956 and 54956.5. Directors may participate in meetings telephonically, with full voting rights, only to the extent permitted by law. 4.14 Officers. 4.14.1 Chair and Vice Chair. At the first meeting held by the Board in each calendar year, the Directors shall elect, from among themselves, a Chair, who shall be the presiding officer of all Board meetings, and a Vice Chair, who shall serve in the absence of the Chair. The Chair and Vice Chair shall hold office for one year and serve no more than two consecutive terms, however, the total number of terms a Director may serve as Chair or Vice Chair is not limited. The office of either the Chair or Vice Chair shall be declared vacant and the Board shall make a new selection if: (a) the person serving dies, resigns, or ceases to be a member of the governing body of the Party that the person represents; (b) the Party that the person represents removes the person as its representative on the Board, or (c) the Party that he or she represents withdraws from the Authority pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 4.14.2 Secretary. The Board shall appoint a Secretary, who need not be a member of the Board, who shall be responsible for keeping the minutes of all meetings of the Board and all other official records of the Authority. 4.14.3 Treasurer and Auditor. The Board shall appoint a qualified person to act as the Treasurer and a qualified person to act as the Auditor, neither of whom needs to be a member of the Board. The same person may not simultaneously hold both the office of Treasurer and the office of the Auditor of the Authority. Unless otherwise exempted from such March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 195 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -13- requirement, the Authority shall cause an independent audit to be made annually by a certified public accountant, or public accountant, in compliance with Section 6505 of the Act. The Treasurer shall act as the depositary of the Authority and have custody of all the money of the Authority, from whatever source, and as such, shall have all of the duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505.5 of the Act. The Board may require the Treasurer and/or Auditor to file with the Authority an official bond in an amount to be fixed by the Board, and if so requested, the Authority shall pay the cost of premiums associated with the bond. The Treasurer shall report directly to the Board and shall comply with the requirements of treasurers of incorporated municipalities. The Board may transfer the responsibilities of Treasurer to any person or entity as the law may provide at the time. 4.15 Administrative Services Provider. The Board may appoint one or more administrative services providers to serve as the Authority’s agent for planning, implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program, and any other program approved by the Board, in accordance with the provisions of an Administrative Services Agreement. The appointed administrative services provider may be one of the Parties. The Administrative Services Agreement shall set forth the terms and conditions by which the appointed administrative services provider shall perform or cause to be performed all tasks necessary for planning, implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program and other approved programs. The Administrative Services Agreement shall set forth the term of the Agreement and the circumstances under which the Administrative Services Agreement may be terminated by the Authority. This section shall not in any way be construed to limit the discretion of the Authority to hire its own employees to administer the CCA Program or any other program. 4.16 Operational Audit. The Authority shall commission an independent agent to conduct and deliver at a public meeting of the Board an evaluation of the performance of the CCA Program relative to goals for renewable energy and carbon reductions. The Authority shall approve a budget for such evaluation and shall hire a firm or individual that has no other direct or indirect business relationship with the Authority. The evaluation shall be conducted at least once every two years. ARTICLE 5 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION AND AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS 5.1 Implementation of the CCA Program. 5.1.1 Enabling Ordinance. Prior to the execution of this Agreement, each Party shall adopt an ordinance in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) for the purpose of specifying that the Party intends to implement a CCA Program by and through its participation in the Authority. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 196 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -14- 5.1.2 Implementation Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared an Implementation Plan meeting the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 and any applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations as soon after the Effective Date as reasonably practicable. The Implementation Plan shall not be filed with the Public Utilities Commission until it is approved by the Board in the manner provided by Section 4.12. 5.1.3 Termination of CCA Program. Nothing contained in this Article or this Agreement shall be construed to limit the discretion of the Authority to terminate the implementation or operation of the CCA Program at any time in accordance with any applicable requirements of state law. 5.2 Other Authority Documents. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the operations of the Authority will be implemented through various documents duly adopted by the Board through Board resolution or minute action, including but not necessarily limited to the Operating Rules and Regulations, the annual budget, and specified plans and policies defined as the Authority Documents by this Agreement. The Parties agree to abide by and comply with the terms and conditions of all such Authority Documents that may be adopted by the Board, subject to the Parties’ right to withdraw from the Authority as described in Article 7. 5.3 Integrated Resource Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared an Integrated Resource Plan in accordance with CPUC regulations that will ensure the long-term development and administration of a variety of energy programs that promote local renewable resources, conservation, demand response, and energy efficiency, while maintaining compliance with the State Renewable Portfolio standard and customer rate competitiveness. The Authority shall prioritize the development of energy projects in Alameda and adjacent counties. Principal aspects of its planned operations shall be in a Business Plan as outlined in Section 5.4 of this Agreement. 5.4 Business Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared a Business Plan, which will include a roadmap for the development, procurement, and integration of local renewable energy resources as outlined in Section 5.3 of this Agreement. The Business Plan shall include a description of how the CCA Program will contribute to fostering local economic benefits, such as job creation and community energy programs. The Business Plan shall identify opportunities for local power development and how the CCA Program can achieve the goals outlined in Recitals 3 and 6 of this Agreement. The Business Plan shall include specific language detailing employment and labor standards that relate to the execution of the CCA Program as referenced in this Agreement. The Business Plan shall identify clear and transparent marketing practices to be followed by the CCA Program, including the identification of the sources of its electricity and explanation of the various types of electricity procured by the Authority. The Business Plan shall cover the first five (5) years of the operation of the CCA Program. The Business Plan shall be completed by the Authority no later than eight (8) months after the seating of the Authority Board of Directors. Progress on the implementation of the Business Plan shall be subject to annual public review. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 197 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -15- 5.5 Labor Organization Neutrality. The Authority shall remain neutral in the event its employees, and the employees of its subcontractors, if any, wish to unionize. 5.6 Renewable Portfolio Standards. The Authority shall provide its customers energy primarily from Category 1 eligible renewable resources, as defined under the California RPS and consistent with the goals of the CCA Program. The Authority shall not procure energy from Category 3 eligible renewable resources (unbundled Renewable Energy Credits or RECs) exceeding 50% of the State law requirements, to achieve its renewable portfolio goals. However, for Category 3 RECs associated with generation facilities located within its service jurisdiction, the limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply. ARTICLE 6 FINANCIAL PROVISIONS 6.1 Fiscal Year. The Authority’s fiscal year shall be 12 months commencing July 1 and ending June 30. The fiscal year may be changed by Board resolution. 6.2 Depository. 6.2.1 All funds of the Authority shall be held in separate accounts in the name of the Authority and not commingled with funds of any Party or any other person or entity. 6.2.2 All funds of the Authority shall be strictly and separately accounted for, and regular reports shall be rendered of all receipts and disbursements, at least quarterly during the fiscal year. The books and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection by the Parties at all reasonable times. 6.2.3 All expenditures shall be made in accordance with the approved budget and upon the approval of any officer so authorized by the Board in accordance with its Operating Rules and Regulations. The Treasurer shall draw checks or warrants or make payments by other means for claims or disbursements not within an applicable budget only upon the prior approval of the Board. 6.3 Budget and Recovery Costs. 6.3.1 Budget. The initial budget shall be approved by the Board. The Board may revise the budget from time to time through an Authority Document as may be reasonably necessary to address contingencies and unexpected expenses. All subsequent budgets of the Authority shall be prepared and approved by the Board in accordance with the Operating Rules and Regulations. 6.3.2 Funding of Initial Costs. The County shall fund the Initial Costs of establishing and implementing the CCA Program. In the event that the March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 198 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -16- CCA Program becomes operational, these Initial Costs paid by the County and any specified interest shall be included in the customer charges for electric services to the extent permitted by law, and the County shall be reimbursed from the payment of such charges by customers of the Authority. The Authority may establish a reasonable time period over which such costs are recovered. In the event that the CCA Program does not become operational, the County shall not be entitled to any reimbursement of the Initial Costs. 6.3.4 Additional Contributions and Advances. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6504, the Parties may in their sole discretion make financial contributions, loans or advances to the Authority for the purposes of the Authority set forth in this Agreement. The repayment of such contributions, loans or advances will be on the written terms agreed to by the Party making the contribution, loan or advance and the Authority. ARTICLE 7 WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION 7.1 Withdrawal. 7.1.1 General Right to Withdraw. A Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority, effective as of the beginning of the Authority’s fiscal year, by giving no less than 180 days advance written notice of its election to do so, which notice shall be given to the Authority and each Party. Withdrawal of a Party shall require an affirmative vote of the Party’s governing board. 7.1.2 Withdrawal Following Amendment. Notwithstanding Section 7.1.1, a Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority following an amendment to this Agreement provided that the requirements of this Section 7.1.2 are strictly followed. A Party shall be deemed to have withdrawn its membership in the Authority effective 180 days after the Board approves an amendment to this Agreement if the Director representing such Party has provided notice to the other Directors immediately preceding the Board’s vote of the Party’s intention to withdraw its membership in the Authority should the amendment be approved by the Board. 7.1.3 The Right to Withdraw Prior to Program Launch. After receiving bids from power suppliers for the CCA Program, the Authority must provide to the Parties a report from the electrical utility consultant retained by the Authority comparing the Authority’s total estimated electrical rates, the estimated greenhouse gas emissions rate and the amount of estimated renewable energy to be used with that of the incumbent utility. Within 30 days after receiving this report, through its City Manager or a person expressly authorized by the Party, any Party may immediately withdraw March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 199 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -17- its membership in the Authority by providing written notice of withdrawal to the Authority if the report determines that any one of the following conditions exists: (1) the Authority is unable to provide total electrical rates, as part of its baseline offering to customers, that are equal to or lower than the incumbent utility, (2) the Authority is unable to provide electricity in a manner that has a lower greenhouse gas emissions rate than the incumbent utility, or (3) the Authority will use less qualified renewable energy than the incumbent utility. Any Party who withdraws from the Authority pursuant to this Section 7.1.3 shall not be entitled to any refund of the Initial Costs it has paid to the Authority prior to the date of withdrawal unless the Authority is later terminated pursuant to Section 7.3. In such event, any Initial Costs not expended by the Authority shall be returned to all Parties, including any Party that has withdrawn pursuant to this section, in proportion to the contribution that each made. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, any Party who withdraws pursuant to this section shall not be responsible for any liabilities or obligations of the Authority after the date of withdrawal, including without limitation any liability arising from power purchase agreements entered into by the Authority. 7.2 Continuing Liability After Withdrawal; Further Assurances; Refund. A Party that withdraws its membership in the Authority under either Section 7.1.1 or 7.1.2 shall be responsible for paying its fair share of costs incurred by the Authority resulting from the Party’s withdrawal, including costs from the resale of power contracts by the Authority to serve the Party’s load and any similar costs directly attributable to the Party’s withdrawal, such costs being limited to those contracts executed while the withdrawing Party was a member, and administrative costs associated thereto. The Parties agree that such costs shall not constitute a debt of the withdrawing Party, accruing interest, or having a maturity date. The Authority may withhold funds otherwise owing to the Party or may require the Party to deposit sufficient funds with the Authority, as reasonably determined by the Authority, to cover the Party’s costs described above. Any amount of the Party’s funds held by the Authority for the benefit of the Party that are not required to pay the Party’s costs described above shall be returned to the Party. The withdrawing party and the Authority shall execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, as determined by the Board, to effectuate the orderly withdrawal of such Party from membership in the Authority. A withdrawing party has the right to continue to participate in Board discussions and decisions affecting customers of the CCA Program that reside or do business within the jurisdiction of the Party until the withdrawal’s effective date. 7.3 Mutual Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of all the Parties; provided, however, the foregoing shall not be construed as limiting the rights of a Party to withdraw its membership in the Authority, and thus terminate this Agreement with respect to such withdrawing Party, as described in Section 7.1. 7.4 Disposition of Property upon Termination of Authority. Upon termination of this Agreement as to all Parties, any surplus money or assets in possession of the Authority for use under this Agreement, after payment of all liabilities, costs, expenses, and charges incurred March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 200 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -18- under this Agreement and under any Authority Documents, shall be returned to the then-existing Parties in proportion to the contributions made by each. ARTICLE 8 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 8.1 Dispute Resolution. The Parties and the Authority shall make reasonable efforts to settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement. Before exercising any remedy provided by law, a Party or the Parties and the Authority shall engage in nonbinding mediation in the manner agreed upon by the Party or Parties and the Authority. The Parties agree that each Party may specifically enforce this section 8.1. In the event that nonbinding mediation is not initiated or does not result in the settlement of a dispute within 120 days after the demand for mediation is made, any Party and the Authority may pursue any remedies provided by law. 8.2 Liability of Directors, Officers, and Employees. The Directors, officers, and employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers and in the performance of their duties pursuant to this Agreement. No current or former Director, officer, or employee will be responsible for any act or omission by another Director, officer, or employee. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the individual current and former Directors, officers, and employees for any acts or omissions in the scope of their employment or duties in the manner provided by Government Code Section 995 et seq. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the defenses available under the law, to the Parties, the Authority, or its Directors, officers, or employees. 8.3 Indemnification of Parties. The Authority shall acquire such insurance coverage as the Board deems necessary to protect the interests of the Authority, the Parties and the public. Such insurance coverage shall name the Parties and their respective Board or Council members, officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Parties and each of their respective Board or Council members, officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, losses, damages, costs, injuries and liabilities of every kind arising directly or indirectly from the conduct, activities, operations, acts, and omissions of the Authority under this Agreement. 8.4 Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended in writing by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the entire Board satisfying the requirements described in Section 4.12. Except that, any amendment to the voting provisions in Section 4.12 may only be made by a three-quarters affirmative vote of the entire Board. The Authority shall provide written notice to the Parties at least 30 days in advance of any proposed amendment being considered by the Board. If the proposed amendment is adopted by the Board, the Authority shall provide prompt written notice to all Parties of the effective date of such amendment along with a copy of the amendment. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 201 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -19- 8.5 Assignment. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the rights and duties of the Parties may not be assigned or delegated without the advance written consent of all of the other Parties, and any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or duties in contravention of this Section 8.5 shall be null and void. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors and assigns of the Parties. This Section 8.5 does not prohibit a Party from entering into an independent agreement with another agency, person, or entity regarding the financing of that Party’s contributions to the Authority, or the disposition of proceeds which that Party receives under this Agreement, so long as such independent agreement does not affect, or purport to affect, the rights and duties of the Authority or the Parties under this Agreement. 8.6 Severability. If one or more clauses, sentences, paragraphs or provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be unlawful, invalid or unenforceable, it is hereby agreed by the Parties, that the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby. Such clauses, sentences, paragraphs or provision shall be deemed reformed so as to be lawful, valid and enforced to the maximum extent possible. 8.7 Further Assurances. Each Party agrees to execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. 8.8 Execution by Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and upon execution by all Parties, each executed counterpart shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument and as if all Parties had signed the same instrument. Any signature page of this Agreement may be detached from any counterpart of this Agreement without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of this Agreement identical in form hereto but having attached to it one or more signature pages. 8.9 Parties to be Served Notice. Any notice authorized or required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be validly given if served in writing either personally, by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid with return receipt requested, or by a recognized courier service. Notices given (a) personally or by courier service shall be conclusively deemed received at the time of delivery and receipt and (b) by mail shall be conclusively deemed given 72 hours after the deposit thereof (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) if the sender receives the return receipt. All notices shall be addressed to the office of the clerk or secretary of the Authority or Party, as the case may be, or such other person designated in writing by the Authority or Party. In addition, a duplicate copy of all notices provided pursuant to this section shall be provided to the Director and alternate Director for each Party. Notices given to one Party shall be copied to all other Parties. Notices given to the Authority shall be copied to all Parties. All notices required hereunder shall be delivered to: The County of Alameda Director, Community Development Agency March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 202 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -20- 224 West Winton Ave. Hayward, CA 94612 With a copy to: Office of the County Counsel 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94612 if to [PARTY No. ____] Office of the City Clerk __________________________ __________________________ Office of the City Manager/Administrator __________________________ __________________________ Office of the City Attorney __________________________ __________________________ if to [PARTY No._____ ] Office of the City Clerk __________________________ __________________________ Office of the City Manager/Administrator __________________________ __________________________ Office of the City Attorney __________________________ __________________________ March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 203 October 4, 2016 County Approval Agreement -21- ARTICLE 9 SIGNATURE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Joint Powers Agreement establishing the East Bay Community Energy Authority. By: Name: Title: Date: Party: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 204 9/26/2016 Draft Exhibit A Page 1 EXHIBIT A -LIST OF THE PARTIES (This draft exhibit is based on the assumption that all of the Initial Participants will become Parties. On the Effective Date, this exhibit will be revised to reflect the Parties to this Agreement at that time.)- - March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 205 9/26/2016 Draft Exhibit B Page 1 DRAFT EXHIBIT B -ANNUAL ENERGY USE (This draft exhibit is based on the assumption that all of the Initial Participants will become Parties. On the Effective Date, this exhibit will be revised to reflect the Parties to this Agreement at that time.) This Exhibit B is effective as of ________________. Party kWh ([YEAR]*) *Data provided by PG&E March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 206 DRAFT EXHIBIT C - VOTING SHARES (This draft exhibit is based on the assumption that all of the Initial Participants will become Parties. On the Effective Date, this exhibit will be revised to reflect the Parties to this Agreement at that time.) This Exhibit C is effective as of ___________________. Party kWh ([YEAR]*) Voting Share Section 4.11.2 Total *Data provided by PG&E March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 207 Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Contra Costa County March 2017 MRW & Associates, LLC J- 2 Appendix K. EBCE’s offer for inclusion of Contra Costa March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 208 February 21, 2017 John Kopchik Director, Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Kopchik: This letter is in response to your request for East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) to indicate its desire to expand beyond Alameda County and its willingness to engage interested Contra Costa County jurisdictions as EBCE members. This letter also outlines the terms of EBCE membership. As you may know, the EBCE Board of Directors met for the first time on January 30, 2017. During that meeting, the Board had a robust discussion on this topic and was strongly in favor of formally inviting Contra Costa County and its Cities to join EBCE. The general sense was that it would be an exciting and positive development to have a more regionally focused East Bay Community Choice Energy (CCE) program. Some EBCE Board members expressed a willingness to present at your upcoming Board of Supervisors and City Council meetings as Contra Costa County officials deliberate on which CCE option would be in the best interests of their constituents. With regards to the terms of membership, the EBCE Board discussed each of the points your letter raised, and we can provide you the following feedback:  Cost to Join: The Board agreed that there would be no cost for Contra Costa County jurisdictions to join the JPA. EBCE will absorb all of the initial launch expenses, including load data analysis, communications costs and noticing requirements. The Board believes these one-time costs are offset by the longer-term value of including Contra Costa County communities in order to form a larger, regional program. We do request, however, that new member jurisdictions identify appropriate municipal staff to assist in coordinating the JPA resolution and Agreement, passage of the CCE ordinance and help with local public outreach, such as organizing workshops and having a presence at community events.  Required actions and steps in the membership process: The Board agreed that the steps for joining EBCE would be the same as for the Alameda County jurisdictions, namely that the prospective members must pass the required CCA ordinance, authorize access to their load data, hold at least two duly noticed public hearings, and pass the JPA resolution in order to become a party to the EBCE Joint Powers Agreement. A copy of the CCE ordinance, JPA Agreement and JPA resolution are attached for your reference. For the purposes of completing EBCE’s implementation plan, conducting public outreach, and procuring power for customers in new member jurisdictions, we request that interested jurisdictions cast deciding votes by June 30, 2017. It should be noted that there will be additional opportunities to join EBCE in 2018, if that is preferred. See below for more information regarding timimg. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 209 Letter to John Kopchik, Director Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County February 21, 2017  Representation on EBCE Board: Each Contra Costa County jurisdiction choosing to join EBCE will have a seat on its Board, which is the same manner of representation as other Alameda County members. As you may know, EBCE has a two-tiered voting structure, the first being one- city/one-vote with simple majority to carry the vote. In this case, every jurisdiction will have one equal vote, and it is anticipated that most votes will proceed in this fashion. However, if at least three members call for a weighted vote, then each city’s voting share would be determined by its electrical load; weighted votes may only be used to overturn an affirmative vote and may not be used to resurrect or overturn a negative vote. Please see Attachment 4 for a comparision of EBCE and CCCo jurisdictional loads. New Board members can be seated once the JPA resolution has been passed, and the first and second readings of the CCE ordinance are complete.  Estimated date of service commencement: Your letter asked for a date when electric service could begin. As of this writing, it is likely that EBCE will begin serving Phase 1 customers (a subset of the total number of accounts) in Spring of 2018. Phase 2 customers, including additional Contra Costa County accounts, would be enrolled in the Summer or Fall of 2018. Cities that join after the June 30th deadline or in 2018 will be enrolled in Phase 3, likely to be the late Fall of 2018 or Spring of 2019. The EBCE Board is excited about the prospect of creating a regional East Bay Community Energy program. A member of our Board and Alameda County interim staff will attempt to attend as many of your upcoming presentations as possible, including the Board of Supervisors meeting on March 21. If possible, we would very much like the opportunity to make a more formal presentation at that meeting if the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and staff are agreeable. Finally, for the purposes of planning, it would be helpful to know how many Contra Costa County jurisdictions would be interested in joining EBCE. As noted above, we are requesting that the County and any interested cities complete their decision-making and passage of the required resolution and ordinance by June 30, 2017 if they are interested in a Spring/Summer 2018 enrollment period. We hope this addresses your questions on behalf of Contra Costa County and interested cities. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you’d like to discuss any of these matters further. Sincerely Yours, Chris Bazar Director, Alameda County Community Development Agency Cc: EBCE Board of Directors Attachments: 1) EBCE JPA Agreement and sample resolution 2) Copy of CCE ordinance 3) PG&E Attestation form for load data authorization 4) Load size / voting shares comparision by jurisdiction March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 210 Attachment B Project Management and JPA Formation Project planning, program development and strategy support $150,000 JPA Agreement, CCE ordinance, General Counsel Services $100,000 Executive/staff salaries (initial 8 months)$400,000 Start up admininistrative costs (office rent, equipment, insurance, etc.)$150,000 TOTAL:$800,000 Technical and Energy Services Technical Feasibility Study/Comparative Analysis $175,000 Implementation Plan Development $50,000 Update operating budget; revenue modeling for finance discussions $10,000 Power Supply RFP, vendor selection and contract negotiations $50,000 Rate Design/Rate Setting $50,000 Utility Service Fees $75,000 Assistance with NEM/FIT programs, registrations and compliance $50,000 CCE Bond $100,000 TOTAL:$560,000 Communications/Customer Enrollment* Logo/Branding/Style Guide $25,000 Interactive website with 3 translations $45,000 Multilingual Collateral Design/Video $40,000 Printing $75,000 Earned and Paid Media $250,000 Community Outreach/Materials for Tabling $25,000 Customer Notifications (2 @ $1.00 each)$400,000 TOTAL:$860,000 Finance/Legal Banking and Credit Services ‐ RFP, Selection, Negotiation and Paperwork $45,000 Power Supply Contract ‐ Legal Services $75,000 TOTAL:$120,000 Regulatory/Legislative Participation in Regulatory Proceedings/Legal $50,000 Monitoring and Reporting $25,000 TOTAL:$75,000 Miscellaneous/Contingency $100,000 TOTAL:$2,515,000 *Assumes 2 notices to 200,000 customers in eligible cities and unincorporated County; includes cost of design, print and postage (1) Notes & Assumptions: 1. All costs associated with program implementation are fully recoverable through early program revenues 2. This budget provides an estimate of project hard costs and does not include internal staff time 3. Approximately $1.0 M of this budget could be covered by a thrid party line of credit put into place ~ 6 months prior to launch; pre‐revenue credit will require a  guaranty  4. This budget does not include the credit requirements for the cost of power, utility and supplier deposits, or Agency operational expenses Contra Costa County Community Choice Program DRAFT Implementation Budget (1) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 211 1   Initial  MCE  Comments  re:  Draft  Technical  Study  for  Community  Choice   Aggregation  in  Contra  Cost  County   Primary  Issues  to  Address   1.Deviation  from  the  intent  of  the  County’s  Request  For  Proposals  (RFP) The  Draft  Study  deviates  from  the  original  intent  of  the  RFP  (i.e.,  to   compare  the  risks  and  benefits  of  three  potential  CCE  options).     o The  Draft  Study  gives  disproportionate  attention  to  assessing  the feasibility  of  a  ‘Stand-­‐Alone  Contra  Costa  CCE,’  while  providing  scant   analysis  on  MCE’s  operational  program.  For  language  of  the  RFP  (see   bottom  of  p.4):   http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/43037     o Only  one  of  nine  chapters  (Chapter  7)  specifically  provides  a ‘Comparative  Analysis  of  CCE  Options’   o Example:  P.69  provides  a  list  of  East  Bay  Community  Energy’s  (EBCE) proposed  vision,  but  nothing  similar  detailing  MCE’s  current,  actual   accomplishments     2.West  Contra  Costa  communities  under-­represented  in  Draft  Study’s definition  of  ‘Local  Control’ o The  Draft  Study  misrepresents  MCE’s  governance  structure,  current Board  member  composition,  and  the  degree  of  local  control  Contra Costa  County  and  its  cities  would  exercise  through  their  voting  shares if  they  were  to  join  MCE. o Table  29  of  the  Draft  Study  should  be  revised  to  include  the  cities  of Richmond,  San  Pablo,  El  Cerrito,  Lafayette  and  Walnut  Creek  within  the “TOTAL  CONTRA  COSTA  COUNTY”  section,  instead  of  the  ‘Rest  of  MCE’ section.  Corresponding  load  and  voting  shares  should  be  adjusted  to reflect  this. 3.Contra  Costa  County  would  have  the  largest  Board  vote  on  MCE  Board o There  is  relatively  little  acknowledgment  that  with  MCE,  Contra  Costa County  and  its  largest  cities  would  be  the  largest  municipalities  within MCE’s  service  area.  Their  Board  voting  shares  would  reflect  this.  With EBCE,  Oakland,  Fremont  and  Hayward  are  all  larger. o Currently,  Walnut  Creek  holds  the  largest  vote  on  the  MCE  Board. o Currently,  the  five  Contra  Costa  cities  that  have  already  joined  MCE represent  1/3  of  the  MCE  Board  vote. o If  all  14  eligible  cities  and  the  County  were  join  MCE,  their  combined Board  vote  would  be  62%  of  the  voting  share,  a  larger  voting  share larger  than  the  rest  of  MCE’s  current  communities. o If  Contra  Costa  County  joined  MCE,  it  would  take  the  largest  voting share  on  the  Board,  representing  double  the  weight  of  any  other party. Attachment C March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 212  2     4. No  analysis  of  MCE’s    local  renewable  and  energy  projects     o MCE’s  development  of  renewable  energy  projects  within  its  service   area—and  specifically  within  Contra  Costa  County—is  missing  from   the  Draft  Study       o These  include  multiple  Feed-­‐in  Tariff  (FIT)  projects,  as  well  as  MCE’s   10.5  MW  ‘Solar  1’  project  in  Richmond,  scheduled  for  completion  in   2017.  Please  see  the  attached  list  of  MCE’s  local  projects  (i.e.,  built   within  100  miles  of  MCE’s  service  area).     o MCE’s  $1M  annual  allocation  in  Energy  Efficiency  revenue  from  the   CPUC  is  not  disclosed,  nor  is  the  Low  Income  funding  for  Energy   Efficiency  for  $3.6  M.    Both  of  these  revenue  streams  result  in  local   energy  efficiency  projects,  related  energy  cost  savings  for  customers   and  related  job  creation.     5. No  analysis  of  MCE’s  support  for  customer-­sited  solar     o MCE’s  Net  Energy  Metering  (NEM)  “cash  out”  for  local  solar  customers   goes  completely  unmentioned.    This  year,  MCE  paid  its  own  NEM   customers  over  $1,000,000  for  the  surplus  renewable  energy  they   generated.  Beneficiaries  include  cities,  schools,  businesses,  non-­‐ profits,  etc.     o MCE’s  Solar  Rebate  Program:  Partnered  with  GRID  Alternatives  to   provide  57  (so  far)  to  low-­‐income  solar  customers—many  of  whom   reside  in  Contra  Costa  County—totaling  over  $35,000.     6. No  mention  of  MCE’s  local  workforce  development     o Contracts  with  RichmondBUILD  =  $100,000+     o MCE’s  10.5  MW  ‘Solar  1’  project  in  Richmond  has  a  local  hire   requirement  ensuring  at  least  half  of  the  project’s  labor  force  must   reside  within  the  cities  of  Richmond,  San  Pablo  or  unincorporated   North  Richmond  .   o MCE  has  partnered  with  Rising  Sun  energy  Center  to  install  LED  lights   and  water-­‐saving  devices  at  multi-­‐family  buildings  in  San  Pablo  and  El   Cerrito.  Through  this  program,  Rising  Sun  has  employed  9  youths   from  both  cities  and  has  served  71  units  so  far.     o MCE’s  bank,  located  in  Walnut  Creek,  has  partnered  with  MCE  to   support  local  programs  including  an  on-­‐bill  repayment  program  for   energy  efficiency  upgrades.     7. No  mention  of  MCE’s  new  California-­based  energy  supply  and   corresponding  support  union  labor  and  in-­state  job  creation   As  of  October  2016,  MCE’s  renewable  energy  projects  have:   o Supported  more  than  2,800  California  jobs;   o Supported  2,700  union  jobs   o Created  1.2  million  union  labor  hours   March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 213  3   o Committed  $1.4  Billion  to  build  813  MW  of  new,  California-­‐based   renewable  energy  projects.  This  includes:  $723  million  for  in-­‐State   solar;  $665  million  for  in-­‐State  wind;  17.4  million  for  in-­‐State  biogas   projects.   o In  2016,  MCE  contracted  with  four  California  solar  companies  to  build   445  MW  of  new  solar  capacity.     o In  2016,  MCE  contracted  with  two  California  wind  farms  to  build  167   MW  of  new  wind  capacity.       8. Projected  job  creation  of  a  ‘Stand-­Alone  CCE’  relies  on  stable  or   declining  power  supply  market   o If  increasing  power  supply  costs,  the  PCIA  and  other  line-­‐item  charges   outside  CCA  control  change,  customer  rate-­‐savings,  projected  local  job   creation  could  be  substantially  diminished  or  eliminated.  This  should   be  disclosed.         9. Inconsistent  analysis  and  speculation  re:  PCIA  and  other  variable  bill   charges     o Footnote  4  states  the  PCIA  will  level  off  in  2018.  This  is  assumption  is   contradicted  on  pages  37,  39,  72,  82  and  elsewhere  when  the  Draft   Study  acknowledges  a  higher  future  PCIA  could  negatively  impact  rate   competitiveness.       10. Missing  items  re:  MCE  inclusion  process  &  requirements     o Page  70  of  the  Draft  Study  states  the  second  reading  of  a  city  or   county  ordinance  to  join  MCE  occurs  after  the  MCE  Board  votes  to   include  a  new  city  or  county.  Current  Policy  is  for  both  readings  of   ordinance  to  be  completed  prior  to  MCE  Board  membership  vote.     o Prospective  new  MCE  communities  also  need  to  provide  County   Assessor  data.  This  is  used  to  help  facilitate  MCE’s  Energy  Efficiency   program  and  other  customer  programs.       11. No  mention  of  collateral  requirements  for  CCA  start-­up         12. Table  ES-­5/Table  25  (‘Comparison  of  Contra  Costa  CCE  Options’)  would   benefit  from  revision  and/or  further  explanation     o Why  would  MCE  score  lower  in  the  category  of  ‘Local   Control/Governance’  than  the  other  two  options?  If  Contra  Costa   County  were  to  join  MCE,  it  would  become  the  largest  single  vote  on   MCE’s  Board.  Please  see  #3  above.     o Why  would  MCE  score  lower  in  the  category  of  ‘Local  Economic   Benefits’  than  the  other  two  options?    MCE  already  administers  a  well-­‐ established  Feed-­‐in  Tariff  (FIT);  Net  Energy  Metering  (NEM)  program;   Energy  Efficiency  Program;  Low  Income  Solar  Program;  and  supports   local  job  training  and  apprentice  programs.  These  MCE  programs  are   already  helping  to  develop  local  projects,  create  local  jobs,  and  reduce   March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 214  4   locally  generated  GHGs  in  Contra  Costa  County.  These  are  real  and   current  benefits;  why  would  they  measure  less  favorably  than  the   aspirational—and  uncertain—benefits  of  the  other  two  potential   options?       o Was  MCE’s  established  credit  profile  considered  when  comparing  the   cost  and  pace  at  which  each  CCE  option  could  deliver  local  project   developments?  This  would  allow  MCE  to  make  greater  and  quicker   local  investments  then  either  of  the  other  two  potential  CCE  options.     o  “Level  of  Effort”  includes  related  cost,  correct?    Please  state  this.     o “Program  Risks”  includes  potential  costs,  correct?  Please  state  this.     o It  is  assumed  the  Start  Up  Costs/Costs  to  Join  EBCE  would  likely  be   nothing;  on  what  is  this  expectation  based?       o Contra  Costa  County  and  its  cities  could  join  MCE  as  early  as  mid-­‐ 2017.  The  table  currently  says  “Late  2017”  -­‐  please  revise.   o Footnote  #8  states  the  “Start-­‐up  costs  incurred  by  the  County  or   others  are  likely  to  be  reimbursed  by  the  JPA.”  What  is  this   assumption  based  on?  When  would  this  be  likely  to  occur?  Please   quantify  the  anticipated  amount  of  these  start-­‐up  costs  and  state  them   in  this  section  so  they  can  be  directly  compared  to  the  other  options.     o In  the  category  of  “GHG  Reduction  Potential  Over  Forecast  Period,”   MCE  should  rank  higher,  considering  it  has  adopted  a  policy  (as   indicated  in  MCE’s  Integrated  Resource  Plan)  to  achieve  a  95%  carbon   free  content  by  2025.  The  timeline  of  the  other  two  options  is   uncertain  at  this  time.       Secondary  Issues  to  Address       1. Reference  to  a  “Contra  Costa-­Only  CCE”     o Obscures  fact  that  five  Contra  Costa  cities  are  currently  MCE   members.       o It  would  be  more  accurate  to  refer  to  a  “Partial  Contra  Costa  CCE”  or  a   “Split  Contra  Costa  CCE.”  Even  reference  to  a  “Stand-­‐Alone  CCE”   obscures  the  fact  that  the  County’s  service  area  will  be  split  if  the   jurisdictions  evaluated  in  this  study  form  a  separate  program.             2. Failure  to  identify  MCE’s  five  Contra  Costa  communities  by  name     o Although  the  cities  are  mentioned  in  an  early  footnote,  there  are   numerous  points  at  which  the  failure  to  name  these  cities  obscures   the  fact  that  a  substantial  portion  of  Contra  Costa  County  is  already   served  by  MCE.       3. Three  year  phase-­in  of  ‘Stand-­Alone  CCE’  underemphasized     o If  the  remaining  Contra  Costa  jurisdictions  form  their  own  CCA,  some   customers  will  not  receive  service  until  2020  at  the  earliest.       March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 215  5   4. The  ability  of  MCE  member-­communities  to  combine  their  weighted   voting  share  would  be  more  accurately  referred  to  as  “consolidation,”   than  dilution  (p.67).     o As  the  Draft  Report  indicates,  all  of  Napa  County’s  municipalities  are   represented  by  a  single  MCE  Board  member.  As  such,  the  City  of   Calistoga  is  represented  by  a  much  larger  weighted  Board  vote  than  it   would  otherwise.       5. Please  reference  “MCE”     o MCE  is  referred  to  throughout  the  Draft  Study  as  “MCE  Clean  Energy”   and  “Marin  Clean  Energy  (MCE)”  –  neither  is  currently  accurate.     o MCE  acronym  not  included  among  list  of  acronyms  (both  EBCE  and   PG&E  are  included  here)     o Suggested  revision:  Refer  to  “MCE”  with  a  footnote  describing  origins   in  Marin  County,  and  now  providing  service  to  all  of  Napa,  Benicia,   and  the  following  five  cities  within  Contra  Costa  County:  Richmond,   San  Pablo,  El  Cerrito,  Lafayette,  and  Walnut  Creek.           Outstanding  Questions       1. Did  MRW  contact  City  staff  in  Richmond,  San  Pablo,  El  Cerrito,  Lafayette   or  Walnut  Creek  to  learn  more  about  their  experience  working  with   MCE,  or  the  service  MCE  has  provided  to  their  ratepayers?     o If  not,  MCE  kindly  requests  MRW  do  so.  We  are  happy  to  provide   names  and  contact  information  for  these  purposes.       2. Were  CCA  collateral  cash  on  hand  and  posting  requirements  considered   in  the  start-­up  and  operating  costs  for  a  new  CCE?     o If  not,  please  revise  to  include  these  costs.       3. What  are  the  anticipated  funding  and  credit  sources  for  the  proposed   local  build  out  in  year  1  (p.33  of  Draft  Study)?   o Who  pays  the  upfront  costs  for  these  construction  projects?  Who   builds  and  manages  them?     o Was  MCE’s  established  credit  profile  considered  anywhere  within  the   Draft  Study?    Bonds  cannot  be  issued  without  a  credit  profile,  and  it   will  take  time  for  newly  launching  CCAs  to  establish  this.       4. Diablo  Canyon  was  referenced  but  PG&E’s  new  proposed  “Clean  Energy   Charges”  to  be  imposed  on  CCA  customers  appear  to  not  have  been   factored  into  pricing  estimates?     o If  not,  please  revise  to  include  these  costs.     March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 216 1 Addendum to MCE Comments re: Draft Technical Study for Community Choice Aggregation in Contra Cost County Outstanding questions to consider 1.With regard to the Draft Study’s rate comparison, what are the specific cost of power inputs (conventional, renewable and carbon free) and other programmatic cost inputs (administration and staffing, insurance, regulatory compliance, financing costs, building occupancy, etc.) used in projecting the customer rate comparisons? 2.Have the Draft Study’s cost/rate assumptions been updated since PG&E’s rate change on January 1, 2017, and the corresponding increase to the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA)? 3.How would local build out of renewable energy projects be accomplished in year 1 given the need for permits, interconnection approvals, site control, financing procurement, hiring and development? 4.Which entity would provide funds or financing for local build out, and what would be the total costs of financing prior to 2027? 5.Why are GHG allowance purchases included in the report given that none of the three scenarios contemplates point source emissions from the CCA? Additional issues to address 1.The Draft Study’s pricing for local renewable projects in Contra Costa County does not reflect current market conditions. The Draft Study estimates the generation cost for local solar to be $68/MWh. This estimate is substantially below the actual pricing MCE has encountered while developing local solar projects in the County. At this time, MCE has completed two 1 MW solar projects through its Feed-in Tariff (FIT) in Richmond, and has another 10.5 MW solar project under construction in the City. The range in cost for the FIT projects has been $136-120/MWh, and about $85-92/MWh for the larger project. For this reason, it would be helpful to clarify whether the Draft Study’s estimated generation costs for local development include the following: Land acquisition costs Brownfield remediation costs (where applicable) PG&E interconnection costs Union/Prevailing wage costs Financing costs Attachment D March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 217 2 If these costs were omitted from the Draft Study’s original estimate, please provide a revised estimate that includes them. 2. The PPT summary of the Draft Study (presented in Concord at the January 10 City Council meeting) identifies a ‘New Contra Costa CCE’ as having the “Greatest potential for local economic development.” But an operational program could make greater and quicker local investments, due to its established credit profile and operational programs. MCE’s established credit profile will allow it to issue bonds and access municipal interest rates quicker than a new program that would have to develop its credit worthiness over time. This would allow MCE to develop local projects and create local construction jobs in Contra Costa County more rapidly and cost-effectively than a new or emerging program. Additionally, MCE’s operational FIT, NEM, and Energy Efficiency programs have already begun catalyzing local economic development in Contra Costa County. Examples include the following:  In 2016, MCE offered $250,000 in NEM ‘cash-out’ payments to solar customers in Richmond, San Pablo and El Cerrito;  MCE provided $85,000 in funding to the Rising Sun Energy Center to train San Pablo and El Cerrito youth in energy efficiency installations in 2016;  MCE has supported RichmondBUILD’s job training academy through contract s worth approximately $100,000;  MCE’s two operational solar FIT projects supported 23 local jobs, 85% of which were minority, and 30% of which had a history with the justice system;  MCE paid the West Contra Costa School District (WCCUSD) $28,000 for the surplus renewable energy generated by the District’s solar array in 2015;  MCE has provided $35,400 in solar rebates to low-income energy customers in Contra Costa County. Please consider including this relevant data in the final version of the County’s Technical Study. 3. Draft Study does not address risk of customer confusion if separate CCA programs operate within the same County If two separate CCA programs operate within the County, there is a substantial risk of customer confusion. This risk is particularly acute where city borders are not contiguous, or where unincorporated areas are surrounded on many sides by incorporated jurisdictions . The City of Richmond, for example, has pockets of unincorporated areas within it. These include communities in El Sobrante, North Richmond and elsewhere. Similarly, the Walnut Knolls neighborhood of Walnut Creek is outside the City’s incorporated borders, and the unincorporated community of Kensington borders El Cerrito to its west and north. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 218 3 While providing service to Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Lafayette and Walnut Creek, MCE staff has frequently encountered residents who thought they lived within one of these incorporated jurisdictions, only to discover they live just outside them. Questions often arise when a group of homes receives notices in the mail about MCE service, while neighboring homes—sometimes those directly across the street—do not. If two separate CCA program were to operate under these circumstances, it would likely exacerbate the challenge of helping customers understand rate comparisons to PG&E, as well as programmatic offerings like energy efficiency and rebates for low-income solar installations. This would introduce a barrier for customers to make informed decisions about their energy options. In its current form, the Draft Study fails to address this issue. 4. Study does not address risk and delay costs (measured in potential greenhouse gas emissions reductions) of waiting to form or join a new CCA, rather than joining MCE’s operational program. According to its Climate Action Plan (CAP), Contra Costa County has a goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be 15% below 2005 levels (e.g., reduce 213,240 MTCO2e). If the County had enrolled in MCE at the start of 2015, electricity-related GHG emissions would have dropped by 57,972 MTCO2e compared to 2005. This assumes a 10% drop out rate in the first year (roughly the average for Contra Costa communities currently within MCE’s service area), with 89% of customers choosing MCE’s default 50% renewable Light Green service, and 1% choosing MCE’s voluntary 100% renewable Deep Green service. Under these conditions, the County would achieve 27% of its overall 2020 CAP emissions target within the first year of service. These figures could be increased further by encouraging more energy consumers to opt-up to MCE’s 100% renewable Deep Green service and eliminate the GHG emissions associated with their electricity usage. On the other hand, if the County forms or joins a new CCA program, these levels of GHG reductions will not be possible until the new program is operational and enrollment rates have met those of MCE. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 219 Comments Regarding Contra Costa CCE Technical Study Submitted by IBEW Local 1245 As the largest utility union in California, IBEW 1245 has been actively involved in Community Choice Aggregation for the better part of a decade, and we have been working diligently to ensure that any new CCAs in California live up to the promises made by their proponents. We have carefully reviewed the “technical study” prepared by MRW, EDRG and Sage, and our feedback is outlined below. We noticed that much if this report is strikingly similar to the report that MRW and EDRG compiled for Alameda County. As members of the Alameda CCA steering committee, our feedback and objections to that study have already been submitted and discussed at length with representatives from EDRG, but since we are seeing much of the same flawed application in the Contra Costa report, it bears repeating, so for the benefit of the Board of Supervisors, City Councils and leadership in Contra Costa, we will once again identify the specific components that strike us as erroneous or misguided. Our primary concerns with this report relate to the cost projections (and the related jobs analysis) and the promises of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. As detailed below, the claims in this report -- which state that a CCA in Contra Costa could reduce GHG emissions by 50% within the specified cost parameters equal to or lower than PG&E -- are largely flawed and fail to take into account the realities of the current energy market. COST PROJECTIONS We take issue with much of the power cost projections included in this report. As any expert in the field can tell you, future power costs are difficult to forecast due to constantly changing dynamics and unanticipated factors, and projecting past the next 7 to 8 years is essentially impossible. We have seen previous estimates fail repeatedly. For example, Enron et. al. banked on power costs rising on average 20% every five years after deregulation, as did the banks, which is why they loaned Enron and many other Independent Power Producers hundreds of millions of dollars to buy/sell power and build plants in CA. After a five-year period from 1996-2000 produced a 30+% increase in electricity costs, electricity costs fell sharply between 2001-2004, due to a number of unanticipated factors, including the dot.com bust, aftermath of energy crisis, etc. This is evidence that there is simply no way to accurately provide long-term assessments on energy costs in realistic terms. Attachment E March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 220 This report makes a false and deceptive prediction that PG&E’s generation costs will continue to go up. While it is accurate to assume that PG&E rates will continue to increase over time, the generation component – the “apples to apples” comparison – fluctuates greatly, and is actually going down at present. So while this report suggests that Contra Costa can move forward and succeed as a CCA, the Executive Summary warns that electricity rates are expected to be close to or the same as PG&E rates, thereby undermining every other conclusion made in the study. With so many factors contributing to the cost of electricity, any estimates past 2024 are merely guesses, and the fact that this report endeavors to offer projections out to 2038 is reason to be suspect, for the following reasons: • Fuel (natural gas) remains a big factor on electricity costs. Lower natural gas prices amounts to a significant reduction in electricity costs in CA. We are experiencing that right now, and expect it to continue at below-average for several more years due to a surplus of natural gas on the market. Eventually this cost will rise, increasing the cost of all electricity. • Renewable energy development is a highly subsidized market, particularly solar. But these subsidies are not permanent, and are absolutely going to change at the Federal level. Federal tax breaks are by far the biggest subsidy, making that cost of newly developed renewables higher, and potentially significantly higher, over time. As an established, large-scale utility, PG&E enjoys many large contracts of extremely low-cost (3 and 4 cents a kWh) wind and solar power. For this reason, PG&E’s renewable portfolio will be lower cost than any start-up CCA would be able to secure, and that will be true for many years. PG&E will be able to re-new these contracts at good (but higher) costs after the current PPA expires. • In regards to Table ES-2, reliance on the NEM and new rooftop solar generation is completely misplaced. The NEM is shifting costs from solar customers to the rest of the PG&E (IOU) customers, effectively allowing wealthier customers to have their electricity subsidized by less affluent customers. This will be reversed in 2018 – the low income advocates and consumer advocates know what is going on, and are already lobbying the CPUC on the issue. Depending on exactly how the costs for solar were calculated, Table ES-2 is almost certainly wrong. • This study claims that much of the power will come from Hydroelectric power – which was clearly a way to demonstrate a reduction in cost, as hydro is relatively inexpensive. However, the report does not specify where all this hydro will come from. The fact is, there is no hydro left in CA – it is all already conscribed. In fact, there is almost no Hydro left in the entire Northwest – same situation. There are no new large dams being constructed anywhere in this region. Dams are actually being torn down in Northern California, reducing slightly the amount of hydro power generated. There is a very limited amount of BC Hydro currently available, and it comes at a very high price. A hydro-dependent CCA in Contra Costa will not lower costs, and there will be very little power available. By comparison, PG&E already has quite a bit of hydro, and will get close to 20% of its power from its hydro facilities this year, at an estimated average of 4.5 cents per kW/hr. That is extremely inexpensive. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 221 • Figure ES 2 assumes that the PCIA remains relatively low for the next five years, and then fades away after 10 years. However, the future of the PCIA is unknown, and therefore this projection is false. The PCIA is the device used by the CPUC to assure that future power costs contracted by PG&E for customers that subsequently leave to join a CCA are fairly distributed to those customers. In other words, customers can’t get out of paying for power that has been bought for them by joining a CCA so the CCA assesses this charge monthly. The PCIA is set annually and fluctuates year by year. By design, the PCIA will increase as more customers leave PG&E. At some point, customers would go without paying, but that point has not been determined, and will be different for each group of customers that leave to join a CCA based on when they left. This means that Marin Clean Energy’s (MCE) original customers should expect to stop paying a PCIA at some point. But MCE customers in San Pablo that joined the CCA five years later would continue to pay the PCIA. So Figure ES 2 is inherently flawed. • Figure ES 2 also does not take into account the impending Diablo Canyon closure settlement. Whether this is a separate assessment OR included in the PCIA is not determined, but every PG&E customer from 1985 (when Diablo Canyon’s first unit went into service) until 2025 (when Diablo Canyon’s second unit will shut down) will pay to help decommission the plant. Every customer has paid a small portion of this already, but more cost will inevitably be added to the bills. This cost is not reflected in the estimates provided in this report, and this oversight is disconcerting. The jobs analysis provided in this report is predicated mostly on lower energy costs creating a small rent (economic version) and giving smaller business employers the opportunity to invest that savings in the form of more hiring. It also includes increased job creation by the County CCA, if it decides to build renewable energy generation in County. Both of these factors are highly unreliable. As we note above, there is no indication that there will be a substantive difference between PG&E and CoCo CCA future power costs – and without cost savings, there’s no real benefit to employment, and no funds left for hiring. We also must underscore that if there are good locations for solar and wind development in the County, PG&E or some other utility will develop those areas, regardless as to whether a CCA is operating in the County. Renewable energy development is marching up the San Joaquin Valley as the cheaper land is eaten up by new renewable plants. We agree with the study location criteria that there are a number of very good sites for solar and a few for wind in the County. When they become cost competitive, those sites will be developed, and County residents will benefit, but the CCA is absolutely not necessary for this to happen. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This report estimates GHG emissions reductions of 50% below PG&E, largely based on the availability of hydro power to supply 40% to 60% of the County CCA’s load. This could possibly be viable during the first year of operation, when the number of customers is minimal, but is simply not sustainable over the long term because, as previously outlined above, there simply isn’t enough inexpensive hydro on the market. The only other way that the CoCo CCA could possible reach 50% less GHG emissions than PG&E would involve the use of Renewable Energy Credits or RECs (as Marin Clean Energy does). However, the March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 222 enactment of AB 1110 -- which will force CCAs to fully disclose of their GHG emissions portfolio – means that “greenwashing” with RECs is no longer an option. We also observed that the comparisons to PG&E in this report appear to be dated and disingenuous. When we look at the most recent data available from 2016, PG&E has reached 32% RPS; it receives between 20%-23% of its power annually from Diablo Canyon; and this year was an above-average hydro year, so it will receive 15%-18% from hydro. Aggregate these GHG-free sources, and PG&E is providing at least 70% of its power from GHG-free sources this year. Since it uses natural gas for the remainder, PG&E has an exceedingly low GHG emissions rate. The Technical study appears to have used 2013 or 2014 PG&E information, each of which were very low hydro production years. Additionally, in 2013, Diablo Canyon had two outages, resulting is far less power from nuclear than usual. Plus, PG&E RPS was in the low 20s during these years. Even if we were to look at 2015, the lowest hydro year on record at 8%, PG&E was still at 56% GHG-free power. Lastly, as PG&E loses load (which it has and will continue to do), the amount of GHG-emitting sources will be reduced, and the percentage of their RPS and other non-GHG emission sources will increase. For example, this years’ 70% GHG-free would actually amount to 75% in three years, due to decreased load but the same amount of power procured. The big driver of this reduction of load is Distributive Generation and the Alameda CCA – they have more load in the County then all the rest of the existing CCAs put together. PG&E will be supplying less and less power annually, and that makes their GHG emissions rate drop even lower. Assuming that Contra Costa’s CCA can get 35% RPS and exclude nuclear, the County would have to procure almost 100% non-GHG power or 60+% of their power from Hydro, which simply is not available. The only way to procure this amount of hydro would involve the County outbidding other existing contracts, making the cost projections entirely unachievable. In closing, our analysis concludes that there is simply no way to achieve both the GHG emissions reductions at the costs that are projected in this report. We urge the Board of Supervisors, City Councils and decision-makers to closely evaluate the numbers presented in this report, put them into the context of the present energy market, and get a more realistic interpretation of what a CCA could feasibly accomplish in the County. Questions pertaining to these comments may be directed to IBEW 1245 staffer Hunter Stern, hls5@ibew1245.com or (415) 517-0318. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 223 Print Community Choice Energy Draft Technical Study Draft Comments - Submission #14843 Date Submitted: 12/1/2016 Please use this form to provide us with your comments regarding the Community Choice Energy Draft Techinical Study, ask questions, or to be added to the e-mail list for Community Choice Energy Please provide us with the following information if you would like us to contact you: Name: Jim Moita Phone: (925) 788-9571 Community Name Clayton Please provide the name of the city or community you live in Email*: jmi-acorn@sbcglobal.net Comments We have a 1 MW rooftop project ready to go on line in Brentwood today atop Acorn Self Storage located at 6900 Lone Tree Way. I would like to invite any Supervisor or staff member to look at the project. I believe it will be very informative from a solar developer perspective. PG&E does not pay enough to make the project feasible - so it sits. And, in 2019 the 30% federal tax credit expires. In 2019 all of the suppliers will raise their prices. I am hopeful that Contra Costa County acts quickly to join MCE or start a community choice entity. If you wait too long you will have blocked the job and green power growth you want. Please expedite. If you have any question please contact me. Thank you for making a green future a reality, Jim Moita Page 1 of 2 1/5/2017http://www.cccounty.us/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/14843 Attachment F March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 224 *You will be added to the project e-mail list unless you check the box below. We do not share your e-mail addresses and you can opt out of e-mails at any time. Do NOT add me to the project e-mail list Page 2 of 2 1/5/2017http://www.cccounty.us/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/14843 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 225 Attachment G March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 226 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 227 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 228 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 229 Serving Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Francisco counties 2530 San Pablo Ave., Suite I, Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel. (510) 848-0800 Email: info@sfbaysc.org January 31, 2017 President Glover and Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 RE: Community Choice Aggregation Dear President Glover and Supervisors: The Sierra Club is concerned with the decision made by the Board of Supervisors at its January 17, 2017 meeting regarding the exclusion of considering a standalone Community Choice program for Contra Costa County. While the Sierra Club does not have a preference for any of the three options outlined in the technical study, we are interested in evaluating all three options through a transparent process with the public and incorporated cities in order to determine the best option. Therefore, we urge you to reconsider the standalone option. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter, and we look forward to working with you in ensuring Contra Costa County and its cities are served by a Community Choice program that reflects the values of the residents and businesses it serves. Sincerely, Luis Amezcua David McCoard Co-Chair Co-Chair Energy and Climate Committee Energy and Climate Committee Attachment H March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 230 Attachment I March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 231 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 232 Scott J. Rafferty, Esq. 1913 Whitecliff Court Walnut Creek CA 94596 (202)-380-5525 rafferty@gmail.com January 25, 2017 Board of Supervisors for Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez CA 94553 via electronic mail Re: Establishing a County-Only Clean Energy Authority Dear Supervisors: I write to express concern with the Board’s apparent direction that the staff limit further consideration of establishing a community choice energy (CCE) authority to serve the unincorporated areas of the county and those municipalities that elect to join (hereinafter, “county authority”). The studies conducted by staff and its consultant1, combined with the input provided by Marin Clean Energy (MCE) and other parties, leave many critical questions unanswered. For this reason, it is premature to deliver the bulk of our county either to MCE or to the authority in formation by the Alameda County government. Unless further answers to the concerns and questions stated below show otherwise, the proposed county authority will prove to be more effective in achieving our county’s policy goals, more economically efficient and accountable, and more resilient in the face of external risks. The direction to limit consideration of the county-only authority flies in the face of one of the most critical conclusions of the three consulting firms. Each of these firms concludes unequivocally that local economic benefits of a county authority are the “great- est” of the alternatives presented. Presentation, at 18. The comparison chart finds no difference in the relative effectiveness of the three alternatives in achieving the environ- mental goal of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. The chart concedes that any increment- al start-up costs of a county-authority would be “low.” The consultants note that an expansion of MCE could saddle Contra Costa with “expensive legacy contracts,” but fail to quantify the impact on our ratepayers. Presentation, 20. Despite these negatives, the consultants persist it arguing that the “program risks” of going it alone would be high. They provide little quantitative support or specificity as to why they believe this might be the case. 1 Three consulting firms produced a draft report dated November 30,.2016 (http://64.166.146.245/docs/2017/BOS/20170117_872/28354_Attachment%20A_Draft%20Technical%2 0Study%201Dec2016.pdf). The staff made a presentation dated January 17, 2017 (http://64.166.146.245/docs/2017/BOS/20170117_872/28354_Attachment%20D_BOS%20CCE%20Pres entation.pdf) (hereinafter, “Presentation”). Most of the pages of this presentation have a heading with the logo of one of the consulting firms, MRW. Attachment J March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 233 Rafferty to Board of Supervisors, County Clean Energy Authority, page 2 The Board’s movement toward limiting further consideration of a county-specific authority ignores the largest risk of all – that a multi-county authority will not be subject to effective supervision, leading to economic inefficiency and lack of public control over policy. A confab of 35 elected officials from four different counties meeting for a few hours nine times a year can do little to influence, let alone regulate, actions taken by the management, which this Board would place in charge of more than a quarter billion dollars in funds annually collected from ratepayers. Even though Contra Costa county would comprise well over half of MCE’s load, it may be difficult for county experts and residents to understand or influence its governance. MCE board meetings are an hour drive from our county seat (twice as long by public transportation), and even more remote for most residents.2 A THE COUNTY AUTHORITY CAN BE MORE EFFICIENCT AND ACCOUNTABLE. Publicly owned utilities lack the market discipline of private ownership, the disclosure enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and most of the regulatory supervision provided by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The Board needs to substitute a governance structure that will ensure that the authority is driven by economic efficiency and fidelity to the policy goals that the Board sets. Without effective political supervision, management may have incentives to increase its scale and geographic footprint without regard to the interests of its customers and constituents. The structure assumed for a multi-county entity may combine the worst of both private and public governance. Management will report to a complex and changing board of directors potentially growing to include almost three dozen political actors from multiple counties with very different climactic, economic, and policy conditions. The Board may change every time any of the member jurisdictions has an election, resignation, or vacancy. There may be little continuity and, more critically, no single regulator focused exclusively on the performance and planning objectives set forth by the management. In the case of an Alameda-Contra Costa entity, the consultants note (Presentation, 21), we would be “small fish” in a larger pond dominated by Oakland and Hayward. But the larger concern is that no governing body can effectively control or even scrutinize decisions of the management when it is comprised of 30-35 elected officials delegated from as many different jurisdictions By contrast, this Board has staggered elections and a record of continuity. It has the capacity to delegate to a single expert. This expert would have the capacity to review management plans critically and to provide direction subject to review by the Board. A single-county regulator would be the most economical solution, as he or she would retain 2 Google maps advises leaving Martinez at 6:05 by car of 5:12pm by transit to reach the 7pm meeting in San Rafael. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 234 Rafferty to Board of Supervisors, County Clean Energy Authority, page 3 staff or consultants only as necessary. In short, the Board would separate the managerial functions of the authority from its regulation - something that MCE has talked about doing, but never implemented.3 Municipalities participating in a joint powers authority for our county would be well-advised to delegate regulatory supervision to this Board and the regulator it appoints. In designing an appropriate structure for a county clean energy authority, our Transportation Authority (CCTA) provides a point of departure.4 Unlike most utility districts, CCTA is appointed, not elected. Like every clean energy authority in California other than MCE, it is confined to a single county. However, the Board has limited repre- sentation on CCTA, which is a federation with representation from ten cities and two special districts. The lack of unified direction reflects CCTA’s need to “balance” the interests of different localities, which also justifies the strict allocation of funds among regions of the county. By contrast, residents of central and east Contra Costa county generally have common objectives with regard to clean energy. In contrast to road repairs, there will likely be a consensus that some areas in the county are more appropri- ate for the development of non-rooftop alternative energy generation. The employment impacts are county-wide (but not as broad as MCE’s potential footprint). The electric rate structure is uniform within the proposed area, but very different from Marin County and the parts of east Contra Costa County that MCE already serves. These circumstances confirm the need for regulation and political supervision by the Board. (Municipalities participating in a joint powers authority would be well-advised to delegate to the county.) B. SEPARATE COUNTY AUTHORITIES ARE LIKELY TO BE MORE INNOVATIVE AND RESILIENT. The consultants’ suggestions that a county authority will entail “effort,” “risk,” and “substantial resources” (e.g.,Presentation at 19) are vague and fundamentally inconsistent with their conclusion that there would be little added start-up cost. If Contra Costa acceded to MCE or an Alameda joint power authority, there would be 14 new county and municipal directors, each requiring staff in order to make any well-informed decision. The salary of an expert regulator reporting to this Board is almost certainly less than any reasonable cost allocation based on those commitments. Constituents of both MCE and new authorities in Alameda and Contra Costa will benefit if their aggregators compete and benchmark against each other. In contrast to a utility based on shared facilities (e.g., power distribution, water, or wastewater), there are few economies of scale associated with generating renewable energy and aggregating 3 The 2014 implementation plan provided (at 12): “MCE may also establish an ‘Energy Commission’ formed of Board-selected designees. The Energy Commission would have responsibility for evaluating various issues that may affect MCE and its customers, including rate setting, and would provide analytical support and recommendations to the Board in these regards.” 4 CCTA was created by referendum, and is not a joint powers authority. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 235 Rafferty to Board of Supervisors, County Clean Energy Authority, page 4 energy demand. The existence of multiple authorities will encourage innovation, identify alternative practices, and highlight both successes and failures. By contrast, consolida- tion could reduce efficiency by creating a single, large public monopoly with no peers. The merged entity may blame its own shortcomings on external risks. The Board should avoid this temptation to eliminate the transparency that multiple entities would create. This consideration is critical, because all clean energy authority face significant external risks that are probably increasing. Federal policy may become more favorable to fossil fuels, and state support for clean energy development may be curtailed. Hydropower is increasingly variable. Locally produced clean energy substitutes for fuels that are subject to national and global market pricing. If MCE or another established entity clearly has the best strategy for addressing these risks, it can be emulated. But where alternative approaches may have merit, newly formed authorities for Alameda and Contra Costa can try them as well. Finally, a number of allied county authorities acting in concert will likely have more political influence to support clean energy at the state level. MCE wants credit for $4.6m in subsidies from the CPUC for energy development (that have already been fully committed to programs in Richmond or outside Contra Costa). The CPUC has made clear that it will not increase grants to MCE in proportion to the increase of its customer base.5 New county authorities in Alameda and Contra Costa may be better placed to lobby their legislators to encourage similar grants than that the single Marin-based entity has been in persuading regulators to increase the subsidies that it alone receives. C. THE COUNTY AUTHORITY CAN BE MORE TRANSPARENT AND MORE EFFECTIVE IN PROMOTING COUNTY POLICY GOALS. I accept MCE’s criticism that the Board’s consultants have provided "scant analysis of MCE's operational program," and "no analysis" of MCE's local renewable program, customer-sited solar, job creation, and other benefits. But MCE does not dispute the consultants’ warning that it has “expensive legacy contracts.” MCE also fails to provide much insight into its forward-looking plan, which may have been changed by the accession of Walnut Creek and Lafayette (and would be further changed if the rest of the county joined). MCE has no financial disclosures on file with the SEC, since it is not a public company, nor the IRS, since it is not a public charity. MCE attempts to comply with the Brown Act,6 but basic information (such as the geographical distribution of load and voting shares) can be difficult to locate on its website. Although MCE provides some 5 CPUC has rejected MCE’s suggestion that its energy efficiency budget be increased proportionally to the expansion of its customer base. Agenda ID #14791, modifying D.14-10-046, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/ PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M159/K757/159757199.PDF#page=11 Conclusions 1 and 3 6 As of Jan. 23, 2017, the link for the agenda packet of the Jan. 19, 2017 meeting was broken. Screenshots are on file. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 236 Rafferty to Board of Supervisors, County Clean Energy Authority, page 5 data to the CPUC, it is not subject to rate case regulation. Management effective decides its own revenue requirement and designs the rates it recovers from each customer class. A county-specific authority could also be more responsive to the economic needs of Contra Costa’s middle class. Some MCE directors represent jurisdictions with average household incomes that are more than double that for Contra Costa County.7 Generally, MCE mirrors PG&E rates, but the rates and baselines for much of Marin and West Contra Costa County differ significantly from the warmer areas of central and east Contra Costa that are involved in this proposal.8 As the consultants’ sensitivity analysis notes, there are scenarios where CCE rates may increase and significantly exceed those that would have been available had the customer remained with PG&E. In such a circumstance, Contra Costa policy may require rate designs that provide some relief to working families; wealthier jurisdictions may have a different view. MCE management has also recently committed to provide concessions to retain large business customers. PG&E cannot implement such potentially regressive rates with careful review by the CPUC, from which MCE is immune. By preserving its authority over a county-only authority, this Board can ensure that rates paid by residents in Contra Costa are progressive and cost-based. D. MCE HAS COMMITTED ITSELF NOT TO UPDATE ITS BUSINESS PLAN TO CONSIDER OUR COUNTY’S LOCAL ECONOMIC NEEDS AND POLICY PRIORITIES. It may be a particularly inopportune time to consider joining MCE. Last week, MCE filed its quadrennial business plan with the CPUC, following a schedule that it has known for some time. Throughout this business plan, MCE stresses the divergent characteristics of its five non-contiguous service areas (Marin, Napa, Benicia, West Contra Costa, and Walnut Creek/Lafayette). It also emphasizes its “competitive advantage” over PG&E because “MCE’s programs take a flexible approach to the uniquely local characteristics.”9 [emphasis added] The business plan makes no mention of the pending discussions regarding Contra Costa County and contains no data regarding any part of the county that MCE does not already serve. Yet, the proposed accession would almost double MCE’s size, as measured by load. In a related application, MCE reveals that it expects to escape any CPUC review of the impact of the proposed accession. Remarkably, it again makes no mention of the negotiations with our County to double its size. But MCE does propose that any enlargement to the service area occur without revision to its business plan in any respect. 7 E.g., Ross average family income $200,833 v. Contra Costa $95,083. 8 https://www.pge.com/nots/rates/PGECZ_90Rev.pdf 9 Business plan at 21. https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/EE- BusinessPlan2017_20160105_filing.pdf#page=21 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 237 Rafferty to Board of Supervisors, County Clean Energy Authority, page 6 MCE anticipates that including new communities will generally not require a reconsideration of the logic or fundamental approach articulated in its Business Plan. However, updating the Business Plan to reflect a newly included community would require considerable administrative work through an application filing and a resulting proceeding.10 Instead, MCE proposes that, after any expansion, it would file an “advice letter,” with no more than a “current service area map with associated market characterization informa- tion to reflect any new communities.” (The CPUC may not approve this approach, which would allow its staff to increase subsidy allocations to MCE with minimal review.) While I do not question the motives of MCE management, the proposal (if adopted by the CPUC) could place MCE in the odd position of being forced to tell this Board that it could not consider any changes based the economic needs or policy decisions of Contra Costa County. Doing so would be inconsistent with the CPUC-approved business plan, which is based on “unique local characteristics” of other communities. CONCLUSION A gathering of 30-35 elected officials from multiple counties with different climates, different demographics, and different policy preferences cannot effectively govern a utility. Such a diffuse governing body cannot effectively promote environment- al and economic objectives, or reconcile the trade-offs that they inevitably entail. I fully respect MCE’s success as a pioneer of community choice. However, unless MCE or the consultants provide a more compelling justification, or offer proposals to mitigate concerns about public accountability, a multicounty authority does not appear consistent with the public interest. Instead, this Board should (1) facilitate the creation of a Contra Costa-only community choice aggregator and (2) recruit an expert to regulate its business plans, rates, and practices, always subject to ultimate review by the Board itself. Sincerely, Scott J. Rafferty 10 Application at 27. https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/01-17-17-MCE-EE- Application-with-Verfication.pdf#page=27 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 238 Attachment K March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 239 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 240 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 241 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 242 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 243 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 244 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 245 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 246 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 247 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 248 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 249 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 250 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 251 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 252 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 253 1 Summary of Comments and Responses Regarding the CCE Technical Study in Contra Costa County The following is a summary by topic of Draft Technical Study comments and County staff responses based on communications received through the on-line CCE survey posted on the County’s website from December 2016 to January 2017 and from MCE, IBEW, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance, and several individuals in Contra Costa County. Responses are provided within the limitations of the Study scope and existing information concerning CCE programs that are in early stages of development . TOPIC AREA COMMENTS RESPONSE MCE/EBCE Program Options Inadequate information about MCE’s program and accomplishments The scope of the Technical Study focuses on the potential of a new CCCo-based CCE program along with a high-level comparison with two other CCE program options – MCE and EBCE. Only one of these three program options – MCE – is currently operational, thus limiting a detailed program-level comparison of the three CCE program options evaluated in the Study. MCE has indicated its willingness to provide more detailed presentations of its programs to the County and interested cities in advance of their membership deadline of May 31, 2017. Need more information about East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) EBCE is in the early phases of formation and is not yet operational. EBCE’s JPA Agreement is attached to the Technical Study as an appendix. In addition, staff requested and received a letter from EBCE outlining the steps to join EBCE, if that is of interest to CCCo jurisdictions. A key element of EBCE’s program is creation of a local development business plan which will be expanded to include new communities who join their JPA by June 30, 2017. Governance Concern about effectiveness of large, politically diverse and geographically dispersed Boards This issue was raised by commenters as a potential disadvantage for CCEs that represent a large service territory with political differences with regards to rate sensitivity, environmental focus, and labor policies. Several commenters indicated that a CCCo focused program would be better able to achieve consensus and provide oversight over a smaller, more geographically and politically similar service territory. In both the MCE and EBCE options, new member jurisdictions will be offered a seat on the governing Board, with the potential for consolidation/vote by proxy if desired in MCE’s program. Request for clarification about how CCCo County and cities “stack up” relative to size and This issue has been further clarified in the Final Study. Currently, the 5 Contra Costa communities in MCE represent ~14% of the voting share on MCE’s board. If all the Attachment M March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 254 2 voting share in MCE and EBCE programs remaining Contra Costa communities and the unincorporated County join MCE, Contra Costa would represent 61% of the voting share on MCE’s board. If the unincorporated area and the 14 cities not currently served by MCE were to join EBCE, these 15 jurisdictions would represent 56% of the Board seats on EBCE’s Board of Directors and 36% of the electrical load served by EBCE. Local Impacts Request for more detailed information regarding local jobs, local build out and economic impacts of each option Chapter 5 of the Technical Study is devoted to this topic and responds to many comments submitted. Many details concerning specific timing and siting of local renewable generation projects, and labor policies and impacts associated with such projects, will remain unknown until such time as a decision is made regarding implementation of a particular CCE program. The Study went as far as it could to identify local economic impacts within the constraints of available information. Projected timing of new local projects (i.e. within 2 years) is overly optimistic and doesn’t reflect credit requirements The study does not assume that the CCE will be developing power projects right away. It may, however, partner with private sector developers and/or sign power purchase agreements (PPA) that result in new local power development for the CCE program. Cost Projections Cost of power and renewable energy pricing assumptions are too low and unreliable after 2024 The Technical Study was updated to better reflect current market conditions for local renewable projects. (Specifically, costs were increased by $30/MWh). Second, while pricing further into the future is of course uncertain, common assumptions were made with the CCE and PG&E so as to minimize any comparative impacts. PCIA/exit fee estimates are inconsistent/flawed The PCIA was estimated using the current formula with inputs to that formula that are fundamentally consistent with the PG&E and CCE rate forecasts. In addition, the actual 2017 PCIA was used. As noted in the Technical Study, there continues to be considerable regulatory uncertainty concerning the future of the PCIA. The CPUC is currently studying the method used to calculate the PCIA and may make changes. What are the assumptions underlying PG&E costs over time? MRW relied upon PG&E’s current and past ERRA filings, its long-term procurement plan, its renewable procurement plan, the Diablo Canyon retirement application, and its most recent General Rate Case application for PG&E-specific data. Underlying natural gas and power market prices are from NYMEX futures, the California Energy Commission, and the USDOE’s Energy Information Administration. GHG Reductions Ability to reduce GHGs to the extent considered in the Study while remaining cost competitive seems unrealistic. What are the assumptions that support this? The energy supply scenarios modeled in the Study, and the estimated GHG reductions associated with these scenarios, are similar to energy supplies currently being procured by operating CCE programs, which have achieved substantial GHG reductions compared to PG&E’s energy supply portfolio while remaining price competitive with PG&E. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 255 3 Availability of large hydro to meet GHG reduction targets is overly optimistic Additional information was added to the Final Study to address this issue. The hypothetical Contra Costa CCE that was modeled would use well under 0.1% of the available hydro available in the wholesale market. Furthermore, the strategy of using large hydro to decrease GHG footprints is being used by operating CCE programs, including MCE, SCP and PCE. Other/Misc. Were the future impacts of the Diablo Canyon plant closure included? Yes. PG&E’s power portfolio assumed in the analysis takes into account Diablo Canyon’s closure and accounts for PG&E’s (yet be approved) plans for its post - closure actions. Concern about narrowing program options too early The County BOS has not yet made a final decision on the program options, but did state a general preference to join an existing program given the results of the Draft Study and the financial requirements for implementing a new program. Cities will make their own, separate decisions that may or may not mirror the County’s decision. Public Survey Comments Consumer Preferences Of the 300+ survey responses, over 100 comments were received. Approximately 60% of the comments favor some form of CCE in CCCo; 40% prefer current PG&E service or do not like certain aspects of CCE program design; 22% of respondents responded favorably to the MCE option; 9% support a new County-based program, 3.5% prefer EBCE, 19% prefer PG&E, and 46.5% indicated that they are unsure and/or want more information. Program costs/rates Several respondents cite lower costs and competitive/cheaper rates as an essential program component regardless of the option selected. CCE as an opt-out program Several respondents expressed concern about the opt-out nature of CCEs. This is a statutory program element that allows customers to opt out at any time and return to PG&E service. Solar Customers Several solar users asked questions about net energy metering and encouraged the County to take positive steps toward additional solar installations and incentives, through CCE or other means. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 256 Attachment N March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 257 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 258 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 259 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 260 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 261 February 21, 2017 John Kopchik Director, Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Kopchik: This letter is in response to your request for East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) to indicate its desire to expand beyond Alameda County and its willingness to engage interested Contra Costa County jurisdictions as EBCE members. This letter also outlines the terms of EBCE membership. As you may know, the EBCE Board of Directors met for the first time on January 30, 2017. During that meeting, the Board had a robust discussion on this topic and was strongly in favor of formally inviting Contra Costa County and its Cities to join EBCE. The general sense was that it would be an exciting and positive development to have a more regionally focused East Bay Community Choice Energy (CCE) program. Some EBCE Board members expressed a willingness to present at your upcoming Board of Supervisors and City Council meetings as Contra Costa County officials deliberate on which CCE option would be in the best interests of their constituents. With regards to the terms of membership, the EBCE Board discussed each of the points your letter raised, and we can provide you the following feedback: Cost to Join: The Board agreed that there would be no cost for Contra Costa County jurisdictions to join the JPA. EBCE will absorb all of the initial launch expenses, including load data analysis, communications costs and noticing requirements. The Board believes these one-time costs are offset by the longer-term value of including Contra Costa County communities in order to form a larger, regional program. We do request, however, that new member jurisdictions identify appropriate municipal staff to assist in coordinating the JPA resolution and Agreement, passage of the CCE ordinance and help with local public outreach, such as organizing workshops and having a presence at community events. Required actions and steps in the membership process: The Board agreed that the steps for joining EBCE would be the same as for the Alameda County jurisdictions, namely that the prospective members must pass the required CCA ordinance, authorize access to their load data, hold at least two duly noticed public hearings, and pass the JPA resolution in order to become a party to the EBCE Joint Powers Agreement. A copy of the CCE ordinance, JPA Agreement and JPA resolution are attached for your reference. For the purposes of completing EBCE’s implementation plan, conducting public outreach, and procuring power for customers in new member jurisdictions, we request that interested jurisdictions cast deciding votes by June 30, 2017. It should be noted that there will be additional opportunities to join EBCE in 2018, if that is preferred. See below for more information regarding timimg. Attachment O March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 262 Letter to John Kopchik, Director Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County February 21, 2017  Representation on EBCE Board: Each Contra Costa County jurisdiction choosing to join EBCE will have a seat on its Board, which is the same manner of representation as other Alameda County members. As you may know, EBCE has a two-tiered voting structure, the first being one- city/one-vote with simple majority to carry the vote. In this case, every jurisdiction will have one equal vote, and it is anticipated that most votes will proceed in this fashion. However, if at least three members call for a weighted vote, then each city’s voting share would be determined by its electrical load; weighted votes may only be used to overturn an affirmative vote and may not be used to resurrect or overturn a negative vote. Please see Attachment 4 for a comparision of EBCE and CCCo jurisdictional loads. New Board members can be seated once the JPA resolution has been passed, and the first and second readings of the CCE ordinance are complete.  Estimated date of service commencement: Your letter asked for a date when electric service could begin. As of this writing, it is likely that EBCE will begin serving Phase 1 customers (a subset of the total number of accounts) in Spring of 2018. Phase 2 customers, including additional Contra Costa County accounts, would be enrolled in the Summer or Fall of 2018. Cities that join after the June 30th deadline or in 2018 will be enrolled in Phase 3, likely to be the late Fall of 2018 or Spring of 2019. The EBCE Board is excited about the prospect of creating a regional East Bay Community Energy program. A member of our Board and Alameda County interim staff will attempt to attend as many of your upcoming presentations as possible, including the Board of Supervisors meeting on March 21. If possible, we would very much like the opportunity to make a more formal presentation at that meeting if the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and staff are agreeable. Finally, for the purposes of planning, it would be helpful to know how many Contra Costa County jurisdictions would be interested in joining EBCE. As noted above, we are requesting that the County and any interested cities complete their decision-making and passage of the required resolution and ordinance by June 30, 2017 if they are interested in a Spring/Summer 2018 enrollment period. We hope this addresses your questions on behalf of Contra Costa County and interested cities. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you’d like to discuss any of these matters further. Sincerely Yours, Chris Bazar Director, Alameda County Community Development Agency Cc: EBCE Board of Directors Attachments: 1) EBCE JPA Agreement and sample resolution 2) Copy of CCE ordinance 3) PG&E Attestation form for load data authorization 4) Load size / voting shares comparision by jurisdiction March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 263 December 1, 2016 East Bay Community Energy Authority - Joint Powers Agreement – Effective December 1, 2016 Among The Following Parties: County of Alameda City of Albany City of Berkeley City of Dublin City of Emeryville City of Fremont City of Hayward City of Livermore City of Oakland City of Piedmont City of San Leandro City of Union City March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 264 December 1, 2016 -1- EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”), effective as of _________, is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1 (Section 6500 et seq.) of the California Government Code relating to the joint exercise of powers among the parties set forth in Exhibit A (“Parties”). The term “Parties” shall also include an incorporated municipality or county added to this Agreement in accordance with Section 3.1. RECITALS 1. The Parties are either incorporated municipalities or counties sharing various powers under California law, including but not limited to the power to purchase, supply, and aggregate electricity for themselves and their inhabitants. 2. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 to 1990 levels. The California Air Resources Board is promulgating regulations to implement AB 32 which will require local government to develop programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3. The purposes for the Initial Participants (as such term is defined in Section 1.1.16 below) entering into this Agreement include securing electrical energy supply for customers in participating jurisdictions, addressing climate change by reducing energy related greenhouse gas emissions, promoting electrical rate price stability, and fostering local economic benefits such as jobs creation, community energy programs and local power development. It is the intent of this Agreement to promote the development and use of a wide range of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs, including but not limited to State, regional and local solar and wind energy production. 4. The Parties desire to establish a separate public agency, known as the East Bay Community Energy Authority (“Authority”), under the provisions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) (“Act”) in order to collectively study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy programs. 5. The Initial Participants have each adopted an ordinance electing to implement through the Authority a Community Choice Aggregation program pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 (“CCA Program”). The first priority of the Authority will be the consideration of those actions necessary to implement the CCA Program. 6. By establishing the Authority, the Parties seek to: (a) Provide electricity rates that are lower or competitive with those offered by PG&E for similar products; March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 265 December 1, 2016 -2- (b) Offer differentiated energy options (e.g. 33% or 50% qualified renewable) for default service, and a 100% renewable content option in which customers may “opt-up” and voluntarily participate; (c) Develop an electric supply portfolio with a lower greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity than PG&E, and one that supports the achievement of the parties’ greenhouse gas reduction goals and the comparable goals of all participating jurisdictions; (d) Establish an energy portfolio that prioritizes the use and development of local renewable resources and minimizes the use of unbundled renewable energy credits; (e) Promote an energy portfolio that incorporates energy efficiency and demand response programs and has aggressive reduced consumption goals; (f) Demonstrate quantifiable economic benefits to the region (e.g. union and prevailing wage jobs, local workforce development, new energy programs, and increased local energy investments); (g) Recognize the value of workers in existing jobs that support the energy infrastructure of Alameda County and Northern California. The Authority, as a leader in the shift to a clean energy, commits to ensuring it will take steps to minimize any adverse impacts to these workers to ensure a “just transition” to the new clean energy economy; (h) Deliver clean energy programs and projects using a stable, skilled workforce through such mechanisms as project labor agreements, or other workforce programs that are cost effective, designed to avoid work stoppages, and ensure quality; (i) Promote personal and community ownership of renewable resources, spurring equitable economic development and increased resilience, especially in low income communities; (j) Provide and manage lower cost energy supplies in a manner that provides cost savings to low-income households and promotes public health in areas impacted by energy production; and (k) Create an administering agency that is financially sustainable, responsive to regional priorities, well managed, and a leader in fair and equitable treatment of employees through adopting appropriate best practices employment policies, including, but not limited to, promoting efficient consideration of petitions to unionize, and providing appropriate wages and benefits. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 266 December 1, 2016 -3- AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions hereinafter set forth, it is agreed by and among the Parties as follows: ARTICLE 1 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 1.1 Definitions. Capitalized terms used in the Agreement shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context requires otherwise. 1.1.1 “AB 117” means Assembly Bill 117 (Stat. 2002, ch. 838, codified at Public Utilities Code Section 366.2), which created CCA. 1.1.2 “Act” means the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) 1.1.3 “Agreement” means this Joint Powers Agreement. 1.1.4 “Annual Energy Use” has the meaning given in Section 1.1.23. 1.1.5 “Authority” means the East Bay Community Energy Authority established pursuant to this Joint Powers Agreement. 1.1.6 “Authority Document(s)” means document(s) duly adopted by the Board by resolution or motion implementing the powers, functions and activities of the Authority, including but not limited to the Operating Rules and Regulations, the annual budget, and plans and policies. 1.1.7 “Board” means the Board of Directors of the Authority. 1.1.8 “Community Choice Aggregation” or “CCA” means an electric service option available to cities and counties pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2. 1.1.9 “CCA Program” means the Authority’s program relating to CCA that is principally described in Sections 2.4 and 5.1. 1.1.10 “Days” shall mean calendar days unless otherwise specified by this Agreement. 1.1.11 “Director” means a member of the Board of Directors representing a Party, including an alternate Director. 1.1.12 “Effective Date” means the date on which this Agreement shall become effective and the East Bay Community Energy Authority shall exist as a separate public agency, as further described in Section 2.1. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 267 December 1, 2016 -4- 1.1.13 “Ex Officio Board Member” means a non-voting member of the Board of Directors as described in Section 4.2.2. The Ex Officio Board Member may not serve on the Executive Committee of the Board or participate in closed session meetings of the Board. 1.1.14 “Implementation Plan” means the plan generally described in Section 5.1.2 of this Agreement that is required under Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 to be filed with the California Public Utilities Commission for the purpose of describing a proposed CCA Program. 1.1.15 “Initial Costs” means all costs incurred by the Authority relating to the establishment and initial operation of the Authority, such as the hiring of a Chief Executive Officer and any administrative staff, any required accounting, administrative, technical and legal services in support of the Authority’s initial formation activities or in support of the negotiation, preparation and approval of power purchase agreements. The Board shall determine the termination date for Initial Costs. 1.1.16 “Initial Participants” means, for the purpose of this Agreement the County of Alameda, the Cities of Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont, San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont, Dublin, and Livermore. 1.1.17 “Operating Rules and Regulations” means the rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority. 1.1.18 “Parties” means, collectively, the signatories to this Agreement that have satisfied the conditions in Sections 2.2 or 3.1 such that it is considered a member of the Authority. 1.1.19 “Party” means, singularly, a signatory to this Agreement that has satisfied the conditions in Sections 2.2 or 3.1 such that it is considered a member of the Authority. 1.1.20 “Percentage Vote” means a vote taken by the Board pursuant to Section 4.12.1 that is based on each Party having one equal vote. 1.1.21 “Total Annual Energy” has the meaning given in Section 1.1.23. 1.1.22 “Voting Shares Vote” means a vote taken by the Board pursuant to Section 4.12.2 that is based on the voting shares of each Party described in Section 1.1.23 and set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement. A Voting Shares vote cannot take place on a matter unless the matter first receives an affirmative or tie Percentage Vote in the manner required by Section 4.12.1 and three or more Directors immediately thereafter request such vote. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 268 December 1, 2016 -5- 1.1.23 “Voting Shares Formula” means the weight applied to a Voting Shares Vote and is determined by the following formula: (Annual Energy Use/Total Annual Energy) multiplied by 100, where (a) “Annual Energy Use” means (i) with respect to the first two years following the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kilowatt hours (“kWh”), within the Party’s respective jurisdiction and (ii) with respect to the period after the second anniversary of the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kWh, of accounts within a Party’s respective jurisdiction that are served by the Authority and (b) “Total Annual Energy” means the sum of all Parties’ Annual Energy Use. The initial values for Annual Energy use are designated in Exhibit B and the initial voting shares are designated in Exhibit C. Both Exhibits B and C shall be adjusted annually as soon as reasonably practicable after January 1, but no later than March 1 of each year subject to the approval of the Board. 1.2 Documents Included. This Agreement consists of this document and the following exhibits, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. Exhibit A: List of the Parties Exhibit B: Annual Energy Use Exhibit C: Voting Shares 1.3 Revision of Exhibits. The Parties agree that Exhibits A, B and C to this Agreement describe certain administrative matters that may be revised upon the approval of the Board, without such revision constituting an amendment to this Agreement, as described in Section 8.4. The Authority shall provide written notice to the Parties of the revision of any such exhibit. ARTICLE 2 FORMATION OF EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY AUTHORITY 2.1 Effective Date and Term. This Agreement shall become effective and East Bay Community Energy Authority shall exist as a separate public agency on December 1, 2016, provided that this Agreement is executed on or prior to such date by at least three Initial Participants after the adoption of the ordinances required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12). The Authority shall provide notice to the Parties of the Effective Date. The Authority shall continue to exist, and this Agreement shall be effective, until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 7.3, subject to the rights of the Parties to withdraw from the Authority. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 269 December 1, 2016 -6- 2.2 Initial Participants. Until December 31, 2016, all other Initial Participants may become a Party by executing this Agreement and delivering an executed copy of this Agreement and a copy of the adopted ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) to the Authority. Additional conditions, described in Section 3.1, may apply (i) to either an incorporated municipality or county desiring to become a Party that is not an Initial Participant and (ii) to Initial Participants that have not executed and delivered this Agreement within the time period described above. 2.3 Formation. There is formed as of the Effective Date a public agency named the East Bay Community Energy Authority. Pursuant to Sections 6506 and 6507 of the Act, the Authority is a public agency separate from the Parties. The debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority shall not be debts, liabilities or obligations of the individual Parties unless the governing board of a Party agrees in writing to assume any of the debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority. A Party who has not agreed to assume an Authority debt, liability or obligation shall not be responsible in any way for such debt, liability or obligation even if a majority of the Parties agree to assume the debt, liability or obligation of the Authority. Notwithstanding Section 8.4 of this Agreement, this Section 2.3 may not be amended unless such amendment is approved by the governing boards of all Parties. 2.4 Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish an independent public agency in order to exercise powers common to each Party and any other powers granted to the Authority under state law to participate as a group in the CCA Program pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12); to study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy and energy-related climate change programs; and, to exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to accomplishing this purpose. 2.5 Powers. The Authority shall have all powers common to the Parties and such additional powers accorded to it by law. The Authority is authorized, in its own name, to exercise all powers and do all acts necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and fulfill its purposes, including, but not limited to, each of the following: 2.5.1 to make and enter into contracts, including those relating to the purchase or sale of electrical energy or attributes thereof; 2.5.2 to employ agents and employees, including but not limited to a Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel; 2.5.3 to acquire, contract, manage, maintain, and operate any buildings, works or improvements, including electric generating facilities; 2.5.4 to acquire property by eminent domain, or otherwise, except as limited under Section 6508 of the Act, and to hold or dispose of any property; 2.5.5 to lease any property; 2.5.6 to sue and be sued in its own name; March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 270 December 1, 2016 -7- 2.5.7 to incur debts, liabilities, and obligations, including but not limited to loans from private lending sources pursuant to its temporary borrowing powers such as Government Code Section 53850 et seq. and authority under the Act; 2.5.8 to form subsidiary or independent corporations or entities, if appropriate, to carry out energy supply and energy conservation programs at the lowest possible cost consistent with the Authority’s CCA Program implementation plan, risk management policies, or to take advantage of legislative or regulatory changes; 2.5.9 to issue revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness; 2.5.10 to apply for, accept, and receive all licenses, permits, grants, loans or other assistance from any federal, state or local public agency; 2.5.11 to submit documentation and notices, register, and comply with orders, tariffs and agreements for the establishment and implementation of the CCA Program and other energy programs; 2.5.12 to adopt rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority (“Operating Rules and Regulations”); 2.5.13 to make and enter into service, energy and any other agreements necessary to plan, implement, operate and administer the CCA Program and other energy programs, including the acquisition of electric power supply and the provision of retail and regulatory support services; and 2.5.14 to negotiate project labor agreements, community benefits agreements and collective bargaining agreements with the local building trades council and other interested parties. 2.6 Limitation on Powers. As required by Government Code Section 6509, the power of the Authority is subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising power possessed by the City of Emeryville and any other restrictions on exercising the powers of the Authority that may be adopted by the Board. 2.7 Compliance with Local Zoning and Building Laws. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement or state law, any facilities, buildings or structures located, constructed or caused to be constructed by the Authority within the territory of the Authority shall comply with the General Plan, zoning and building laws of the local jurisdiction within which the facilities, buildings or structures are constructed and comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 271 December 1, 2016 -8- 2.8 Compliance with the Brown Act. The Authority and its officers and employees shall comply with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et seq. 2.9 Compliance with the Political Reform Act and Government Code Section 1090. The Authority and its officers and employees shall comply with the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090 et seq, and shall adopt a Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to Government Code Section 87300. The Board of Directors may adopt additional conflict of interest regulations in the Operating Rules and Regulations. ARTICLE 3 AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION 3.1 Addition of Parties. Subject to Section 2.2, relating to certain rights of Initial Participants, other incorporated municipalities and counties may become Parties upon (a) the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of such incorporated municipality or county requesting that the incorporated municipality or county, as the case may be, become a member of the Authority, (b) the adoption by an affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors of the entire Board satisfying the requirements described in Section 4.12, of a resolution authorizing membership of the additional incorporated municipality or county, specifying the membership payment, if any, to be made by the additional incorporated municipality or county to reflect its pro rata share of organizational, planning and other pre-existing expenditures, and describing additional conditions, if any, associated with membership, (c) the adoption of an ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) and execution of this Agreement and other necessary program agreements by the incorporated municipality or county, (d) payment of the membership fee, if any, and (e) satisfaction of any conditions established by the Board. 3.2 Continuing Participation. The Parties acknowledge that membership in the Authority may change by the addition and/or withdrawal or termination of Parties. The Parties agree to participate with such other Parties as may later be added, as described in Section 3.1. The Parties also agree that the withdrawal or termination of a Party shall not affect this Agreement or the remaining Parties’ continuing obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE 4 GOVERNANCE AND INTERNAL ORGANIZATION 4.1 Board of Directors. The governing body of the Authority shall be a Board of Directors (“Board”) consisting of one director for each Party appointed in accordance with Section 4.2. 4.2 Appointment of Directors. The Directors shall be appointed as follows: 4.2.1 The governing body of each Party shall appoint and designate in writing one regular Director who shall be authorized to act for and on behalf of the Party on matters within the powers of the Authority. The governing body of each Party also shall appoint and designate in writing one alternate Director who may vote on matters when the regular Director is absent March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 272 December 1, 2016 -9- from a Board meeting. The person appointed and designated as the regular Director shall be a member of the governing body of the Party. The person appointed and designated as the alternate Director shall also be a member of the governing body of the Party. 4.2.2 The Board shall also include one non-voting ex officio member as defined in Section 1.1.13 (“Ex Officio Board Member”). The Chair of the Community Advisory Committee, as described in Section 4.9 below, shall serve as the Ex Officio Board Member. The Vice Chair of the Community Advisory Committee shall serve as an alternate Ex Officio Board Member when the regular Ex Officio Board Member is absent from a Board meeting. 4.2.3 The Operating Rules and Regulations, to be developed and approved by the Board in accordance with Section 2.5.12 may include rules regarding Directors, such as meeting attendance requirements. No Party shall be deprived of its right to seat a Director on the Board. 4.3 Terms of Office. Each regular and alternate Director shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the Party that the Director represents, and may be removed as Director by such governing body at any time. If at any time a vacancy occurs on the Board, a replacement shall be appointed to fill the position of the previous Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.2 within 90 days of the date that such position becomes vacant. 4.4 Quorum. A majority of the Directors of the entire Board shall constitute a quorum, except that less than a quorum may adjourn a meeting from time to time in accordance with law. 4.5 Powers and Function of the Board. The Board shall conduct or authorize to be conducted all business and activities of the Authority, consistent with this Agreement, the Authority Documents, the Operating Rules and Regulations, and applicable law. Board approval shall be required for any of the following actions, which are defined as “Essential Functions”: 4.5.1 The issuance of bonds or any other financing even if program revenues are expected to pay for such financing. 4.5.2 The hiring of a Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel. 4.5.3 The appointment or removal of an officer. 4.5.4 The adoption of the Annual Budget. 4.5.5 The adoption of an ordinance. 4.5.6 The initiation of resolution of claims and litigation where the Authority will be the defendant, plaintiff, petitioner, respondent, cross complainant or cross petitioner, or intervenor; provided, however, that the Chief Executive Officer or General Counsel, on behalf of the Authority, may March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 273 December 1, 2016 -10- intervene in, become party to, or file comments with respect to any proceeding pending at the California Public Utilities Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or any other administrative agency, without approval of the Board. The Board shall adopt Operating Rules and Regulations governing the Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel’s exercise of authority under this Section 4.5.6. 4.5.7 The setting of rates for power sold by the Authority and the setting of charges for any other category of service provided by the Authority. 4.5.8 Termination of the CCA Program. 4.6 Executive Committee. The Board shall establish an Executive Committee consisting of a smaller number of Directors. The Board may delegate to the Executive Committee such authority as the Board might otherwise exercise, subject to limitations placed on the Board’s authority to delegate certain Essential Functions, as described in Section 4.5 and the Operating Rules and Regulations. The Board may not delegate to the Executive Committee or any other committee its authority under Section 2.5.12 to adopt and amend the Operating Rules and Regulations or its Essential Functions listed in Section 4.5. After the Executive Committee meets or otherwise takes action, it shall, as soon as practicable, make a report of its activities at a meeting of the Board. 4.7 Director Compensation. Directors shall receive a stipend of $100 per meeting, as adjusted to account for inflation, as provided for in the Authority’s Operating Rules and Regulations. 4.8 Commissions, Boards and Committees. The Board may establish any advisory commissions, boards and committees as the Board deems appropriate to assist the Board in carrying out its functions and implementing the CCA Program, other energy programs and the provisions of this Agreement. The Board may establish rules, regulations, policies, bylaws or procedures to govern any such commissions, boards, or committees and shall determine whether members shall be compensated or entitled to reimbursement for expenses. 4.9 Community Advisory Committee. The Board shall establish a Community Advisory Committee consisting of nine members, none of whom may be voting members of the Board. The function of the Community Advisory Committee shall be to advise the Board of Directors on all subjects related to the operation of the CCA Program as set forth in a work plan adopted by the Board of Directors from time to time, with the exception of personnel and litigation decisions. The Community Advisory Committee is advisory only, and shall not have decision-making authority, or receive any delegation of authority from the Board of Directors. The Board shall publicize the opportunity to serve on the Community Advisory Committee, and shall appoint members of the Community Advisory Committee from those individuals expressing interest in serving, and who represent a diverse cross-section of interests, skill sets and geographic regions. Members of the Community Advisory Committee shall serve staggered four-ye ar terms (the first term of three of the members shall be two years, and four years March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 274 December 1, 2016 -11- thereafter), which may be renewed. A member of the Community Advisory Committee may be removed by the Board of Directors by majority vote. The Board of Directors shall determine whether the Community Advisory Committee members will receive a stipend and/or be entitled to reimbursement for expenses. 4.10 Chief Executive Officer. The Board of Directors shall appoint a Chief Executive Officer for the Authority, who shall be responsible for the day-to-day operation and management of the Authority and the CCA Program. The Chief Executive Officer may exercise all powers of the Authority, including the power to hire, discipline and terminate employees as well as the power to approve any agreement, if the expenditure is authorized in the Authority’s approved budget, except the powers specifically set forth in Section 4.5 or those powers which by law must be exercised by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall provide procedures and guidelines for the Chief Executive Officer exercising the powers of the Authority in the Operating Rules and Regulations. 4.11 General Counsel. The Board of Directors shall appoint a General Counsel for the Authority, who shall be responsible for providing legal advice to the Board of Directors and overseeing all legal work for the Authority. 4.12 Board Voting. 4.12.1 Percentage Vote. Except when a supermajority vote is expressly required by this Agreement or the Operating Rules and Regulations, action of the Board on all matters shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors on the entire Board (a “Percentage Vote” as defined in Section 1.1.20). A supermajority vote is required by this Agreement for the matters addressed by Section 8.4. When a supermajority vote is required by this Agreement or the Operating Rules and Regulations, action of the Board shall require an affirmative Percentage Vote of the specified supermajority of all Directors on the entire Board. No action can be taken by the Board without an affirmative Percentage Vote. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a tie in the Percentage Vote, an action may be approved by an affirmative “Voting Shares Vote,” as defined in Section 1.1.22, if three or more Directors immediately request such vote. 4.12.2 Voting Shares Vote. In addition to and immediately after an affirmative percentage vote, three or more Directors may request that, a vote of the voting shares shall be held (a “Voting Shares Vote” as defined in Section 1.1.22). To approve an action by a Voting Shares Vote, the corresponding voting shares (as defined in Section 1.1.23 and Exhibit C) of all Directors voting in the affirmative shall exceed 50% of the voting share of all Directors on the entire Board, or such other higher voting shares percentage expressly required by this Agreement or the Operating Rules March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 275 December 1, 2016 -12- and Regulations. In the event that any one Director has a voting share that equals or exceeds that which is necessary to disapprove the matter being voted on by the Board, at least one other Director shall be required to vote in the negative in order to disapprove such matter. When a voting shares vote is held, action by the Board requires both an affirmative Percentage Vote and an affirmative Voting Shares Vote. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a tie in the Percentage Vote, an action may be approved on an affirmative Voting Shares Vote. When a supermajority vote is required by this Agreement or the Operating Rules and Regulations, the supermajority vote is subject to the Voting Share Vote provisions of this Section 4.12.2, and the specified supermajority of all Voting Shares is required for approval of the action, if the provision of this Section 4.12.2 are triggered. 4.13 Meetings and Special Meetings of the Board. The Board shall hold at least four regular meetings per year, but the Board may provide for the holding of regular meetings at more frequent intervals. The date, hour and place of each regular meeting shall be fixed by resolution or ordinance of the Board. Regular meetings may be adjourned to another meeting time. Special and Emergency meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 54956 and 54956.5. Directors may participate in meetings telephonically, with full voting rights, only to the extent permitted by law. 4.14 Officers. 4.14.1 Chair and Vice Chair. At the first meeting held by the Board in each calendar year, the Directors shall elect, from among themselves, a Chair, who shall be the presiding officer of all Board meetings, and a Vice Chair, who shall serve in the absence of the Chair. The Chair and Vice Chair shall hold office for one year and serve no more than two consecutive terms, however, the total number of terms a Director may serve as Chair or Vice Chair is not limited. The office of either the Chair or Vice Chair shall be declared vacant and the Board shall make a new selection if: (a) the person serving dies, resigns, or ceases to be a member of the governing body of the Party that the person represents; (b) the Party that the person represents removes the person as its representative on the Board, or (c) the Party that he or she represents withdraws from the Authority pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 4.14.2 Secretary. The Board shall appoint a Secretary, who need not be a member of the Board, who shall be responsible for keeping the minutes of all meetings of the Board and all other official records of the Authority. 4.14.3 Treasurer and Auditor. The Board shall appoint a qualified person to act as the Treasurer and a qualified person to act as the Auditor, neither of whom needs to be a member of the Board. The same person may not simultaneously hold both the office of Treasurer and the office of the Auditor of the Authority. Unless otherwise exempted from such March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 276 December 1, 2016 -13- requirement, the Authority shall cause an independent audit to be made annually by a certified public accountant, or public accountant, in compliance with Section 6505 of the Act. The Treasurer shall act as the depositary of the Authority and have custody of all the money of the Authority, from whatever source, and as such, shall have all of the duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505.5 of the Act. The Board may require the Treasurer and/or Auditor to file with the Authority an official bond in an amount to be fixed by the Board, and if so requested, the Authority shall pay the cost of premiums associated with the bond. The Treasurer shall report directly to the Board and shall comply with the requirements of treasurers of incorporated municipalities. The Board may transfer the responsibilities of Treasurer to any person or entity as the law may provide at the time. 4.15 Administrative Services Provider. The Board may appoint one or more administrative services providers to serve as the Authority’s agent for planning, implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program, and any other program approved by the Board, in accordance with the provisions of an Administrative Services Agreement. The appointed administrative services provider may be one of the Parties. The Administrative Services Agreement shall set forth the terms and conditions by which the appointed administrative services provider shall perform or cause to be performed all tasks necessary for planning, implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program and other approved programs. The Administrative Services Agreement shall set forth the term of the Agreement and the circumstances under which the Administrative Services Agreement may be terminated by the Authority. This section shall not in any way be construed to limit the discretion of the Authority to hire its own employees to administer the CCA Program or any other program. 4.16 Operational Audit. The Authority shall commission an independent agent to conduct and deliver at a public meeting of the Board an evaluation of the performance of the CCA Program relative to goals for renewable energy and carbon reductions. The Authority shall approve a budget for such evaluation and shall hire a firm or individual that has no other direct or indirect business relationship with the Authority. The evaluation shall be conducted at least once every two years. ARTICLE 5 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION AND AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS 5.1 Implementation of the CCA Program. 5.1.1 Enabling Ordinance. Prior to the execution of this Agreement, each Party shall adopt an ordinance in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) for the purpose of specifying that the Party intends to implement a CCA Program by and through its participation in the Authority. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 277 December 1, 2016 -14- 5.1.2 Implementation Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared an Implementation Plan meeting the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 and any applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations as soon after the Effective Date as reasonably practicable. The Implementation Plan shall not be filed with the Public Utilities Commission until it is approved by the Board in the manner provided by Section 4.12. 5.1.3 Termination of CCA Program. Nothing contained in this Article or this Agreement shall be construed to limit the discretion of the Authority to terminate the implementation or operation of the CCA Program at any time in accordance with any applicable requirements of state law. 5.2 Other Authority Documents. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the operations of the Authority will be implemented through various documents duly adopted by the Board through Board resolution or minute action, including but not necessarily limited to the Operating Rules and Regulations, the annual budget, and specified plans and policies defined as the Authority Documents by this Agreement. The Parties agree to abide by and comply with the terms and conditions of all such Authority Documents that may be adopted by the Board, subject to the Parties’ right to withdraw from the Authority as described in Article 7. 5.3 Integrated Resource Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared an Integrated Resource Plan in accordance with CPUC regulations that will ensure the long-term development and administration of a variety of energy programs that promote local renewable resources, conservation, demand response, and energy efficiency, while maintaining compliance with the State Renewable Portfolio standard and customer rate competitiveness. The Authority shall prioritize the development of energy projects in Alameda and adjacent counties. Principal aspects of its planned operations shall be in a Business Plan as outlined in Section 5.4 of this Agreement. 5.4 Business Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared a Business Plan, which will include a roadmap for the development, procurement, and integration of local renewable energy resources as outlined in Section 5.3 of this Agreement. The Business Plan shall include a description of how the CCA Program will contribute to fostering local economic benefits, such as job creation and community energy programs. The Business Plan shall identify opportunities for local power development and how the CCA Program can achieve the goals outlined in Recitals 3 and 6 of this Agreement. The Business Plan shall include specific language detailing employment and labor standards that relate to the execution of the CCA Program as referenced in this Agreement. The Business Plan shall identify clear and transparent marketing practices to be followed by the CCA Program, including the identification of the sources of its electricity and explanation of the various types of electricity procured by the Authority. The Business Plan shall cover the first five (5) years of the operation of the CCA Program. The Business Plan shall be completed by the Authority no later than eight (8) months after the seating of the Authority Board of Directors. Progress on the implementation of the Business Plan shall be subject to annual public review. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 278 December 1, 2016 -15- 5.5 Labor Organization Neutrality. The Authority shall remain neutral in the event its employees, and the employees of its subcontractors, if any, wish to unionize. 5.6 Renewable Portfolio Standards. The Authority shall provide its customers renewable energy primarily from Category 1 eligible renewable resources, as defined under the California RPS and consistent with the goals of the CCA Program. The Authority shall not procure energy from Category 3 eligible renewable resources (unbundled Renewable Energy Credits or RECs) exceeding 50% of the State law requirements, to achieve its renewable portfolio goals. However, for Category 3 RECs associated with generation facilities located within its service jurisdiction, the limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply. ARTICLE 6 FINANCIAL PROVISIONS 6.1 Fiscal Year. The Authority’s fiscal year shall be 12 months commencing July 1 and ending June 30. The fiscal year may be changed by Board resolution. 6.2 Depository. 6.2.1 All funds of the Authority shall be held in separate accounts in the name of the Authority and not commingled with funds of any Party or any other person or entity. 6.2.2 All funds of the Authority shall be strictly and separately accounted for, and regular reports shall be rendered of all receipts and disbursements, at least quarterly during the fiscal year. The books and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection by the Parties at all reasonable times. 6.2.3 All expenditures shall be made in accordance with the approved budget and upon the approval of any officer so authorized by the Board in accordance with its Operating Rules and Regulations. The Treasurer shall draw checks or warrants or make payments by other means for claims or disbursements not within an applicable budget only upon the prior approval of the Board. 6.3 Budget and Recovery Costs. 6.3.1 Budget. The initial budget shall be approved by the Board. The Board may revise the budget from time to time through an Authority Document as may be reasonably necessary to address contingencies and unexpected expenses. All subsequent budgets of the Authority shall be prepared and approved by the Board in accordance with the Operating Rules and Regulations. 6.3.2 Funding of Initial Costs. The County shall fund the Initial Costs of establishing and implementing the CCA Program. In the event that the March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 279 December 1, 2016 -16- CCA Program becomes operational, these Initial Costs paid by the County and any specified interest shall be included in the customer charges for electric services to the extent permitted by law, and the County shall be reimbursed from the payment of such charges by customers of the Authority. The Authority may establish a reasonable time period over which such costs are recovered. In the event that the CCA Program does not become operational, the County shall not be entitled to any reimbursement of the Initial Costs. 6.3.4 Additional Contributions and Advances. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6504, the Parties may in their sole discretion make financial contributions, loans or advances to the Authority for the purposes of the Authority set forth in this Agreement. The repayment of such contributions, loans or advances will be on the written terms agreed to by the Party making the contribution, loan or advance and the Authority. ARTICLE 7 WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION 7.1 Withdrawal. 7.1.1 General Right to Withdraw. A Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority, effective as of the beginning of the Authority’s fiscal year, by giving no less than 180 days advance written notice of its election to do so, which notice shall be given to the Authority and each Party. Withdrawal of a Party shall require an affirmative vote of the Party’s governing board. 7.1.2 Withdrawal Following Amendment. Notwithstanding Section 7.1.1, a Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority following an amendment to this Agreement provided that the requirements of this Section 7.1.2 are strictly followed. A Party shall be deemed to have withdrawn its membership in the Authority effective 180 days after the Board approves an amendment to this Agreement if the Director representing such Party has provided notice to the other Directors immediately preceding the Board’s vote of the Party’s intention to withdraw its membership in the Authority should the amendment be approved by the Board. 7.1.3 The Right to Withdraw Prior to Program Launch. After receiving bids from power suppliers for the CCA Program, the Authority must provide to the Parties a report from the electrical utility consultant retained by the Authority comparing the Authority’s total estimated electrical rates, the estimated greenhouse gas emissions rate and the amount of estimated renewable energy to be used with that of the incumbent utility. Within 30 days after receiving this report, through its City Manager or a person expressly authorized by the Party, any Party may immediately withdraw March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 280 December 1, 2016 -17- its membership in the Authority by providing written notice of withdrawal to the Authority if the report determines that any one of the following conditions exists: (1) the Authority is unable to provide total electrical rates, as part of its baseline offering to customers, that are equal to or lower than the incumbent utility, (2) the Authority is unable to provide electricity in a manner that has a lower greenhouse gas emissions rate than the incumbent utility, or (3) the Authority will use less qualified renewable energy than the incumbent utility. Any Party who withdraws from the Authority pursuant to this Section 7.1.3 shall not be entitled to any refund of the Initial Costs it has paid to the Authority prior to the date of withdrawal unless the Authority is later terminated pursuant to Section 7.3. In such event, any Initial Costs not expended by the Authority shall be returned to all Parties, including any Party that has withdrawn pursuant to this section, in proportion to the contribution that each made. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, any Party who withdraws pursuant to this section shall not be responsible for any liabilities or obligations of the Authority after the date of withdrawal, including without limitation any liability arising from power purchase agreements entered into by the Authority. 7.2 Continuing Liability After Withdrawal; Further Assurances; Refund. A Party that withdraws its membership in the Authority under either Section 7.1.1 or 7.1.2 shall be responsible for paying its fair share of costs incurred by the Authority resulting from the Party’s withdrawal, including costs from the resale of power contracts by the Authority to serve the Party’s load and any similar costs directly attributable to the Party’s withdrawal, such costs being limited to those contracts executed while the withdrawing Party was a member, and administrative costs associated thereto. The Parties agree that such costs shall not constitute a debt of the withdrawing Party, accruing interest, or having a maturity date. The Authority may withhold funds otherwise owing to the Party or may require the Party to deposit sufficient funds with the Authority, as reasonably determined by the Authority, to cover the Party’s costs described above. Any amount of the Party’s funds held by the Authority for the benefit of the Party that are not required to pay the Party’s costs described above shall be returned to the Party. The withdrawing party and the Authority shall execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, as determined by the Board, to effectuate the orderly withdrawal of such Party from membership in the Authority. A withdrawing party has the right to continue to participate in Board discussions and decisions affecting customers of the CCA Program that reside or do business within the jurisdiction of the Party until the withdrawal’s effective date. 7.3 Mutual Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of all the Parties; provided, however, the foregoing shall not be construed as limiting the rights of a Party to withdraw its membership in the Authority, and thus terminate this Agreement with respect to such withdrawing Party, as described in Section 7.1. 7.4 Disposition of Property upon Termination of Authority. Upon termination of this Agreement as to all Parties, any surplus money or assets in possession of the Authority for use under this Agreement, after payment of all liabilities, costs, expenses, and charges incurred March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 281 December 1, 2016 -18- under this Agreement and under any Authority Documents, shall be returned to the then-existing Parties in proportion to the contributions made by each. ARTICLE 8 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 8.1 Dispute Resolution. The Parties and the Authority shall make reasonable efforts to settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement. Before exercising any remedy provided by law, a Party or the Parties and the Authority shall engage in nonbinding mediation in the manner agreed upon by the Party or Parties and the Authority. The Parties agree that each Party may specifically enforce this section 8.1. In the event that nonbinding mediation is not initiated or does not result in the settlement of a dispute within 120 days after the demand for mediation is made, any Party and the Authority may pursue any remedies provided by law. 8.2 Liability of Directors, Officers, and Employees. The Directors, officers, and employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers and in the performance of their duties pursuant to this Agreement. No current or former Director, officer, or employee will be responsible for any act or omission by another Director, officer, or employee. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the individual current and former Directors, officers, and employees for any acts or omissions in the scope of their employment or duties in the manner provided by Government Code Section 995 et seq. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the defenses available under the law, to the Parties, the Authority, or its Directors, officers, or employees. 8.3 Indemnification of Parties. The Authority shall acquire such insurance coverage as the Board deems necessary to protect the interests of the Authority, the Parties and the public. Such insurance coverage shall name the Parties and their respective Board or Council members, officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Parties and each of their respective Board or Council members, officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, losses, damages, costs, injuries and liabilities of every kind arising directly or indirectly from the conduct, activities, operations, acts, and omissions of the Authority under this Agreement. 8.4 Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended in writing by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the entire Board satisfying the requirements described in Section 4.12. Except that, any amendment to the voting provisions in Section 4.12 may only be made by a three-quarters affirmative vote of the entire Board. The Authority shall provide written notice to the Parties at least 30 days in advance of any proposed amendment being considered by the Board. If the proposed amendment is adopted by the Board, the Authority shall provide prompt written notice to all Parties of the effective date of such amendment along with a copy of the amendment. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 282 December 1, 2016 -19- 8.5 Assignment. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the rights and duties of the Parties may not be assigned or delegated without the advance written consent of all of the other Parties, and any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or duties in contravention of this Section 8.5 shall be null and void. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors and assigns of the Parties. This Section 8.5 does not prohibit a Party from entering into an independent agreement with another agency, person, or entity regarding the financing of that Party’s contributions to the Authority, or the disposition of proceeds which that Party receives under this Agreement, so long as such independent agreement does not affect, or purport to affect, the rights and duties of the Authority or the Parties under this Agreement. 8.6 Severability. If one or more clauses, sentences, paragraphs or provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be unlawful, invalid or unenforceable, it is hereby agreed by the Parties, that the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby. Such clauses, sentences, paragraphs or provision shall be deemed reformed so as to be lawful, valid and enforced to the maximum extent possible. 8.7 Further Assurances. Each Party agrees to execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. 8.8 Execution by Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and upon execution by all Parties, each executed counterpart shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument and as if all Parties had signed the same instrument. Any signature page of this Agreement may be detached from any counterpart of this Agreement without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of this Agreement identical in form hereto but having attached to it one or more signature pages. 8.9 Parties to be Served Notice. Any notice authorized or required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be validly given if served in writing either personally, by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid with return receipt requested, or by a recognized courier service. Notices given (a) personally or by courier service shall be conclusively deemed received at the time of delivery and receipt and (b) by mail shall be conclusively deemed given 72 hours after the deposit thereof (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) if the sender receives the return receipt. All notices shall be addressed to the office of the clerk or secretary of the Authority or Party, as the case may be, or such other person designated in writing by the Authority or Party. In addition, a duplicate copy of all notices provided pursuant to this section shall be provided to the Director and alternate Director for each Party. Notices given to one Party shall be copied to all other Parties. Notices given to the Authority shall be copied to all Parties. All notices required hereunder shall be delivered to: The County of Alameda Director, Community Development Agency March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 283 December 1, 2016 -20- 224 West Winton Ave. Hayward, CA 94612 With a copy to: Office of the County Counsel 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94612 if to [PARTY No. ____] Office of the City Clerk __________________________ __________________________ Office of the City Manager/Administrator __________________________ __________________________ Office of the City Attorney __________________________ __________________________ if to [PARTY No._____ ] Office of the City Clerk __________________________ __________________________ Office of the City Manager/Administrator __________________________ __________________________ Office of the City Attorney __________________________ __________________________ March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 284 December 1, 2016 -21- ARTICLE 9 SIGNATURE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Joint Powers Agreement establishing the East Bay Community Energy Authority. By: Name: Title: Date: Party: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 285 December 1, 2016 Exhibit A Page 1 EXHIBIT A -LIST OF THE PARTIES (This draft exhibit is based on the assumption that all of the Initial Participants will become Parties. On the Effective Date, this exhibit will be revised to reflect the Parties to this Agreement at that time.)- County of Alameda City of Albany City of Berkeley City of Dublin City of Emeryville City of Fremont City of Hayward City of Livermore City of Oakland City of Piedmont City of San Leandro City of Union City March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 286 December 1, 2016 Exhibit B Page 1 DRAFT EXHIBIT B -ANNUAL ENERGY USE This Exhibit B is effective as of December 1, 2016. Party kWh (2014) Albany 57,726,000 Berkeley 684,454,000 Dublin 297,219,000 Emeryville 203,591,000 Fremont 1,306,714,000 Hayward 813,048,000 Livermore 498,219,000 Oakland 2,005,389,000 Piedmont 32,768,000 San Leandro 516,830,000 Unincorporated 513,917,000 Union City 356,019,000 Total 7,285,894,000 *Data provided by PG&E March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 287 DRAFT EXHIBIT C - VOTING SHARES This Exhibit C is effective as of December 1, 2016. Party kWh (2014) Voting Share Section 4.12.2 Albany 57,726,000 .80% Berkeley 684,454,000 9.39% Dublin 297, 219,000 4.08% Emeryville 203,591,000 2.80% Fremont 1,306,714,000 17.93% Hayward 813,048,000 11.16% Livermore 498,219,000 6.83% Oakland 2,005,389,000 27.52% Piedmont 32,768,000 .46% San Leandro 516,830,000 7.09% Unincorporated 513,917,000 7.05% Union City 356,019,000 4.89% Total 7,285,894,000 100% *Data provided by PG&E March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 288 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED NUMBER R-16-XXX APPROVE AN AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A JOINT POWERS AGENCY FOR COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION PROGRAM IN ALAMEDA COUNTY WHEREAS, The Alameda County Board of Supervisors has demonstrated its commitment to an environmentally sustainable future through its policy goals and actions, including energy reduction, clean energy programs, and the expansion of local renewable power supply; and WHEREAS the County has adopted a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and, WHEREAS, Community Choice Aggregation is a mechanism by which local governments assume responsibility for providing electrical power for residential and commercial customers in their jurisdiction in partnership with local commercial energy purveyors and owners of transmission facilities, which in the case of Alameda County is Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; and, WHEREAS Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to the use of power in Alameda County; provide electric power and other forms of energy to customers at a competitive cost; carry out programs to reduce energy consumption; stimulate and sustain the local economy by developing local jobs in renewable energy; and promote long-term electric rate stability and energy security and reliability for residents through local control of electric generation resources; and, WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors has examined and identified Community Choice Aggregation as a key strategy to meet local clean energy goals and projected greenhouse gas reduction targets; and, WHEREAS, in June 2014, the Board of Supervisors directed the Community Development Agency (CDA) to determine if a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program is feasible for Alameda County; and, WHEREAS in 2015 CDA staff engaged MRW & Associates of Oakland to prepare a Technical / Feasibility Study (Technical Study for Community Choice Aggregation Program in Alameda County, Draft (MRW & Associates, July 2016); and, WHEREAS taken comprehensively, the Technical Study suggests that an Alameda County CCA would be feasible, could operate economically, could provide ratepayers reductions on their electric bills, and could both increase renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions if the right balance is achieved by a JPA; and WHEREAS If a municipality is to form a CCA with other municipalities, it must become a part of a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) as required by the legislation that permits CCAs, Assembly Bill 117 (Migden, 2002); and March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 289 WHEREAS a draft JPA Agreement has been prepared by the Office of the County Counsel and has been reviewed by City Attorneys and the membership of the Steering Committee over the course of several months; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Board does hereby approve agreement entitled, ”East Bay Community Energy Authority - Joint Powers Agreement –“ in order to participate with other prospective signatories in a CCA Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for Alameda County municipalities, and authorizes the President of the Board to execute the agreement. ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE FOREGOING was PASSED and ADOPTED by a majority vote of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors this 4th day of October, 2016 to wit: AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ______________________________________ PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTEST: Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors By:____________________________ Deputy File: ________ _____ Agenda No: __ _____ Document No: R-2016-__ Approved as to Form: County Counsel By:____________________________ Deputy I certify that the foregoing is a correct March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 290 copy of a Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors, Alameda County, State of California ATTEST: Clerk of the Board Board of Supervisors By:_______________________ March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 291 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 292 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 293 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 294 Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 31432-E Cancelling Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 23061-E Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco, California U 39 Electric Sample Form No. 79-1030 Declaration by Mayor or Chief County Administrator Regarding Investigation Pursuit or Implementation of Community Choice Aggrega Advice Letter No: 4009-E Issued by Date Filed March 5, 2012 Decision No. Brian K. Cherry Effective December 20, 2012 Vice President Resolution No. E-4523 1C10 Regulation and Rates Please Refer to Attached Sample Form March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 295 ___________________________________________ Automated Document, Preliminary Statement Part A Form 79-1030 Advice 4009-E Revised March 2012 DECLARATION BY MAYOR OR CHIEF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING INVESTIGATION, PURSUIT OR IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION I, ______________________________________________________________ [name], state as follows: 1. I am the mayor, chief county administrator, or chief executive officer of ________________________ ________________________________________________ [name of city, county, or public agency,]. 2. I am authorized to make this declaration on behalf of ______________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ [check appropriate box] [ ] a city, or [ ] a county, or [ ] an eligible public agency which is investigating, pursuing or implementing community choice aggregation as a community choice aggregator as defined by Section 331.1 of the California Public Utilities Code (“CCA” or “Potential CCA”). 3. I understand that all of the confidential information provided by PG&E to the city, county, or public agency indicated above is subject to the terms and conditions of the Nondisclosure Agreement between these two entities and is provided for the sole purpose of enabling the city, county or public agency to investigate, pursue or implement community choice aggregation. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this _______________ day of ____________________________, 20______ , at _____________________________________________, ________________________ [city, state]. [Signature] March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 296 Attachment 4: Voting Structure for EBCE With and Without Contra Costa Jurisdictions Simple Voting Alameda County Only Alameda + Contra Costa Counties Oakland 8.3% 3.7% Fremont 8.3% 3.7% Hayward 8.3% 3.7% Berkeley 8.3% 3.7% San Leandro 8.3% 3.7% Livermore 8.3% 3.7% Emeryville 8.3% 3.7% Dublin 8.3% 3.7% Albany 8.3% 3.7% Union City 8.3% 3.7% Piedmont 8.3% 3.7% Unincorporated 8.3% 3.7% Alameda Total 100.0% 44.4% Unincorporated Contra Costa NA 3.7% Concord NA 3.7% Pittsburg NA 3.7% Antioch NA 3.7% San Ramon NA 3.7% Brentwood NA 3.7% Danville NA 3.7% Martinez NA 3.7% Pleasant Hill NA 3.7% Oakley NA 3.7% Orinda NA 3.7% Hercules NA 3.7% Pinole NA 3.7% Moraga NA 3.7% Clayton NA 3.7% Contra Costa Total NA 55.6% March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 297 Weighted Voting Alameda County Only Alameda + Contra Costa Counties Oakland 27.5% 17.5% Fremont 17.9% 11.4% Hayward 11.2% 7.1% Berkeley 9.4% 6.0% San Leandro 7.1% 4.5% Livermore 6.8% 4.4% Unincorporated 7.1% 4.5% Union City 4.9% 3.1% Dublin 4.1% 2.5% Emeryville 2.8% 1.8% Albany 0.8% 0.5% Piedmont 0.4% 0.3% Alameda Total 100.0% 63.6% Unincorporated Contra Costa NA 9.0% Concord NA 5.1% Pittsburg NA 4.6% Antioch NA 3.7% San Ramon NA 3.2% Brentwood NA 2.1% Danville NA 1.7% Martinez NA 1.4% Pleasant Hill NA 1.4% Oakley NA 1.1% Orinda NA 1.0% Hercules NA 0.7% Pinole NA 0.6% Moraga NA 0.5% Clayton NA 0.3% Contra Costa Total NA 36.4% March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 298 Community Choice Energy (CCE) In Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors March 28, 2017 1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 299 •Continued Public Outreach and Engagement 8 City Council presentations 2 Public Workshops in Danville and Concord •Received Public Comments on Draft Study and over 300 Survey Responses •Obtained Information from EBCE on Inclusion Process and Reqirements •Final Study Published on March 13, 2017 Activity Since January in Response to Board Direction 2 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 300 •Comments received from MCE, IBEW, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance, several individuals •Over 100 survey respondents also provided short narratives remarks •All comments and survey responses are attached to the staff report •Comments resulted to changes in the Technical Study in the following areas: –Cost of Local Renewables –MCE Board Representation –Availability of GHG Power Supplies, particularly Large Hydroelectric Comments on the Draft Study 3 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 301 •Analyze the electrical load of the 15 participating jurisdictions •Compare projected rates for PG&E and a Contra Costa CCE program under 4 different CCE energy supply scenarios •Assess the ability of CCE to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions •Identify sites for potential local solar development •Evaluate potential impact of CCE on local economy •Provide a high level comparison of 3 CCE program alternatives (Contra Costa only, MCE, and East Bay Community Energy (EBCE)) to existing PG&E service Scope of the Technical Study 4 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 302 5 MAIN FINDINGS OF TECH STUDY All three of the CCE options considered in the study could result in: lower GHG emissions increased local renewable energy generation increased local job creation The electricity rates under CCE program options considered would b e similar or less than the PG&E rates. Enough technically feasible locations for renewable generation to m eet a significant proportion of electricity demand (40% of these sites in Northern Waterfront). There are tradeoffs between forming a Contra Costa-only CCE versus j oining existing/ongoing CCE efforts in neighboring counties March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 303 6 POTENTIAL FOR LOCAL SOLAR March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 304 7 CONTRA COSTA CCE PROGRAM OPTIONS Options include: 1. Join MCE 2. Join EBCE (Alameda County) 3. Form a new, stand-alone CCE for County and cities not already with MCE (Board previously indicated this is not the preferred option) There are pros and cons/trade-offs to each option Key Factors Examined : Rates GHG Reduction Potential Local Control/Governance Local Economic Benefits Start-Up Costs Level of Effort Program Risks Timing March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 305 Features & Trade Offs of CCE Options 8 PROGRAM FEATURES TRADE-OFFS MCE •Established CCE program with positive operating track record •Five CCCo cities already members •Shortest time to service commencement •Formative program decisions already made •Large service territory and Board; meets in San Rafael EBCE •Ability to get in on “ground floor” and influence programs and policies •East Bay regional ‘alignment’ and history of cooperation •Designing business plan for local renewable development •Longer runway to customer enrollment •New program; lots of work to be done with many program elements unknown New CCCo CCA •Greatest local control •Policy, revenue and program autonomy •Sole focus on CCCo •Time and cost to form a new program •Would not serve the whole County March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 306 9 BOARD VOTING SHARES MCE EBCE (Simple) EBCE (Weighted) 1 Contra Costa already in MCE2 14%n/a n/a Contra Costa not yet in MCE3 47%56%36% Contra Costa Total 61%56%36% Non-Contra Costa Communities 39%44%64% Largest Community (share)CC Unincorp. (8.1%)All equal Oakland (17.5%) Unincorporated CC County Share 8.1%All equal 9.0% 1. Standard EBCE voting is based on simple, one community, one vote. A weighted vote occurs only if three communities request it, and can only reverse an affirmative vote. 2. El Cerrito, Lafayette, Richmond, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek. 3. Assumes that all non-MCE Contra Costa communities join the CCE with 15% opt-out. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 307 10 Remaining with PG&E Benefits/Pros Risks/Cons Experienced provider Higher GHG emissions; lower renewable content Continuity- same firm provides all services Less local renewable power generation No action needed by City/County—status quo Higher electricity rates than CCE rates under most scenarios May be able to join a CCE at a later date (but perhaps at some cost)No local control/local accountability Individuals can remain on bundled PG&E service even if their community is a CCE member No local input into policies and programs March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 308 Terms of Membership for MCE and EBCE Terms MCE EBCE Notes Cost to Join None None Both programs request local staff rep to assist with program coordination/outreach Steps to Join Adopt ordinance and JPA resolution Adopt ordinance and JPA resolution Board Representation 1 seat per member agency or may choose a consolidated seat; Unincorporated County would represent 8.1% of weighted vote and be the largest member. 1 seat per member; Unincorporated county would represent 9.0 % of the weighted vote (if weighted vote is called) and would be the third- largest member. MCE Board meets in San Rafael EBCE Board meets in Hayward Est. Customer Enrollment Late 2017 Spring /Summer 2018 Decision Deadline May31, 2017 June 30, 2017 County may request one month extension to MCE 11 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 309 Steps for CCE Program Membership •Membership Process for MCE or EBCE: No Charge to Join Adopt Resolution and Ordinance Required Steps Completed by June 30, 2017 Board may wish to request extension from MCE Board Direction needed by early May 12 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 310 Upcoming Meetings •Upcoming City Council Presentations: Brentwood – March 28 Danville – April 11 Moraga – April 12 Martinez – April 19 San Ramon – April 25 13 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 311 Next Steps •Hear Presentations from MCE and EBCE •Receive Public Testimony •Determine if Board has any informational requests from MCE or EBCE •Request time extension from MCE to June 30 •Set May 2 for continuation of this item 14 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 312 Visit www.cccounty.us/cce Contact Information: Jason Crapo, Deputy Director Dept. of Conservation and Development (925) 674-7722 Jason.Crapo@dcd.cccounty.us Questions/Comments 15 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 313 Introducing East Bay Community Energy Contra Costa Board of Supervisors March 28, 2017 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 314 In June 2014, County BOS authorized $1.325 million to assess CCE in Alameda County. Another $2.4 million was approved in October 2016 to support EBCE implementation and creation of a local devt. business plan. 11 cities and the County joined the JPA; First Board mtg. in January 2017. City of Albany City of LivermoreCity of Berkeley City of OaklandCity of Dublin City of PiedmontCity of Emeryville City of San LeandroCity of Fremont City of Union CityCity of Hayward The program has a logo, website and some basic collateral. Much more to come with branding, advertising, and public outreach. www.ebce.org EBCE is now engaged in organizational and policy formation and plans to enroll initial “phase 1” customers in Spring 2018. A Brief History March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 315 www.ebce.org Our Expanding Website March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 316 EBCE Will Be The Largest in CA CCE Program Estimated Load in MWH EBCE/AlamedaCounty EBCE/Alamedaand Contra Costa Counties 6,500,000 MWh ~ 10,050,000 MWh Peninsula Clean Energy 3,800,000 Monterey Bay Region 3,450,000 Silicon Valley Clean Energy 3,400,000 Clean Power SF 3,200,000 MCE 2,743,000 Sonoma Clean Power 2,550,000 Source: EBCE Technical Study, May 2016 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 317 EBCE’s JPA Agreement Adapted from existing CCE JPA Agreements (i.e. San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties) Creates separate legal entity; no General Fund liability to any member Includes commitment to long-term program goals, community and local job focus, and union-friendly p olicies and practices One Board seat for each member jurisdiction Two-tier voting system -- 1) most votes carry by simple majority, 2) weighted vote by load size if 3 or more directors request it EBCE is establishing a Community Advisory Committee; CAC Chair has non-voting seat on the Board JPA calls for creation of local development business plan to serve as a blueprint for local power potential within its service territory Agreement includes repayment of Alameda County start-up loan March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 318 Local Development Business Plan Emphasis on community and economic benefits reflected through the LDBP. Labor and environmental stakeholders have joined together, for the first time, to jointly support the CCE program. This removes what has often been a contentious relationship in the past. Part of the “Unity” Alliance was a proposal to develop an LDBP, which the Alameda County Board of Supervisors agreed to sponsor. Key tasks in LDBP: -- Solar Siting Survey (much like has already been done in Contra Costa) -- Energy efficiency technical and program analysis -- Focus on innovate program development and financing options – trying to advance the overall CCE model. We believe the LDBP may be of interest to Contra Costa and the analysis could be extended to include new jurisdictions. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 319 Offer to Contra Costa Jurisdictions Each jurisdiction that joins will have a seat on the EBCE Board of Directors. No cost to join. EBCE will absorb all costs associated with implementing the program. Total additional cost likely to be ~$1 million if all eligible CCCo jurisdictions join. Steps to join EBCE are the same as Alameda County members: •Pass the JPA resolution and the required CCE ordinance Contra Costa enrollments likely to begin in Summer 2018, earlier if possible. For inclusion in 2018, we ask for decisions/votes by June 30, 2017. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 320 Phase 1: Initial Planning and Tech Study Phases 2-3: Program Implementation and Launch Initial BOS funds allocated in June 2014 City Load data approvals/request to PG&E Steering Committee (SC) formed; met monthly County webpage and stakeholder database devt. RFP issued and Tech Study completed Stakeholder and City mtgs. JPA Agreement and CCE ordinance drafted County/City ordinances and funding approval • JPA Agency forms • Technical, marketing and data mgmt. contracts • Expanded website; community outreach begins • CEO/Exec Search • Local Devt Biz plan underway • Banking and credit services • Implementation Plan certified by CPUC • Power contract(s) negotiated • Policy and program development • Call center live; customer noticing begins • Utility bond and service agreement • Phase 1 Launch! 8 Funding, Study, etc 2014 2015 2014 2015 JPA Agmts CCE Ordinances 2016 J JPA Start Up/ Implement. Plan JPA Start-up Q1/2 2017 Phase 1 Program Launch Q3/4 2017- Q1 2018 EBCE Implementation Timeline March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 321 In Conclusion… Why Choose EBCE? EBCE sees the value of an east bay regional organization that serves both of our counties. EBCE includes a major emphasis on local renewables and other program development as quickly as possible Opportunity to shape a new CCE program “from the ground up” •Many policy and organizational decisions will be made this year EBCE will be the largest CCE in the state, with potential “economies-of-scale” benefits Long history of bi-county cooperation, through JPAs and other programs. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 322 Why Choose EBCE?cont. Energy prices are quite low at the moment. We are hopeful that EBCE will be able to benefit from this market situation by procuring its initial power at prices lower than other existing load-serving entities, including other CCAs. We've seen this to be the case, for example, with Peninsula Clean Energy, which launched with prices that were 5% lower than PG&E across the board. We hope you will join us! March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 323 Thank you! For further information, please contact:Chris Bazar/Bruce JensenAlameda County Community Development Agency(510) 670-5400Bruce.Jensen@acgov.org March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 324 MCE A local, not-for-profit electricity provider March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 325 OUR MISSION Renewable Energy Stable, Competitive Rates Local Economic & Workforce Benefits Energy Efficiency Address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 326 Choice Is Power New Default ServiceOld Default Service 30% Renewable PG&E 50% Renewable MCE Light Green 100% Renewable MCE Deep Green March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 327 Based on a typical usage of 463 kWh at current PG&E and MCE E-1 rates to go into effect April 1, 2017. Actual differences may vary depending on usage, rate schedule, and other factors. Estimate provided is an average of seasonal rates. Sample Residential Cost Comparison 30% renewable PG&E $103.00 50% renewable MCE $102.72 100% renewable MCE $107.35 Electric Delivery $45.55 $31.48 $57.45 $13.78 $36.11 $13.78- Electric Generation Added PG&E Fees Monthly Cost March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 328 Local Control Present MCE Voting Share Highlights Largest Board Vote Walnut Creek Second Largest Board Vote Richmond Potential* MCE Voting Share Highlights Largest Board Vote Contra Costa County Second Largest Board Vote Concord *if Contra Costa County and remaining cities join MCE Current MCE Service Area March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 329 Community Benefits Not-for- profit, public agency No shareholders Local Reinvestment March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 330 Minimize Financial Risk Avoid •Start up costs •Need for funding •Guarantee for loans Take advantage of •Free inclusion period •Track Record •Economics of scale •Long term contracts •Locked-in low wholesale prices •Established credit profile •Experienced community outreach •Firewall between MCE and member agencies •$50M in reserves March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 331 MCE customers eliminated 122,102 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, 2010-2014 equivalent to taking 25,792 cars off our roads for an entire year March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 332 Greenhouse Gas Impact 212,624 Metric Tons CO2 Progress toward 2020 Climate Action Plans Unincorp. County: 27% Concord: 25% Antioch: 26% San Ramon: 51% Pittsburg: 73% Danville: 54% Lafayette: 20% Moraga: 66% Total Projected Reductions Equivalent To: 509,586,503 Miles Not Driven 5,510,394 Trees Planted 44,913 Cars off the Road March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 333 Solar rebates for residential customers Contra Costa Since 2014: $35,400 on low-income solar rebates for Contra Costa homes March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 334 Solar Cash Out West Contra Costa School District : $28,000+ City of San Pablo: $7,500+2016: MCE customers earn $1 Million+ $250,000 in Contra Costa March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 335 MCE Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Program One of the most competitively priced FIT programs in California Advantages of MCE FIT contract: •Standardized, 20-year term •Fixed price per MWh generated •Accurately reflects project revenue •Can help secure project financing •Much higher than market rates Turn unused space into a revenue stream March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 336 Freethy Industrial Park 2 MW •Richmond •February 2017 •26 jobs supported –RichmondBUILD •Ground Mounted Solar •$550,000 yearly revenue •Powering 600 homes per year March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 337 Solar One, Richmond 10.5 MW •Richmond •Expected online Q4 2017 •Chevron brownfield •341 jobs supported –50% local hire requirement •Partners: City of Richmond, Cenergy Power, RichmondBUILD March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 338 California Jobs 2,800+ jobs supported 1.2M+ union work hours created March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 339 MCCDC ~$240,000. Rising Sun ~$140,000 RichmondBUILD ~$100,000 Rough total: ~$480,000 Local Workforce Development RichmondBUILD students on Solar One site March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 340 New California Renewables 24 Projects 813 megawatts $1.6 Billion committed 535 MW new solar 266 MW new wind 12 MW new biogas March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 341 Light Green Power Content Goal 75% carbon-free by 2017 & 100% carbon-free by 2025 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 342 Contra Costa County 2017 Community Outreach Celebrating 100 for 100 with El Cerrito’s Environmental Quality Commission 1/5 Leadership Contra Costa / Environmental Session 1/10 Concord City Council Meeting CCA discussion 1/11 Moraga City Council Presentation 1/17 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors CCA discussion 1/17 Clayton City Council Presentation 1/18 Martinez City Council Presentation 1/18 Sustainable Lafayette Film Night 1/24 San Ramon City Council Presentation March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 343 Contra Costa County 2017 1/26 Exploring CCA in The San Ramon Valley with LEAN Energy U.S. 1/30 Boy Scouts Sustainability Merit Badge Meeting 2/6 Bentley School Presentation 2/6 Pleasant Hill Discussion on CCA 2/14 Antioch Discussion on CCA 2/15 Richmond Business Roundtable (Chamber of Commerce) 2/22 Concord Internal Ops Committee 2/23 Concord Public WorkshopMCE Panelist at Leadership Contra Costa Community Outreach March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 344 Contra Costa County 2017 3/1 Lamorinda Tri-City Council meeting 3/1 Eskaton Hazel Shirley Manor - Senior Center Presentation 3/8 San Pablo Econ. Dev. Corp Business2Business Mixer 3/9 Catching the Sun Movie Screening with Sierra Club Bay Chapter 3/14 Oakley City Council meeting 3/16 Lafayette Film Night - Before the Flood 3/21 Contra Costa Climate Leaders Meeting 3/28 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Sporting some shades at the Sustainable Enterprise Conference in Pleasant Hill. Community Outreach March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 345 Thank You!info@mceCleanEnergy.org mceCleanEnergy.org March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 346 How Electric Service Works MCE Generation PG&E Delivery Same Service March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 347 Sample Bill $88.37 $54.14 -54.14 $0.00 $74.82 13.55 With PG&E Service With PG&E Service With MCE Service With MCE Service March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 348 About MCE 2008 2010 2016 MCE formed Service launched Serving 255,000 accounts March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 349 We Can Change Our Future March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 350 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 351 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 352 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 353 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 354 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 355 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONDUCT the 24th Annual Cesar E. Chavez Commemorative Celebration. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: See attached program for more information. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Barb Riveira 925.335.1018 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.5 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:24th Annual Cesar E. Chavez Commemorative Celebration March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 356 ATTACHMENTS Cesar Chavez Program 2017 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 357 Tuesday, March 28th, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of supervisors Announces the 24th Annual Strength in Unity COMMEMORATIVE CELEBRATION Cesar e. Chavez Photo by CathyMarch 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 358 Chavez’s Life... 1927: Cesar Estrada Chavez is born on March 31, 1927 in Yuma, Arizona. 1938: The Chavez family loses its farm during the Great Depression and begins following crops as migrant farm workers in Arizona and California. 1944-45: Cesar Chavez serves in the Navy in the Pacific during World War II. 1947: Influenced by his father’s involvement in labor issues, Cesar joins his first union, the National Agricultural Workers Union. 1952: Cesar is recruited to work with Saul Alinsky’s Community Service Organization (CSO), designed to help Latinos who have problems with immigration and police. 1958: Cesar is named General Director of CSO. 1962: Cesar leaves CSO after it refuses to form a farm-workers union and, in Delano, starts the National Farm Workers Association, the precursor to the United Farm Workers Union (UFW). 1965, Sept. 8: Filipino grape pickers in Delano go on strike for higher wages. 1965, Sept. 16: Cesar’s union joins the strike against grape growers. 1966, March 17: Cesar and 70 strikers begin a march on Sacramento to drum up support for the union effort. 1966, April 11: The Chavez-led group marches to the State Capitol swelled to as many as 10,000 supporters from around the nation. 1968, Feb. 14: Cesar begins 25-day fast to garner support for non- violence in union-organizing efforts. 1968, March 10: Cesar breaks fast in Delano with supporters, including Senator Robert F. Kennedy. 1968, March 24: Cesar announces in Los Angeles plans for a “worldwide boycott” of California grapes. 1968, July: More than 100 grape growers and shippers sue Chavez and the UFW, claiming $25 million in losses because of the boycott. 1970: Contract agreements between UFW and most major grape growers is reached. Lettuce boycott begins. 1972: Cesar conducts a 24-day fast to protest right-to-work law. 1973: Cesar organizes the United Farm Workers of Americas Union, and a newround of boycotts begins when grape growers fail to renew contracts. 1988, August 21: Cesar ends a 36-day fast to protest pesticide use. The fast is the longest for the labor leader and leaves him severely weakened. 1993, April 23: Cesar Estrada Chavez dies in San Luis, Arizona, near where he was born 66 years ago. 2000, August: The State of California officially establishes the Cesar E. Chavez holiday. 2003: The U.S. Postal Service unveils a Cesar E. Chavez postage stamp. 2012: The US Navy Military Sealift Command christens the USNS Cesar Chavez (T-AKE-14) and activates and dedicates the ship in honor of Cesar Chavez. March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 359 Refreshments immediately following ceremony in foyer Cesar E. Chavez Mistress of Ceremonies Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Welcome Federal Glover, Chair, Board of Supervisors Musical Performance Mariachi Dinastía Co-Keynote Speakers Dr. Cesar A. Cruz Dr. G. Reyes Entertainment Ballet Folklórico Mexicano Introduction and Presentation of 2017 Youth Hall of Fame Honorees Acknowledgement & Adjournment Annual Commemorative Celebration & Youth Hall of Fame Awards March 28, 2017 24th March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 360 Dr. Cesar A. Cruz - Ed.LD From marching 76-straight miles, to hunger striking for 26 days, César has dedicated his life to fighting for justice. Born in Guadalajara, Jalisco, México, César migrated to the U.S. with a single mother and grandmother. He grew up in Compton and moved to the Bay Area to study. He has been an educator for 23 years. He co- founded the independent school, Making Changes, out of his home, and has sought to create autonomous education spaces. He is the author of two books, Revenge of the Illegal Alien, and Bang for Freedom. He received his doctorate in Educational Leadership at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, becoming the first Mexican immigrant male to do so. The recipient of the Jefferson Award for Public Service, César currently serves as a Bridge Fellow for the national organization TNTP (The New Teacher Project). Amidst all, he is proudest to be a husband, and father of three children: Olin, Amaru and Quetzali. “You attack Mexicans, it’s an attack on me. You attack Muslims, it’s an attack on me. You attack women, it’s an attack on me. You attack water, it’s an attack on me. You attack mother earth, it’s an attack on me. You attack African Americans, it’s an attack on me. You attack people’s healthcare, it’s an attack on me. You attack any immigrant, you attack me. You attack Indigenous land, you attack me. Whomever you attack, it’s an attack on me. I will not stand idly by. I will resist. I am not alone. We are not alone. We will resist. Fear and hatred will never conquer love. Build your 20 foot border, we have 21- foot ladders. David has already faced Goliath. Moses has already taken on pharaoh. Harriet faced greater odds. We shall not be moved. Try to bury us, we are but seeds.” Co-Keynote Speakers March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 361 Co-Keynote Speakers Dr. G. Reyes - PhD G. Reyes holds a PhD in Education from UC Berkeley, an MA in Teaching from the Center for Social Justice and Teaching Excellence from the University of San Francisco, and a BS in Industrial Engineering from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Before pursuing higher education, he attended California public schools in Pittsburg, Oakland, and Alameda. “Dr. G” Reyes currently works in the Graduate School of Education as a Research Scholar at Stanford University and a visiting Assistant Professor at Mills College. As a professional in the field of Education, he has had a variety of experiences in K-12 schooling, Youth Development, teacher development, and teacher preparation. He has been blessed to work with committed and passionate professionals, youth, and families as a university lecturer in education; as a high school principal at a small school in East Oakland; an elementary, middle, and high school teacher; an Executive Director and Program Director of a Youth Development community-based organization that focused on intersecting arts and social justice; a teacher/school leader developer/coach; and a youth development cultural worker/ program leader developer/coach. “Dr. G. Reyes is a scholar-activist- artivist- public intellectual known for standing. Standing up. Standing with. Standing for. Standing on the corner of the block professing truths and street wisdoms that don’t stop. Standing on rocks. Standing from seeds sown by those who came before. Standing in concrete fields with new seeds in hand to plant more. Standing in the pages of history, because history is not predetermined – it is a time of possibility. Standing tall so he could see. Standing to the side so you could be. He stands. But never in the back of the bus. He stands because he must.” March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 362 Past Speakers & Presentations YEAR SPEAKER / PLAY 2016 Blanca Hernandez, Immigrants’ rights activist 2015 Frances Montalvo Palacios, president of Palacios Productions and founder of atruelatina.com 2014 Alvaro Ramirez, Ph. D., Professor, Department of Modern Languages St. Mary’s College 2013 Juan Coria, Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. Department of Labor 2012 María Leticia Gómez, Journalist 2011 Blas G. Guerrero, Ph.D., Dean of Student Development, Los Medanos College 2010 Jane C. Garcia, CEO of La Clínica De La Raza 2009 Gonzalo Rucobo, Bay Area Peacekeepers 2008 Jim Hernandez, Youth Violence Prevention Specialist Johnny Rodriguez, One Day at a Time, Founder 2007 State Senator, Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont) 2006 Honorable Judge Maria Rivera 2005 Nicolas Vaca, PhD., Attorney-at-Law 2004 Ruben Rosalez, Assistant District Director, U.S. Department of Labor 2003 Peter Garcia, President, Los Medanos College 2002 Dolores Huerta, VFW Co-founder with Cesar Chavez 2001 Paul R. Chavez, Grandson of Cesar Chavez 2000 Paul Ramirez, Federal Investigator, Department of Labor 1999 Teresa Delgado, 1st Granddaughter of Cesar Chavez 1998 Play, “Maria,” written by Richard Martinez, Director of Contra Costa County Housing Authority 1997 Play, “Los Regalos,” (The Gifts), written by Richard Martinez 1996 Play, “The Warriors,” written by Richard Martinez, 1995 Play, “Abuelito, ¿Quién es Cesar?,” (Grandfather, Who is Cesar?) Latino Student Alliance, Diablo Valley College March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 363 Founded in 1967 by Carlos Moreno Samaniego, the Ballet Folklorico Mexicano has achieved recognition both in the United States and in Mexico. In 1980, the Mexican consulate in San Francisco named the company the official ambassador for ongoing cultural activities with Mexico. It has held that distinction for over twenty years during which time it regularly conducts tours in Mexican cities such as Guadalajara, Oaxaca, Aguascalientes, and Durango. Entertainment Mariachi Dinastia Torres Members are originally from Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico and residents of San Pablo, Richmond and Pittsburg March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 364 Contra County County Youth Hall of Fame 2017 Honorees Perseverance: Charlie Cleberg - 12th grade, Hercules High School, Hercules, CA Charlie is well known on the Hercules High School campus with a positive attitude and friendly smile to all. He is a leader as he assists fellow students with severe disabilities as a mentor, offering help and encouragement. He volunteers in the school library and makes announcements at school assemblies. Charlie is a cheerful, hardworking young man who was born with severe physical challenges due to a curved spinal cord and cerebral palsy. Amazingly, he can maneuver his wheelchair, draw, write, and types on his IPad or computer using his feet. With a positive attitude, he does not let his disability define him and participates fully in his school and community. Due to complications of his disability, Charlie regularly stays at the George Mark Children’s House, an organization for children with life threatening diseases. Even while there, he helps the house with fundraising activities. Continuing to deny definition by disability, he is a cadet in the Police Explorer Program. When called upon he provides support to San Leandro Police Department personnel during civic functions. He is a volunteer at the United for Safety event and role plays during SWAT team drills bringing awareness and preparation to law enforcement personnel to effectively serve individuals with disabilities in the event of emergency. Valiant Volunteer: Trey Hall - 12th grade, Antioch High School, Antioch, CA Trey has used his creativity entertaining the student body of Antioch High School while being filmed by the National Bleacher Report for a Mannequin Challenge. He is a scholar athlete who has also put in many hours being involved in Peer Mediation, Rally Coordinator, Tobacco Use Prevention Education, National Coalition Building Institute, and the Buddy Club. When he is not on campus, Trey can often be found at the Antioch Community Center mentoring other young men or at the First Baptist Church Head Start Program where he has volunteered more than 240 hours strengthening very young children’s love of learning. As a “Careers in Teaching” student, Trey has put in 90+ hours assisting, researching and studying the various aspects of child development, health and safety and classroom management techniques. As Trey continues to learn these skills, he is already applying them while assisting with the P.E. Program at Marsh Elementary School. Trey genuinely cares for his community, is universally loved, and respected on and off campus by all. Good Samaritan: Shreejal Luitel - 9th grade, Middle College High School, San Pablo, CA Shreejal is an extremely bright, kind and caring individual who is always interested in the wellbeing of the staff and patrons at the San Pablo Library where he volunteers. Shreejal is always eager to help in any capacity volunteering at the library, where his tasks range from shelving books to working as a computer docent helping customers with various needs. Once a patron at the library inquired about tutoring for his son, and Shreejal offered to volunteer as a tutor. Although he was offered payment, Shreejal refused and continues to tutor on a weekly basis. Shreejal is an active leader in the library’s Teen Advisory group where he is instrumental in helping to create youth programs and reaching out to the community. He earns top marks at Middle College High School taking high school courses simultaneously with college classes in order to earn an Associate of Arts degree while still completing the requirements for his High School Diploma. Shreejal’s ambitions are to attend Harvard to become a computer programmer. His desire is to be able to care for his family in Nepal and he is willing to put in the work to make sure it happens. Honorees continued on next page...March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 365 Youth Hall of Fame, 2017 Honorees Creative Leader: Vicente Mancia - 10th grade, De Anza High School, Richmond, CA Vicente has been participating in events in San Pablo since he was in elementary school. These experiences gave him the desire to give back to his community, which he has been doing since 2015 when he joined the San Pablo Youth Commission. As a member of the San Palo Youth Commission, Vicente uses his creativity to help recruit new members, promote the Youth Commission and most notably to plan the San Pablo Youth Commissions Youth Summit 2015. He enjoyed his role in raising awareness of Childhood Obesity and Prevention so much he landed the role of MC of the Youth Summit 2016. Representatives from the West Contra Costa County Unified School District were amazed at his presence and offered him two internships at their summer camps. A stellar student, Vicente continues to be an active member of the San Pablo Youth Commission while juggling many activities including San Pablo Cowboy’s Football, the Leadership in Training Program, a member of the Friends of the San Pablo Library and an participant in San Pablo’s Teen Lounge Program. Vicente has established himself as a recognized youth leader and we know he will continue to grow and lead in the years to come. Team Work: Sarah Nunnink - 12th grade, Heritage High School, Brentwood, CA Sarah is a vibrant unique young lady with an outstanding personality. Sarah was very shy and somewhat overweight in her early childhood, which was the foundation for her exemplary contributions to our community and therefore world. She has blossomed into an active student at Heritage High School’s Rally Squad, a member of the campus Safety Committee, the Investment Club, the Chinese Club and even the choir. She has received academic honors with the Principal’s Honor Roll, the National Honor Society, and California Scholarship Federation—just to name a few. Her love of animals led Sarah to become a teen volunteer with Tony La Russa’s Animal Rescue Foundation. Her love of people has reached far beyond the borders of her local community. As part of the Caracol Project, Sarah is Teen Ambassador for Soles4Souls where she actively promoted and collected 600+ pairs of shoes and fundraised over $3,600 for Costa Rica Missions that distributed 2000 pairs of shoes to people of all ages. Her position as Varsity Cheer Captain and the back-base is symbolic to her achievements requiring strength, dedication, perseverance and a team effort at all times. Her energy is amazing! March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 366 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Contra Costa Health Services Department Contra Costa Employment & Human Services Department Contra Costa Public Works Department IBEW Local Union 302 Acknowledgements Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County Catering: Los Panchos Restaurant Display: Raymond Martinez Flowers: Gracie Lerma, Public Defender’s Office Poster Design / Flyer / Program Design: Vien Tran Public Works: Print & Mail Visual Support services: CCTV Set-up: Rey Torralba, Clerk-Recorder-Elections Sponsors March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 367 2017 Cesar E. Chavez Committee Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Conservation & Development Trish Dominguez Health Services Lorena Barajas Monica Gutierrez Bryan Thomas Office of the Sheriff Steve Borbely Public Works Carlos Velasquez Cicelia McGee Contra Costa County Library Melinda S. Cervantes Public Defender’s Office Robin Lipetzky Gracie Lerma Clerk-Recorder-Elections Melissa Hickok Eren Mendez County Administrator’s Office Nancy Yee Board of Supervisor’s Sonia Bustamante Employment and Human Services Department Amrita Kaur Teresa Gonzalez Erica Ellis Diane Burgis Supervisor District III Karen Mitchoff Supervisor District IV Federal D. Glover Supervisor District V John Gioia Supervisor District I Candace Andersen Supervisor District II March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 368 Thank you for Attending “We need to help students and parents cherish and preserve the ethnic and cultural diversity that nourished and strengthens this community – and this nation.” Cesar Chavez March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 369 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE the specifications for the 2017 On-Call Concrete Services Contract(s) for Various Road and Flood Control Maintenance Work Project, Countywide. (All Districts) (2) DETERMINE that Kerex Engineering, Inc. (Kerex), the lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the project specifications, and FURTHER DETERMINE that Kerex has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the contract. (3) DETERMINE that Sposeto Engineering, Inc. (Sposeto), the second lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the requirements of the project specifications, and FURTHER DETERMINE that Sposeto has submitted the second lowest responsive and responsible bid for the contract. (4) AWARD on-call contracts to the following two contractors in the following priority for Job Orders, as provided in the project specifications: (A) Kerex, in a not to exceed amount ($150,000.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid ($60,255.00 Total Unit Price). (B) Sposeto, in a not to exceed amount ($150,000.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid ($61,936.00 Total Unit Price). (5) DIRECT that the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Kevin Emigh, 925.313.2233 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contracts for the 2017 On-Call Concrete Services Contract(s) for Various Road and Flood Control Maintenance Work, Countywide. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 370 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) Public Works Director, or designee, shall prepare the contracts. (6) ORDER that after the contractors have signed the contracts and returned them, together with any required certificates of insurance and other required documents, and the Public Works Director has reviewed and found them to be sufficient; the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign the contracts for this Board. (7) ORDER that, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retentions into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 22300. (8) DELEGATE, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, to the Public Works Director, or designee, the Board’s functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110. (9) DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to Kerex or Sposeto be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contracts to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing in this Board Order shall prevent the Board from re-awarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract, or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107). FISCAL IMPACT: The contracts, for a maximum amount of $150,000 each, will be funded by 100% Local Road and Flood Control Funds. BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, specifications were filed with and approved by the Board, and bids were invited by the Public Works Director. On March 7, 2017 the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL UNIT AMOUNT Kerex Engineering, Inc.: $60,255.00 Total Unit Price Sposeto Engineering, Inc.: $61,936.00 Total Unit Price JD Partners Concrete: $70,725.00 Total Unit Price CC & Company: $89,380.00 Total Unit Price Kerex submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $1,681.00 (Total Unit Price) less than the next lowest bid. Sposeto submitted the second lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $8,789.00 (Total Unit Price) less than the next lowest bid. The Public Works Director has reported that the bids submitted by Kerex and Sposeto comply with the requirements provided in the project specifications, and recommends that contracts be awarded to Kerex and Sposeto in that order. The Public Works Director recommends that the bids submitted by Kerex and Sposeto are the lowest responsive and responsible bids and this Board so concurs and finds. As provided in the project specifications, the two on-call contracts would be awarded in the following priority for Job Orders: (1) Kerex; and (2) Sposeto. The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, have been filed with the Clerk of the Board, with copies to be made available to any party upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 371 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Public Works Department may be unable to complete routine road and flood control maintenance work in a timely manner. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 372 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the 2016 Annual Report for the Iron Horse Corridor Advisory Committee, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Concord, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Alamo, Danville, and San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) areas. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2002, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2002/377, which requires that each regular and ongoing board, commission or committee shall annually report to the Board of Supervisors on its activities accomplishments, membership, attendance, required training/certification (if any), and proposed work plan or objectives for the following year. The attached report fulfills this requirement for the Iron Horse Corridor Advisory Committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: This committee will not be in compliance with Resolution No. 2002/377. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Angela Villar, (925) 313-2016 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Angela Villar, Transportation Engineering, Carrie Ricci, Deputy Director C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT the 2016 Annual Report for the Iron Horse Corridor Advisory Committee, District II and IV March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 373 ATTACHMENTS Iron Horse Corridor Advisory Committee.2016 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 374 Iron Horse Corridor Advisory Committee 2016 Annual Report Advisory Body Name: Iron Horse Corridor (IHC) Advisory Committee Advisory Body Meeting Time/Locations: Committee meets quarterly at 4:30 p.m., Brookside Clubhouse, Concord, CA 94520 Chair: Chris Learned Staff Person: Angela Villar Reporting Period: January 2016 through December 2016 Activities The Committee met three times between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016. The Committee reviewed and commented on two landscaping and rest area projects, and monitored the IHC Trust Fund financials. The committee also developed and adopted Wayfinding Guidelines for the IHC. Meeting and Working Session Attendance/Representation Representative Name(s) Attendance District II At-Large Robert Combs 67% - 2 meetings District IV At-Large Andrew Bryant 100% - 3 meetings Alamo Vacant N/A Concord Rosanne Nieto 33% - 1 meetings Danville Stewart Proctor 67% - 2 meetings EBRPD Dan Cunning 100% - 3 meetings Pleasant Hill Chris Learned 100% - 3 meetings San Ramon David Hudson/Harry Sachs 67% - 2 meetings Walnut Creek Lesley Hunt 67% - 2 meetings Training/Certification A training was held in 2014. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 375 Work Program for 2016 Iron Horse Corridor Advisory Committee Task 1: Review and comment on tree planting requests In 2010 and 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved the new Tree Planting and Preservation Policy for the Iron Horse Corridor. Staff anticipates requests from tree planting sponsors to implement new tree planting projects. The committee will review and make recommendations on new tree planting requests. Suggested completion date: ongoing as requests are made Task 2: Continue to review and comment on the Adopt-the-Corridor Program The committee will receive periodic updates on the Adopt-the-Corridor Program as projects are proposed and will be asked to provide feedback and suggestions on ways to improve/streamline the program. The committee will also be asked to assist with turnkey projects and approve those volunteer projects which have proceeded in accordance with the Adopt-the-Corridor Program. Suggested completion date: ongoing project review as projects are proposed Task 3: Review and comment on the Iron Horse Corridor Budget The committee receives a quarterly update of Iron Horse Corridor Trust Fund revenues and expenditures. The committee will review the budget and make recommendations. Suggested completion date: ongoing Task 4: Review and comment on Project Status Log The committee receives a log of active projects in the Iron Horse Corridor and their status at quarterly advisory committee meetings. The committee will review the log and provide comments. Suggested completion date: ongoing Task 5: Review and comment on major projects affecting the Iron Horse Corridor The committee will be asked to review major projects that affect or potentially affect the Iron Horse Corridor. Recent examples include the landscaping improvements for the Hookston Landscape Project and the Hemme Station Park Project. All of these projects were brought to the Committee for comment in the last year. Projects which will have a major impact on the Corridor will continue to be brought to the committee for review and input. Suggested completion date: ongoing as needed Task 6: Directional Signage March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 376 The Public Information Element was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2010. This element included recommendations for signage along the Iron Horse Corridor to provide relevant information to the public. Over the last few years, the committee has discussed different types of signage and costs associated with implementation and maintenance of the signage. In August 2016, the committee approved Wayfinding Guidelines for the Iron Horse Corridor. Projects to install wayfinding signage will be brought to the committee for review and input. Suggested completion date: ongoing as needed March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 377 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/104 approving the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement for subdivision SD14-09367, for a project being developed by Michael McGhee, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Rodeo area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement is required by Condition of Approval No. 53. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The agreement will not be recorded and Contra Costa County may not be in full compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and Stormwater Management Discharge Control Ordinance. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, (925) 313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement for subdivision SD14-09367, Rodeo area. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 378 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/104 Stormwater Management Facilities Operation&Maintenance Agreement MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2017/104 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 379 Recorded at the request of:Jocelyn LaRocque, (925) 313-2315 Return To:Naila Thrower, 925-313-2170 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/28/2017 by the following vote: AYE:Candace Andersen, District II SupervisorDiane Burgis, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV SupervisorFederal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO: ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/104 IN THE MATTER OF approving the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement for subdivision SD14-09367 (APN 357-140-036), Rodeo area. (District V) WHEREAS the Public Works Director has recommended that she be authorized to execute the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Agreement with Michael McGhee, as required by the Conditions of Approval for subdivision SD14-09367. This agreement would ensure the operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities in accordance with the approved Stormwater Control Plan and approved Operation and Maintenance Plan for subdivision SD14-09367, which is located at 509 Parker Avenue in the Rodeo area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Public Works Director is APPROVED. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, (925) 313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 380 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 381 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 382 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 383 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 384 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 385 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 386 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 387 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 388 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 389 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 390 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 391 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 392 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/100 approving the third extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD04-08918, for a project being developed by Thomas/DeNova, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The terminal date of the Subdivision Agreement needs to be extended. The developer has not completed the required improvements and has requested more time. Approximately 70% of the work has been completed to date. By granting an extension, the County will give the developer more time to complete his improvements and keep the bond current. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The terminal date of the Subdivision Agreement will not be extended and the developer will be in default of the agreement, requiring the County to take legal action against the developer and surety to get the improvements installed, or revert the development to acreage. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, (925) 313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Jocelyn LaRocque, Sherri Reed, Thomas/DeNova, LLC, Developers Surety & Indemnity Company C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the third extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD04-08918, Bay Point area. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 393 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/100 Subdivision Agreement Extension MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2017/100 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 394 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/28/2017 by the following vote: AYE: Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT:John Gioia ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/100 IN THE MATTER OF approving the third extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD04-08918, for a project being developed by Thomas/DeNova, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (District V) WHEREAS, the Public Works Director, having recommended that she be authorized to execute the third agreement extension which extends the Subdivision Agreement between Thomas/DeNova, LLC and the County for construction of certain improvements in SD04-08918, Bay Point area, through September 19, 2017. APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF WORK COMPLETE: 70% ANTICIPATED DATE OF COMPLETION: 2021 BOND NO: 720962S DATE: August 18, 2006 REASON FOR EXTENSION: Work to commence upon market improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Public Works Director is APPROVED. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, (925) 313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Jocelyn LaRocque, Sherri Reed, Thomas/DeNova, LLC, Developers Surety & Indemnity Company 4 1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 395 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 396 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 397 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 398 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 399 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 400 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 401 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/107 of Initiation ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Report and related proceedings for levy and collection of assessments for Countywide Landscaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) Fiscal Year 2017/2018, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Countywide Landscaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) Funds. BACKGROUND: The proposed assessments for the Countywide Landscaping District 1979-3 (LL-2) are for the purpose of maintaining existing facilities within the various benefit zones. The existing Countywide Landscaping District contains thirty (30) zones comprised of frontage and median landscaping, pedestrian bridges, parks and recreational facilities installed by developers in conformance with their Conditions of Approval. The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that an updated Engineer's Report be prepared to set assessment rates each fiscal year. In addition, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Victoria Skerritt, (925) 313-2272 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPT Resolution of Initiation ordering the preparation of an Engineer's Report for Countywide Landscaping District AD 1979-3 Fiscal Year 2017/18. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 402 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) any new benefit zones or annexations of additional property into an existing benefit zone also require an Engineer's Report to be generated. The Fiscal Year 2017/18 assessments in the Countywide Landscaping District 1979-3 (LL-2) will be based on information in the Final Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2017/18 tax roll. Assessments are calculated by considering all anticipated expenditures for maintenance, utilities and administration. Any excess dollars from previous fiscal years are carried over to current reports and the assessment amounts are adjusted accordingly. The assessment rates may or may not change from fiscal year to fiscal year, dependent upon improvements and maintenance to be performed, and cannot exceed the maximum amount set when the benefit zone was originally formed, plus an annual cost of living adjustment, if applicable. The amounts that will be proposed to be assessed for the Fiscal Year 2017/18 tax year, in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, will be presented in the Preliminary and Final Engineer's Reports which will be filed with the Board of Supervisors in May and June 2017, respectively, and a noticed public hearing will be held. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without Board of Supervisors' approval there would be no initiation of the process to prepare the Engineer's Report and to assess levies for the Countywide Landscape District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) for Fiscal Year 2017/18 and thus funds would not be available to maintain the landscaping and other improvements in the landscaping zones throughout the County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/107 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2017/107 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 403 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/28/2017 by the following vote: AYE: Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT:John Gioia ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/107 IN THE MATTER OF Resolution No. 2017/107 of Initiation ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Report for Countywide Landscaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) and related proceedings for levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2017/18, as recommended by the Public Works Director, or designee, Countywide. (Countywide Landscaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County FINDS THAT: 1. Section 22622 of the California Streets and Highways Code requires the Board of Supervisors to adopt a Resolution of Initiation generally describing any proposed new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements to be included in the determination of the annual assessments levied for any assessment district created under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and 2. Section 22622 of the California Streets and Highways Code further requires that the Board of Supervisors order the preparation of an Engineer's Report prior to initiating the proceedings to set the annual levy of assessments for any such district. The Engineer's Report shall contain 1) plans and specifications for the improvements, 2) estimate of the costs for the improvements, 3) diagram of each assessment district, and 4) description of the method used to spread the costs of improvements to the benefiting parcels. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors ORDERS as follows: 1. The improvements to be made in the assessment district are generally described as the operation, maintenance and servicing of frontage and median landscaping, pedestrian bridges, parks and recreational facilities within street rights of way and other public areas; and 2. The Engineer of Work for the Contra Costa County Countywide Landscaping District 1979-3 (LL-2) is hereby directed to file an Engineer's Report in accordance with the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Contact: Victoria Skerritt, (925) 313-2272 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: 4 1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 404 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 405 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a long-term lease with Conco Aviation Center, LLC, for the lease of the County-owned hangar located at 700 Sally Ride Drive, Concord, in exchange for an upfront payment of $250,000, monthly ground rent equal to $12,000 during the first year and monthly payments totaling $17,361.62 in years two through sixteen of the lease. The tenant’s obligations under the lease are guaranteed by Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc., dba The Conco Companies during the initial 20-year term. FISCAL IMPACT: The Airport Enterprise Fund will receive rent and other revenues provided for in the lease and the County General Fund will receive property, sales and possessory interest tax revenues from the lease. BACKGROUND: The 5.3-acre property is the site of the largest hangar at Buchanan Field. The 39,000 square-foot hangar was constructed pursuant to the terms of a ground lease dated April APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee, (925) 681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Long-term Lease of Hangar located at 700 Sally Ride Drive, Concord (Buchanan Field Airport) to Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc., dba The Conco Companies March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 406 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 5, 2005. In June 2008, the original tenant assigned its rights under the lease to an entity known as TDMC, for use as a corporate hangar. On December 31, 2015, as permitted by the lease, TDMC notified the County that it planned to terminate the lease as of December 31, 2016. Under the terms of the lease, the County became the owner of the hangar when the lease terminated. In anticipation of the TDMC lease ending, in November 2016, the Airport sent out requests for proposals for the use of the hangar. The request asked bidders to provide, among other information, details about how the hangar would be used, the economic terms of the offer and what improvements, if any, would be made to the hangar. In response to the request, the Airport received three proposals. The Airport then convened a five-person selection committee. Each member of the selection committee was asked to rank the proposals on the basis of five criteria. The ranking of the proposals by the selection committee was unanimous. The proposal received from the Conco Companies was ranked first, with 429 points. The second- and third-place proposers, Pacific States Aviation and a joint proposal by Blackhawk Aviation and Vietnam Helicopters Museum, were awarded 309 and 285 points, respectively. On December 13, 2016, the Board authorized the Airport to negotiate a new lease of the hangar with the bidders in priority ranking order. The lease recommended for approval today is with Conco Aviation Center, LLC, a new company formed for this purpose. The term of the new lease is expected to be 50 years. After the initial 20-year term, the tenant will have three 10-year options to extend the lease. To be consistent with the original proposal, Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc., dba The Conco Companies, will guaranty the lease for the initial twenty (20) year term to allow the new company to establish a business track record on the airport. The new lease includes a $250,000 lease payment fee due no later than April 11, 2017, and a monthly ground rent starting of $12,000. Starting April 1, 2018, and ending on March 31, 2033, the lease requires an additional monthly rent payment of $5,361.62. The lease also includes annual increases to the monthly ground rent starting in year 3 and market revaluation on prescribed dates throughout the lease term. In total, the new lease will generate $394,000 of total annual revenue for the Airport Enterprise Fund in the first year. For the next fifteen years, the lease will generate a minimum of $17,361.62 per month. The total combined revenue generated from the lease effectively replaces the monthly rent that was paid under the prior lease. This level of rent represents approximately five percent of the Airport Enterprise Fund’s annual revenue. In compliance with FAA Grant Assurance 24, which requires the Airport to be “as self-sustaining as possible,” the lease to the Conco Aviation Center, LLC, guaranteed by Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc., allows the Airport Enterprise Fund to obtain the maximum rent for this property, based on the results of the recent bid solicitation. Unless and until a final lease agreement is fully executed by all parties, this Board Order, any draft lease agreement, other communications or conduct of the parties shall have absolutely no legal effect, may not be used to impose any legally binding obligation on the County and may not be used as evidence of any oral or implied agreement between the parties or as evidence of the terms and conditions of any implied agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failing to enter into a new lease of the property, or delaying the commencement of a new lease, will have a negative impact on the Airport Enterprise Fund. Income from the subject property represents approximately five percent of the Airport Enterprise Fund’s annual revenue. ATTACHMENTS Lease Agreement Guaranty of Lease March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 407 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 408 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 409 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 410 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 411 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 412 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 413 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 414 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 415 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 416 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 417 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 418 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 419 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 420 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 421 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 422 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 423 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 424 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 425 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 426 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 427 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 428 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 429 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 430 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 431 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 432 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 433 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 434 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 435 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 436 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 437 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 438 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 439 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 440 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 441 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 442 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 443 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 444 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 445 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 446 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 447 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 448 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 449 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 450 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 451 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 452 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 453 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 454 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 455 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 456 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 457 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 458 RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by David Gaines, Robin Gaines, Victor Gutierrez, Kelly Moriarty, Reed Robertson, Adam Vancil, et al., Nicholas Ventimiglio, and Darnell Washington. DENY amended claims filed by Viking Insurance a subrogee of Brian Farley and Reed Robertson. DENY late claims filed by Tadeusz Wyrzykowski (2), and Ron Kooyman. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: N/A APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Joellen Bergamini 925.335.1906 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 459 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE this report concerning the final settlement of James Lee and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $75,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund payment of $75,000. BACKGROUND: Attorney Jeffrey E. D'Andre, defense counsel for the County, has advised the County Administrator that within authorization an agreement has been reached settling the workers' compensation claim of James Lee v. Contra Costa County. The Board's March 14, 2017 closed session vote was: Supervisors Gioia, Andersen, Burgis, Mitchoff and Glover - Yes. This action is taken so that the terms of this final settlement and the earlier March14, 2017 closed session vote of this Board authorizing its negotiated settlement are known publicly. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Case will not be settled. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Sharon Hymes-Offord (925) 335-1450 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon Offord Hymes, Risk Manager Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Final Settlement of Claim, James Lee v. Contra Costa County March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 460 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 461 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/64 recognizing the 2017 Youth Hall of Fame honorees of the 24th Annual Cesar E. Chavez Commemorative Celebration, as recommended by the Cesar Chavez Committee. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Trish Dominguez, 674-7723 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Honoring the 2017 Youth Hall of Fame Honorees at the 24th Annual Cesar E. Chavez Commemorative Celebration March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 462 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/64 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017_64 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 463 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2017/64 Honoring the 2017 Youth Hall of Fame Awardees at the 24 th Annual Cesar E. Chavez Commemorative Celebration WHEREAS, In 1994, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California established the Youth Hall of Fame to recognize students and adults who make valuable contributions to our communities: and WHEREAS, several nominations were received and reviewed by the Cesar Chavez Commemorative Celebration Committee; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors does hereby honor and congratulate the winners of the 2017 Youth Hall of Fame Awards: Shreejal Luitel – Age 15, 9th Grade, Middle College High School for Good Samaritan: Representing youth who go out of their way to do good without getting recognition. Trey Hall – Age 17, 12th Grade, Heritage High School for Volunteerism: Representing youth who give their time and energy to a worthy cause or organization. Sarah Nunnink – Age 17, 12th Grade, Heritage High School for Teamwork: Representing youth who work unselfishly for the good of the team. Vicente Mancia – Age 15, 10th Grade, DeAnza High School for Creativity: Representing youth who use their musical, literary or artistic talent to benefit a school or community. Charlie Cleberg – Age 17, 12th Grade, Hercules High School for Perseverance: Representing youth who have worked hard to overcome obstacles to achieve success. ___________________ FEDERAL D. GLOVER Chair, District V Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS KAREN MITCHOFF District III Supervisor District IV Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 464 C.10 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 465 RECOMMENDATION(S): None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: LEA CASTLEBERRY (925) 252-4500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:HUGH HENDERSON RETIREMENT RESOLUTION March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 466 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/114 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017_114 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 467 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/28/2017 by the following vote: AYE: Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT:John Gioia ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/114 IN THE MATTER OF RECOGNIZING FIRE CHIEF HUGH HENDERSON FOR HIS 38 YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE WHEREAS, in 1979 Hugh Henderson began his service working for the Office of the Sheriff, Marine Patrol Division as a Police Cadet; and WHEREAS, in 1980 he worked as a Paid On Call/Volunteer for the Bethel Island Fire Protection District and in 1982 promoted to Captain; and WHEREAS, in 1981 he worked as a Police Cadet for the Brentwood Police Department and in 1983 promoted to Reserve Police Officer and in 1984 Reserve Sergeant; and WHEREAS, in 1982 he began working for East County Ambulance as an EMT/Driver and in 1983 became the Operations Manager/EMT; and WHEREAS, in 1985 he worked as a Protection Services Officer for Lawrence Livermore Lab; and WHEREAS, in 1988 Hugh went back to the Brentwood Police Department as a Full Time Police Officer; and WHEREAS, in 1991 Hugh worked as a Paid On Call Firefighter for the East Diablo Fire Protection District and in 1993 became Senior Fire Fighter/Engineer; and WHEREAS, in 1995 he began working for the El Cerrito Fire Protection District as a Firefighter and in 1997 was promoted to Engineer and in 1999 a Captain; and WHEREAS, in 1995 Hugh was promoted as Reserve Police Officer for the Brentwood Police Department as the 1st Special Enforcement Team (SET) and later the 1st SWAT for the Brentwood Police Department; and WHEREAS, in 2000 Hugh became the Captain Police Reserve Division for the Brentwood Police Department until 2004; and WHEREAS, in 2003 he became the Communications Manager for the California Federal Incident Management, Team 3 until 2005; and WHEREAS, in 2005 Hugh became the Battalion Chief for the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and in 2008 the Interim Chief and in 2010 the Fire Chief until March 2017; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes and honors Fire Chief Hugh Henderson for his 38 years of public service to Contra Costa County, and give its full appreciation for his dedicated service to the people of Contra Costa County. Contact: LEA CASTLEBERRY (925) 252-4500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy 4 1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 468 By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 469 C.12 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 470 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT a Resolution to proclaim April 2-8, 2017 as National Crime Victims’ Rights Week in promotion of victims’ rights and to recognize crime victims and those who advocate on their behalf. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The National Campaign for Victims’ Rights led to President Ronald Reagan’s reforms on behalf of crime victims, his declaration of the first National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, and victims’ rights legislation and victim services. National Crime Victims’ Rights Week offers an opportunity to renew and strengthen our partnerships and teamwork, and to highlight the collaborative approaches that are integral to the U.S. Department of Justice’s mission. Through partnerships, organizations can mobilize their experience skills, resources, and stakeholders to help plan a powerful strategy to provide direct services to crime victims. In commemoration of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week , the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Cherie Mathisen, 925-957-2234 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mark Peterson, District Attorney Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:National Crime Victims' Rights Week Presentation March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 471 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) District Attorney’s Office will host a special ceremony on Friday, April 7, 2017 from 10:30 to noon in the BOS chambers located at 651 Pine Street, Martinez to recognize the following individuals: Clerical Staff-Alicia Smith Victim Advocate-Stephanie Grant Probation Officer-Tanaka Cato District Attorney Investigations-Josh Medal Deputy District Attorney-Molly Manoukian Law Enforcement: Crimes Persons, Leo Broberg, San Francisco Police Department Law Enforcement: Crimes Persons, Lt. Brian South, Moraga Police Department Law Enforcement: Special Investigations, Joanna Grivetti Law Enforcement: Sexual Assault, Don Nelson and Kris Tong, Richmond Police Department Above and Beyond-Kent Osborne, Mike’s Auto Body Making a Difference-Liz Torres, Monument Crisis Center Special Courage-Victoria Velasquez and family AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/99 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017_99 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 472 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2017/99 PROCLAIMING APRIL 2-8, 2017 AS NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS WEEK Whereas, Americans are the victims of more than 20 million crimes each year, affecting individuals, and communities; Whereas, Providing victims with knowledge of their rights and available services further strengthens their ability to recover by restoring a sense of self-empowerment; Whereas, A trauma-informed response to victims promotes healing and fosters strength in survivors; Whereas, Unaddressed trauma from victimization weakens the resilience of victims and their communities, impeding their ability to withstand future trauma; Whereas, Victims who feel understood and supported are more likely to disclose their victimization, seek services and participate in the justice process; Whereas, A multidisciplinary response, involving collaboration among victim service professionals, criminal justice officials, legal professionals, medical and mental health providers, and community leaders is essential to reach and serve all victims - especially those who are marginalized, have disabilities, or live in remote locations; Whereas, Strengthening the multidisciplinary response - bringing diverse skills, perspectives, and understandings together in the service of victims - also serves to build the resilience of those responders, by strengthening the confidence in their roles, abilities, and sense of contribution; Whereas, National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, April 2-8, 2017, provides an opportunity to recommit to ensuring that all victims of crime - especially those who are challenging to reach or serve - are afforded their rights and receive a trauma-informed response; and Whereas, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is dedicated to strengthening victims and survivors in the aftermath of crime, building resilience in our communities and our victim responders, and working for justice for all victims and survivors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim the week of April 2-8, 2017, as Crime Victims’ Rights Week and reaffirm their commitment to creating a victim service and criminal justice response that assists all victims of crime; and to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation for those community members, victim service providers, and criminal justice professionals who are committed to improving our response to all victims of crime so that they may find relevant assistance, support, justice and peace. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors announces the 7th Annual Crime Victims’ Rights Week Recognition Ceremony to be hosted by the District Attorney on Friday, April 7, 2017 from 10:30 a.m. to Noon at the Board of Supervisors’ chambers located at 651 Pine Street, Martinez. ___________________ FEDERAL D. GLOVER Chair, District V Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS KAREN MITCHOFF District III Supervisor District IV Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 473 PR.1, C.9 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 474 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Jen Quallick, (925) 957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing the City of San Ramon, the San Ramon Library Foundation and the Contra Costa County Library Upon the Reopening of the Newly Renovated San March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 475 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/105 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017_105 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 476 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2017/105 Recognizing the City of San Ramon, the San Ramon Library Foundation and the Contra Costa County Library Upon the Reopening of the Newly Renovated San Ramon Library. WHEREAS, the newly renovated and expanded San Ramon Library is a successful collaboration between the City of San Ramon, Contra Costa County Library and the San Ramon Library Foundation; and WHEREAS, the renovation and expansion of the San Ramon Library was funded by the City of San Ramon; and WHEREAS, the San Ramon Library Foundation has a long history of supporting quality library service, has been heavily involved in all phases of planning for the renovated San Ramon Library and successfully raised funds for the opening day collection; and WHEREAS, the renovated San Ramon Library will feature an additional 3100 square feet of resources, meeting rooms, study rooms and state of the art technology; and WHEREAS, the City of San Ramon Library was the first to approve funds for additional hours and the first to be open on Sundays; and WHEREAS, the first San Ramon Library opened to the public on April 15, 1989, twenty-eight years to the day, the community now celebrates the Library’s grand re-opening; and WHEREAS, all residents are invited to enjoy a dedicated Jazz section, listening rooms, a large music collection and WiFi connections to the Classic Wurlitzer jukebox and look forward to the 20th Annual Jazz Concert Series in the Fall of 2017; and WHEREAS, the library’s renovation includes larger spaces for children and teens, including an early literacy area; and WHEREAS, the renovated San Ramon Library will feature dual WiFi networks, in-library use of laptops and new furnishings to support improved connectivity for mobile devices; and WHEREAS, every day, public libraries open minds, enrich lives, and bring our community together. Libraries serve as places for education, cultural exchange, and recreation and relaxation. They serve people of all ages and from all walks of life. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby honor and congratulate the City of San Ramon, the San Ramon Library Foundation and the Contra Costa County Library on the occasion of the grand reopening of the newly renovated San Ramon Library on April 15th, 2017. ___________________ FEDERAL D. GLOVER Chair, District V Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS KAREN MITCHOFF District III Supervisor District IV Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 477 C.11 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 478 RECOMMENDATION(S): INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2017-04 amending the County Ordinance Code to exclude from the merit system the new classification of Sheriff's Chief of Management Services-Exempt, WAIVE READING and FIX April 18, 2017, for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact related to this item. BACKGROUND: This action introduces Ordinance No. 2017-04 in anticipation of returning to the Board with a recommendation to adopt the Ordinance on the April 18, 2017 agenda. The Ordinance will ultimately add the position of Sheriff's Chief of Management Services-Exempt to the listing of positions exempt from the merit system in County Ordinance Code section 33-5.311. This item should be considered along with a separate item on today's agenda creating the classification of Sheriff's Chief of Management Services-Exempt and allocating it to the salary schedule. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The proposed Ordinance will not be introduced to the Board and a date will not be fixed for adoption. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Tanya Williams 925-335-1714 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Dianne Dinsmore, Human Resources Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Introduce Ordinance No. 2017/04 Amending Section 33-5.311 of the County Ordinance Code March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 479 ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2017-04 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 480 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes481 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes482 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Andrew Chahrour to the Appointee Seat III on the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council (ESMAC) to a term ending on 12/31/2018. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council shall advise the Board of Supervisors on: 1) Services which are or may be provided to unincorporated El Sobrante by the County or other local governmental agencies. Such services include, but are not limited to, public health, safety, welfare, public works, and planning, 2) the feasibility of organizing the existing special districts serving unincorporated El Sobrante in order to more efficiently provide public services such as, but not limited to, water, sewer, fire, and parks and recreation, 3) representing unincorporated El Sobrante before the Local Agency Formation Commission on proposed boundary changes affecting the community, 4) representing unincorporated El Sobrante before the County Planning Commission(s) and the Zoning Administrator on land use and other planning matters affecting the community. In this regard, the Council shall cooperate with any other planning advisory bodies in unincorporated El Sobrante APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: James Lyons, 510-231-8692 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINT Andrew Chahrour to the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 483 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) in order to avoid duplication and delay in the planning process, 5) Provide input and reports to the Board of Supervisors, County staff, or any other County hearing body on issues of concern to unincorporated El Sobrante, and 6) representing unincorporated El Sobrante before other public entities and agencies. It is understood that the Board of Supervisors is the final decision making authority with respect to issues concerning unincorporated El Sobrante and that the Council shall shall solely in an advisory capacity. Andrew Chahrour El Sobrante, CA 94803 Supervisor Gioia advertises his open advisory body seats in numerous ways including through his website, eblasts, and newsletters, as well as with the traditional media. ATTACHMENTS Andrew_Chahrour_App March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 484 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 485 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 486 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 487 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 488 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 489 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 490 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 491 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 492 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following individual to fill the District IV Seat on the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to a term ending on June 30, 2019: Kevin Van Buskirk Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The County Planning Commission (CPC) consist of seven members appointed by the board on the basis that one member shall be nominated by each of the five supervisors and two members shall be nominated by the board of supervisors as a whole. The appointed commissioners serve for four-year terms beginning on July 1st and ending on June 30th. The Planning Commission is responsible for: • Exercise all powers and duties prescribed by law, including consideration of matters referred to it by the zoning administrator except those powers and duties specifically reserved or delegated APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Lia Bristol, (925) 521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Appoint Kevin Van Buskirk to the District IV Seat of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 493 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to other divisions of the planning agency • Initiate preparation of general plans, specific plans, regulations, programs and legislation to implement the planning power of the county. • Be generally responsible for advising the legislative body of matters relating to planning. • Be the advisory agency as designated in Title 9 of this code for the purpose of passing on subdivisions. • Hear and decide all applications or requests for proposed entitlements estimated to generate one hundred or more peak hour trips unless otherwise provided by this code or board order. • Hear and make recommendations regarding proposed development agreements when it is hearing the related project applications being processed concurrently with the development agreements. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 494 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following individuals to the Contra Costa County Sustainability Commission for a term to end on March 31, 2021: District V Representative Charles Davidson Hercules, CA District V Alternate Mark Thomson Martinez, CA FISCAL IMPACT: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: David Fraser, 925-335-8200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENTS TO SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 495 BACKGROUND: The Sustainability Commission is to advise the Board on issues related to the County's Climate Action Plan and opportunities to realize equity and fairness across the diverse communities of Contra Costa County in sustainability programs that support the Climate Action Plan. They are to provide suggestions to staff and the Board on how to better engage Contra Costa County residents on sustainability issues and implementation of the Climate Action Plan. Applications were accepted and reviewed and the recommendation is to approve the above-named individuals. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The District V seats will remain vacant. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 496 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Wade Harper, DECLARE a vacancy in City #1 Alternate seat on the Hazardous Materials Commission, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The Hazardous Materials Commission was established in 1986 to advise the Board, County staff and the mayor’s council members, and staffs of the cities within the County, on issues related to the development, approval and administration of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Specifically, the Board charged the Commission with drafting a hazardous materials storage and transportation plan and ordinance, coordinating the implementation of the hazardous materials release response plan and inventory program, and to analyze and develop recommendations regarding hazardous materials issues with consideration to broad public input, and report back to the Board on Board referrals. The bylaws of the Commission provide that two City seats be appointed by the Mayors Conference. Mr. Harper has resigned the City #1 Alternate seat and the department wishes to fill this vacancy as soon as possible. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Michael Kent, 925-313-6587 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Michael Kent C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Declare Vacancy on the Hazardous Materials Commission March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 497 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The vacancy will not be posted. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 498 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 499 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Robert Saydah, DECLARE a vacancy in the Appointee 3 Seat on the County Service Area P-5 Citizens Advisory Committee, effective immediately, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Candace Andersen. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Established on April 18, 1972, by Resolution Number 72/257, the purpose of the County Service Area P-5 Citizen Advisory Committee is to act as a liaison between the citizens of the P-5 Police District and the Office of the Sheriff of Contra Costa County by: Advising the Board of Supervisors and the Office of the Sheriff of the community's needs and desires regarding police protection; Promoting public safety in the areas of home safety, traffic safety, vacation security and crime prevention through the neighborhood watch program; and maintaining oversight of expenditures of the public funds accruing in the P-5 Police District. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Jill Ray, 925-957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, CSA P5 CAC C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:RESIGNATION FROM THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-5 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 500 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This untimely vacancy is due to the unfortunate sudden passing of Mr. Saydah. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Since the seat will remain filled, we will be unable to appoint a new member to ensure quorum is met. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 501 RECOMMENDATION(S): Health Services Department (0451)/Fleet ISF (0064): Approve Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5055 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $27,309 from Behavioral Health Services Division – Conservator/Public Guardian (0451) to General Services – ISF Fleet Services (0064) for the purchase of one (1) vehicle for transportation of conserved clients. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases appropriations in General Services – Fleet Services (0064) and reduces appropriations in Conservator/Public Guardian Office (0451) by $27,309. This purchase is funded 100% by the Department's General Fund allocation. BACKGROUND: The Conservatorship/Public Guardian Office seeks to provide more efficient and reliable support for clients who are deemed by the court to be either gravely disabled due to a mental disorder or to lack of capacity due to cognitive impairment. Having an additional vehicle will aid the department in being able to meet the required responsibility of transporting clients to court, as well as have more availability to transport very impaired clients to medical and psychiatric APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriation Adjustment for Behavioral Health Services Administration March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 502 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) appointments and to help them move to new placements. There is a current caseload of 282 Conservatees. Additionally, many clients are placed in locked psychiatric facilities, which are not within the County. This requires staff to travel outside the County to visit to their clients. Purchase of this vehicle will allow Conservator/Public Guardian staff to better meet the needs of their clients. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this appropriation adjustment is not approved, the Division will not be able to purchase a vehicle to support client transportation. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC 24/27 No. 5055 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriations and Adjustment No. 5055 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 503 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes504 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes505 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 506 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No.5061 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $26,000 from Public Health Senior Nutrition Program (0450) to General Services – ISF Fleet Services (0064) for the purchase of a replacement vehicle for the Senior Nutrition Program. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases appropriations in General Services – ISF Fleet Services (0064) and reduces appropriations in Public Health Senior Nutrition Program (0450) by $26,000. The new vehicle purchase will be fully funded with Senior Nutrition Program funds. (100% Local) BACKGROUND: The Senior Nutrition Program Provides nutritious meals to elderly residents in Contra Costa County through the Meals on Wheels program. The Senior Nutrition Program has had to add a driver to service routes in Far East County and an additional vehicle is needed for the growth of the program in this area. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Lorie Brown C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase of vehicle for the Senior Nutrition Program March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 507 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this purchase is not approved, the Public Health Nutrition Program will be required to find alternative ways to deliver meals to home-bound senior residents of Far East County, which may jeopardize the Department's ability to comply with the terms of the Senior Nutrition grant. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC24/27 No. 5061 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriation and Adjustment No. 5061 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 508 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes509 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes510 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 511 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 512 RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE staff to send a letter to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction regarding the reform of school siting practices. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: History The reform of State school siting policies is a longstanding item of the Board of Supervisors (BOS). The County has found that state supported school siting practices are in conflict with both local and state goals related to community development/growth management, student safety, agricultural preservation, safe routes to school, complete streets, sustainability, health in all policies, and greenhouse gas reduction. This issue has for years been addressed in the County's legislative platform (see excerpts at the end of this staff report). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: John Cunningham (925) 674-7833 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:School Siting: County Comments on the State's Efforts to Reform Title 5 School Siting and Design Practices March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 513 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Update The County's efforts in advocating for the reform of school siting is being bolstered by three new efforts now taking place at the state: 1. In late 2016, the California Department of Education (CDE) initiated a long anticipated update to Title 5, which contains school siting and design guidance. County staff has attended a webinar held by CDE on the update and met with CDE staff at the County Office of Education's regular school facilities coordination meeting. The process is anticipated to take until 2018 to complete. 2. The State Assembly Committee on Education initiated an effort to "streamline" the Title 5 school approval process. In contrast to CDE's well publicized update to Title 5, very little is known about this streamlining effort. As alluded to in the Board of Supervisor's February 8, 2017 letter to the Assembly Committee on Education (attached), it does not appear that the streamlining effort is being coordinated with CDE's Title 5 update. 3. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Strategic Growth Council have been conducting research and outreach regarding State school siting practices. OPR staff has interviewed County staff regarding our experience with school siting issues. In addition OPR staff attended the California County Planning Directors Association 2017 Annual Conference and gave a presentation on their efforts relative to Title 5 and school siting. At the Conference, Contra Costa County staff communicated our concerns about the school siting practices. In addition, many other Counties voiced their concerns to OPR staff as well. In the past, the County has been advocating for school siting reform absent any formal process at the state to accommodate or respond to our concerns. Therefore, staff recommends making the most of the opportunity represented by the three efforts listed above. The attached draft letter communicates County staff's recommendations for consideration by the State on school siting practices. Draft Letter Given the general input to the State being provided at this time the approach being recommended is to have staff, through the Planning Integration Team for Community Health (PITCH), provide comments to the State. At this early point in the Title 5 update process we are asking that our concepts be further explored by the State. As the process moves ahead, staff will return to the BOS with more explicit recommendations. Those recommendations are likely to require legislation in 2018 to grant the necessary authority to CDE to appropriately manage the school siting program. Having the PITCH Departments approach the state on this topic is a new strategy. This letter can also be used by staff representing each discipline, engineering, planning, and public health, to approach their respective professional organizations and related advocacy groups for support on this effort. Staff from the PITCH Departments have provided input on the letter and attended the March 13, 2017 meeting of the Legislative Committee. As seen in the proposed letter, staff is requesting that the State examine the involvement of the Local Agency Formation Commission in school siting decisions. Staff from LAFCO also reviewed the letter, expressed support for the effort but did not offer additional comment. Legislative Platform Excerpts Reform of school siting practices is supported in the County's State Legislative Program: Agriculture SUPPORT funding for agricultural land conservation programs and agricultural enterprise programs, and support revisions to State school siting policies, to protect and enhance the viability of local agriculture. The growth in East County and elsewhere has put significant pressure on agricultural lands, yet agriculture is important not only for its production of fresh fruits, vegetables and livestock, but also as a source of open space. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 514 Transportation SUPPORT efforts to improve safety throughout the transportation system. The County supports new and expanded projects and programs to improve safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and wheelchair users, as well as projects to improve safety on high-accident transportation facilities such as Vasco Road. Data on transportation safety would be improved by including global positioning system (GPS) location data for every reported accident to assist in safety analysis and planning. The County also supports the expansion of school safety improvement programs such as crossing guards, revised school zone references in the vehicle code, Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) grants, efforts to improve the safety, expansion and security of freight transportation system including public and private maritime ports, airports, rail yards, railroad lines, rail bridges and sidings. The County also supports limits or elimination of public liability for installing traffic-calming devices on residential neighborhood streets. 1. SUPPORT efforts to coordinate development of state-funded or regulated facilities such as courts, schools, jails, roads and state offices with local planning. The County supports preserving the authority of Public Works over County roads by way of ensuring the Board of Supervisors’ control over County roads as established in the Streets & Highways Code (Ch2 §940) is not undermined. This includes strongly opposing any action by a non-local entity that would ultimately dilute current Board of Supervisors discretion relative to road design and land use. 2. SUPPORT efforts to coordinate planning between school districts, the state, and local jurisdictions for the purposes of: (1) locating and planning new schools, (2) funding programs that foster collaboration and joint use of facilities, and (3) financing off-site transportation improvements for improved access to existing schools. The County will urge the California Department of Education’s current Title 5 update effort to include removing the current conflict between current school siting policies and sustainable communities. Related to this effort, the County supports reform of school siting practices by way of legislative changes related to any new statewide school construction bond authorization. The County takes the position that reform components should include bringing school siting practices and school zone references in the vehicle code into alignment with local growth management policies, safe routes to school best practices, State SB 375 principles, and the State Strategic Growth Council’s “Health in All Policies Initiative.” CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the letter is not transmitted, the Board of Supervisors will miss 1) an opportunity to advocate for issues in the County's State Legislative Platform and, 2) the California Department of Education's April 14, 2017 deadline to provide comments on the initial review of California Code of Regulations - Title 5: School Facilities Construction. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Reforming school siting practices would help achieve the following outcomes identified in the Children's Report Card: Outcome 2: Youth Are Healthy and Preparing for Adulthood: Physical Fitness Outcome 4: Families and Communities Are Safe: Injury Hospitalizations ATTACHMENTS CCC Title-5 MarkUp CCC to CA_CDE re-Title5(Schools)draft March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 515 Contra Costa County Comments on Title 5 Revision Process. Revisions are in redline/strikeout format. Annotations/comments on the revisions are in [brackets and in typewriter font]. Title 5. Education Division 1. California Department of Education Chapter 13. School Facilities and Equipment Subchapter 1. School Housing Article 1. General Standards § 14001. Minimum Standards. Educational facilities planned by school districts shall be: (a) Evolved from a statement of educational program requirements which reflects the school district's educational goals and objectives. (b) Master-planned to provide for maximum site enrollment.. (c) Located on a site which meets California Department of Education standards as specified in Section 14010. (d) Designed for the environmental comfort and work efficiency of the occupants. (e) Designed to require a practical minimum of maintenance. (f) Designed to meet federal, state, and local statutory requirements for structure, fire, and public safety. (g) Designed and engineered with flexibility to accommodate future needs. (h) Located and designed to support reductions of greenhouse gasses and vehicle miles traveled consistent with state goals. (i) Include access infrastructure, at the time of school opening, consistent with the 2008- Complete Streets Act. [Reflects authority established with the “safety” references in EDC § 17251 (c) and (f)]. Note: Authority cited: Sections 17251(b) and 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 17017.5 and 17251(b), Education Code. HISTORY 1. Amendment filed 9-23-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 39). 2. Amendment of text and adoption of Note filed 11-12-93; operative 12-13-93 (Register 93, No. 46). 3. Amendment of Note filed 10-30-2000; operative 10-30-2000 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 2000, No. 44). 5 CCR § 14001, 5 CA ADC § 14001 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 516 Title 5. Education Division 1. California Department of Education Chapter 13. School Facilities and Equipment Subchapter 1. School Housing Article 2. School Sites § 14010. Standards for School Site Selection. All districts shall select a school site that provides safety and that supports learning. The following standards shall apply to site selection and be addressed in a written report provided to the governing board, the district advisory committee, and the local land use agency [requirements are consistent with EDC § PART 10.5. SCHOOL FACILITIES: Schoolsites: 17211]: (a) The net usable acreage and enrollment for a new school site shall be consistent with the numbers of acres and enrollment established in the 2000 Edition, “School Site Analysis and Development” published by the California Department of Education and incorporated into this section by reference, in toto, unless sufficient land is not available or circumstances exist due to any of the following: (1) Urban or suburban development results in insufficient available land even after considering the option of eminent domain. (2) Sufficient acreage is available but it would not be economically feasible to mitigate geological or environmental hazards or other site complications which pose a threat to the health and/or safety of students and staff. (3) Sufficient acreage is available but not within the attendance area of the unhoused students or there is an extreme density of population within a given attendance area requiring a school to serve more students on a single site. Choosing an alternate site would result in extensive long-term bussing of students that would cause extreme financial hardship to the district to transport students to the proposed school site. (4) Geographic barriers, traffic congestion, inadequate transportation infrastructure for student cyclists, pedestrians, and/or other wheeled/active transportation, high vehicle speeds, or other constraints throughout the attendance boundary would cause extreme school access issues for the school district and the community at large. financial hardship for the district to transport students to the proposed school site. [Regarding the struck out text, excepting special needs students, school districts are not obligated to provide transportation. Regardless, the listed issues DO create a hardship for parents, students, and local jurisdictions who, when school districts site schools in remote areas, are left to somehow get students safety to/from school sites which are often infrastructure islands surrounded by rural landscape.] (b) If a school site is less than the recommended acreage required in subsection (a) of this section, the district shall demonstrate how the students will be provided an adequate educational program including physical education as described in the district's adopted course of study. (c) The property line of the site even if it is a joint use agreement as described in subsection (o) of this section shall be at least the following distance from the edge of respective power line easements: (1) 100 feet for 50-133 kV line. (2) 150 feet for 220-230 kV line. (3) 350 feet for 500-550 kV line. (d) If the proposed site is within 1,500 feet of a railroad track easement, a safety study shall be done by a competent professional trained in assessing cargo manifests, frequency, speed, and schedule of railroad traffic, grade, curves, type and condition of track need for sound or safety barriers, need for pedestrian and vehicle safeguards at railroad crossings, presence of high pressure gas lines near the tracks that could rupture in the event of a derailment, March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 517 preparation of an evacuation plan. In addition to the analysis, possible and reasonable mitigation measures must be identified. [Roadways and automobiles are a more substantial threat to student safety than railroads. Implementation of the County’s “Ensure Complete Streets Consistency” proposal will help to ensure an appropriate review of roadway safety, on par with the railroad language] (e) The site shall not be adjacent to a road or freeway that any site-related traffic and sound level studies have determined will have safety problems or sound levels which adversely affect the educational program. (f) Pursuant to Education Code sections 17212 and 17212.5, the site shall not contain an active earthquake fault or fault trace. (g) Pursuant to Education Code sections 17212 and 17212.5, the site is not within an area of flood or dam flood inundation unless the cost of mitigating the flood or inundation impact is reasonable. (h) The site shall not be located near an above-ground water or fuel storage tank or within 1500 feet of the easement of an above ground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard as determined by a risk analysis study, conducted by a competent professional, which may include certification from a local public utility commission. (i) The site is not subject to moderate to high liquefaction or landslides. (j) The shape of the site shall have a proportionate length to width ratio to accommodate the building layout, parking and playfields that can be safely supervised and does not exceed the allowed passing time to classes for the district. (k) The site shall be easily accessible from arterial roads and shall allow minimum peripheral visibility from the planned driveways in accordance with the Sight Distance Standards established in the “Highway Design Manual,” Table 201.1, published by the Department of Transportation, July 1, 1990 edition, and incorporated into this section by reference, in toto. (l) The site shall not be on major arterial streets with a heavy traffic pattern as determined by site-related traffic studies including those that require student crossings unless mitigation of traffic hazards and a plan for the safe arrival and departure of students appropriate to the grade level has been provided by city, county or other public agency in accordance with the “School Area Pedestrian Safety” manual published by the California Department of Transportation, 1987 edition, incorporated into this section by reference, in toto. [Considering the wealth of new, relevant statutes and policies that the state has developed over the past 10 years this language should be rewritten. Contemporary references (as opposed to the 1987 School Area Pedestrian Safety document)should be referenced including, the 2008 Complete Streets Act, Health In All Policies, AB32/SB375 concepts, Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework, and the numerous revisions to the Highway Design Manual.] (m) Existing or proposed zoning of the surrounding properties shall be compatible with schools in that it would not pose a potential health or safety risk to students or staff in accordance with Education Code Section 17213 and Government Code Section 65402, the multimodal circulation and safety plan, and other available studies of traffic surrounding the site. (n) The site shall be located within the proposed attendance area to accommodate and encourage student walking and active transportation avoid extensive bussing unless bussing is used to promote ethnic diversity. Accommodation shall be documented in the multimodal circulation and safety plan. [The comment is reflective of the County’s comment, “Ensure Complete Streets Consistency”] (o) The site shall be selected to promote joint use of parks, libraries, museums and other public services, the acreage of which may be included as part of the recommended acreage as stated in subsection (a) of this section. (p) The site shall be conveniently located for public services including but not limited to fire protection, police protection, public transit and trash disposal whenever feasible. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 518 (q) The district shall consider environmental factors of light, wind, noise, aesthetics, and air pollution in its site selection process. (r) Easements on or adjacent to the site shall not restrict access or building placement. (s) The cost and complications of the following shall be considered in the site selection process and should not result in undue delays or unreasonable costs consistent with State Allocation Board standards: (1) Distance of utilities to the site, availability and affordability of bringing utilities to the site. (2) Site preparation including grading, drainage, demolition, hazardous cleanup, including cleanup of indigenous material such as serpentine rock, and off-site development of streets, curbs, gutters and lights. (3) Eminent domain, relocation costs, severance damage, title clearance and legal fees. (4) Long-term high landscaping or maintenance costs. (5) Existence of any wildlife habitat that is on a protected or endangered species list maintained by any state or federal agency, existence of any wetlands, natural waterways, or areas that may support migratory species, or evidence of any environmentally sensitive vegetation. (t) If the proposed site is on or within 2,000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous waste, the school district shall contact the Department of Toxic Substances Control for a determination of whether the property should be considered a Hazardous Waste Property or Border Zone Property. (u) At the request of the governing board of a school district, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction may grant exemptions to any of the standards in this section if the district can demonstrate that mitigation of specific circumstances overrides a standard without compromising a safe and supportive school environment. Note: Authority cited: Sections 17251(b) and 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 17212, 17212.5, 17213, 17251(b) and 17251(f), Education Code. HISTORY 1. Renumbering of former section 14010 to section 14011 and new section filed 11-12-93; operative 12-13-93 (Register 93, No. 46). For prior history, see Register 77, No. 39. 2. Amendment of section and Note filed 10-30-2000; operative 10-30-2000 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 2000, No. 44). 5 CCR § 14010, 5 CA ADC § 14010 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 519 Title 5. Education Division 1. California Department of Education Chapter 13. School Facilities and Equipment Subchapter 1. School Housing Article 2. School Sites § 14011. Procedures for Site Acquisition - State-Funded School Districts. A state-funded school district is defined as a school district having a project funded under Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 17070.10) of the Education Code. A state-funded school district, before acquiring title to real property for school use, shall obtain written approval from the California Department of Education using the following procedures: (a) Request a preliminary conference with a consultant from the School Facilities Planning Division and in consultation review and evaluate sites under final consideration. (b) Contact the School Facilities Planning Division of the California Department of Education to obtain a “School Facilities Planning Division Field Site Review,” form SFPD 4.0, published by the California Department of Education, as last amended in December 1999 and incorporated into this section by reference, in toto, which lists the site options in order of merit according to the site selection standards delineated in Section 14010. (c) Prepare a statement of policies as delineated on the “School Facilities Planning Division School Site Report,” form SFPD 4.02, as last amended in December 1999 and incorporated into this section by reference, in toto, covering the range and organization of grades to be served, the transportation of pupils, and the ultimate maximum pupil enrollment to be housed on the site. Prepare a statement showing how the site is appropriate in size as justified by the school district's Facilities Master Plan, including acreage increases above the California Department of Education recommendation made to compensate for off-site mitigation. A school district may choose, in place of a master plan, a developer fee justification document or a five-year plan if it addresses enrollment projections, needed schools, and site sizes. (d) Prepare maps showing present and proposed school sites, significant roads or highways, unsanitary or hazardous installations, such as airports or industries and the indicated boundary of the pupil attendance area to be served as delineated on form SFPD 4.02. (e) Meet with appropriate local government, recreation, and park authorities to consider possible joint use of the grounds and buildings and to coordinate the design to benefit the intended users as required by Education Code Section 35275. (f) Give written notice to the local planning agency having jurisdiction to review the proposed school site or addition to an existing school site and request a written report from the local planning agency of the investigations and recommendations for each proposed site with respect to conformity with the adopted general plan as required by Public Resources Code Section 21151.2 and Government Code Section 65402 and provide documentation to the California Department of Education (CDE) demonstrating the notice and report request to the local planning agency. CDE shall not provide any administrative, procedural, or financial support to the school district without fulfillment of this requirement. [This requirement is in response to our experience with school districts not being aware of or disregarding the referenced sections of the code. Please see the County’s 8-24-16 letter to the Liberty Union High School District (LUHSD) attached to our Title 5 Comment letter. The letter to LUHSD is also available here: www.cccounty.us/no-notice] (g) Comply with Education Code Sections 17212 and 17212.5, with particular emphasis upon an engineering investigation made of the site to preclude locating the school on terrain that may be potentially hazardous: (1) The geological and soils engineering study shall address all of the following: (A) Nature of the site including a discussion of liquefaction, subsidence or expansive soils, slope, stability, dam or flood inundation and street flooding. (B) Whether the site is located within a special study zone as defined in Education Code Section 17212. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 520 (C) Potential for earthquake or other geological hazard damage. (D) Whether the site is situated on or near a pressure ridge, geological fault or fault trace that may rupture during the life of the school building and the student risk factor. (E) Economic feasibility of the construction effort to make the school building safe for occupancy. (2) Other studies shall include the following: (A) Population trends (B) Transportation (C) Water supply (D) Waste disposal facilities (E) Utilities (F) Traffic hazards (G) Surface drainage conditions (H) Other factors affecting initial and operating costs. (h) Prepare an environmental impact report, or negative declaration in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Division 13, (commencing with Section 21000 with particular attention to Section 21151.8). As required by Education Code Section 17213, the written findings of the environmental impact report or negative declaration must include a statement verifying that the site to be acquired for school purposes is not currently or formerly a hazardous, acutely hazardous substance release, or solid waste disposal site or, if so, that the wastes have been removed. Also, the written findings must state that the site does not contain pipelines which carry hazardous wastes or substances other than a natural gas supply line to that school or neighborhood. If hazardous air emissions are identified, the written findings must state that the health risks do not and will not constitute an actual or potential danger of public health of students or staff. If corrective measures of chronic or accidental hazardous air emissions are required under an existing order by another jurisdiction, the governing board shall make a finding that the emissions have been mitigated prior to occupancy of the school. (i) Consult with, or demonstrate that the lead agency, if other than the district preparing the environmental impact report or negative declaration, has consulted with the appropriate city/county agency and with any air pollution control district or air quality management district having jurisdiction, concerning any facilities having hazardous or acutely hazardous air emissions within one-fourth of a mile of the proposed school site as required by Education Code Section 17213. (j) For purposes of Environmental Site Assessment, school districts shall comply with Education Code sections 17210.1, 17213.1, and 17213.2. (k) Follow the recommendations of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction report based upon the Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, findings, if the proposed site is within two miles of the center line of an airport runway or proposed runway as required by Education Code Section 17215. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 521 (l ) Follow the standards for school site selection in Section 14010 of this article. (m) Conduct a public hearing by the governing board of the school district as required in Education Code Section 17211 to evaluate the property using the standards described in Section 14010 of this article. The school district's facility advisory committee may provide an evaluation of the proposed site to the governing board. (n) Submit the request for exemption from a standard in Section 14010 of this article, with a description of the mitigation that overrides the standard, to the California Department of Education. (o) Certify there are no available alternative school district-owned sites for the project deemed usable for school purposes by the California Department of Education or certify that the school district intends to sell an available alternative school district-owned site and use the proceeds from the sale for the purchase of the new school site. Note: Authority cited: Sections 17251(b) and 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 17070.50, 17072.12, 17210.1, 17211, 17212, 17213 and 17251(b), Education Code. HISTORY 1. Renumbering and amendment of section 14010 to section 14011 and adoption of Note filed 11-12-93; operative 12- 13-93 (Register 93, No. 46). 2. Amendment of section heading, section and Note filed 10-30-2000; operative 10-30-2000 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 2000, No. 44). 5 CCR § 14011, 5 CA ADC § 14011 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 522 Title 5. Education Division 1. California Department of Education Chapter 13. School Facilities and Equipment Subchapter 1. School Housing Article 2. School Sites § 14012. Procedures for Site Acquisition - Locally-Funded School Districts. A locally-funded school district is defined as a school district with a project not applying for funding from any state program administered by the State Allocation Board as defined in Chapter 12.0 (commencing with Section 17000) or Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 17070.10) of the Education Code. A locally-funded school district, before acquiring title to real property for school use, shall: (a) Evaluate the property using the standards established in Section 14010 and items (e) through (l ) in Section 14011; (b) Comply with terms of the complaint investigation described in Section 14012(d); and (c) May request advice from the California Department of Education as described in Education Code Section 17211(a). (d) Prepare documentation of and retain for purposes of a complaint investigation the exemption from the standard in Section 14010 of this article with a description of the mitigation that overrides the standard. Locally-funded school districts may request from the California Department of Education a review of the adequacy of the mitigation measure. (e) Comply with Education Code section 17268 regarding potential safety or health risks to students and staff. Note: Authority cited: Sections 17251(b) and 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 17251(a) and (b) and 17268, Education Code. HISTORY 1. New section filed 11-12-93; operative 12-13-93 (Register 93, No. 46). 2. Repealer of former section 14012 and renumbering of former section 14013 to new section 14012, including amendment of section heading, section and Note, filed 10-30-2000; operative 10-30-2000 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 2000, No. 44). 5 CCR § 14012, 5 CA ADC § 14012 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 523 Title 5. Education Division 1. California Department of Education Chapter 13. School Facilities and Equipment Subchapter 1. School Housing Article 2. School Sites § 14013. Procedures for Site Acquisition - Locally-Funded Districts. [Renumbered] Note: Authority cited: Section 39001(b), Education Code. Reference: Sections 17700 et. seq., 39101(a), and 39101(b), Education Code. HISTORY 1. New section filed 11-12-93; operative 12-13-93 (Register 93, No. 46). 2. Renumbering of former section 14013 to section 14012 filed 10-30-2000; operative 10-30-2000 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 2000, No. 44). 5 CCR § 14013, 5 CA ADC § 14013 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 524 Title 5. Education Division 1. California Department of Education Chapter 13. School Facilities and Equipment Subchapter 1. School Housing Article 4. Standards, Planning and Approval of School Facilities § 14030. Standards for Development of Plans for the Design and Construction of School Facilities. The following standards for new schools are for the use of all school districts for the purposes of educational appropriateness and promotion of school safety: (a) Educational Specifications. Prior to submitting preliminary plans for the design and construction of school facilities, and as a condition of final plan approval by CDE, school board-approved educational specifications for school design shall be prepared and submitted to the California Department of Education based on the school district's goals, objectives, policies and community input that determine the educational program and define the following: (1) Enrollment of the school and the grade level configuration. (2) Emphasis in curriculum content or teaching methodology that influences school design. (3) Type, number, size, function, special characteristics of each space, and spatial relationships of the instructional area that are consistent with the educational program. (4) Community functions that may affect the school design. [Substantial detail and examples should be added to remove ambiguity] (b) Site Layout. Parent drop off, bus loading areas, and parking, and non-motorized access shall be separated or otherwise designed to allow students to enter and exit the school grounds safely unless these features are unavailable due to limited acreage in urban areas or restrictive locations, specifically [Comments are consistent with authority established in the “safety” references in EDC § 17251 (c) and (f)]. : (1) Buses do not pass through parking areas to enter or exit school site unless a barrier is provided that prevents vehicles from backing directly into the bus loading area. (2) Parent drop off area is adjacent to school entrance and separate from bus area and staff parking. (3) Vehicle traffic pattern does not interfere with foot traffic patterns. Foot traffic does not have to pass through entrance driveways to enter school. Crosswalks are clearly marked to define desired foot path to school entrance. (4) Parking stalls are not located so vehicles must back into bus or loading areas used by parents. Island fencing or curbs are used to separate parking areas from loading/unloading areas. (5) To provide equal access to insure the purposes of the least restrictive environment, bus drop off for handicapped students is in the same location as for regular education students. (6) To ensure safe, efficient access an active transportation plan for the school’s entire attendance boundary shall be developed. [consistent with authority established in the “safety” references in EDC § 17251 (c) and (f)] (7) Bicyclist and pedestrian access to school sites shall be encouraged through prioritized access and bicycle parking. (c) Playground and Field Areas. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 525 Adequate physical education teaching stations shall be available to accommodate course requirements for the planned enrollment, specifically: (1) A variety of physical education teaching stations are available to provide a comprehensive physical education program in accordance with the district's adopted course of study (including hardcourt, field area and indoor spaces). (2) The physical education teaching stations are adequate for the planned student enrollment to complete the minimum instruction and course work defined in Education Code Sections 51210(g), 51220(d) and 51225.3(a)(1)(F). (3) Supervision of playfields is not obstructed by buildings or objects that impair observation. (4) Joint use for educational purposes with other public agencies is explored. Joint use layout with parks is not duplicative and fulfills both agencies' needs. (d) Delivery and Utility Areas. Delivery and service areas shall be located to provide vehicular access that does not jeopardize the safety of students and staff: (1) Delivery/utility vehicles have direct access from the street to the delivery area without crossing over playground or field areas or interfering with bus or parent loading unless a fence or other barrier protects students from large vehicle traffic on playgrounds. (2) Trash pickup is fenced or otherwise isolated and away from foot traffic areas. (e) Future Expansion. Site layouts shall have capability for expansion without substantial alterations to existing structures or playgrounds: (1) Site layout designates area(s) for future permanent or temporary additions that are compatible with the existing site plans for playground layout and supervision. (2) Utilities to the expansion area are included in the plans and have the capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. (3) Exits, corridors, stairs, and elevators are located to accommodate capacity of additions, particularly in such buildings added as the multi-purpose/cafeteria, administration, gymnasium/or auditorium. (f) Placement of Buildings. Building placement shall consider compatibility of the various functions on campus and provide optimum patterns of foot traffic flow around and within buildings. Site layout of buildings, parking, driveways, and physical education areas shall be adequate to meet the instructional, security and service needs of the educational program: (1) Building placement is compatible with other functions on campus; e.g., band room is not next to library. (2) Physical relationship of classrooms, auxiliary, and support areas allows unobstructed movement of staff and students around the campus. (3) Building placement has favorable orientation to wind, sun, rain, and natural light. (4) Restrooms are conveniently located, require minimum supervision, and, to the extent possible, are easily accessible from playground and classrooms. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 526 (5) Parking spaces are sufficient for staff, visitors, and students (where applicable). (6) The campus is secured by fencing and electronic devices such as code entries, electronic monitoring or motion sensors when needed. (g) Classrooms. Classrooms at new school sites shall have adequate space to perform the curriculum functions for the planned enrollment as described in the school district's facility master plan, specifically: (1) Classroom size standards: (A) General classrooms, grades one through twelve are not less than 960 square feet. Classrooms proposed of less than 960 square feet require written justification to be submitted to and approved by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Adjacent instructional space shall be included in the calculation of square feet for purposes of approving classroom design. (B) Proposed classrooms of less than 960 square feet have written justification consistent with the educational program and curriculum indicating that the district's education program can be delivered in the proposed size classrooms. (2) Total classroom space meets or exceeds the capacity planned for the school using the district's classroom loading standards in accordance with State Allocation Board policy. (3) Consideration is given to some classrooms which are easily alterable in size and shape at a reasonable cost. (4) Conduit/cabling and outlets are available for technology in each classroom to provide network and stand alone equipment related to the planned and future potential educational functions. (h) Specialized Classrooms and Areas. Specialized classrooms shall be designed to reflect the function planned for that portion of the educational program. If any of the following classrooms are needed, these standards apply: (1) Small-Group Areas. (A) Small-group instruction areas are not included in the computation of classroom size unless the area is an integral part of the classroom and can be visibly supervised by a teacher from the classroom. (B) Small-group instruction areas are designed to allow for collaborative learning opportunities where appropriate to support the regular education program and are located in the vicinity of classrooms. (2) Kindergarten Classrooms. (A) Kindergarten classroom size for permanent structures is not less than 1350 square feet, including restrooms, storage, teacher preparation, wet and dry areas. (B) Kindergarten classrooms are designed to allow supervision of play yards (unless prevented by site shape or size) and all areas of the classroom. (C) Play yard design provides a variety of activities for development of large motor skills. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 527 (D) Classrooms are located close to parent drop-off and bus loading areas. (E) Storage, casework, and learning stations are functionally designed for use in free play and structured activities; e.g., shelves are deep and open for frequent use of manipulative materials. (F) Windows, marking boards, sinks, drinking fountains, and furniture are appropriate heights for kindergarten-age students. (G) Restrooms are self-contained within the classroom or within the kindergarten complex. (3) Special Education Classrooms and Areas. (A) A new school designates at least 240 square feet for the resource specialist program and provides additional space in accordance with the allocations in Education Code Section 17747(a)as larger enrollments are being planned. (B) A new school designates at least 200 square feet for the speech and language program which is close to classrooms when an individualized instruction program is necessary. (C) A new school designates office area for the psychologist/counseling program which provides for confidentiality and may be shared with other support service programs. (D) Special day classrooms are at least the same size as regular education classrooms at that site and are properly equipped for the students who will occupy the space, for their age and type of disabling condition. (E) The square footage allowance in Education Code Section 17747(a) for special day class programs is used for the design of classroom space and other space on the campus to support the special education program. The support space includes but is not limited to speech specialist area, psychologist, counseling offices and conference area. (F) Special day classrooms are distributed throughout the campus with age appropriate regular education classrooms. (G) A cluster of two special day classrooms may be considered if support or auxiliary services (e.g., bathrooming, feeding, physical or occupational therapy) are needed to serve the students throughout the school day. (H) A conference area is available to conduct annual individualized education program meetings for each special education student. (I) Medical therapy units, if planned for the site, are close to visitor parking areas and accessible after school hours. (i) Laboratories shall be designed in accordance with the planned curriculum. (1) Science laboratory: (A) Size is at least 1300 square feet including storage and teacher preparation area. (B) Science laboratory design is consistent with the requirements for proper hazardous materials management specified in both the “Science Facilities Design for California Public Schools,” published by the California Department of Education, March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 528 1993, and the “Science Safety Handbook for California Public Schools,” published by the California State Department of Education, 1999. (C) Accommodations are made for necessary safety equipment and storage of supplies; e.g., fire extinguisher, first aid kit, master disconnect valve for gas. (D) Secured storage areas are provided for volatile, flammable, and corrosive chemicals and cleaning agents. (E) Properly designated areas are provided with appropriate ventilation for hazardous materials that emit noxious fumes, including a high volume purge system in the event of accidental release of toxic substances which may become airborne. (F) Exhaust fume hoods, eye washes, deluge showers are provided. (G) Floor and ceiling ventilation is provided in areas where chemicals are stored. (H) Room is provided for movement of students around fixed-learning stations. (I) There is the capability for technology which complements the curriculum. (J) Classrooms are flexibly designed to insure full student access to laboratory stations and lecture areas. (2) Consumer Home Economics laboratory: (A) There is room for movement of students around fixed learning stations. (B) Cooking equipment reflects current home food preparation practices and/or commercial food preparation simulation. (C) There is the capability for technology which complements portions of the curriculum, such as fashion design, consumer economics, and nutritional analysis of foods. (D) There is space for industrial or home sewing equipment consistent with the planned curriculum. (E) There is storage for student projects and supplies. (F) Space for work tables is provided for such activities as cutting fabric or completing interior design projects. (G) Lecture area is provided. (H) At least 1300 square feet is allocated for each laboratory. (I) If part of the planned program, space for a child care area or for a laboratory to teach child growth and development is provided. (3) Industrial and Technology/Education Laboratory: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 529 (A) Room is provided for movement of students around fixed learning stations. (B) Flexible stations with sufficient outlets and power source for industrial type equipment is provided. (C) Space is provided for various simulations of job-related experiences and laboratory work stations. (D) There is capability to utilize technology which complements the curriculum, such as computer-aided graphics, electronics and specialized tools. (E) There is lecture area within each laboratory or near the laboratory area where appropriate. (F) There are accommodations for necessary health and safety equipment, such as fire extinguisher and first aid kit. (G) Secured storage areas for volatile, flammable and corrosive chemicals and cleaning agents are provided where appropriate. (H) There are properly designated areas with appropriate ventilation for the use of hazardous material that emit noxious fumes or excessive dust particles. (I) Proper storage and removal access for hazardous waste materials is provided in each laboratory using such materials. (4) Computer Instructional Support Area: (A) If a standard classroom is being designated as a computer laboratory, size is at least 960 square feet. (B) Room is provided for movement of students around learning stations. (C) Sufficient outlets, power sources, and network links for the amount of equipment are provided. (D) Proper ventilation is provided. (E) Room provides for security of equipment. (F) Lighting minimizes screen glare and eye strain. (j) Gymnasium, Shower/Locker shall be designed to accommodate multiple use activities in accordance with the planned enrollment: (1) The gymnasium is secured from other parts of the campus for evening and weekend events or for public use purposes. (2) The shower/locker area is of sufficient size to allow students enrolled in the physical education program to shower and dress each period. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 530 (3) Toilets are available for the public in facilities intended for shared community use other than in shower/locker areas. (4) Office space is provided for physical education teachers. (5) Space is available for specialized age-appropriate physical education activities such as weight lifting, exercise equipment usage, aerobics. (k) Auxiliary Areas. (1) Multipurpose/cafeteria area (indoor or outdoor) shall be adequately sized and flexibly designed to protect students from the elements and to allow all students adequate eating time during each lunch period and to accommodate such uses as physical education activities, assemblies, and extracurricular activities: (A) Tables and benches or seats are designed to maximize space and allow flexibility in the use of the space. (B) The location is easily accessible for student and community use, but is close to street for delivery truck access. (C) Stage/platform may have a dividing wall to be used for instructional purposes but is not intended as a classroom. (D) Area for the cafeteria line is designed for the flow of traffic for each lunch period. (E) Design of kitchen reflects its planned function; e.g., whether for food preparation or warming only. (F) Space is available for refrigeration and preparation of foods to accommodate maximum number of students planned for the school. (G) Office, changing, and restroom area for food preparation staff is available and shall comply with local department of health requirements. (H) Ceiling height allows for clearance of light fixtures for physical education activities. (2) Administrative Office. The administrative office shall have sufficient square footage to accommodate the number of staff for the maximum enrollment planned for the school consistent with the master plan for the school district and shall be designed to efficiently conduct the administrative functions, specifically: (A) Students have direct confidential access to pupil personnel area. (B) Counter tops are accessible for an age-appropriate population both at a standing and wheelchair level. (C) Clerical staff have a clear view of nurse's office. (D) The nurse's office has a bathroom separate from staff bathroom(s) in administration area. (E) Space for private conference and waiting area is available. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 531 (F) Capability for such computer networking functions as attendance accounting and communicating to each classroom is considered. (G) A faculty workroom is available for a staff size proportionate to the student population. (3) Library/Media Center and Technology. Library space shall be proportional to the maximum planned school enrollment. The size shall be no less than 960 square feet. However, to allow adaptation for changing technology and communication systems, the following is recommended: -two square feet per unit of a.d.a. (average daily attendance) for elementary; -three square feet per unit of a.d.a. for middle or junior high (grades 6-8); -four square feet per unit of a.d.a. for high school. In addition: (A) Provide security for technology and media equipment. (B) Space and capability for computer terminals is considered for student use, research and report writing. (C) Visual supervision from circulation desk is available to study areas, stack space, and student work centers. (D) Design for open and closed-circuit television, dedicated phone line, electrical outlets for stand-alone computers, and conduit connecting all instructional areas is considered. (l ) Lighting. Light design shall generate an illumination level that provides comfortable and adequate visual conditions in each educational space, specifically: (1) Ceilings and walls are white or light colored for high reflectance unless function of space dictates otherwise. (2) Lights do not produce glare or block the line of sight. (3) Window treatment allows entrance of daylight but does not cause excessive glare or heat gain. (4) Fixtures provide an even light distribution throughout the learning area. (5) Light design follows the California Electrical Code found in Part 3 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (m) Acoustical. Hearing conditions shall complement the educational function by good sound control in school buildings, specifically: (1) The sound-conditioning in a given space is acoustically comfortable to permit instructional activities to take place in this classroom. (2) Sound is transmitted without interfering with adjoining instructional spaces; e.g., room partitions are acoustically designed to minimize noise. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 532 (3) The ventilation system does not transmit an inordinate sound level to the instructional program. (n) Plumbing. Restroom stalls shall be sufficient to accommodate the maximum planned enrollment and shall be located on campus to allow for supervision. (1) Refer to Part 5, Title 24, of the California Code of Regulations. (2) Outdoor restrooms having direct outside access are located in areas that are visible from playground and are easily supervised. (o) Year-Round Education. If a school is being planned for multitrack year-round operation, additional space shall be provided for associated needs: (1) Additional space is available for storage of records for staff for all tracks. Additional storage space for the supplies and projects of off-track students is considered. (2) Storage and planning space is available for off-track teachers or teachers not assigned to a classroom. (p) American Disabilities Act. Schools shall comply with standards established by the American Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336, Title II). (q) Child Care Programs. Schools shall comply with the requirements set forth in Education Code Section 39113.5 regarding plans and specifications for new schools being designed to provide appropriate space to accommodate before-school and after- school child care programs. (r) Exemptions. At the request of the governing board of a school district, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction may grant exemptions to any of the standards in this section if the district can demonstrate that the educational appropriateness and safety of a school design would not be compromised by an alternative to that standard. Note: Authority cited: Sections 17251(c) and 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 17047(a), 17251(c), 17310, 51210(g), 51220(d) and 51225.3, Education Code. HISTORY 1. Amendment of section and NOTE filed 9-23-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 39). 2. Amendment of article heading, repealer and adoption of section heading and text, and amendment of Note filed 11- 12-93; operative 12-13-93 (Register 93, No. 46). 3. Amendment of subsections (a), (b)-(b)(1), (g)(1)(A), (i)(1)(B), (n)-(n)(1) and (p)-(r), new subsection (i)(4)- (i)(4)(F), and amendment of Note filed 10-30-2000; operative 10-30-2000 pursuant toGovernment Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 2000, No. 44). 5 CCR § 14030, 5 CA ADC § 14030 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 533 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 534 Title 5. Education Division 1. California Department of Education Chapter 13. School Facilities and Equipment Subchapter 1. School Housing Article 4. Standards, Planning and Approval of School Facilities § 14031. Plan Approval Procedures for State-Funded School Districts. (a) Each state-funded school district shall submit preliminary plans following the standards in Section 14030 including site utilization, elevations and floor plan drawings that describe the spaces and give the square footage and educational specifications to the California Department of Education for approval. Prior to preparation of final plans, the school district shall obtain approval of the preliminary plans from the California Department of Education. (b) Each state-funded school district shall submit final plans including grading, site utilization, elevation, floor, lighting, and mechanical working drawings and any alterations to the educational specifications to the California Department of Education for approval. (c) Each state-funded school district shall submit the request for exemption from a standard in Section 14030 of this article, with a description of how the educational appropriateness and safety of a school design would not be compromised by deviation from the standard, to the California Department of Education. (e) Each state-funded school district shall submit a multi-modal circulation and safety plan spanning the entire attendance boundary approved by a traffic engineer representing the Department of Transportation. [comment references the “Ensure Complete Streets Consistency” comments in the County’s 3-28-17 letter. Letter is also available here: ] Note: Authority cited: Sections 17251(c) and 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 17017.5(c) and 17251(c), Education Code. HISTORY 1. Amendment filed 9-23-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 39). 2. Repealer and adoption of section heading and text, and adoption of Note filed 11-2-93; operative 12-13-93 (Register 93, No. 46). 3. Amendment of section heading, section and Note filed 10-30-2000; operative 10-30-2000 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 2000, No. 44). 5 CCR § 14031, 5 CA ADC § 14031 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 535 Title 5. Education Division 1. California Department of Education Chapter 13. School Facilities and Equipment Subchapter 1. School Housing Article 4. Standards, Planning and Approval of School Facilities § 14032. Plan Approval for State-Funded School Districts. The California Department of Education shall notify the district, the district's architect and the Department of General Services that the preliminary and final plans comply with the standards set forth in Section 14030. Approvals for either preliminary or final plans are in effect for a maximum of two years from the date of signed approval. School districts may request an extension of preliminary or final plan approvals if the time line exceeds one year. Note: Authority cited: Sections 17251(c) and 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 17024, 17070.50 and 17251(c), Education Code. HISTORY 1. Amendment filed 9-23-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77, No. 39). 2. Amendment of section heading and text, and adoption of Note filed 11-12-93; operative 12-13-93 (Register 93, No. 46). 3. Amendment of section heading, section and Note filed 10-30-2000; operative 10-30-2000 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 2000, No. 44). 5 CCR § 14032, 5 CA ADC § 14032 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 536 Title 5. Education Division 1. California Department of Education Chapter 13. School Facilities and Equipment Subchapter 1. School Housing Article 4. Standards, Planning and Approval of School Facilities § 14033. Applicability of Plan Standards to Locally-Funded School Districts. (a) Locally-funded districts shall use the plan standards set forth in Section 14030. (b) Locally-funded districts may request assistance from the California Department of Education to review plans and specifications for any new school construction or rehabilitation project. (c) Locally-funded districts need not submit preliminary and final plans to the California Department of Education. (d) Locally-funded districts shall prepare documentation of and retain for purposes of a complaint investigation the exemption from the standard in Section 14030 of this article, with a description of how the educational appropriateness and safety of a school design would not be compromised by deviation from the standard. Locally-funded districts may request from the California Department of Education a review of the adequacy of the mitigation measure. (e) Locally-funded districts shall continue to comply fully with the requirements of Article 3 (commencing with Section 17280) and Article 6 (commencing with Section 17365) of Chapter 2, Part 23 of the Education Code (The Field Act) and submit all plans and specifications to the Department of General Services, Office of the State Architect for review and approval prior to executing a contract for the construction or alteration of a public school building or expending any public funds for such a project. Note: Authority cited: Sections 17251(c) and (d) and 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 17251(d), 17280 and 17365, Education Code. HISTORY 1. Renumbering of former section 10433 to section 14035 and new section filed 11-12-93; operative 12-13-93 (Register 93, No. 46). 2. Repealer of former section 14033 and renumbering of former section 14034 to new section 14033, including amendment of section heading, section and Note, filed 10-30-2000; operative 10-30-2000 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 2000, No. 44). 5 CCR § 14033, 5 CA ADC § 14033 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 537 Appendix A Site Selection Process When a school district is planning to acquire a site for a school, it must take various factors into consideration. The School Facilities Planning Division has developed three work sheets to assist the district in assessing potential sites and making preliminary selections. The work sheets, which are included in this appendix, outline a set of 12 primary criteria governing school site selection and consists of three components: Site Selection Criteria, Site Selection Evaluation, and a Comparative Evaluation of Candidate Sites. These components allow for a comprehensive examination of sites to determine strengths and weaknesses (Site Selection Criteria); a ranking of each site (Site Selection Evaluation); and finally, a comparison of sites by the rating factors and total scoring (Comparative Evaluation of Candidate Sites). The criteria are consistent with the California Education Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 5, California Public Resources Code, and the California Department of Education policies and guidelines. Although these standards are not the sole criteria to be considered by a school district's site selection committee, the committee may find them useful in evaluating various sites, identifying at least three acceptable sites from which a final choice can be made, and, eventually, explaining the site selection process to interested entities. Each primary element listed on the Site Selection Criteria work sheet contains secondary measures that provide the committee the opportunity to apply a specific set of guidelines to each potential site and aid in the analysis of a site. The secondary criteria may also be used by the committee to understand better the types of data needed in identifications, selection, and final acquisition of a school site. After considering both primary and secondary standards on the work sheet, the committee should rank the sites in order of acceptability by completing the second and third work sheets. June 1998     California Department of Education Site Selection Criteria Part 1     Site Identification Grade Level   Location Gross Acres Estimated Value       Safety (These factors must be avoided.)   Adjacent to or near roadways with a high speed or volume [Speed is a greater threat to student safety than volume. School sites are inherently subject to substantial volumes of traffic. It is the speed of that traffic that must be addressed. (as reflected in the establishment of school zones in the statutes) of traffic with no separated, non-motorized facilities. Within 1,500 feet of railroad tracks Within two miles of an airport runway Close to high-voltage power lines Close to high-pressure lines, for example natural gas, gasoline sewer or water lines Contaminants/toxics in the soil or groundwater, such as from landfills, dumps, chemical plants, refineries, fuel tanks, nuclear plants, or agricultural use of pesticides or fertilizer, etc.* Close to high decibel noise sources Close to open-pit mining On or near a fault zone or active fault   OK Potential Problem                           March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 538   Location   Safe walking areas Adequate infrastructure, consistent with state and local complete streets policies, ensuring non-motorized access throughout the school attendance boundary. Centrally located to avoid extensive transporting and Closely integrated with the transportation network of the attendance boundary of the school to minimize and increase the safety of student travel distance Compatible with current and probable future zoning regulations including Urban Limit Lines/Urban Growth Boundaries. Close to, and integrated with libraries, parks, museums, and other community services Favorable orientation to wind and natural light               Environment Located so as to make active transportation/school access attractive and possible.   Free from sources of noise that may impede the instructional process Free from air, water and soil pollution Free from smoke, dust, odors, and pesticide spray Provides aesthetic view from and of the site Compatible with the educational program               Soils   Proximity to faults or fault traces Stable subsurface and bearing capacity Danger of slides or liquefaction Percolation for septic system and drainage Adequate water table level Existing land fill is reasonably well compacted   Note: A geological hazard report must be conducted to determine soil and seismic conditions.                 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 539 June 1998     Topography   Feasibility of mitigating steep grades Rock ledges or outcroppings Surface and subsurface drainage Level area for playfields OK Potential Problem      Size and Shape   Net acreage consistent with standards of California Department of Education as noted in “School Site Analysis and Development” Length-to-width ratio does not exceed 2:1 Sufficient open play area and open space Potential for expansion for future needs Area for adequate and separate bus loading and parking Safe, adequate, bicycle parking proximate/convenient to classrooms.            Accessibility   Obstacles such as crossings on major streets and intersections, narrow or winding streets, heavy traffic patterns Access and dispersal roads Natural obstacles such as grades or gullies Freeway access for bus transportation Routing patterns for foot non-motorized traffic Remote areas (with no sidewalks) where students walk to and from school Easily reachable by emergency response vehicles Non-motorized infrastructure throughout the attendance boundary consistent with state and local Complete Streets policies.         Public Services   Fire and police protection, including firelines Available public transportation Trash and garbage disposal         Utilities   Availability of water, electricity, gas, sewer Feasibility of bringing utilities to site at reasonable cost Restrictions on right of way         Cost   Full-cost accounting identifies capital, operating/maintenance costs for outside agencies. Reasonable costs for purchase of property, severance damages, relocation of residents and businesses, and legal fees Reasonable costs for site preparation including, but not limited to, drainage, parking, driveways, removal of existing buildings, and grading          March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 540 June 1998       Availability   On the market for sale Title clearance Condemnation of buildings and relocation of residents   OK Potentia l          Public Acceptance   Public acceptance of the proposed site Receptivity of city or county planning commission Zoned for prime agriculture or industrial use Negative environmental impact report Coordination and consistency of proposed school with future community plans                Comments:      \\ds.contra-costa.org\DCD\Groups\Transportation\SchoolIssues\Schools-CDE\CCC Title 5 Comments.docx March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 541  Contra Costa County  Department of Conservation &  Development  30 Muir Road  Martinez, CA  94553  Phone: (855) 323‐2626    John Kopchik, Director  Health Services Department  50 Douglas Drive  Suite 310  Martinez, CA 94553  Phone: (925) 957‐5400    Dr. William Walker, Director  Department of Public  Works  255 Glacier Drive  Martinez, CA  94553  Phone: (925) 313‐2000    Julia R. Bueren, Director  D R A F T March 28, 2017 Tom Torlakson, Superintendent of Public Instruction California Department of Education 1430 N St, Sacramento, CA 95814 DRAFT Subject: Title 5 School Siting and Design Standards Review Dear Superintendent Torlakson: This letter responds to the California Department of Education’s (Department) School Facilities & Transportation Services Division request for input on its review of Title 5 which was initiated in late 2016. Contra Costa County (County) welcomes this review as we have witnessed gaps in state school siting practices relative to contemporary land use and transportation planning statutes and principles. Specifically, the County urges the Department to conform school siting practices with State and local policies to ensure that the siting of new schools does not violate goals related to student safety, growth management, greenhouse gas reduction, health in all policies, agricultural preservation, complete streets, and general public health. The County recognizes the significant link between the built environment and public health. This recognition led the Board of Supervisors to create a staff level committee in 2007, the Planning Integration Team for Community Health (PITCH). PITCH is comprised of staff from three Departments, Conservation and Development, Health Services, and Public Works. Respectively, these Departments are responsible for land use/transportation planning, public health, and engineering. PITCH advises the Board of Supervisors on policies and strategy related to land development, grant applications, policy changes, infrastructure investment, etc. Given the significant and enduring effect that schools have on the character and safety of the community surrounding school sites, the Board of Supervisors directed PITCH to develop this response to the Title 5 revision effort. We have organized this response as follows: I. Immediately below is the policy context in which the PITCH Departments developed comments. II. Below the policy context we provide broader recommendations that don’t lend themselves to direct insertion in to the existing Title 5 text. III. Attached are specific, recommended revisions entered directly in the body of the Title 5 text. I. Policy Context Numerous policies guide land development and transportation infrastructure investment at both the local and state levels. School sites, which are defining institutions in our communities, have a substantial impact on the safety and character of the surrounding community, and serve a vulnerable population, are often not developed to be consistent with the adopted policies listed below. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 542 Because schools are exempt from complying with local ordinances they are frequently inconsistent with many local and state policies that are enacted to combat sprawl, achieve greenhouse emission goals, ensure safe and efficient transportation, and protect public health. The policies include: Local Policies Urban Limit Line: Contra Costa County voters approved an Urban Limit Line (ULL) in 1990. In 2006 voters passed a new Measure which affirmed and extended the ULL protection to 2026. The ULL limits urban development to certain areas of the County and helps to preserve farmland, open space, and combat sprawl. Currently, schools are being planned and built outside the ULL undermining growth restrictions approved by the voters. Complete Streets: Contra Costa County’s Complete Streets policy was adopted by General Plan revision in 2008 and pre-dates the State Complete Streets Act. The policy was reaffirmed and expanded in 2016 with the Board of Supervisors Adoption of an updated Complete Streets Policy. Complete Streets recognizes that streets serve many users and should accommodate users of all ages, abilities, and modes including cyclists, pedestrians, transit users and the mobility impaired. When schools are located as infrastructure islands in rural or agricultural areas it is not financially possible to provide adequate transportation infrastructure throughout the school attendance boundaries to accommodate student cyclists and pedestrians. These sites are often well outside of established transit routes, promote increased vehicular travel, and make it unsafe and impractical to get to school by using active transportation such as walking and bicycling because there are no sidewalks or adequate facilities for student cyclists. Climate Action Plan: In December 2015, Contra Costa County adopted a Climate Action Plan that outlines how we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our County. The Climate Action Plan has goals and requirements regarding green buildings; the State should ensure that the Title 5 update recognizes local sustainability and green building policies, as well as comply with State policies. The Climate Action Plan sets goals for increasing active transportation in our County with specific targets around number of weekday bike trips, implementing the Safe Routes to School program, and reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled. State Policies Complete Streets Act of 2008: Similar to Contra Costa County’s local policy, the state Complete Streets Act (AB 1358/2008) directs that transportation facilities be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, etc. appropriate to the function and context of the facility. When the State facilitates the development of schools in disconnected areas, it compromises the ability for local jurisdictions to adhere to complete streets policies. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Legislation (AB32 – 2006, SB375 – 2008, SB743 – 2013): Through various mechanisms, this State legislation dictates how GHG’s are to be reduced. Given that land development is most often a local activity, the successful implementation of these mandates often fall to local agencies to implement through changes to land development and infrastructure investment practices. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 543 Though local jurisdictions are implementing these policies at the city/county level, the State school siting program impedes implementation of this legislation by facilitating the development of school sites in remote areas, thereby driving up vehicle miles traveled. Recognizing this issue, in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) original draft implementation guidance for AB 32, the reform of school siting practices was included. In the final version, the guidance was removed without explanation. Health in all policies: The State adopted a Health in All Policies (HIAP) approach to improve the health of all people by incorporating health considerations into collaborative decision-making across sectors and policy areas. The HIAP effort includes 22 State agencies and departments that fall under the Health In All Policies Task Force which is in turn overseen by the Strategic Growth Council. While efforts are made through the HIAP program to improve health through policy changes, the State school siting program conflicts with this effort by facilitating the development of school sites in remote areas. This practice limits the ability for students to use active transportation to make the home/school/home trip. Concurrently, the State practices compromise safety for those that do walk/bike to school because it is not financially possible to construct adequate non-motorized transportation infrastructure connecting remote schools to the communities they serve. Similar to CARB’s GHG reduction effort, this issue was acknowledged by the State early during HIAP implementation. The original draft strategies for implementing HIAP included addressing school siting practices. Subsequent revisions to the HIAP removed school siting reform activities. II. Broad Policy Recommendations Establish Clear Authority/Responsibility: The County has had numerous conversations with local school districts and state officials on school siting practices over the years that reveal a lack of clarity regarding authority on school siting practices. It would appear that a vacuum of responsibility exists that does not foster comprehensive planning or accountability:  In discussing and advocating for school siting policy changes with State staff a common response is, “local school districts are responsible, we merely provide guidance”.  In discussing and advocating for a change in school siting practices with local school districts a common response is, “we are just following state policies”.  When the County advocates for better decision making a common response is, “school districts are exempt from local ordinances”. Administering a massive public investment program such as school construction requires a process with clear lines of authority and responsibility. Ultimately, the lack of clear responsibilities and effective policies has led to adversarial situations. Please see the attached letters for examples. Develop Financial Incentives and Disincentives: In Contra Costa, and we assume in other Counties with rural areas, one significant reason schools are developed on remote or agricultural land is the lower cost. Addressing this fundamental issue will be necessary to make policy changes effective. The State should consider implementing financial incentives and disincentives. Develop Compulsory Requirements: There are substantial existing statutes and guidance related to school siting. Site selection, safety considerations, access, consultation with local land use agencies are all in this guidance. A compulsory component should be included with any policy changes to ensure effective implementation. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 544 Encourage/Incentivize Cooperation between Developers and School Districts: There are existing policies that facilitate consultation between school districts and the local land use agencies. In practice, some of the more successful school sites are a product of coordination between developers and school districts. The State should investigate methods to encourage, incentivize or require coordination between developers and school districts. Enforce Urban Limit Line (ULL)/Urban Growth Boundary (UGB): At a minimum, the state should respect locally approved growth control measures and institute some minimal subsidiarity by prohibiting school districts from acquiring and developing school sites outside of adopted ULLs/UGBs. This would help to establish consistency with local priorities and direct growth to where it can best be served. Absent an outright prohibition, the state could adopt incentives and/or disincentives that would help protect the ULL/UGB. Expand Authority of Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO): The two main purposes of LAFCOs per the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act are 1) discourage sprawl, and 2) encourage planned, orderly, coordinated, logical development. This authority directly addresses the problems experienced statewide with school siting practices. Ensure Complete Streets Consistency: The following approach would help to bring school siting practices into consistency with State and local policies relative to complete streets, active transportation, safe routes to school, greenhouse gas reduction, and health in all policies. 1) The school board may only approve the purchase of a school site if the board also:  Makes findings with substantial evidence in the record that the proposed site complies  with, or will ultimately comply with, all applicable guidance in Title 5, Guide to School  Site Analysis and Development, and School Site Selection and Approval Guide. These  findings should provide enough relevant information or data and reasonable inferences  to support the conclusion that the proposed site complies with the aforementioned  policy documents,(as they may be amended or superseded from time to time), and   Approves a preliminary multimodal (bus, automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, active)  circulation and safety plan (spanning both immediate site access and attendance  boundaries) approved by a licensed traffic engineer representing the Department of  Transportation.   Must establish that it is reasonable to project that all necessary, multi‐modal  transportation infrastructure will be in place concurrent with the opening of the school  (secured bond, projects on local capital improvement plan for instance)  2) The school board may only approve a final school design if the board also:  Makes findings with substantial evidence in the record that the proposed site will comply  with all applicable guidance in Title 5, Guide to School Site Analysis and Development,  and School Site Selection and Approval Guide upon opening of the school. These findings  should provide enough relevant information or data and reasonable inferences to  support the conclusion that the proposed site complies with the aforementioned policy  documents, as they may be amended or superseded from time to time,   Approves a final multimodal (bus, automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, active) circulation and  safety plan (spanning both immediate site access and attendance boundaries) approved  by a licensed traffic engineer representing the Department of Transportation.   Establish that all necessary, multi‐modal transportation infrastructure will be in place  March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 545 concurrent with the opening of the school.  III. Title 5 Revisions Please find our detailed, redline/strikeout comments on the Title 5 code attached to this letter. We appreciate the Department of Education conducting the Title 5 review and the opportunity to provide input. We look forward to your response and working with the State in addressing this serious issue. Sincerely, John Kopchik, Director Department of Conservation and Development Dr. William Walker, Director Health Services Department Julia R. Bueren, Director Public Works Department Attachments: Comments on Title 5 - School Facilities Construction Policies August 25, 2010 Letter: Contra Costa County to Liberty Union High School District: Re: Postponement FEIR Certification August 24, 2016 Letter: Contra Costa County to Liberty Union High School District: Re: Parcel Purchase with no notice. Copy Members, Board of Supervisors  Contra Costa County Legislative Delegation  Karen Sakata, Contra Costa Office of Education  Kathryn Lyddan, CA Department of Conservation   Siddharth Nag, CA Gov Office of Planning and Research  Kiana Buss, California State Association of Counties     Nick Schweizer, CA Department of Education  Juan Mireles, CA Department of Education  Jahmal Miller, CA Department of Public Health  Ken Alex, CA Strategic Growth Council  Bob Glover, Building Industry Association of the Bay Area  Members, California County Planning Directors Association  g:\transportation\cunningham\memo-letter\letter\2017\drafts\dcd to ca-cde retitle5 v4.docx March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 546 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT a position of "Support" on the following bills, as recommended by the Contra Costa County Legislation Committee (Chair Burgis, Vice Chair Mitchoff) at their March 13, 2017 meeting: AB 210 (Santiago): Homeless Multidisciplinary Personnel Team, a bill that authorizes counties to establish a multidisciplinary team with the goal of facilitating the expedited identification, assessment, and linkage of homeless individuals to housing and supportive services and to allow provider agencies to share information for the purpose of coordinating services; 1. AB 211 (Bigelow): State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fees, as amended, a bill that reinstates annual reporting requirements regarding the expenditure of state responsibility area (SRA) fire fees; 2. AB 236 (Maienschein): CalWORKs: Housing Assistance , a bill that adopts changes to CalWORKs housing assistance for temporary shelter to remove the requirement that the assistance only be available for a consecutive period of time, increase the daily assistance amount, and make the assistance available to certain families receiving reunification services through the child welfare services system; 3. 4. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Support for State Legislation of Interest to Contra Costa County March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 547 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) AB 435 (Thurmond): Child Care Subsidy Plans: County of Contra Costa, a bill that authorizes the County of Contra Costa to develop and submit an individualized county child care subsidy plan; and SB 222 (Hernandez): Inmates: Health Care Enrollment, a bill that requires the suspension of Medi-Cal benefits to end on the date he or she is no longer an inmate of a public institution or is no longer otherwise eligible for benefits under the Medi-Cal program. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct impact to the County related to the advocacy for these bills. BACKGROUND: At its March 13, 2017 meeting, the Legislation Committee considered and voted unanimously to support the following bills: AB 210 (Santiago): Homeless Multidisciplinary Personnel Team, a bill that authorizes counties to establish a multidisciplinary team with the goal of facilitating the expedited identification, assessment, and linkage of homeless individuals to housing and supportive services and to allow provider agencies to share information for the purpose of coordinating services; (Attachment A) 1. AB 211 (Bigelow): State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fees, a bill that reinstates annual reporting requirements regarding the expenditure of state responsibility area (SRA) fire fees; (Attachment B) 2. AB 236 (Maienschein): CalWORKs: Housing Assistance , a bill that adopts changes to CalWORKs housing assistance for temporary shelter to remove the requirement that the assistance only be available for a consecutive period of time, increase the daily assistance amount, and make the assistance available to certain families receiving reunification services through the child welfare services system; (Attachment C) 3. AB 435 (Thurmond): Child Care Subsidy Plans: County of Contra Costa, a bill that authorizes the County of Contra Costa to develop and submit an individualized county child care subsidy plan; (Attachment D) and 4. SB 222 (Hernandez): Inmates: Health Care Enrollment, a bill that requires the suspension of Medi-Cal benefits to end on the date he or she is no longer an inmate of a public institution or is no longer otherwise eligible for benefits under the Medi-Cal program. (Attachment E ) 5. AB 210 was recommended for support by Lavonna Martin, Director of the Health, Housing, and Homeless Services Division, and Dr. Walker, Director of Health Services. Disposition:Pending Committee:Assembly Human Services Committee Hearing:04/04/2017 1:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 437 AB 211 is related to bills previously supported by the Board of Supervisors. Although the adopted 2017 State Platform does not contain a policy that relates directly to the fire prevention fee, the Board of Supervisors in 2012 supported a bill that would repeal the fee (AB 1506), and the Board of Supervisors also supported AB 203 (Obernolte) in 2015 which would have extended the period for paying or disputing a fire prevention fee from 30 days to 60 days from the date of assessment. (AB 203 died in committee) Disposition:Pending Location:Assembly Appropriations Committee AB 236 was recommend for support by the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD). Disposition:Pending Location:Assembly Appropriations Committee March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 548 AB 435 was recommended for support by Camilla Rand, Director of the Community Services Bureau of EHSD. It is sponsored by First 5 Contra Costa and the Contra Costa County Office of Education. Disposition:Pending Location:Assembly Human Services Committee SB 222 was recommended for support by EHSD and the Director of the Office of Reentry and Justice. Disposition:Pending Committee:Senate Health Committee Hearing:04/05/2017 1:30 pm, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board will not have an official position on these bills from which to advocate unless action is taken. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: AB 210 Bill Text Attachment B: AB 211 Bill Text Attachment C: AB 236 Bill Text Attachment D: AB 435 Bill Text Attachment E: SB 222 Bill Text March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 549 california legislature—2017–18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 210 Introduced by Assembly Member Santiago January 23, 2017 An act to add Chapter 18 (commencing with Section 18999.8) to Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to public social services. legislative counsel’s digest AB 210, as introduced, Santiago. Homeless multidisciplinary personnel team. Existing law authorizes counties to establish a child abuse multidisciplinary personnel team, as defined, to allow provider agencies to share confidential information in order to investigate reports of suspected child abuse or neglect or for the purpose of child welfare agencies making detention determinations, as specified. This bill would authorize counties to also establish a homeless adult, child, and family multidisciplinary personnel team, as defined, with the goal of facilitating the expedited identification, assessment, and linkage of homeless individuals to housing and supportive services within that county to allow provider agencies to share confidential information, as specified, for the purpose of coordinating housing and supportive services to ensure continuity of care. The bill would authorize the homeless adult, child, and family multidisciplinary personnel team to designate qualified persons to be a member of the team and would require every member who receives information or records regarding children and families in his or her capacity as a member of the team to be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 550 providing the information or records. The bill would also require the information or records to be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 18 (commencing with Section 18999.8) line 2 is added to Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions line 3 Code, to read: line 4 line 5 Chapter 18. Homeless Multidisciplinary Personnel Team line 6 line 7 18999.8. (a)  Notwithstanding any other law, a county may line 8 establish a homeless adult, child, and family multidisciplinary line 9 personnel team with the goal of facilitating the expedited line 10 identification, assessment, and linkage of homeless individuals to line 11 housing and supportive services within that county to allow line 12 provider agencies to share confidential information for the purpose line 13 of coordinating housing and supportive services to ensure line 14 continuity of care. line 15 (b)  For the purposes of this section, the following terms have line 16 the following meanings: line 17 (1)  “Homeless” means any recorded instance of an adult, child, line 18 or family self-identifying as homeless within the most recent 12 line 19 months, or any element contained in service utilization records line 20 indicating that an adult, child, or family experienced homelessness line 21 within the most recent 12 months. line 22 (2)  “Homeless adult, child, and family multidisciplinary line 23 personnel team” means any team of two or more persons who are line 24 trained in the identification and treatment of homeless adults, line 25 children, and families, and who are qualified to provide a broad line 26 range of services related to homelessness. The team may include, line 27 but shall not be limited to: line 28 (A)  Mental health and substance abuse services personnel and line 29 practitioners, child protective services personnel and social line 30 workers, or other trained counseling personnel. line 31 (B)  Police officers, probation officers, or other law enforcement line 32 agents. 2 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 551 line 1 (C)  Legal counsel for the adult, child, or family representing line 2 them in a criminal matter. line 3 (D)  Medical personnel with sufficient training to provide health line 4 services. line 5 (E)  Social services workers with experience or training in the line 6 provision of services to homeless adults, children, or families or line 7 funding and eligibility for services. line 8 (F)  Veterans services providers and counselors. line 9 (G)  Domestic violence services providers and counselors. line 10 (H)  Any public or private school teacher, administrative officer, line 11 or certified pupil personnel employee. line 12 (I)  Housing or homeless services provider agencies and line 13 designated personnel. line 14 (3)  “Homeless services provider agency” means any line 15 governmental or other agency that has as one of its purposes the line 16 identification, assessment, and linkage of housing or supportive line 17 services to homeless adults, children, and families. The homeless line 18 services provider agencies serving adults, children, and families line 19 that may share information under this section include, but are not line 20 limited to, the following entities or service agencies: line 21 (A)  Social services. line 22 (B)  Child welfare services. line 23 (C)  Health services. line 24 (D)  Mental health services. line 25 (E)  Substance abuse services. line 26 (F)  Probation. line 27 (G)  Law enforcement. line 28 (H)  Legal counsel for the adult, child, or family representing line 29 them in a criminal matter. line 30 (I)  Veterans services and counseling. line 31 (J)  Domestic violence services and counseling. line 32 (K)  Schools. line 33 (L)  Homeless services. line 34 (M)  Housing. line 35 (c)  (1)  Members of a homeless adult, child, and family line 36 multidisciplinary personnel team engaged in the identification, line 37 assessment, and linkage of housing and supportive services to line 38 homeless adults, families, or children may disclose to and exchange line 39 with one another information and writings that relate to any line 40 information that may be designated as confidential under state law 3 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 552 line 1 if the member of the team having that information or writing line 2 reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the identification, line 3 reduction, or elimination of homelessness or the provision of line 4 services. Any discussion relative to the disclosure or exchange of line 5 the information or writings during a team meeting is confidential line 6 and, notwithstanding any other law, testimony concerning that line 7 discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court line 8 proceeding. line 9 (2)  Disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this line 10 section may occur telephonically and electronically if there is line 11 adequate verification of the identity of the homeless adult, child, line 12 and family multidisciplinary personnel who are involved in that line 13 disclosure or exchange of information. line 14 (3)  Disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this line 15 section shall not be made to anyone other than members of the line 16 homeless adult, child, and family multidisciplinary personnel team, line 17 and those qualified to receive information as set forth in subdivision line 18 (d). line 19 (d)  The homeless adult, child, and family multidisciplinary line 20 personnel team may designate persons qualified pursuant to line 21 paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) to be a member of the team. A line 22 person designated as a team member pursuant to this subdivision line 23 may receive and disclose relevant information and records, subject line 24 to the confidentiality provisions of subdivision (f). line 25 (e)  The sharing of information permitted under subdivision (c) line 26 shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing line 27 how and what information may be shared by the homeless adult, line 28 child, and family multidisciplinary personnel team to ensure that line 29 confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in line 30 violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be line 31 distributed to each participating agency and to persons in those line 32 agencies who participate in the homeless adult, child, and family line 33 multidisciplinary personnel team. line 34 (f)  Every member of the homeless adult, child, and family line 35 multidisciplinary personnel team who receives information or line 36 records regarding children and families in his or her capacity as a line 37 member of the team shall be under the same privacy and line 38 confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality line 39 penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or line 40 records. The information or records obtained shall be maintained 4 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 553 line 1 in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and line 2 confidentiality rights. line 3 (g)  Notwithstanding Section 827 or any other law, members of line 4 a homeless adult, child, and family multidisciplinary personnel line 5 team engaged in the identification, assessment, and linkage of line 6 housing and supportive services to homeless adults, families, and line 7 children may disclose to and exchange with one another line 8 information and writings that relate to any incident of child abuse line 9 or neglect that may also be designated as confidential under state line 10 law if the team member having that information or writing line 11 reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the provision of line 12 services. line 13 (h)  This section shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of line 14 confidentiality provided under state or federal law. line 15 (i)  Information and records communicated or provided to the line 16 team members by all providers and agencies shall be deemed line 17 private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and line 18 disclosure by all applicable statutory and common law protections. line 19 Existing civil and criminal penalties shall apply to the inappropriate line 20 disclosure of information held by the team members. O 5 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 554 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 14, 2017 california legislature—2017–18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 211 Introduced by Assembly Member Bigelow (Principal coauthor: Senator Berryhill coauthors: Senators Berryhill and Morrell) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Obernolte and Patterson Obernolte, Patterson, and Wood) January 23, 2017 An act to amend Section 4214 of the Public Resources Code, relating to fire prevention. legislative counsel’s digest AB 211, as amended, Bigelow. State responsibility area fire prevention fees: reporting requirement. Existing law requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to establish a fire prevention fee in an amount not to exceed $150 to be charged on each habitable structure on a parcel that is within a state responsibility area. Existing law requires the fee moneys to be expended, upon appropriation, in specified ways, including to reimburse the State Board of Equalization’s expenses incurred in the collection of the fee and to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for administrative purposes, with excess moneys being expended only for specified fire prevention activities, as provided. Existing law, until January 31, 2017, requires the board to submit an annual written report to the Legislature on the status of the uses of the fee moneys. This bill would require require, by January 31, 2018, the department to submit the report to the Legislature and the board. The bill would March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 555 require the report to include an itemized accounting of all expenditures from the fund and fund, including a specific itemized accounting relating to equipment expenditures, and a description of any positions that are associated with each expenditure, among other things. The bill would require the reporting to occur annually for an indefinite period of time. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 4214 of the Public Resources Code is line 2 amended to read: line 3 4214. (a)  Fire prevention fees collected pursuant to this chapter line 4 shall be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as line 5 follows: line 6 (1)  The State Board of Equalization shall retain moneys line 7 necessary for the payment of refunds pursuant to Section 4228 and line 8 reimbursement of the State Board of Equalization for expenses line 9 incurred in the collection of the fee. line 10 (2)  The moneys collected, other than those retained by the State line 11 Board of Equalization pursuant to paragraph (1), shall be deposited line 12 into the State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund, which is line 13 hereby created in the State Treasury, and shall be available to the line 14 board and the department to expend for fire prevention activities line 15 specified in subdivision (d) that benefit the owners of habitable line 16 structures within a state responsibility area who are required to line 17 pay the fire prevention fee. The amount expended to benefit the line 18 owners of habitable structures within a state responsibility area line 19 shall be commensurate with the amount collected from the owners line 20 within that state responsibility area. All moneys in excess of the line 21 costs of administration of the board and the department shall be line 22 expended only for fire prevention activities in counties with state line 23 responsibility areas. line 24 (b)  (1)  The fund may also be used to cover the costs of line 25 administering this chapter. line 26 (2)  The fund shall cover all startup costs incurred over a period line 27 not to exceed two years. line 28 (c)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the moneys in this fund line 29 be fully appropriated to the board and the department each year line 30 in order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter. 2 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 556 line 1 (d)  Moneys in the fund shall be used only for the following fire line 2 prevention activities, which shall benefit owners of habitable line 3 structures within the state responsibility areas who are required to line 4 pay the annual fire prevention fee pursuant to this chapter: line 5 (1)  Local assistance grants pursuant to subdivision (e). line 6 (2)  Grants to Fire Safe Councils, the California Conservation line 7 Corps, or certified local conservation corps for fire prevention line 8 projects and activities in the state responsibility areas. line 9 (3)  Grants to a qualified nonprofit organization with a line 10 demonstrated ability to satisfactorily plan, implement, and complete line 11 a fire prevention project applicable to the state responsibility areas. line 12 The department may establish other qualifying criteria. line 13 (4)  Inspections by the department for compliance with defensible line 14 space requirements around habitable structures in state line 15 responsibility areas as required by Section 4291. line 16 (5)  Public education to reduce fire risk in the state responsibility line 17 areas. line 18 (6)  Fire severity and fire hazard mapping by the department in line 19 the state responsibility areas. line 20 (7)  Other fire prevention projects in the state responsibility line 21 areas, authorized by the board. line 22 (e)  (1)  The board shall establish a local assistance grant program line 23 for fire prevention activities designed to benefit habitable structures line 24 within state responsibility areas, including public education, that line 25 are provided by counties and other local agencies, including special line 26 districts, with state responsibility areas within their jurisdictions. line 27 (2)  In order to ensure an equitable distribution of funds, the line 28 amount of each grant shall be based on the number of habitable line 29 structures in state responsibility areas for which the applicant is line 30 legally responsible and the amount of moneys made available in line 31 the annual Budget Act for this local assistance grant program. line 32 (f)  By January 31, 2015, 2018, and, notwithstanding Section line 33 10231.5 of the Government Code, annually thereafter, the board line 34 department shall submit to the Legislature and the board a written line 35 report on the status and uses of the fund pursuant to this chapter, line 36 including an itemized accounting of all expenditures from the fund. line 37 The written report shall also include an chapter. The report shall line 38 include all of the following: line 39 (1)  An evaluation of the benefits received by counties based on line 40 the number of habitable structures in state responsibility areas 3 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 557 line 1 within their jurisdictions, the effectiveness of the board’s grant line 2 programs, the number of defensible space inspections in the line 3 reporting period, the degree of compliance with defensible space line 4 requirements, measures to increase compliance, if any, and any line 5 recommendations to the Legislature. any. line 6 (2)  An itemized accounting of all expenditures from the fund, line 7 including a specific itemized accounting relating to equipment line 8 expenditures, and a description of any positions that are associated line 9 with each expenditure. line 10 (3)  A description of each program, subprogram, and element line 11 for which the department uses moneys generated from the fire line 12 prevention fee, including an itemized accounting of expenditures line 13 for each program, subprogram, and element. line 14 (4)  A description of the grants awarded and expenditures of line 15 grant moneys. line 16 (5)  A description of actual expenditures for the previous fiscal line 17 year, estimated expenditures for the current fiscal year, and line 18 budgeted expenditures for the budget year. line 19 (6)  Any recommendations to the Legislature, including any line 20 recommendations on the status and use of the fund. line 21 (g)  A report to be submitted to the Legislature pursuant to line 22 subdivision (f) shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 line 23 of the Government Code. line 24 (h)  It is essential that this article be implemented without delay. line 25 To permit timely implementation, the department may contract line 26 for services related to the establishment of the fire prevention fee line 27 collection process. For this purpose only, and for a period not to line 28 exceed 24 months, the Public Contract Code or any other law line 29 related to public contracting shall not apply. O 4 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 558 california legislature—2017–18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 236 Introduced by Assembly Member Maienschein January 30, 2017 An act to amend Section 11450 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to CalWORKs. legislative counsel’s digest AB 236, as introduced, Maienschein. CalWORKs: housing assistance. Existing law establishes the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program under which, through a combination of federal, state, and county funds, each county provides cash assistance and other benefits to qualified low-income families. As part of the CalWORKs program, a homeless family that has used all available liquid resources in excess of $100 is eligible for homeless assistance benefits to pay the costs of temporary shelter if the family is eligible for aid under the CalWORKs program. Under existing law, the nonrecurring special needs benefit to pay for temporary shelter for a family of up to 4 is $65 a day, and the 5th and additional members of the family each receive $15 per day, up to a daily maximum of $125. Under existing law, eligibility for temporary shelter assistance is limited to one period of up to 16 consecutive days every 12 months, except when the homelessness is caused by domestic violence that is verified by a sworn statement of the victim, in which case eligibility for temporary shelter assistance is limited to 2 periods of up to 16 consecutive calendar days. This bill would also provide that homeless assistance is available to homeless families that would be eligible for aid under the CalWORKs program but for the fact that the only child or children in the family are March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 559 in out-of-home placement pursuant to an order of the dependency court, if the family is receiving reunification services and the county determines that homeless assistance is necessary for reunification to occur. The bill would also provide that the nonrecurring special needs benefit to pay for temporary shelter for a family of up to 4 is $85 a day, and the daily maximum is $145. The bill would delete the requirement that homeless assistance be used in consecutive calendar days. Because this bill would increase the administrative duties of counties, it would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs under the CalWORKs program. This bill would, instead, provide that the continuous appropriation would not be made for purposes of implementing the bill. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 11450 of the Welfare and Institutions line 2 Code is amended to read: line 3 11450. (a)  (1)  (A)  Aid shall be paid for each needy family, line 4 which shall include all eligible brothers and sisters of each eligible line 5 applicant or recipient child and the parents of the children, but line 6 shall not include unborn children, or recipients of aid under Chapter line 7 3 (commencing with Section 12000), qualified for aid under this line 8 chapter. In determining the amount of aid paid, and notwithstanding line 9 the minimum basic standards of adequate care specified in Section line 10 11452, the family’s income, exclusive of any amounts considered line 11 exempt as income or paid pursuant to subdivision (e) or Section line 12 11453.1, determined for the prospective semiannual period line 13 pursuant to Sections 11265.1, 11265.2, and 11265.3, and then line 14 calculated pursuant to Section 11451.5, shall be deducted from line 15 the sum specified in the following table, as adjusted for 2 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 560 line 1 cost-of-living increases pursuant to Section 11453 and paragraph line 2 (2). In no case shall the amount of aid paid for each month exceed line 3 the sum specified in the following table, as adjusted for line 4 cost-of-living increases pursuant to Section 11453 and paragraph line 5 (2), plus any special needs, as specified in subdivisions (c), (e), line 6 and (f): line 7 line 8 line 9 line 10 Maximum line 11 aid    Number of eligible needy    persons in the same home line 12 $  326          1.................................................................................. line 13     535          2.................................................................................. line 14     663          3.................................................................................. line 15     788          4.................................................................................. line 16     899          5.................................................................................. line 17   1,010          6.................................................................................. line 18   1,109          7.................................................................................. line 19   1,209          8.................................................................................. line 20   1,306          9.................................................................................. line 21   1,403        10 or more.................................................................... line 22 line 23 (B)  If, when, and during those times that the United States line 24 government increases or decreases its contributions in assistance line 25 of needy children in this state above or below the amount paid on line 26 July 1, 1972, the amounts specified in the above table shall be line 27 increased or decreased by an amount equal to that increase or line 28 decrease by the United States government, provided that no line 29 increase or decrease shall be subject to subsequent adjustment line 30 pursuant to Section 11453. line 31 (2)  The sums specified in paragraph (1) shall not be adjusted line 32 for cost of living for the 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, line 33 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97, and 1997–98 fiscal years, and through line 34 October 31, 1998, nor shall that amount be included in the base line 35 for calculating any cost-of-living increases for any fiscal year line 36 thereafter. Elimination of the cost-of-living adjustment pursuant line 37 to this paragraph shall satisfy the requirements of Section 11453.05, line 38 and no further reduction shall be made pursuant to that section. line 39 (b)  (1)  When the family does not include a needy child qualified line 40 for aid under this chapter, aid shall be paid to a pregnant child who 3 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 561 line 1 is 18 years of age or younger at any time after verification of line 2 pregnancy, in the amount that would otherwise be paid to one line 3 person, as specified in subdivision (a), if the child and her child, line 4 if born, would have qualified for aid under this chapter. Verification line 5 of pregnancy shall be required as a condition of eligibility for aid line 6 under this subdivision. line 7 (2)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), when the family does not line 8 include a needy child qualified for aid under this chapter, aid shall line 9 be paid to a pregnant woman for the month in which the birth is line 10 anticipated and for the six-month period immediately prior to the line 11 month in which the birth is anticipated, in the amount that would line 12 otherwise be paid to one person, as specified in subdivision (a), if line 13 the woman and child, if born, would have qualified for aid under line 14 this chapter. Verification of pregnancy shall be required as a line 15 condition of eligibility for aid under this subdivision. line 16 (3)  Paragraph (1) shall apply only when the Cal-Learn Program line 17 is operative. line 18 (c)  The amount of forty-seven dollars ($47) per month shall be line 19 paid to pregnant women qualified for aid under subdivision (a) or line 20 (b) to meet special needs resulting from pregnancy if the woman line 21 and child, if born, would have qualified for aid under this chapter. line 22 County welfare departments shall refer all recipients of aid under line 23 this subdivision to a local provider of the Women, Infants, and line 24 Children program. If that payment to pregnant women qualified line 25 for aid under subdivision (a) is considered income under federal line 26 law in the first five months of pregnancy, payments under this line 27 subdivision shall not apply to persons eligible under subdivision line 28 (a), except for the month in which birth is anticipated and for the line 29 three-month period immediately prior to the month in which line 30 delivery is anticipated, if the woman and child, if born, would have line 31 qualified for aid under this chapter. line 32 (d)  For children receiving AFDC-FC under this chapter, there line 33 shall be paid, exclusive of any amount considered exempt as line 34 income, an amount of aid each month that, when added to the line 35 child’s income, is equal to the rate specified in Section 11460, line 36 11461, 11462, 11462.1, or 11463. In addition, the child shall be line 37 eligible for special needs, as specified in departmental regulations. line 38 (e)  In addition to the amounts payable under subdivision (a) line 39 and Section 11453.1, a family shall be entitled to receive an line 40 allowance for recurring special needs not common to a majority 4 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 562 line 1 of recipients. These recurring special needs shall include, but not line 2 be limited to, special diets upon the recommendation of a physician line 3 for circumstances other than pregnancy, and unusual costs of line 4 transportation, laundry, housekeeping services, telephone, and line 5 utilities. The recurring special needs allowance for each family line 6 per month shall not exceed that amount resulting from multiplying line 7 the sum of ten dollars ($10) by the number of recipients in the line 8 family who are eligible for assistance. line 9 (f)  After a family has used all available liquid resources, both line 10 exempt and nonexempt, in excess of one hundred dollars ($100), line 11 with the exception of funds deposited in a restricted account line 12 described in subdivision (a) of Section 11155.2, the family shall line 13 also be entitled to receive an allowance for nonrecurring special line 14 needs. line 15 (1)  An allowance for nonrecurring special needs shall be granted line 16 for replacement of clothing and household equipment and for line 17 emergency housing needs other than those needs addressed by line 18 paragraph (2). These needs shall be caused by sudden and unusual line 19 circumstances beyond the control of the needy family. The line 20 department shall establish the allowance for each of the line 21 nonrecurring special needs items. The sum of all nonrecurring line 22 special needs provided by this subdivision shall not exceed six line 23 hundred dollars ($600) per event. line 24 (2)  (A)  (i)   Homeless assistance is available to a homeless line 25 family seeking shelter when the family is eligible for aid under line 26 this chapter. Homeless line 27 (ii)  Homeless assistance for temporary shelter is also available line 28 to homeless families that are apparently eligible for aid under this line 29 chapter. Apparent eligibility exists when evidence presented by line 30 the applicant, or that is otherwise available to the county welfare line 31 department, and the information provided on the application line 32 documents indicate that there would be eligibility for aid under line 33 this chapter if the evidence and information were verified. line 34 However, an alien applicant who does not provide verification of line 35 his or her eligible alien status, or a woman with no eligible children line 36 who does not provide medical verification of pregnancy, is not line 37 apparently eligible for purposes of this section. line 38 (iii)  Homeless assistance for temporary shelter is also available line 39 to homeless families that would be eligible for aid under this line 40 chapter but for the fact that the only child or children in the family 5 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 563 line 1 are in out-of-home placement pursuant to an order of the line 2 dependency court, if the family is receiving reunification services line 3 and the county determines that homeless assistance is necessary line 4 for reunification to occur. line 5 (B)  A family is considered homeless, for the purpose of this line 6 section, when the family lacks a fixed and regular nighttime line 7 residence; or the family has a primary nighttime residence that is line 8 a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to line 9 provide temporary living accommodations; or the family is residing line 10 in a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, line 11 a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings. A family is line 12 also considered homeless for the purpose of this section if the line 13 family has received a notice to pay rent or quit. The family shall line 14 demonstrate that the eviction is the result of a verified financial line 15 hardship as a result of extraordinary circumstances beyond their line 16 control, and not other lease or rental violations, and that the family line 17 is experiencing a financial crisis that could result in homelessness line 18 if preventative assistance is not provided. line 19 (3)  (A)  (i)  A nonrecurring special needs benefit of sixty-five line 20 dollars ($65) eighty-five dollars ($85) a day shall be available to line 21 families of up to four members for the costs of temporary shelter, line 22 subject to the requirements of this paragraph. The fifth and line 23 additional members of the family shall each receive fifteen dollars line 24 ($15) per day, up to a daily maximum of one hundred twenty-five line 25 dollars ($125). forty-five dollars ($145). County welfare line 26 departments may increase the daily amount available for temporary line 27 shelter as necessary to secure the additional bedspace needed by line 28 the family. line 29 (ii)  This special needs benefit shall be granted or denied line 30 immediately upon the family’s application for homeless assistance, line 31 and benefits shall be available for up to three working days. The line 32 county welfare department shall verify the family’s homelessness line 33 within the first three working days and if the family meets the line 34 criteria of questionable homelessness established by the line 35 department, the county welfare department shall refer the family line 36 to its early fraud prevention and detection unit, if the county has line 37 such a unit, for assistance in the verification of homelessness within line 38 this period. line 39 (iii)  After homelessness has been verified, the three-day limit line 40 shall be extended for a period of time which, when added to the 6 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 564 line 1 initial benefits provided, does not exceed a total of 16 calendar line 2 days. This extension of benefits shall be done in increments of one line 3 week and shall be based upon searching for permanent housing line 4 which shall be documented on a housing search form, good cause, line 5 or other circumstances defined by the department. Documentation line 6 of a housing search shall be required for the initial extension of line 7 benefits beyond the three-day limit and on a weekly basis thereafter line 8 as long as the family is receiving temporary shelter benefits. Good line 9 cause shall include, but is not limited to, situations in which the line 10 county welfare department has determined that the family, to the line 11 extent it is capable, has made a good faith but unsuccessful effort line 12 to secure permanent housing while receiving temporary shelter line 13 benefits. line 14 (B)  (i)  A nonrecurring special needs benefit for permanent line 15 housing assistance is available to pay for last month’s rent and line 16 security deposits when these payments are reasonable conditions line 17 of securing a residence, or to pay for up to two months of rent line 18 arrearages, when these payments are a reasonable condition of line 19 preventing eviction. line 20 (ii)  The last month’s rent or monthly arrearage portion of the line 21 payment (I) shall not exceed 80 percent of the family’s total line 22 monthly household income without the value of CalFresh benefits line 23 or special needs benefit for a family of that size and (II) shall only line 24 be made to families that have found permanent housing costing line 25 no more than 80 percent of the family’s total monthly household line 26 income without the value of CalFresh benefits or special needs line 27 benefit for a family of that size. line 28 (iii)  However, if the county welfare department determines that line 29 a family intends to reside with individuals who will be sharing line 30 housing costs, the county welfare department shall, in appropriate line 31 circumstances, set aside the condition specified in subclause (II) line 32 of clause (ii). line 33 (C)  The nonrecurring special needs benefit for permanent line 34 housing assistance is also available to cover the standard costs of line 35 deposits for utilities which are necessary for the health and safety line 36 of the family. line 37 (D)  A payment for or denial of permanent housing assistance line 38 shall be issued no later than one working day from the time that a line 39 family presents evidence of the availability of permanent housing. line 40 If an applicant family provides evidence of the availability of 7 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 565 line 1 permanent housing before the county welfare department has line 2 established eligibility for aid under this chapter, the county welfare line 3 department shall complete the eligibility determination so that the line 4 denial of or payment for payment for, or denial of, permanent line 5 housing assistance is issued within one working day from the line 6 submission of evidence of the availability of permanent housing, line 7 unless the family has failed to provide all of the verification line 8 necessary to establish eligibility for aid under this chapter. line 9 (E)  (i)  Except as provided in clauses (ii) and (iii), eligibility line 10 for the temporary shelter assistance and the permanent housing line 11 assistance pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to one period line 12 of up to 16 consecutive a maximum of 16 calendar days of line 13 temporary assistance and one payment of permanent assistance line 14 every 12 months. A person who applies for homeless assistance line 15 benefits shall be informed that the temporary shelter benefit of up line 16 to 16 consecutive days is available only once every 12 months, line 17 with certain exceptions, and that a break in the consecutive use of line 18 the benefit constitutes exhaustion of the temporary benefit that, line 19 with certain exceptions, the temporary shelter benefit is limited to line 20 a maximum of 16 calendar days for that 12-month period. line 21 (ii)  A family that becomes homeless as a direct and primary line 22 result of a state or federally declared natural disaster shall be line 23 eligible for temporary and permanent homeless assistance. line 24 (iii)  A family shall be eligible for temporary and permanent line 25 homeless assistance when homelessness is a direct result of line 26 domestic violence by a spouse, partner, or roommate; physical or line 27 mental illness that is medically verified that shall not include a line 28 diagnosis of alcoholism, drug addiction, or psychological stress; line 29 or, the uninhabitability of the former residence caused by sudden line 30 and unusual circumstances beyond the control of the family line 31 including natural catastrophe, fire, or condemnation. These line 32 circumstances shall be verified by a third-party governmental or line 33 private health and human services agency, except that domestic line 34 violence may also be verified by a sworn statement by the victim, line 35 as provided under Section 11495.25. Homeless assistance payments line 36 based on these specific circumstances may not be received more line 37 often than once in any 12-month period. In addition, if the domestic line 38 violence is verified by a sworn statement by the victim, the line 39 homeless assistance payments shall be limited to two periods of line 40 not more than 16 consecutive a maximum of 32 calendar days of 8 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 566 line 1 temporary assistance and two payments of permanent assistance. line 2 A county may require that a recipient of homeless assistance line 3 benefits who qualifies under this paragraph for a second time in a line 4 24-month period participate in a homelessness avoidance case plan line 5 as a condition of eligibility for homeless assistance benefits. The line 6 county welfare department shall immediately inform recipients line 7 who verify domestic violence by a sworn statement of the line 8 availability of domestic violence counseling and services, and refer line 9 those recipients to services upon request. line 10 (iv)  If a county requires a recipient who verifies domestic line 11 violence by a sworn statement to participate in a homelessness line 12 avoidance case plan pursuant to clause (iii), the plan shall include line 13 the provision of domestic violence services, if appropriate. line 14 (v)  If a recipient seeking homeless assistance based on domestic line 15 violence pursuant to clause (iii) has previously received homeless line 16 avoidance services based on domestic violence, the county shall line 17 review whether services were offered to the recipient and consider line 18 what additional services would assist the recipient in leaving the line 19 domestic violence situation. line 20 (vi)  The county welfare department shall report necessary data line 21 to the department through a statewide homeless assistance payment line 22 indicator system, as requested by the department, regarding all line 23 recipients of aid under this paragraph. line 24 (F)  The county welfare departments, and all other entities line 25 participating in the costs of the CalWORKs program, have the line 26 right in their share to any refunds resulting from payment of the line 27 permanent housing. However, if an emergency requires the family line 28 to move within the 12-month period specified in subparagraph line 29 (E), the family shall be allowed to use any refunds received from line 30 its deposits to meet the costs of moving to another residence. line 31 (G)  Payments to providers for temporary shelter and permanent line 32 housing and utilities shall be made on behalf of families requesting line 33 these payments. line 34 (H)  The daily amount for the temporary shelter special needs line 35 benefit for homeless assistance may be increased if authorized by line 36 the current year’s Budget Act by specifying a different daily line 37 allowance and appropriating the funds therefor. line 38 (I)  No payment shall be made pursuant to this paragraph unless line 39 the provider of housing is a commercial establishment, shelter, or 9 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 567 line 1 person in the business of renting properties who has a history of line 2 renting properties. line 3 (g)  The department shall establish rules and regulations ensuring line 4 the uniform statewide application of this section. line 5 (h)  The department shall notify all applicants and recipients of line 6 aid through the standardized application form that these benefits line 7 are available and shall provide an opportunity for recipients to line 8 apply for the funds quickly and efficiently. line 9 (i)  (A)  Except for the purposes of Section 15200, the amounts line 10 payable to recipients pursuant to Section 11453.1 shall not line 11 constitute part of the payment schedule set forth in subdivision line 12 (a). line 13 (B)  The amounts payable to recipients pursuant to Section line 14 11453.1 shall not constitute income to recipients of aid under this line 15 section. line 16 (j)  For children receiving Kin-GAP pursuant to Article 4.5 line 17 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing line 18 with Section 11385) there shall be paid, exclusive of any amount line 19 considered exempt as income, an amount of aid each month, which, line 20 when added to the child’s income, is equal to the rate specified in line 21 Sections 11364 and 11387. line 22 (k)  (1)  A county shall implement the semiannual reporting line 23 requirements in accordance with Chapter 501 of the Statutes of line 24 2011 no later than October 1, 2013. line 25 (2)  Upon completion of the implementation described in line 26 paragraph (1), each county shall provide a certificate to the director line 27 certifying that semiannual reporting has been implemented in the line 28 county. line 29 (3)  Upon filing the certificate described in paragraph (2), a line 30 county shall comply with the semiannual reporting provisions of line 31 this section. line 32 (l)  This section shall become operative on January 1, 2017. line 33 SEC. 2. No appropriation pursuant to Section 15200 of the line 34 Welfare and Institutions Code shall be made for purposes of this line 35 act. line 36 SEC. 3. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that line 37 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to line 38 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made 10 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 568 line 1 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division line 2 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. O 11 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 569 california legislature—2017–18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 435 Introduced by Assembly Member Thurmond February 13, 2017 An act to add and repeal Article 15.1.1 (commencing with Section 8333) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code, relating to child care. legislative counsel’s digest AB 435, as introduced, Thurmond. Child care subsidy plans: County of Contra Costa. The Child Care and Development Services Act has a purpose of providing a comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective system of child care and development services for children from infancy to 13 years of age and their parents, including a full range of supervision, health, and support services through full- and part-time programs. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop standards for the implementation of quality child care programs. Existing law authorizes the County of Alameda and the County of Santa Clara, as a pilot project, to develop an individualized county child care subsidy plan, as provided. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2023, the County of Contra Costa to develop an individualized county child care subsidy plan, as specified. The bill would require the plan to be submitted to the local planning council and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for approval, as specified. The bill would require the Early Education and Support Division of the State Department of Education to review and approve or disapprove the plan and any subsequent modifications to the plan. The bill would require the County of Contra Costa to March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 570 annually prepare and submit to the Legislature, the State Department of Social Services, and the State Department of Education a report that contains specified information relating to the success of the county’s plan. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Contra Costa. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to build a stable, line 2 comprehensive, and adequately funded high-quality early learning line 3 and educational support system for children from birth to five years line 4 of age, inclusive, with alignment and integration into the K–12 line 5 education system by strategically using state and federal funds, line 6 and engaging all early care and education stakeholders, including line 7 K–12 education stakeholders, in an effort to provide access to line 8 affordable, high-quality services supported by adequate rates, line 9 integrated data systems, and a strong infrastructure that supports line 10 children and the educators that serve them. line 11 SEC. 2. Article 15.1.1 (commencing with Section 8333) is line 12 added to Chapter 2 of Part 6 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the line 13 Education Code, to read: line 14 line 15 Article 15.1.1. Individualized County of Contra Costa Child line 16 Care Subsidy Plan line 17 line 18 8333. The County of Contra Costa may, as a pilot project, line 19 develop and implement an individualized county child care subsidy line 20 plan. The plan shall ensure that child care subsidies received by line 21 the County of Contra Costa are used to address local needs, line 22 conditions, and priorities of working families in the community. line 23 8333.1. For purposes of this article, “county” means the County line 24 of Contra Costa. line 25 8333.2. (a)  For purposes of this article, “plan” means an line 26 individualized county child care subsidy plan developed and line 27 approved under the pilot project described in Section 8333, which line 28 includes all of the following: 2 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 571 line 1 (1)  An assessment to identify the county’s goal for its subsidized line 2 child care system. The assessment shall examine whether the line 3 current structure of subsidized child care funding adequately line 4 supports working families in the county and whether the county’s line 5 child care goals coincide with the state’s requirements for funding, line 6 eligibility, priority, and reimbursement. The assessment shall also line 7 identify barriers in the state’s child care subsidy system that inhibit line 8 the county from meeting its child care goals. In conducting the line 9 assessment, the county shall consider all of the following: line 10 (A)  The general demographics of families who are in need of line 11 child care, including employment, income, language, ethnic, and line 12 family composition. line 13 (B)  The current supply of available subsidized child care. line 14 (C)  The level of need for various types of subsidized child care line 15 services, including, but not limited to, infant care, after-hours care, line 16 and care for children with exceptional needs. line 17 (D)  The county’s self-sufficiency income level. line 18 (E)  Income eligibility levels for subsidized child care. line 19 (F)  Family fees. line 20 (G)  The cost of providing child care. line 21 (H)  The regional market rates, as established by the department, line 22 for different types of child care. line 23 (I)  The standard reimbursement rate or state per diem for centers line 24 operating under contracts with the department. line 25 (J)  Trends in the county’s unemployment rate and housing line 26 affordability index. line 27 (2)  (A) Development of a local policy to eliminate state-imposed line 28 regulatory barriers to the county’s achievement of its desired line 29 outcomes for subsidized child care. line 30 (B)  The local policy shall do all of the following: line 31 (i)  Prioritize lowest income families first. line 32 (ii)  Follow the family fee schedule established pursuant to line 33 Section 8263 for those families that are income eligible, as defined line 34 by Section 8263.1. line 35 (iii)  Meet local goals that are consistent with the state’s child line 36 care goals. line 37 (iv)  Identify existing policies that would be affected by the line 38 county’s plan. line 39 (v)  (I) Authorize an agency that provides child care and line 40 development services in the county through a contract with the 3 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 572 line 1 department to apply to the department to amend existing contracts line 2 in order to benefit from the local policy. line 3 (II)  The department shall approve an application to amend an line 4 existing contract if the plan is modified pursuant to Section 8333.3. line 5 (III)  The contract of a department contractor who does not elect line 6 to request an amendment to its contract remains operative and line 7 enforceable. line 8 (C)  The local policy may supersede state law concerning child line 9 care subsidy programs with regard only to the following factors: line 10 (i)  Eligibility criteria, including, but not limited to, age, family line 11 size, time limits, income level, inclusion of former and current line 12 CalWORKs participants, and special needs considerations, except line 13 that the local policy shall not deny or reduce eligibility of a family line 14 that qualifies for child care pursuant to Section 8353. Under the line 15 local policy, a family that qualifies for child care pursuant to line 16 Section 8354 shall be treated for purposes of eligibility and fees line 17 in the same manner as a family that qualifies for subsidized child line 18 care on another basis pursuant to the local policy. line 19 (ii)  Fees, including, but not limited to, family fees, sliding scale line 20 fees, and copayments for those families that are not income eligible, line 21 as defined by Section 8263.1. line 22 (iii)  Reimbursement rates. line 23 (iv)  Methods of maximizing the efficient use of subsidy funds, line 24 including, but not limited to, multiyear contracting with the line 25 department for center-based child care, and interagency agreements line 26 that allow for flexible and temporary transfer of funds among line 27 agencies. line 28 (v)  Families with children enrolled in part-day California state line 29 preschool programs services, pursuant to Article 7 (commencing line 30 with Section 8235), may be eligible for up to two 180 day periods line 31 within a 24 month period without the family being certified as a line 32 new enrollment each year. line 33 (3)  Recognition that all funding sources utilized by contractors line 34 that provide child care and development services in the county are line 35 eligible to be included in the county’s plan. line 36 (4)  Establishment of measurable outcomes to evaluate the line 37 success of the plan to achieve the county’s child care goals, and line 38 to overcome any barriers identified in the state’s child care subsidy line 39 system. 4 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 573 line 1 (b)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the line 2 county to change the regional market rate survey results for the line 3 county. line 4 8333.3. (a)  The plan shall be submitted to the local planning line 5 council, as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 8499, for approval. line 6 Upon approval of the plan by the local planning council, the Board line 7 of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa shall hold at least line 8 one public hearing on the plan. Following the hearing, if the board line 9 votes in favor of the plan, the plan shall be submitted to the Early line 10 Education and Support Division of the department for review. line 11 (b)  Within 30 days of receiving the plan, the Early Education line 12 and Support Division shall review and either approve or disapprove line 13 the plan. line 14 (c)  Within 30 days of receiving a modification to the plan, the line 15 Early Education and Support Division shall review and either line 16 approve or disapprove that modification to the plan. line 17 (d)  The Early Education and Support Division may disapprove line 18 only those portions of modifications to the plan that are not in line 19 conformance with this article or that are in conflict with federal line 20 law. line 21 8333.4. The county shall, by the end of the first fiscal year of line 22 operation under the approved child care subsidy plan, demonstrate, line 23 in the report required pursuant to Section 8333.5, an increase in line 24 the aggregate days a child is enrolled in child care in the county line 25 as compared to the enrollment in the final quarter of the 2016–17 line 26 fiscal year. line 27 8333.5. (a)  The county shall annually prepare and submit to line 28 the Legislature, the State Department of Social Services, and the line 29 department a report that summarizes the success of the county’s line 30 plan, and the county’s ability to maximize the use of funds and to line 31 improve and stabilize child care in the county. line 32 (b)  A report to be submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall line 33 be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government line 34 Code. line 35 8333.6. A participating contractor shall receive any increase line 36 or decrease in funding that the contractor would have received if line 37 the contractor had not participated in the plan. line 38 8333.7. This article shall remain in effect only until January line 39 1, 2023, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted 5 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 574 line 1 statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2023, deletes or extends line 2 that date. line 3 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute line 4 is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable line 5 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California line 6 Constitution because of the unique circumstances in the County line 7 of Contra Costa. Existing law does not reflect the fiscal reality of line 8 living in the County of Contra Costa, a high-cost county where line 9 the cost of living is well beyond the state median level, resulting line 10 in reduced access to quality child care. In recognition of the line 11 unintended consequences of living in a high-cost county, this act line 12 is necessary to provide children and families in the County of line 13 Contra Costa proper access to child care through an individualized line 14 county child care subsidy plan. O 6 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 575 SENATE BILL No. 222 Introduced by Senator Hernandez February 2, 2017 An act to amend Section 14011.10 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to Medi-Cal. legislative counsel’s digest SB 222, as introduced, Hernandez. Inmates: health care enrollment. Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law requires Medi-Cal benefits to an individual who is an inmate of a public institution to be suspended effective the date he or she becomes an inmate of a public institution. Existing law requires the suspension to end on the date that he or she is no longer an inmate of a public institution or one year from the date he or she becomes an inmate of a public institution, whichever is sooner. This bill instead would require the suspension of Medi-Cal benefits to end on the date he or she is no longer an inmate of a public institution or is no longer otherwise eligible for benefits under the Medi-Cal program. The bill would require the department, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to develop and implement a simplified annual renewal process for individuals in a suspended eligibility status, and would require the department to seek any necessary federal approvals or waivers to implement this provision. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 576 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 14011.10 of the Welfare and Institutions line 2 Code is amended to read: line 3 14011.10. (a)  Except as provided in Sections 14053.7 and line 4 14053.8, benefits provided under this chapter to an individual who line 5 is an inmate of a public institution shall be suspended in accordance line 6 with Section 1396d(a)(29)(A) of Title 42 of the United States Code line 7 as provided in subdivision (c). line 8 (b)  County welfare departments shall notify the department line 9 within 10 days of receiving information that an individual on line 10 Medi-Cal in the county is or will be an inmate of a public line 11 institution. line 12 (c)  If an individual is a Medi-Cal beneficiary on the date he or line 13 she becomes an inmate of a public institution, his or her benefits line 14 under this chapter and under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section line 15 14200) shall be suspended effective the date he or she becomes line 16 an inmate of a public institution. The suspension shall end on the line 17 date he or she is no longer an inmate of a public institution or one line 18 year from the date he or she becomes an inmate of a public line 19 institution, is no longer otherwise eligible for benefits under the line 20 Medi-Cal program, whichever is sooner. line 21 (d)  The department, in consultation with stakeholders, including line 22 the County Welfare Directors Association and advocates, shall line 23 develop and implement a simplified annual renewal process for line 24 individuals who are in a suspended eligibility status under this line 25 section. The department shall seek any necessary federal approvals line 26 or waivers to implement this subdivision. line 27 (d) line 28 (e)  This section does not create a state-funded benefit or line 29 program. Health care services under this chapter and Chapter 8 line 30 (commencing with Section 14200) shall not be available to inmates line 31 of public institutions whose Medi-Cal benefits have been suspended line 32 under this section. line 33 (e) line 34 (f)  This section shall be implemented only if and to the extent line 35 allowed by federal law. This section shall be implemented only to line 36 the extent that any necessary federal approval of state plan line 37 amendments or other federal approvals are obtained. line 38 (f) 2 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 577 line 1 (g)  If any part of this section is in conflict with or does not line 2 comply with federal law, this entire section shall be become line 3 inoperative. line 4 (g) line 5 (h)  This section shall be implemented on January 1, 2010, or line 6 the date when all necessary federal approvals are obtained, line 7 whichever is later. line 8 (h) line 9 (i)  By January 1, 2010, or the date when all necessary federal line 10 approvals are obtained, whichever is later, the department, in line 11 consultation with the Chief Probation Officers of California and line 12 the County Welfare Directors Association, shall establish the line 13 protocols and procedures necessary to implement this section, line 14 including any needed changes to the protocols and procedures line 15 previously established to implement Section 14029.5. line 16 (i) line 17 (j)  The department shall determine whether federal financial line 18 participation will be jeopardized by implementing this section and line 19 shall implement this section only if and to the extent that federal line 20 financial participation is not jeopardized. line 21 (j) line 22 (k)  Notwithstanding Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section line 23 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, line 24 the department shall implement this section by means of all-county line 25 letters or similar instructions without taking regulatory action. line 26 Thereafter, the department shall adopt regulations in accordance line 27 with the requirements of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section line 28 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. O 3 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 578 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22045 to add one (1) permanent full-time Health Services Information Technology Manager (LBFA) position at salary grade ZB5-2093($8,841-$10,747) and cancel vacant permanent full-time Information Systems Manager I (LTNA) position #12357 at salary grade ZA5-1884 ($7,188-$8,738) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of $20,424, with an estimated pension cost of $4,932 included. The position and additional costs would be entirely funded by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County Health Services (CCHS) Information Technology (IT) Unit is requesting to add one (1) Health Services Information Technology Manager position to lead the Clinical Training Group. This group’s scope of responsibility has grown from purely focusing on training the ccLink applications installed in July 2012, to all information technology clinical applications, thereby increasing the number and complexity of the applications being taught. Additionally, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Shelanda Adams, 925-957-5263 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Add and cancel positions in the Health Services Department. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 579 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the number of staff has increased to accommodate the increased training requirements to where the scope of responsibility is more aligned with that of a Health Services Information Technology Manager. The Department is canceling vacant Information Systems Manager I position #12357 as it is no longer meeting the operational needs of the Health Services Information Technology Department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Clinical Training Group within Information Technology will not have adequate supervision. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22045 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 No. 22045 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 580 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22045 DATE 2/7/2017 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6555 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one permanent full-time Health Services Information Technology Manager (LBFA) position and Cancel vacant permanent full-time 40/40 Information Systems Manager I (LTNA) position #12357. Proposed Effective Date: 3/22/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $20,424.12 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $12,606.03 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Shelanda Adams ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 3/21/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 3/21/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 581 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/21/2017 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 582 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 583 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 584 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22049 to add one Health Service Administrator Level C (VANH) position at salary level ZB2 - 1723 ($6,567 - $7,616) and cancel vacant Development Center Director (VBGA) position #8749 at salary level ZB5-1759 ($6,606 - $8,029) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, there is an annual cost of approximately $6,656, which includes estimated pension costs of $1,607. The entire cost will be completely offset with Whole Person Care Pilot Program revenues. (100% Whole Person Care Pilot Program) BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to cancel one Development Center Director and add one Health Services Administrator Level C. The newly created Health Services Administrator Level C position would plan, coordinate and direct the administrative operations, including personnel and budget activities, as well as develop policies and procedures for the Public Health Division Administration. Health Services Department has determined the more appropriate classification to perform the duties and responsibilities associated with the management and administration of the Public Health Division Administration would be better suited with the classification of Health Services Administrator Level C. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - 925-957-5248 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Health Services Administrator Level C and cancel one Development Center Director in Health Services Department March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 585 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Health Services Department will not have the appropriate classification and level of staffing for its Public Health Division’s Administration. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22049 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 No. 22049 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 586 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22049 DATE 3/8/2017 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0450 Org No. 5761 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add Health Services Administrator - Level C (VANH) position and cancel one Development Center Director (VBGA) position #8749 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 3/29/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $6,656.10 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $2,218.70 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Whole Person Care grant funds Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 3/21/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 3/21/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 587 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/21/2017 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 588 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 589 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 590 RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22048 to add one full-time Mental Health Community Support Worker II (VQVB) at salary level TC5-0968 ($3,018 - $3,669) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, there is an annual cost of approximately $77,858, which includes estimated pension costs of $15,631. The cost will be entirely offset with budgeted Mental Health Services Act revenues. (100% Mental Health Services Act) BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to add a Mental Health Community Support Worker II for its Central Adult Mental Health Clinic. Currently there is a Community Support Worker II assigned to both the East and West Adult Mental Health Clinic which has proved to be successful. These positions provide support services to mentally ill adults and their families. Incumbents welcome families of consumers into the system; act as the family voice and provide consultation APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - 925-957-5248 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one permanent full-time Mental Health Community Support Worker II in the Health Services Department March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 591 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and assistance to staff; address concerns and answer questions that family members need resolved; lead or co-lead multi-family groups; assist families to maintain the consumer living in their homes. Transport and accompany families and consumers to appointments and meetings; act as a guide for housing and community resources; and attend and participate in meetings as a team member. The Department has determined a full time Mental Health Community Support Worker II would be appropriate classification to fulfill the needs of the Central Adult Mental Health to mirror that of the other two Adult Mental Health Clinics. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Behavioral Health Division’s Central Adult Mental Health Clinic of the Health Services Department will not have adequate staffing to meet the demand and volume of client care for those we serve. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22048 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 N. 22049 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 592 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22048 DATE 3/8/2017 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0467 Org No. 5991 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one full time Mental Health Community Support Worker II (VQVB) in the Health Services Department - Central Adult Mental Health Clinic. Proposed Effective Date: 3/22/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $77,857.63 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $19,464.41 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Mental Health Services Act Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 3/21/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 3/21/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 593 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/21/2017 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 594 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 595 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 596 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22044 to add one permanent full-time Account Clerk – Experienced Level (JDVC) position at salary level 3RH-0755 ($3,192 - $3,985) and cancel vacant permanent full time Clerk – Experienced Level (JWXB) position #9137 at salary level 3RH-0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, there is an annual cost of approximately $7,867, which includes estimated pension costs of $1,513. The cost will be entirely offset with budgeted Mental Health Services Act Funding. (100% MHSA) BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to cancel one vacant full time Clerk – Experienced Level and add one Account Clerk – Experienced Level. The duties of this position would be processing claims and invoices for services rendered which would more aptly be accomplished by an Account Clerk series. The Department has determined an Account Clerk – Experienced Level is more appropriate than a Clerk – Experienced Level to fulfill the needs of this program. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - 925-957-5248 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancel one full time Clerk – Experienced Level position and add one full time Account Clerk - Experienced Leve position in Health Services Department March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 597 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Health Services Department will not have the appropriate level of staffing for its Behavioral Health Division’s Care Management Unit. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22044 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 No. 22044 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 598 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22044 DATE 3/2/2017 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0467 Org No. 5943 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one Account Clerk - Experienced (JDVC) position and cancel one Clerk - Experienced Level (JWXB) position #9137 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 3/29/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $7,866.96 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $2,622.32 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Mental Health Services Act Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 3/21/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 3/21/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 599 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/21/2017 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 600 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 601 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 602 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21841 to establish the following classifications: Airport Safety Officer I (9BWC) (represented), allocate it to the salary schedule at salary plan and grade TB5 1403 ($3,553-$4,318); reclassify one (1) Airport Operations Technician (9BWB) (represented) vacant position No. 1660 to Airport Safety Officer I (9BWC) (represented). Airport Safety Officer II (9BVC) (represented), allocate it to the salary schedule at salary plan and grade T25 1400 ($4,113-$4,999); reclassify one (1) Airport Operations Specialist (9BVB) (represented) vacant position No. 1672 to Airport Safety Officer II (9BVC) (represented). Airport Safety Officer III (9BTB) (represented), allocate it to the salary schedule at salary plan and grade T25 1401 ($4,761-$5,787); reclassify five (5) Airport Operations Specialist (9BVB) (represented) positions No. 1644, 1646, 1666, 1682, 1695, and the incumbents to Airport Safety Officer III (9BTB) (represented). Airport Safety Officer IV (9BNB) (represented), allocate it to the salary schedule at salary plan and grade T25 1402 ($5,511-$6,699); reclassify three (3) Lead Airport Operations Specialist (9BTA) (represented) positions No. 1645, 14392, 15258, and the incumbents to Airport Safety Officer IV (9BNB) (represented) in the Public Works Department. In accordance with Section 21.4 - Promotion via Reclassification Without Examination of the MOU between the County and TEAMSTERS, Local 856, the Union agrees with the above actions. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Keith Freitas, (925) 681-4205 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Kelli Zenn, Keith Freitas C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Establish the classification of Airport Safety Officer I, II, III, IV and Reclassify Lead Airport Ops Spec, Airport Ops Spec and Airport Ops Tech March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 603 FISCAL IMPACT: If this action is approved, there is an annual cost of approximately $168,809 which will include pension costs of $29,616. The cost would be funded 100% with Airport Enterprise Revenue. BACKGROUND: The Airports Division of Public Works is seeking approval to abandon the existing classification series for the Airport Operations staff: Airport Operations Technician, Airport Operations Specialist and Lead Airport Operations Specialist and replace it with the new Airport Safety Officer classification series. The reason for the request is two-fold: First, the existing classifications were developed in the 1980's and are not reflective of today's significantly increased regulatory standards and changes in aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) training, certifications, and protocols; The Airport Safety Officer classifications play a critical role in maintaining the safety and security of the airfield at the Buchannan Field and Byron Airports in Contra Costa County. The most significant components of these classification’s role are the airport operations, maintenance, security and aircraft rescue, and firefighting. The security and safety responsibilities of this job were heightened with the recent start of scheduled service by JetSuiteX to Burbank and Las Vegas. This new service has upgraded Buchanan Field to an active status commercial service airport. Secondly, the ability to attract and retain individuals in the existing classifications has been dismal over the last 7 years. Many candidates simply decline interviews or, if hired, consistently resign their positions after a few years for much higher paying opportunities at other local airports. High staff turnover has become a financial drain to the Airport Enterprise Fund because training costs are in excess of $100,000 per employee in the first year of employment. The recommendation is to abandon the existing Airport Operations staff classifications and add a new four-level series titled Airport Safety Officer I, II, III, and IV. This new series will depict the existing industry standards for duties, functions, education, and professional experience necessary to perform all job functions in the current regulatory environment and also address compensation inequities associated with hiring and retention. All increased costs will be absorbed by the Airport Enterprise Fund. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Buchanan Field and Byron Airports will continue to be unable to attract and retain qualified staff with the necessary training, certifications and protocols. CLERK'S ADDENDUM RELISTED to a future date uncertain.  ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21841 P300 No.21841-ATTACHMENT March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 604 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21841 DATE 3/18/2016 Department No./ Department Public Works/Airports Budget Unit No. 0841 Org No. 4841 Agency No. 65 Action Requested: Establish the classification of Airport Safety Officer I, II, III, IV, allocate it to the salary schedule, Reclassify Lead Airport Ops Spec, Airport Ops Spec and Airport Ops Tech positions and the incumbents. Proposed Effective Date: 4/1/2016 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $168,809.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $42,202.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Airport Enterprise Funds Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Keith Freitas ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Lisa Driscoll 3/18/16 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 2/6/2017 SEE ATTACHMENT Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Eva Barrios 2/27/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 605 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 2/27/2017 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 606 ATTACHMENT Agenda Item Request No. 25122 – PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Position Adjustment Request No.21841 Board Agenda Date: March 7, 2017 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Establish the following four (4) classifications: Airport Safety Officer I (9BWC) (represented), allocate it to the salary schedule at salary plan and grade TB5 1403 ($3,553-$4,318); and reclassify one (1) Airport Operations Technician (9BWB) (represented) vacant position No. 1660 to Airport Safety Officer I (9BWC) (represented). Airport Safety Officer II (9BVC) (represented), allocate it to the salary schedule at salary plan and grade T25 1400 (4,113-$4,999); and reclassify one (1) Airport Operations Specialist (9BVB) (represented) vacant position No. 1672 to Airport Safety Officer II (9BVC) (represented). Airport Safety Officer III (9BTB) (represented), allocate it to the salary schedule at salary plan and grade T25 1401 ($4,761-$5,787); and reclassify five (5) Airport Operations Specialist (9BVB) (represented) positions No. 1644, 1646, 1666, 1682, 1695 and the incumbents to Airport Safety Officer III (9BTB) (represented). Airport Safety Officer IV (9BNB) (represented), allocate it to the salary schedule at salary plan and grade T25 1402 ($5,511-$6,699); and reclassify three (3) Lead Airport Operations Specialist (9BTA) (represented) positions No. 1645, 14392, 15258, and the incumbents to Airport Safety Officer IV (9BNB) (represented) in Public Works Department. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 607 RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22043 to increase the hours of vacant Patient Financial Services Specialist (V9VB) position #9269 from 24/40 to 40/40 at salary level 3RX - 1176 ($3,699 - $4,724) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, there is an annual cost of approximately $33,334, which includes estimated increased pension costs of $8,050. The cost will be offset with 85% budgeted Tuberculosis (TB) Grant funds and 15% General Fund) BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to increase the hours of Patient Financial Services Specialist position #9269 from 24/40 to 40/40. This position resides in the Public Health Division’s California Children’s Services Program, which is experiencing an increase in request for services. In addition, historically the department has found it difficult APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - 925-957-5248 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase hours of a part time permanent Patient Financial Services Specialist position to full time permanent position March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 608 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to fill this assignment’s part time position and full time positions provide increased consistency with working with the consumers of the California Children’s Services Program. The Department has determined a full time Patient Financial Services Specialist is more appropriate than a part time Patient Financial Services Specialist. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Public Health Division’s California Children’s Services Program of the Health Services Department will not have adequate staffing to meet the demand and volume of client care for those we serve. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This position resides in Public Health Division’s California Children’s Services Program and would impact services for the children of Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22043 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 No. 22043 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 609 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22043 DATE 3/8/2017 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0460 Org No. 5890 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Increase the hours of one vacant permanent Patient Financial Services Specialist (V9VB) position #9269 from 24/40 to permanent full-time 40/40 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 3/22/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $33,334.03 Net County Cost $5,000.10 Total this FY $11,111.34 N.C.C. this FY $1,666.70 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 85% TB grant, 15% General Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 3/20/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 3/20/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 610 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/21/2017 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 611 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 612 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 613 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a lease with RIO Properties I, LLC, for 14,041 square feet of rentable office space for the Health Services Department – Information Technology Division, at 2380 Bisso Lane, Suite B in Concord, at an initial annual rent of $264,528, for the first year with an annual increase thereafter, for a term of twelve years with one ten-year renewal term, under the terms and conditions set forth in the lease. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund BACKGROUND: Health Services Department (HSD) has largely maximized the utilization of its current data center at 595 Center Avenue in Martinez. HSD needs additional data center space for its Information Technology Division in Central County. The new lease on Bisso Lane will provide adequate space for future growth of these functions. This lease will also consolidate staff from APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Julin Perez-Berntsen, (925) 313-2010 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Lease - 2380 Bisso Lane, Concord – Health Services Department – Information Technology Division March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 614 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) multiple locations into an adequately sized central facility. RIO Properties (Lessor) is responsible for constructing the tenant improvements in the premises for the County. Lessor is also providing the County with a $30 per-square-foot allowance for tenant improvements. The County is responsible for the cost of tenant improvements in excess of that amount. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this lease is not approved, the Health Services Department – Information Technology Division will continue to operate from multiple locations, and the County will incur additional expenses in finding a new location. ATTACHMENTS Placeholder Draft Lease 2380 Bisso Ln, Concord Placeholder Draft Work Letter 2380 Bisso Ln, Concord March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 615 1 LEASE Health Services Department Technology Division 2380 Bisso Lane, Suite B, Concord, California This lease is dated _____________, 2017 and is between RIO Properties I, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Lessor”) and the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”). Recitals A. Lessor is the owner of that certain premises located at 2380 Bisso Lane, Concord, California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A – Legal Description (the “Property”). The Property is improved with an office building (the “Building”). B. Lessor desires to lease to County and County desires to lease from Lessor a portion of the Building consisting of approximately 14,041 square feet of floor space known as Suite B (the “Premises”), along with the non-exclusive use of 56 parking stalls. C. Simultaneous with the execution of this lease, Lessor and County are entering into a work letter that sets forth how tenant improvements in the Premises are to be constructed, who will undertake the construction of the tenant improvements, who will pay for the construction of the tenant improvements, and the time schedule for completion of the construction of the tenant improvements (the “Work Letter”). The Work Letter is part of this lease. The parties therefore agree as follows: Agreement 1. Lease of Premises. In consideration of the rents and subject to the terms herein set forth, Lessor hereby leases to County and County hereby leases from Lessor, the Premises. 2. Term. The “Term” of this lease is comprised of an Initial Term and, at County’s election, Renewal Terms, each as defined below. a. Initial Term. The “Initial Term” is fourteen years, commencing on the Commencement Date, as defined in the Work Letter. b. Renewal Terms. County has one option to renew this lease for a term of ten years (“Renewal Term”) upon all the terms and conditions set forth herein. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 616 2 i. County will provide Lessor with written notice of its election to renew the Lease not more than twelve months and no less than nine months prior to the end of the Initial Term. However, if County fails to provide such notice, its right to renew the Lease will not expire until fifteen working days after County’s receipt of Lessor’s written demand that County exercise or forfeit the option to renew. ii. Upon the commencement of the Renewal Term, all references to the Term of this lease will be deemed to mean the Term as extended pursuant to this Section. iii. The County’s right to renew this lease is personal to the County and may not be exercised by or assigned to any person or entity that is not governed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The County may not exercise its right to renew this lease if, at the time the County exercises the renewal option, the County is in material default of this lease after the expiration of the applicable cure period. 3. Rent. a. Initial Term. County shall pay rent (“Rent”) to Lessor monthly in advance beginning on the Commencement Date. Rent is payable on the first day of each month during the Initial Term and, if applicable, the Renewal Term, in the amounts set forth below: Months Monthly Rent 1 - 12 $22,044 13 - 24 $22,706 25 - 36 $23,387 37 - 48 $24,088 49 - 60 $24,811 61 - 72 $25,555 73 - 84 $26,322 85 - 96 $27,112 97 - 108 $27,925 109 - 120 $28,763 121 - 132 $29,626 133 - 144 $30,515 145 – 156 $31,430 157 – 168 $32,373 b. Renewal Term. During the Renewal Term, County shall pay rent in an amount equal to the then-current fair market rental value of the property (the “FMV”). As soon as practicable following delivery of the County’s renewal notice, County and Lessor shall meet and endeavor in good faith to agree on the FMV. If County and Lessor fail to agree within thirty (30) days of delivery of the renewal notice, then Lessor and County shall each appoint an appraiser with at least five (5) years’ full-time commercial real estate appraisal experience in the area to opine as to the FMV of the Premises. Lessor and County shall each bear the cost March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 617 3 of their own appraiser. Lessor and County shall request that the appraisers provide written reports setting forth their opinions within fifteen (15) days after being given the assignment. As soon as practicable after receipt of the appraisals, Lessor and County shall meet and, again, endeavor in good faith to agree on the FMV. If Lessor and County are unable to agree on the FMV within thirty (30) days after receipt of the appraisals, (i) County may rescind the renewal notice, or (ii) with Lessor’s concurrence, County may extend the Initial Term for three (3) months (such extension, the “Extended Initial Term”). County will pay Rent during the Extended Initial Term at the same rate that applied immediately prior to the Extended Initial Term. If at the end of the Extended Initial Term, Lessor and County have failed to agree on the FMV, County may rescind the renewal notice and the lease will expire at the end of the Extended Initial Term. c. Fractional Month. Rent for any fractional month will be prorated and computed on a daily basis with each day’s rent equal to one-thirtieth (1/30) of the monthly Rent. d. Late Payment. The County acknowledges that the late payment of Rent by the County will cause Lessor to incur costs not contemplated by this lease, the exact amount of which will be extremely difficult to ascertain. Such costs include, but are not limited to, processing and accounting expenses and late charges that may be imposed on Lessor by a lender. Accordingly if Rent is not received by Lessor within ten (10) business days after written notice from Lessor to the County that the unpaid Rent is due, then, without any requirement for any further notice to the County, the County shall immediately pay to Lessor a one-time late charge equal to 5% of the unpaid Rent. The parties agree that such late charge represents a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs Lessor will incur by reason of such late payment. Acceptance of the late charge by Lessor does not constitute a waiver of the County’s default or breach with respect to overdue amount or prevent the exercise of any other rights and remedies granted hereunder. In addition, any monetary payment due Lessor hereunder, other than late charges, that is not paid within ten (10) business days following written notice from Lessor to the County that such payment is due, will bear interest from its due date, as to scheduled payments, or the 31st day after it was due, as to non-scheduled payments. Interest is to be computed at the lessor of 5% per annum and the maximum rate allowed by law. e. Rent Adjustment. If the actual cost of Tenant Improvements (as defined in the Work Letter) exceeds the Allowance (as defined in the Work Letter), Rent over the ten-year period that follows the final installation of the Tenant Improvements will be adjusted upward by an amount equal to the Rental Increase. The “Rental Increase” is an amount equal to the amount by which the cost of the Tenant Improvements exceeds the Allowance (the “Excess Cost”) multiplied by .0116108. For example, if the Excess Cost is $100,000, the amount by which Rent would increase over the relevant ten-year period is $1,161.08 ($100,000 x .0116108). The Rental Increase shall be terminated at the end of the ten-year period, and Rent will be payable in the amount set forth in paragraph 3.a. The Lessor and County will acknowledge in writing upon the Commencement Date the amount of the Rental Increase as stated in this section. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 618 4 4. CAM Charges. In addition to the rent set forth above, County shall pay Lessor the County’s Proportionate Share of CAM Charges. The terms “Proportionate Share” and “CAM Charges” are defined below. Lessor shall invoice County for any CAM Charges within ninety days after the end of each calendar year during the Term. County shall pay the amount so invoiced within thirty days of receipt of the invoice. County has the right, exercisable upon reasonable prior written notice to Lessor, to inspect Lessor’s books and records relating to the amounts charged to County as CAM Charges. County may not withhold payment of the invoice until after the completion of such inspection. a. “Proportionate Share” means the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the square feet of the Premises to the total square footage of the Building. As of the date of this Lease, the parties estimate that County’s Proportionate Share of the Building is 33.05% b. “CAM Charges” means common area maintenance charges and includes (i) all actual costs and expenses incurred by Lessor to operate and maintain those areas within the Building, including the Building’s entrances, walkways, sidewalks, lavatories, drives, parking facilities, fire or life safety systems for the premises, and other areas that are not leased or held for lease but are within or contiguous to or serving the Building and are necessary or desirable for County’s full use and enjoyment of the Premises (the “Common Area”), to repair Common Area facilities when reasonably required, to clean and remove trash from the Common Area and to provide security services to the Common Area, (ii) all actual costs and expenses incurred by Lessor to maintain and repair all common areas, parking lots, sidewalks, driveways, all landscaped areas, and other areas that are used in common by the tenants or occupants of the Building, (iii) Insurance, as defined below, (iv) Real Property Taxes, as defined below, and (v) an administrative fee for services rendered by a third party manager that is equal to no more than two percent of the total Rent. i. “Insurance” means the All Risk Property Insurance maintained by Lessor covering the Building and the Warehouse and all improvements thereto for perils including fire and earthquake, if applicable, for an amount equal to full replacement cost; liability and other insurance that Lessor reasonably deems necessary on the Premises or that may be required by Lessor’s mortgagee, including, but not limited to, earthquake, and flood insurance. ii. “Real Property Taxes” means and includes all taxes, assessments (amortized over the longest period available to Lessor) levied or assessed upon the Building and the real property upon which it is situated, any state or local business taxes or fees measured by or assessed upon gross rentals or receipts, and other governmental charges, general and special, including, without limitation, assessments for public improvements or benefits, that are, during the Term of this Lease, assessed, levied, and imposed by any governmental authority upon the Building. Real Property Taxes do not include any late fees or penalties, any municipal, county, state or federal net income, estate, succession, inheritance, sales, use or franchise taxes of Lessor. Notwithstanding any provision of this Lease to the contrary, Lessor and County acknowledge and agree that the following items are excluded from CAM Charges: i. Payments on any loans or ground leases affecting the Building. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 619 5 ii. Depreciation of any Building or any major systems of Building service equipment. iii. All costs and expenses associated with leasing to other tenants, including tenant improvements allowances, attorneys’ fees, brokerage commissions, and architectural fees, if any. iv. Any cost incurred in complying with hazardous materials laws. v. Capital taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes, corporation capital taxes, excise taxes, profits taxes or other taxes personal to the Lessor. 5. Payment of CAM Charges. a. Annual Estimates. At the beginner of each year, Lessor shall provide County with a reasonable estimate of the amount of CAM Charges due for the upcoming year (or portion thereof). That amount will be divided by the number of months in the year (or portion thereof) to determine the “Estimated Monthly CAM Charges.” b. Monthly Payments. County shall pay the Estimated Monthly CAM Charges monthly in advance on the first day of each month. CAM charges for any fractional month will be prorated and computed on a daily basis with each day’s CAM Charges equal to one-thirtieth (1/30) of the then-current CAM Charges. c. Annual Reconciliation. Within 180 days after the end of the calendar year, or, if applicable, within 180 days after the end of the term, Lessor shall (i) calculate the actual CAM Charges due for the relevant period, and (ii) provide County with a statement that compares the actual expenses incurred by Lessor for the relevant period with the total payments of Estimated Monthly CAM Charges paid by the County during such period (a “Reconciliation Statement”). If County’s total payments of Estimated Monthly CAM Charges for the period are less than the amount of actual expenses incurred by Lessor, County shall pay to Lessor the amount of such deficiency within 30 days after receipt of the Reconciliation Statement. If County’s total payments of Estimated Monthly CAM Charges for such period exceed actual expenses incurred by Lessor for such period, Lessor shall refund the excess to County within 30 days after the County’s demand therefor. d. Inspection of Books. County has the right to inspect and audit Lessor’s books and records relating to the amounts charged to County as CAM Charges and to set forth specific objections to amounts charged to County. If the County’s inspection and audit reveals the County was overcharged for CAM Charges, Lessor shall remit the amount overcharged to County with interest at a rate of one percent (1.0 %) per month from the date of overpayment until the date paid to County in full within 30 days of demand therefor. Lessor shall retain all relevant records for at least two years. County shall cause any such inspection to occur within eighteen months of receipt of the Reconciliation Statement. County may not cause such inspection to occur more than once in any twelve month period. In no event may this section be deemed to allow any review of Lessor’s records by any subtenant of County. County may not withhold payment of the invoice until after the completion of such inspection. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 620 6 e. Initial Estimate. For the period beginning on the Commencement Date and continuing through December 31, 2017, Lessor has determined the Estimated Monthly CAM Charges to be $3,512.16. Subject to the terms of this lease, County shall pay such amount to Lessor beginning on the Commencement Date and continuing through December 31, 2017. 6. Use. County may use the Premises for the purpose of conducting various functions of County and any other purpose permitted by law. 7. Obligation to Pay Utilities and Janitorial Service. If the Premises are separately metered, County shall contract with utility providers and pay for all gas and electric service provided to the Premises; otherwise, County shall pay for all gas and electricity as reasonably determined by Lessor using a methodology approved by County. County shall pay for such utilities within ten (10) business days of receipt of an invoice from Lessor. County shall contract separately for janitorial and trash collection services provided to the Premises. Lessor shall pay for all water and sewer services provided to the Premises. 8. Maintenance and Repairs. Lessor shall include the cost of all maintenance and repairs provided by Lessor in the Estimated Monthly CAM Charges. County shall re reimburse Lessor for such costs in accordance with Section 5 – Payment of CAM Charges. a. Roof and Exterior of Premises. Lessor shall keep the roof and exterior of the Premises in good order, condition, and repair, and shall maintain the structural integrity of the Building, including the exterior doors and their fixtures, closers and hinges, exterior windows, glass and glazing. The County shall maintain all locks and key systems used in the Premises. b. Interior of Premises. County shall keep and maintain the interior of the Premises in good order, condition and repair, but Lessor shall repair damage to the interior caused by its failure to maintain the exterior in good repair, including damage to the interior caused by roof leaks and/or interior and exterior wall leaks. The County may install and maintain an alarm system, if deemed necessary by County. In the event that the necessity of repair is due to County’s, or its invitees, negligence or willful misconduct, then County shall reimburse Lessor 100% of the costs incurred in the repair of such damage. Lessor, at its own cost and expense, without right of reimbursement, shall repair any damage to the interior of the Premises arising from Lessor’s negligence or willful misconduct. Subject to Lessor delivering the Premises to County in accordance with the Work Letter, on and after the Commencement Date, County is responsible for the cost of maintaining the Premises in compliance with all code requirements, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act. c. Utilities. Lessor shall repair and maintain the electrical, lighting, water and plumbing systems in good order, condition and repair. d. HVAC. Lessor shall maintain and repair the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 621 7 e. Parking; Exterior Lighting; Landscaping. Lessor shall maintain the parking lot and exterior lighting system, and landscaping, in good order, condition and repair. f. Generator and Battery Room. Lessor warrants that the existing generator in the building will be operable and functioning on the Commencement Date and during the Term of this lease. Lessor warrants that the existing battery room, which houses the batteries that provide backup power to the data room in the building, will be operable and functioning on the Commencement Date and during the Term of the lease. Lessor shall maintain and repair the generator and battery room as needed. g. Services by Lessor. If County determines that the Premises are in need of maintenance, construction, remodeling or similar service that is beyond Lessor’s responsibilities under this lease, at County’s request, Lessor shall perform such service at County’s expense. In performing the service, Lessor shall consult with County and use either licensed insured contractors or employees of Lessor. Lessor shall obtain County’s prior written approval of the scope, terms, and cost of any contracts. County may, by giving Lessor thirty (30) days prior written notice, change the level of service, terminate any or all service, or require that a service be performed by a different contractor. 9. Quiet Enjoyment. Provided County is in compliance with the material terms of this lease, Lessor shall warrant and defend County in the quiet enjoyment and possession of the Premises during the Term. 10. Subordination, Non-Disturbance and Attornment. If at any time Lessor has a loan that is secured by a lien of a mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Building, Lessor shall cause the lender(s) holding such lien to execute and deliver to County a Subordination, Non-Disturbance and Attornment Agreement that is in substantial conformity with Exhibit B hereto. 11. Assignment and Sublease. County has the right to assign this lease or sublease the Premises or any part thereof at any time during the Term with the written approval of Lessor, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 12. Alterations; Fixtures and Signs. County may (i) make any lawful and proper minor alterations to the Premises and (ii) attach fixtures and signs (“County Fixtures”) in or upon the Premises. Any County Fixtures will remain the property of County and may be removed from the Premises by County at any time during the Term. County is responsible for the cost of all alterations and County Fixtures. All alterations and County Fixtures are subject to Lessor’s approval and must comply with existing code requirements. 13. Prior Possession. Prior to the Commencement Date, County has the right to install fixtures, telephones, alarm systems, and other items required to prepare the Premises for County’s occupancy and to store furniture, supplies and equipment, provided such work and storage and can be effected without unduly interfering with Lessor’s completion of any tenant improvements. 14. Insurance. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 622 8 a. Liability Insurance. Throughout the Term, County shall maintain in full force and effect, at its sole expense, a general self-insurance program covering bodily injury (including death), personal injury, and property damage, including loss of use. County shall provide Lessor with a letter of self-insurance affirming the existence of the aforementioned self-insurance program. b. Self-Insurance Exclusion. County’s self-insurance does not provide coverage for (i) areas to be maintained by Lessor under this lease, or (ii) negligence, willful misconduct, or other intentional act, error or omission of Lessor, its officers, agents, or employees. 15. Surrender of Premises. On the last day of the Term, or sooner termination of this lease, County shall peaceably and quietly leave and surrender to Lessor the Premises, along with appurtenances and fixtures at the Premises (except County Fixtures), all in good condition, ordinary wear and tear, damage by casualty, condemnation, acts of God and Lessor’s failure to make repairs required of Lessor excepted. County is not responsible for painting or for repairing or replacing any floor coverings in the Premises upon the expiration or earlier termination of this lease. 16. Waste, Nuisance. County may not commit, or suffer to be committed, any waste upon the Premises, or any nuisance or other act or thing that may disturb the quiet enjoyment of any other occupant of the Building. 17. Inspection. Lessor, or its proper representative or contractor, may enter the Premises by prior appointment between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, holidays excepted, to determine that (i) the Premises is being reasonably cared for, (ii) no waste is being made and that all actions affecting the Premises are done in the manner best calculated to preserve the Premises, and (iii) County is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this lease. 18. Perilous Conditions. If the County’s Director of Public Works becomes aware of a perilous condition on the Premises that, in his or her opinion, substantially and significantly threatens the health and safety of County employees and/or invitees (a “Perilous Condition”), the Director of Public Works, or his or her designee, will immediately notify Lessor of such Perilous Condition and Lessor shall use best efforts to immediately eliminate the Perilous Condition. Lessor shall immediately address any condition reasonably constituting an emergency, whether Lessor learns of the condition through County or otherwise. If Lessor fails to address a Perilous Condition within twenty-four (24) hours after County’s notice or to immediately address an emergency situation, County may attempt to resolve the Perilous Condition or emergency situation. Lessor shall reimburse County for any costs incurred by County in addressing the Perilous Condition or emergency situation promptly upon receipt of County’s invoice. 19. Destruction. If damage occurs that causes a partial destruction of the Premises during the Term from any cause and repairs can be made within ninety days from the date of the damage under the applicable laws and regulations of governmental authorities, Lessor shall repair the damage March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 623 9 promptly. Such partial destruction will not void this lease, except that County will be entitled to a proportionate reduction in Rent while such repairs are being made. The proportionate reduction in Rent will be calculated by multiplying Rent by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of square feet that are unusable by County and the denominator of which is the total number of square feet in the Premises. If repairs cannot be made in ninety days, County will have the option to terminate the lease or request that Lessor make the repairs within a reasonable time, in which case, Lessor will make the repairs and Rent will be proportionately reduced as provided in the previous paragraph. This lease will terminate in the event of a total destruction of the Building or the Premises. 20. Hazardous Material. Except as otherwise disclosed to County in writing prior to the execution of this lease, Lessor warrants to County, that Lessor does not have any knowledge of the presence of Hazardous Material (as defined below) or contamination of the Building or Premises in violation of environmental laws. Lessor shall defend, save, protect and hold County harmless from any loss arising out of the presence of any Hazardous Material on the Premises that was not brought to the Premises by or at the request of County, its agents, contractors, invitees or employees. Lessor acknowledges and agrees that County has no obligation to clean up or remediate, or contribute to the cost of clean up or remediation, of any Hazardous Material unless such Hazardous Material is released, discharged or spilled on or about the Premises by County or any of its agents, employees, contractors, invitees or other representatives. The obligations of this Section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this lease. “Hazardous Material” means any substance, material or waste, including lead based paint, asbestos and petroleum (including crude oil or any fraction thereof), that is or becomes designated as a hazardous substance, hazardous waste, hazardous material, toxic substance, or toxic material under any federal, state or local law, regulation, or ordinance. 21. Indemnification. a. County. County shall defend, indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from County’s share of any and all claims, costs and liability for any damage, injury or death of or to any person or the property of any person, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the willful misconduct or the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of County, its officers, agents or employees in using the Premises pursuant to this lease, or the County’s performance under this lease, except to the extent caused or contributed to by (i) the structural, mechanical, or other failure of buildings owned or maintained by Lessor, and/or (ii) the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of Lessor, its officers, agents, or employees. b. Lessor. Lessor shall defend, indemnify and hold County harmless from Lessor’s share of any and all claims, costs and liability for any damage, injury or death of or to any person or the property of any person, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the willful misconduct or the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Lessor, its officers, agents, employees, with respect to the Premises, or Lessor’s performance under this lease, or the Lessor’s performance, delivery or supervision of services at the Premises, or by the structural, mechanical or other failure of March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 624 10 buildings owned or maintained by Lessor, except to the extent caused or contributed to by the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of County, its officers, agents, or employees. 22. Default. The occurrence of any of the following events is a default under this lease: a. County. i. County’s failure to pay Rent within ten business days after receipt of a written notice of failure (a “Notice”) from Lessor to County; provided, however, that County will have additional time if its failure to pay Rent is due to circumstances beyond its reasonable control, including, without limitation, failure of the County’s Board of Supervisors to adopt a budget. In no event may such additional time exceed seventy- five days from receipt of a Notice. ii. County’s failure to comply with any other material term or provision of this lease if such failure is not remedied within thirty days after receipt of a Notice from Lessor to County specifying the nature of the breach in reasonably sufficient detail; provided, however, if such default cannot reasonably be remedied within such thirty day period, then a default will not be deemed to occur until the occurrence of County’s failure to comply within the period of time that may be reasonably required to remedy the default, up to an aggregate of ninety days, provided County commences curing such default within thirty days and thereafter diligently proceeds to cure such default. b. Lessor. i. Lessor’s failure to complete the Tenant Improvements in accordance with the Work Letter. ii. Lessor’s failure to perform any other obligation under this lease if such failure is not remedied within thirty days after receipt of a Notice from County to Lessor specifying the nature of the breach in reasonably sufficient detail; provided, however, if such breach cannot reasonably be remedied within such thirty-day period, then a default will not be deemed to occur until the occurrence of Lessor’s failure to perform within the period of time that may be reasonably required to remedy the breach, up to an aggregate of ninety days, provided Lessor commences curing such breach within thirty days and thereafter diligently proceeds to cure such breach. 23. Remedies. a. Lessor. Upon the occurrence of a default by County, Lessor may, after giving County written notice of the default, and in accordance with due process of law, reenter and repossess the Premises and remove all persons and property from the Premises. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 625 11 b. County. If Lessor fails to complete the Tenant Improvements in accordance with the Work Letter, County may terminate this lease by giving written notice to Lessor with no cost or obligation to County. Such termination is effective on the effective date of the written notice. Upon the occurrence of any other default by Lessor, County may (i) terminate this lease by giving written notice to Lessor and quit the Premises without further cost or obligation to County, or (ii) proceed to repair or correct the failure and, at County’s option, either deduct the cost thereof from Rent due to Lessor, or invoice Lessor for the cost of repair, which invoice Lessor shall pay in full promptly upon receipt. 24. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this lease shall be in writing and sent by overnight delivery service or registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and directed as follows: To Lessor: RIO Properties I, LLC 14 Orinda Way Orinda, CA 94563 To County: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Attn: Principal Real Property Agent 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Either party may designate a substitute address for that set forth above, in writing, at any time, and thereafter notices are to be directed to such substituted address. If sent in accordance with this Section, all notices will be deemed effective (i) the next business day, if sent by overnight courier, or (ii) three days after being deposited in the United States Postal system. 25. Successors and Assigns. This lease binds and inures to the benefit of the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. 26. Holding Over. Any holding over after the Term of this lease is a tenancy from month to month and is subject to the terms of this lease, except the County will pay Rent equal to 125% of the Rent for the period immediately preceding the holdover. 27. Time is of the Essence. In fulfilling all terms and conditions of this lease, time is of the essence. 28. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California govern all matters arising out of this lease. 29. Severability. In the event that any provision herein contained is held to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this lease will not in any way be affected or impaired. 30. Real Estate Commission. In negotiating this lease, Lessor is represented by Jones Lang LaSalle Brokerage, Inc. (“JLL”) and the County represents itself. Lessor shall pay a real estate March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 626 12 commission to JLL pursuant to a separate written agreement. Lessor recognizes and acknowledges that the County is entitled to a real estate commission when it represents itself. The County warrants to Lessor that County’s contact with Lessor in connection with this Lease has been directly with JLL. Lessor shall pay to County a real estate commission in the amount of Forty-One Thousand One Hundred Five and .75/100 Dollars ($41,105.75) (the “County Commission”). Lessor shall pay one-half of the County Commission upon the execution of this lease and the remainder on the Lease Commencement Date. 31. Recording. The parties shall execute and record a Memorandum of Lease in substantial conformity with Exhibit C, in lieu of recording the entire lease. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of this lease, County shall execute a Memorandum of Lease Termination or Quitclaim Deed discharging any recording made pursuant to this Section 31. 32. Offer. Preparation of the lease and submission of same to the County shall not be deemed an offer to lease to the County. This lease is not intended to be binding until executed and delivered by all parties hereto. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 627 13 33. Entire Agreement; Construction; Modification. Neither party has relied on any promise or representation not contained in this lease or the Work Letter. All previous conversations, negotiations, and understandings are of no further force or effect. This lease is not to be construed as if it had been prepared by one of the parties, but rather as if both parties have prepared it. This lease may be modified only by a writing signed by both parties. The parties are executing this lease on the date set forth in the introductory paragraph. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a RIO Properties I, LLC, a political subdivision of the State of California limited liability company California By: _______________________ By: _______________________ Julia R. Bueren Christopher L. Paulson Director of Public Works Authorized Member RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: _______________________ Karen Laws Principal Real Property Agent By: _______________________ Julin Perez-Berntsen Associate Real Property Agent APPROVED AS TO FORM SHARON L. ANDERSON, COUNTY COUNSEL By: _______________________ Kathleen M. Andrus Deputy County Counsel \\PW-DATA\grpdata\realprop\Julin\New Leases 2017\Concord\2380 Bisso Ln, HSD IT\2380 Bisso Lane HSD IT _ Lease V6.doc March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 628 WLP134 1 WORK LETTER Health Services Department Technology Division 2380 Bisso Lane, Suite B, Concord, California _______________, 2017 This work letter (“Work Letter”) is part of the lease (“Lease”) executed concurrently herewith between RIO PROPERTIES I, LLC (“Lessor”), and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, (“County”) under which the County is leasing real property situated in Concord, California, as more particularly described in the Lease. Lessor and County mutually agree as follows: 1. Terms. All capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Lease. The provisions of this Work Letter supplement the Lease and are specifically subject to the provisions of the Lease. If there is a conflict between the provisions of the Lease and the provisions of this Work Letter, the provisions of the Lease control. Whenever the approval of County is required hereunder, approval is required of the County’s Director of Public Works or her designee (the “County Representative”). 2. Lessor's Representation and Warranties. Lessor represents and warrants to County that Lessor is the owner of the Property, and the Property is presently zoned to permit its use for the purposes contemplated by this Work Letter and the Lease and is free of any covenants, restrictions and other encumbrances. In addition, Lessor represents and warrants that the individuals signing this Work Letter on behalf of Lessor are authorized to do so. Lessor covenants and agrees that it will cause the Substantial Completion Date, as defined below, to occur no later than June 30, 2017. 3. Base Building Work. Lessor has constructed the Building’s shell and core (collectively, the “Base Building Work”) at Lessor’s cost and expense. The Base Building Work includes, but is not limited to, the following elements of the Building: (a) concrete floors (without floor coverings), (b) finished perimeter walls (including windows, window frames, window blinds, and doors), (c) finished ceilings, including lights and light fixtures, (d) finished restrooms, (e) closets for telephone and electrical systems (but not the telephone systems themselves), (f) Building mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems within the Building core only, (g) interior core walls, (h) fire alarms and fire suppression systems on each floor of the Building, (i) all items necessary for the Building March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 629 WLP134 2 to satisfy the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including, without limitation, washrooms, elevators, drinking fountains, and the parking area, (j) all code- required items relating to the other elements of the Base Building Work, such as exit signs, speakers, fire doors, and any other life-safety support system for each floor, and (k) dry wall and tape of interior columns. 4. Tenant Improvements. Subject to the conditions set forth below, Lessor shall construct and install the improvements to the Premises that are described on Schedule 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Tenant Improvements”) in accordance with (i) the Space Plans, as defined below, (ii) the Construction Schedule, attached hereto as Schedule 3 – Construction Schedule, and (iii) the Final Plans, as defined below. As discussed in more detail in Section 14 – Tenant’s Work, any item of work not shown in the Final Plans, including, for example, telephone and data service or furnishings (“Tenant’s Work”) is to be performed at County’s expense by County, or, if requested by County, Lessor (“Tenant’s Work”). The Lessor may not charge an administrative fee in connection with Tenant’s Work. For purposes of this Work Letter, “Construction Schedule” means the schedule that (i) has been agreed upon by Lessor and County, (ii) identifies the work to be accomplished to complete the Tenant Improvements and the sequence of that work, and (iii) sets forth the dates by which certain components of the work must be completed. 5. Build Out Allowance. Lessor shall provide County with an allowance in an amount equal to Four Hundred Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty and no/100 Dollars ($421,230.00) (the “Allowance”). The County may use the Allowance for fees and costs connected with the Tenant Improvements that are approved by the County Representative, including, but not limited to: architect and design fees, hard construction costs, demolition fees, contractor fees, engineering fees, the cost of plans and permits obtained in connection with the Tenant Improvements, and the cost of the batteries in the battery room. Any portion of the Allowance not required to complete the Tenant Improvements in accordance with the final plans referred to below is the property of the Lessor; provided, however, if the cost of the Tenant Improvements is less than the Allowance, the Rent over the Initial Term will be adjusted downward to reflect the actual cost of the Tenant Improvements. To the extent that the actual cost of the Tenant Improvements exceeds the Allowance, the Rent paid by the County will increase in accordance with Section 3.e. of the Lease. 6. Contractor. Lessor shall use a competitive bid package approved by the County to select a contractor that is acceptable to the County (the “Contractor”) to construct the Tenant Improvements. Lessor shall provide a copy of all proposals and bids related to the construction of the Tenant Improvements to County. Lessor shall permit County to participate in any meetings between Lessor and potential contractors that precede the award of a contract. Lessor shall cause Contractor to obtain all licenses and permits March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 630 WLP134 3 necessary to effect the construction of the Tenant Improvements and, upon completion of the Tenant Improvements, any required occupancy permits. 7. Design and Construction. Lessor shall provide all architectural and engineering services necessary to construct the Tenant Improvements. Lessor shall hire and pay for the services of Studio Benavente Architects Inc. (“Architect”) to provide architectural services for the design and construction of Tenant Improvements. Lessor shall cause the Architect to assist and support County with furniture and equipment plans, as requested by County. 8. Plans. a. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 8, prior to the execution of the Lease, Lessor and County approved in writing space plans for the build-out of the Tenant Improvements and an estimate of the cost to design and/or construct the Tenant Improvements for the Premises that were prepared by Lessor or Lessor’s designated architect (the “Space Plans”). A copy of the Space Plans is attached hereto as Schedule 2. b. In the event that Lessor and County enter into the Lease prior to reaching agreement on the Space Plans, Lessor and County shall cooperate in good faith to finalize the Space Plans without delay. County shall fully cooperate by providing Lessor, its architects, engineers, and contractors with timely information and approvals of plans, drawings, and specifications. Any acts by County to delay or otherwise act negligently or in bad faith in approving the Space Plans and/or cooperating with Lessor in the design and construction of the Tenant Improvements will result in a Tenant Delay (as hereinafter defined) under this Work Letter. Upon agreement by Lessor and County on the Space Plans, a true and correct copy will be attached to this Work Letter as Schedule 2. c. Lessor shall pay from the Allowance all architectural and engineering fees and costs incurred in connection with the Tenant Improvements depicted on the Final Plans, as defined below, including architectural plans required to depict accessibility routes for the Building in general. Any and all architectural and engineering fees and costs incurred as a result of changes in the Final Plans requested by County will be County’s sole responsibility and paid for by County as additional rent within ten (10) days after receipt of invoices from Lessor showing that such additional fees or costs have been incurred. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 631 WLP134 4 9. Modifications to the Plans. a. Lessor and County acknowledge that the Space Plans may not depict certain structural elements of the Building and/or various elements of the Building systems that may necessitate modifications to the Space Plans and specifications for the Tenant Improvements (collectively “Structural Modifications”). Furthermore, any final plans and specifications for the construction of the Tenant Improvements may require modification to account for Applicable Laws and Restrictions. “Applicable Laws and Restrictions” means all laws (including, without limitation, the Americans with Disabilities Act), building codes, ordinances, regulations, title covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and casualty underwriters’ requirements applicable to the Premises and the Tenant Improvements. Within sixty days after the date of the Lease, Lessor shall cause to be prepared final plans and specifications in substantial conformity with the Space Plans, taking into account (i) Structural Modifications, (ii) the requirements of the Applicable Laws and Restrictions, (iii) other modifications resulting from physical constraints of the Premises, and (iv) modifications requested by County and consented to by Lessor, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld (the “Final Plans”). Once completed, the Final Plans will be attached to this Work Letter as Schedule 4. b. Any and all modifications of, or amendments to, the Space Plans and the Final Plans (including all working drawings and other supplements thereto, but excluding immaterial field changes and Structural Modifications), are subject to the prior written approval of County. Material "or equal" items or substitute items provided for in the specifications forming part of the Final Plans are subject to the prior written approval of County, which approval may not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Samples of such “or equal” or substitute materials, together with any additional supplemental information that may be necessary for County's review, are to be submitted to County in a timely manner. 10. Inspections. The County and its representatives may enter the Premises at all reasonable times upon reasonable advance notice to Lessor for the purpose of inspecting the progress of construction of the Tenant Improvements. 11. Compliance with Laws; Standards of Performance. Lessor, at its expense and chargeable to the Allowance, shall (i) obtain all approvals, permits and other consents required to commence, perform and complete the Tenant Improvements, and, if applicable, shall deliver a certificate of occupancy to County, and (ii) cause the Tenant Improvements to be constructed in accordance with the following performance standards: the Tenant Improvements are to be constructed by well-trained, adequately supervised workers, in good and workmanlike manner, free from design, material and workmanship defects in accordance with the Final Plans and all Applicable Laws and Restrictions (the “Performance Standards”). Lessor warrants that all Tenant Improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the Performance Standards. Notwithstanding anything to March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 632 WLP134 5 the contrary in the Lease or this Work Letter, County’s acceptance of possession of the Premises does not waive this warranty and Lessor shall promptly remedy all violations of the warranty at its sole cost and expense. 12. Completion Notice; Inspection; Substantial Completion Date. a. When Lessor deems construction of the Tenant Improvements to be Substantially Complete, as defined below, Lessor shall tender delivery to County by delivering a “Completion Notice” in substantial conformity with Schedule 5. For purposes of this Work Letter, the phrase “Substantially Complete” means (i) construction of the Tenant Improvements has been substantially completed in accordance with the Performance Standards, (ii) there is no incomplete or defective work that unreasonably interferes with County’s use of the Premises, (iii) all necessary government approvals for legal occupancy of the Tenant Improvements have been obtained (including, if applicable, a Certificate of Occupancy), and (iv) all utilities are hooked up and available for use by County in the Premises. b. Upon receipt of the Completion Notice, a representative of the County, a representative of Lessor, and the Architect will immediately inspect the Tenant Improvements for the purpose of establishing that the Tenant Improvements are Substantially Complete. Once County and the Architect are satisfied that the Tenant Improvements appear to be Substantially Complete, both shall so indicate by countersigning the Completion Notice. The Premises will be deemed delivered to County on the day that both County and the Architect have countersigned the Completion Notice (the “Commencement Date” and the “Substantial Completion Date”). 13. Delay. The Commencement Date will be delayed by one day for each day of delay in the design or completion, of the Tenant Improvements that is caused by a Lessor Delay, as defined below. The Commencement Date will not be delayed due to a County Delay, as defined below. No Lessor Delay or County Delay will be deemed to have occurred unless and until the party claiming the delay provides written notice to the other party specifying the action or inaction that constitutes a Lessor Delay, or County Delay, as applicable. If such action or inaction is not cured within one day after receipt of the notice, then a Lessor Delay, or County Delay, as set forth in the notice, will be deemed to have occurred commencing as of the date the notice is received and continuing for the number days the design or completion of the Tenant Improvements is in fact delayed as a direct result of such action, inaction or event. a. The term “Lessor Delay” means any actual delay in the design of the Final Plans or in the completion of Tenant Improvements that is caused solely by any of the following: (i) Lessor not responding to requests for authorization or approval within the time period provided for a response to such request or, if no such time is stated, beyond a reasonable time therefore, and (ii) the acts or failures to act, whether willful, March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 633 WLP134 6 negligent, or otherwise, of Lessor, its agents, or contractors, to the extent contrary to the terms hereof. b. The term “County Delay” means any actual delay in the design and/or completion of Tenant Improvements that is caused solely by any of the following: (i) changes in the Space Plans or the Final Plans requested by County, (ii) the County not furnishing information or giving any approvals or authorizations within the time limits set forth for such performance in this Work Letter, or if no time is set forth for such performance in this Work Letter, then a reasonable time therefor, and (iii) the acts or failures to act, whether willful, negligent, or otherwise, of County, its agents, or contractors, to the extent contrary to the terms hereof. 14. Punchlist. County has thirty days from the Substantial Completion Date to provide Lessor with a written list of any items that are defective, incomplete, or do not conform to the Final Plans or to Applicable Laws and Restrictions (a “Punchlist”). County may augment the Punchlist at any time on or before ten days after the Substantial Completion Date. County’s failure to specify any item on the Punchlist, however, does not waive Lessor’s obligation to construct the Tenant Improvements in accordance with this Work Letter. Lessor shall remedy all items on the Punchlist as soon as practicable and in any event within thirty days of Lessor receiving the Punchlist. If Lessor fails to remedy all items on the Punchlist within the thirty-day period (except as to items, if any, that require more than thirty days to complete), then County may, upon twenty days prior notice to Lessor, complete any Punchlist items and deduct the cost of such work from the Rent next coming due under the Lease in an amount not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the Rent per month for a period not to exceed six months. 15. Tenant's Work. a. Upon a timely request by County, Lessor shall perform the Tenant's Work through contractors selected by Lessor and approved by County. If Lessor performs the Tenant's Work, County shall reimburse Lessor for the full cost of the work upon receipt by County of receipted invoices for work performed or materials supplied. If County performs all or any portion of the Tenant's Work, Lessor shall allow County prompt and reasonable access to the Premises, provided, in Lessor's reasonable opinion, the Tenant’s Work can be performed by County without undue interference with the completion of the Tenant Improvements. b. Lessor shall furnish water, electricity, adequate elevator service and HVAC to the Premises during the performance of any of Tenant's Work during normal working hours of the Tenant Improvement project, without charge to County. 16. County’s Right to Terminate. County may terminate the Lease and this Work Letter by delivering a written termination notice to Lessor upon the occurrence of any of the following events: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 634 WLP134 7 a. Lessor fails to execute a construction contract with a general contractor on or before February 1, 2017. b. A permit required for construction of the Tenant Improvements has not been issued on or before the last day for issuance of the permits specified in the Construction Schedule. c. Lessor fails to cause construction of the Tenant Improvements to commence on or before March 1, 2017. d. The Substantial Completion Date does not occur on or before the Scheduled Completion Date (as the same may be adjusted for County Delays in accordance with this Work Letter) and Lessor fails to Substantially Complete the Tenant Improvements on or before the ninety day after written notice by County to Lessor of its intent to terminate pursuant to this section. 17. Construction Period Insurance. a. Throughout the performance of the Tenant Improvements and the Tenant's Work, if the Tenant’s Work is performed by Lessor, Lessor shall carry and shall cause all contractors and their subcontractors to carry the insurance set forth below covering all occurrences in or about the Building, and County shall be named as a party assured, together with the Lessor, contractor or subcontractor, as the case may be: i. Workers' compensation insurance in statutory limits; ii. Lessor: Commercial general liability insurance, including contractual liability, owners and contractors protective liability for a period of one year after substantial completion, with limits of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence; iii. Contractors and Subcontractors: Commercial general liability insurance, including contractual liability, owners and contractors protective liability for a period of one year after substantial completion, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per person and $1,000,000 per occurrence; iv. Comprehensive automobile liability in minimum limits of $500,000 for bodily injury or death to one person and $1,000,000 for bodily injury or death in any one occurrence and $500,000 per occurrence for property damage; v. Employer's liability insurance in minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury or disease; and March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 635 WLP134 8 vi. Excess liability insurance over the insurance required by subsections (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) of this section with combined, minimum coverage of $2,000,000. b. All insurance required by this Section 16 may be carried in whole or in part under a blanket policy (or policies). Lessor agrees to require each contractor and subcontractor to furnish Lessor with evidence reasonably satisfactory to Lessor of the maintenance of the required insurance coverage, with assurances that it will not be cancelled without fifteen days advance written notice to Lessor, and, in the case of blanket insurance, setting forth that the Building and the work with respect thereto is covered by the blanket policy and specifying the amount of coverage relating thereto. Upon the request of the County Representative, Lessor shall provide to the County Representative evidence of the maintenance of the required insurance coverage that is reasonably satisfactory to the County Representative. 18. Risk of Loss. a. If the Premises or any portion of the Tenant Improvements or Tenant’s Work is damaged or destroyed prior to the Substantial Completion Date, County may terminate the Lease if, in the reasonable opinion of Architect, the Building cannot be restored and the Tenant Improvements Substantially Completed prior to 120 days after the Scheduled Completion Date. If the Lease is terminated pursuant to this section, Lessor shall cause its insurance to pay County an amount that is equal to the cost of constructing the Tenant’s Work paid by County prior to the casualty. b. If the Premises or the Tenant Improvements are damaged or destroyed prior to the Substantial Completion Date and the Lease is not terminated pursuant to this section, Lessor shall promptly and diligently cause its contractor to restore the Premises and complete construction of the Tenant Improvements. 19. Pre-Move-In Cleaning. Lessor shall clean and ventilate the Premises immediately prior to County moving into the Premises. 20. Move-In. Lessor shall make available to County on any weekday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and, in addition, at County's request either on any three weekends between the hours of 6:00 p.m. on Friday and 8:00 a.m. on Monday or, in lieu of any one weekend, any four nights between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., and the electricity and HVAC that County may reasonably require in connection with County's moving into the Premises. Lessor shall provide a qualified property management employee during County's move-in. County shall provide reasonable security at the Building in the event County moves into the Leased Premises at any time other than Normal Business Hours. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 636 WLP134 9 21. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in fulfilling all terms and conditions of this Work Letter. The parties are executing this Work Letter as of the date hereinabove set forth. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a RIO Properties I, LLC, a political subdivision of the State of California limited liability company California By: _______________________ By: _______________________ Julia R. Bueren Christopher L. Paulson Director of Public Works Authorized Member RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: _______________________ Karen Laws Principal Real Property Agent By: _______________________ Julin Perez-Berntsen Assistant Real Property Agent APPROVED AS TO FORM SHARON L. ANDERSON, COUNTY COUNSEL By: _______________________ Kathleen M. Andrus Deputy County Counsel \\PW-DATA\grpdata\realprop\Julin\New Leases 2017\Concord\2380 Bisso Ln, HSD IT\2380 Bisso Lane, HSD IT, Concord_Work Letter V3.docx March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 637 WLP134 10 SCHEDULE 1 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS 2380 Bisso Lane, Suite B, Concord, CA This project involves the renovation of approximately 13,008 square foot of rentable space, suite B located at 2380 Bisso Lane, Concord, California. The renovated facility will include private and open offices, meeting rooms, storage, filing rooms, server room, work areas, staff breakroom, restrooms and warehouse area. The Tenant Improvements scope of work includes upgrades to the existing mechanical, plumbing, fire protection lighting and electrical systems to comply with current California Building Code and Tenant requirements. New security, telecommunications, IT and fire alarm systems are part of the Tenant Improvements and are to conform to local and state standards. Lessor shall pay for and provide the following items in the leased Premises, except as noted otherwise:  TBD As per final plans.  All electrical wiring and outlets for County’s furniture including workstation, private offices, breakroom, printers/copiers, TV and computer monitors, storerooms, as noted on the Final Plans.  Separate ADA restrooms for each gender as required per local and state code for all staff.  The Premises must meet all federal, state, and local requirements, including provisions for ADA. Restroom floors and walls shall be ceramic tile.  The entire interior of the Premises will be re-painted with colors determined by County. Any new carpet and linoleum will be in colors and patterns as determined by County, as noted on the Final Plans. Provide linoleum in breakroom and hallway leading to shipping area, large storage room. All other ancillary space floors will be vinyl composition tile (VCT) as noted on the Final Plans.  All cabling services necessary to complete Tenant Improvements. County shall hire and pay for the services of a cable contractor (the “Cable Contractor”), and Cable Contractor will design drawings for all cabling to the Premises. All Systemax Category 6 (“CAT 6”) plenum rated cabling and face-plates that support 568B, 1000Base- TX/1000Base-T/IEEE 802.3ab, and POE+/IEEE 802.3 at standards are required throughout the entire leased space for computer network connections, as shown on the March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 638 WLP134 11 Final Plans. The Cabling Contractor will provide as built drawings for all data cabling. The County’s cabling contractor must be certified by the manufacturer to install, test, and warranty the product installed. One telephone and four data cable runs and jacks will be required to each workstation, private office, and conference rooms, and office face plate, network printer, copiers, flat screen monitors, and any other computer-related network device and run back to the telecommunications and data room, as noted on the Final Plans. County’s cable contractor will terminate all data jacks as required in the telecommunications and data room, and provide cable ends to end test results. The Cable Contractor will provide two dedicated quad NEMA5-20 outlets, one at the end of the data rack and one for County’s Alarm Division. All cabling to be terminated on Systemax iPatch 360 panel with a single controller, and allow 2U of Rackspace between patch panels, and place a 1U wire manager below each patch panel.  Integration Lab / data/ phone room with ¾” fire-rated painted plywood on two (2) walls and a single NEMA5-20 outlet. Lessor’s Contractor will provide one dedicated single NEMA5-20 outlet, between the two data racks. A separate air conditioning supply system in the Integration Lab/ data / phone room as noted on the Final Plans, with a minimum 3- ton capacity unit, and that operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (“24/7”). 24/7 alarm monitoring service for the telecommunications and data room is required in the event of air conditioning failure, including a High-Low temperature alarm.  Direct, securable access to the Main Point of Entry (“MPOE”) for communication service to the Building.  An AT&T-approved pathway to curb-side for the MPOE.  Remove and replace, as and when determined by County, the batteries in the battery room that provide backup power to the data center in the building.  Key card access control system for all exterior and interior doors as noted on the Final Plans. All electrical wiring for each key card access door will be installed per the Final Plans. Any required door hardware to be coordinated with County’s Representative per the Final Plans.  Emergency doors shall be fail-safe and have internal hinges.  Outside air intake emergency push-button shut-off capability for the HVAC system shall be tested and verified.  All electrical wiring at all WIFI AP access points, 120 VAC outlets as needed, break rooms, conference rooms and reception areas as per the Final Plans. All copiers/printers and display monitors will be provided by County. All copier/multi-function printer locations to have 20 amp dedicated circuits. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 639 WLP134 12  All electrical wiring for County scanners, printers, mail sorters and other equipment in the Premises will be installed per the Final Plans.  Clean all finishes on counters, walls, ceilings, doors, window treatments and floors, and repair or replace as needed prior to occupancy.  Coordinate all keying and door hardware requirements with County’s Representative per the Final Plans.  Any other specification for this project as specified in final plans. The above items shall be included on the Final Plans, including the construction documents, to be submitted for building permits and Fire District approvals. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 640 WLP134 13 SCHEDULE 2 SPACE PLANS March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 641 WLP134 14 SCHEDULE 3 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 642 WLP134 15 SCHEDULE 4 FINAL PLANS March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 643 WLP134 16 SCHEDULE 5 FORM OF COMPLETION NOTICE To: Contra Costa County From: RIO Properties I, LLC Date: Re: Completion Notice This notice is provided in compliance with Section 12 of that certain Work Letter dated December 7, 2016, between RIO Properties I, LLC and Contra Costa County (the “Work Letter”). All terms not otherwise defined herein have the meaning ascribed to them in the Work Letter. Tender by Lessor Lessor hereby represents that it has completed construction of the Tenant Improvements in substantial conformity with the Final Plans. Landlord hereby tenders the Premises for delivery to Tenant. RIO Properties I, LLC By: _____________________ Its: _____________________ Certification by Architect The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Studio Benavente Architects Inc. Architectural Group, hereby represents that (s) he has inspected the Tenant Improvements and determined them to be in substantial conformity with the Final Plans. Studio Benavente Architects Inc. By: _____________________ Date: _________________ Its: _____________________ Certification by Contra Costa County The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Contra Costa County, hereby represents that the County has caused the Tenant Improvements to be inspected and has determined them to be in substantial conformity with the Final Plans. Contra Costa County By: _____________________ Date: _________________ Its: _____________________ March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 644 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement amendment, effective January 1, 2017, to increase the payment limit by $500,000 to a new limit of $3,134,386 from the California Department of Education for general childcare and development program services with no change to term July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive up to $3,134,386 41.49% ($1,300,462) Federal 58.51% ($1,833,924) State CFDA Nos. 93.596, 93.575 No County match BACKGROUND: California Department of Education notified the Department on June 3, 2016 of the 2016-2017 funding allocation for general childcare and development programs. The County APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB 925-681-6333 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Ressie Dayco, Cassandra Youngblood C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:2016-17 California Department of Education General Childcare & Development Revenue Contract, Amendment 2 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 645 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) receives funds from the California Department of Education to provide state preschool general childcare services to program eligible County residents. The program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau (CSB). The board approved receipt of funds on June 21, 2016 (C.53). The State routinely amends the contracts to account for cost of living adjustments and other budgetary changes. The board approved amendment #1 on November 8, 2016 (c.23) to increase the standard reimbursement rate from $38.29 to $40.20, effective January 1, 2017. This amendment is to accept an additional $500,000. A corresponding decrease to CSPP funding is the subject of a companion board order on this agenda. This transfer of funds is to address needs identified in CSBs annual community assessment, which continues to show a greater need to serve Infant/Toddler program. This fiscal year, CSB converted a CSPP classroom into a toddler classroom to meet the needs of the families in one of our East County childcare centers. The request of temporary transfer from CSPP to CCTR will fund the growing needs of families in Contra Costa County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive additional funding to operate the childcare & development program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Department of Education General Childcare & Development funding supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self-sufficient"; and, 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing" by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 646 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective January 1, 2017, to decrease the payment limit by $500,000 to new payment limit of $9,091,851 from the California Department of Education to provide State preschool services with no change to term July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive up to $9,091,851: State 82.5% ($7,505,006); Federal 17.5% ($1,586,845) No County match. CFDA #s 93.596 ($1,087,382) and 93.575 ($499,463). State Agreement CSPP 6044, Amend 2 / CCC Agreement 39-908-21 BACKGROUND: The California Department of Education notified the Department on June APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB 925-681-6333 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Ressie Dayco, Cassandra Youngblood C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:2016-17 California Department of Education Preschool Program Revenue Contract, Amendment 2 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 647 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 3, 2016 of the 2016-2017 funding allocation of the California State Preschool program services. The County receives funds from the California Department of Education to provide state preschool services to program eligible County residents. The program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau. The board approved receipt of funds on June 21, 2016 (C.55). The State routinely adds funds to the contract as cost of living adjustments occur. The board approved amendment #2 on November 8, 2016 (c.24) to increase the daily reimbursement rate from $38.53 per child day of enrollment to $40.45, effective January 1, 2017. This amendment is to decrease the payment limit by $500,000. A corresponding increase to CCTR funding is the subject of a companion board order on this agenda. This transfer of funds is to address needs identified in CSBs annual community assessment, which continues to show a greater need to serve Infant/Toddler program. This fiscal year, CSB converted a CSPP classroom into a toddler classroom to meet the needs of the families in one of our East County childcare centers. The request of temporary transfer from CSPP to CCTR will fund the growing needs of families in Contra Costa County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive funding to operate these childcare programs. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; and, 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing" by offering comprehensive services, including high quality, early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 648 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a subcontract agreement, including modified indemnification language, with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to accept California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) grant funding in the amount not to exceed $152,093 to support marketing, education, and outreach for energy efficiency programs for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no impact to the General Fund. The CPUC grant funding is expected to cover all of the costs that would be incurred by the County as a result of these grant funded energy efficiency programs. No matching funds are required. BACKGROUND: In July 2012, the County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN), a collaborative partnership among the nine Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties) and led by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of building energy efficiency programs throughout the Bay Area. On May 5, 2015, a Restated and Revised MOU was approved by the County in order to better define the roles and responsibilities of ABAG and the counties participating in BayREN. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Demian Hardman, (925) 674-7826 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:2017 Bay Area Regional Energy Network Subcontract Agreement between Association of Bay Area Governments and Contra Costa County March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 649 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Since 2013, all BayREN counties have been receiving CPUC grant funding each calendar year to provide marketing, education and outreach for the following four energy efficiency programs: (1) Single-Family, (2) Multi-Family; (3) Building Codes and Standards; and (4) Energy Efficiency Financing. Both the Single-Family and Multi-Family programs offer free technical services and financial incentives (rebates) if owners/contractors make specific energy efficiency improvements to existing residential structures. The Building Codes and Standards program offers various resources (including training) to support local government officials with building energy code compliance and enforcement. The Energy Efficiency Financing program focuses on marketing various financing options to diverse commercial and residential consumer markets throughout the Bay Area. Continued implementation of energy efficiency programs is consistent with the County's Climate Action Plan adopted in 2015. The proposed subcontract agreement between ABAG and Contra Costa County will allow the County continued access to CPUC grant funds awarded to ABAG in order to offer and raise awareness about BayREN subprograms throughout Contra Costa County. The amount specified in the agreement is not to exceed $152,093 and will cover the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. These funds are to cover County costs associated with the implementation of these grant programs for both incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County. Technical services and rebates offered by BayREN for these activities are directly administered by ABAG and are funded separately. Under the subcontract, the County must indemnify the other counties and ABAG for claims alleging intellectual property infringement related to materials the County prepares. The County also must indemnify the CPUC and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for claims that arise from the County's performance of its obligations under the subcontract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not receive funding to participate in BayREN activities or provide the associated energy efficiency program services to local residents and property owners. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 650 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Catholic Council for the Spanish Speaking of the Diocese of Stockton to pay the county an amount not to exceed $28,000, to provide food services to the childcare program at El Concilio Preschool for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: No net County costs. El Concilio Preschool has agreed to reimburse the County, up to the limits of the California Child and Adult Food Program, for all food service expenses related to this contract. The County will provide breakfast, lunch, and snack to 20 children and 3 teachers at the rates specified below: Breakfast - $3.25 each Lunch - $5.00 each Snack - $3.20 each APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6304 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Nelly Ige, Sam Mendoza, Cassandra Youngblood C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:2017-18 Food Services Agreement with the Catholic Council for the Spanish Speaking of the Diocese of Stockton March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 651 BACKGROUND: El Concilio is a Migrant Head Start program operating through San Joaquin County’s program. The preschool provides services to migrant children for only a limited number of months each year. The Community Services Bureau would provide meals that meet the HS performance Standards and USDA meal guidelines. At some point in the future the Community Services Bureau may operate the program in the months the school is closed to ensure continuity of care for those families. The Center, located adjacent to Community Services Bureau's (CSB) Los Nogales Center serves the migrant farm-worker families of Contra Costa County. Both Head Start programs have similar missions and similar client needs. The San Joaquin agency has just taken over the El Concilio program and is unable to provide services to the families due to a lack of facility space to provide nutritious meals to the children. CSB has offered to assist with this unmet need for the following reasons: • The same community is served; • The continuity of services – the migrant program operates a limited amount per year. CSB would like to continue serving those families since they qualify for our program; • Besides our program, El Concilio is the only publicly funded program to provide these services to families. It is a great need. • Assisting with the nutrition program is one way that the two programs can partner. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will be unable to provide food services to its childcare partner. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment & Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 652 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County Standard Agreement #29-388-58 (#16-10766) with the California Department of Public Health, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $551,117 for the County Public Health HIV/AIDS Surveillance Project, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Agreement will result in a three year agreement in an amount not to exceed $551,117 of funding from the California Department of Public Health, for the amount of $183,704 for Fiscal Year 2016, $183,706 for FY 2017 and $183,707 for FY 2018. No County funds are required. BACKGROUND: On September 10, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved Standard Agreement #29-388-57 with the California Department of Public Health, for the County’s AIDS Programs, including testing services, surveillance, case management, prevention education, outreach, social marketing, and services to women, for the period from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016. Approval APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #29-388-58 with the California Department of Public March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 653 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of this Standard Agreement #29-388-58 will establish and enhance active and passive HIV case surveillance for the County’s HIV/AIDS Surveillance Project through June 30, 2019. The Agreement includes County’s agreement to indemnify and hold the State harmless for claims arising out of the County’s performance under the Agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County will not receive the necessary funding to support the reduction in transmission of HIV, provide case management services that will reduce hospitalization and support to HIV positive individuals to live at home or allow for compliance with State and Federal requirements for reporting of communicable disease. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 654 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in the amount of $5,000 from East Bay Community Foundation, administered by the Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council, for Rodeo Library services, pursuant to the local refinery Good Neighbor Agreement, for the period July 1 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: No Library Fund match. BACKGROUND: The County currently funds 18 hours of library service at the Rodeo Library. If granted, the $5,000 received from Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council will be used by the Contra Costa County Library to fund four additional hours of library service during the period July 1 through December 31, 2017, which will provide one extra hour of service on Saturdays and evening hours on two weekdays for a total of four additional open hours per week. These extended hours offer Rodeo residents more opportunities to make use of the educational and recreational resources available in the library. The Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council is a strong supporter of the Rodeo Library and consistently grants funds to the Library for extended open hours. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Gail McPartland, 925-608-7704 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Melinda Cervantes, County Librarian Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Apply for and Accept East Bay Community Foundation Grant Funds Administered by the Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 655 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the grant proposal is not approved, the Rodeo Library will be open 18 hours per week instead of 22 hours per week. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Extending hours at the Rodeo Library will meet all five community outcomes established in the Children’s Report Card. Research shows that early and positive experiences with books set the stage for a child’s success in learning to read. Additionally, literacy skills are a strong predictor of health and employment status. Extending hours at the Rodeo Library will draw more families to the library and encourage regular exposure to reading and books, thus improving the quality of life for children and families in Rodeo. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 656 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Veterans Services Officer, or designee, to apply for and execute a contract, including signatory authority, to accept grant funding from the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) in an amount not to exceed $45,000 to provide mental health outreach and support services for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: The grant is awarded, funding of up to $45,000 would be disbursed to the County by the California Department of Veterans Affairs through the 2017-18 Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, grant program. Funding is specifically provided to County Veterans Service offices. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: Since July of 2014, the County Veterans Service Office in collaboration with CCTV has produced "Veteran's Voices", a monthly talk show that has facilitated outreach efforts for East Bay veterans and their families. Funding for "Veteran's Voices" production has been provided by CalVet through Proposition 63 grant program monies. CalVet has once APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Enid Mendoza, (925) 335-1039 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Nathan Johnson, Veterans Services Officer C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Apply For and Receive Funding for Veterans Mental Health Services Grant March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 657 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) again invited County Veterans Service Offices (CVSO) providing mental health outreach and services to submit applications for the 2017-18 Proposition 63 funding. The County Veterans Services Office is requesting approval to apply for and accept this grant funding, which will allow for the production of an additional episodes of "Veteran's Voices." CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Veterans Service Office may not be able to provide key mental health outreach and support services to veterans and their families living in Contra Costa County. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 658 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the County Administrator, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount not to exceed $1,000 from the California Arts Council for a professional development grant for participation in the Americans for the Arts annual conference. FISCAL IMPACT: If approved and the grant is awarded, up to $1,000 will be provided to the County to cover expenses associated with commissioner attendance at the Americans for the Arts annual conference in San Francisco. There is no County match required. BACKGROUND: The California Arts Council is offering funding opportunities through professional development and consulting grants to assist arts organizations in building their capacity. This funding can be used for professional growth and leadership training opportunities for arts staff, commissioners, and administrators. The grant proposal would cover registration fees and travel expenses for two commissioners and possibly the arts managing director. Attendees of the conference will be able to bring back information gathered on issues of equity, accessibility, and community building and explore the role of the arts in creating and sustaining healthy, vibrant, equitable communities. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County would not receive up to $1,000 in grant funding to support professional development activities of the County's Arts Commission. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Enid Mendoza, (925) 335-1039 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Arts Commission Professional Development Grant March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 659 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director or his designee, to accept, on behalf of the County, Grant Award #29-549-3 from John Muir Health, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $50,000 for respite care services for homeless adults at the Philip Dorn Respite Center, for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Acceptance of this Grant Award will result in an amount not to exceed $50,000 from John Muir Health for support to the Philip Dorn Respite Center through December 31, 2017. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The Philip Dorn Respite Center, a Community Benefit Program, located in Concord, is a respite care program for homeless adults who are discharging from local hospitals and require medical stabilization services. Respite care refers to recuperative services for those homeless persons who may not meet medical criteria for hospitalization, but who are too sick or medically vulnerable to reside in an emergency shelter and cannot be returned to the streets. The goal of the program is to get all homeless persons off the street and help them to achieve their highest level APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lavonna Martin, 925-313-7716 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Award #29-549-3 from John Muir Health March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 660 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of self-sufficiency. Approval of Grant Award #29-549-3 will allow the County to continue to receive support for the Philip Dorn Respite Center through December 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Award is not approved the County will not be able to receive funding for services at the Philip Dorn Respite Center. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 661 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Interagency Agreement #28–343-2 with West Contra Costa Unified School District, a government agency, to pay County an amount not to exceed $539,005 to provide school-based mobile clinic services, for the period from December 19, 2016 through August 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Interagency Agreement will result in a total payment to the County not to exceed $539,005. No County match required. BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing mobile clinic services, including comprehensive physical exams, immunizations, TB testing, sports physicals, and well-child care to low-income and disadvantaged school children at Kennedy High School, DeAnza High School, and Pinole Valley High School. Under Interagency Agreement #28–343-2, will allow Agency to pay County APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement #28–343-2 with West Contra Costa Unified School District March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 662 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for the provision of school-based mobile clinic services to children within the West Contra Costa Unified School District (“District”), through August 31, 2020, including County’s agreement to indemnify the District. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Agency will not pay County for West Contra Costa County low-income and disadvantaged school children to receive preventive health screenings, well-child examinations, and primary health care services from County’s mobile clinics. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School” and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in the number of healthy children within the District. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 663 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute contracts with the agencies specified below, including mutual indemnification as approved by the County Counsel, for use of the Sheriff's Range Facility for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020: Alameda Police Department, Antioch Police Department, Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Berkeley Police Department, Brentwood Police Department, CA Department of Motor Vehicles, CA State Parks Diablo Vista, Contra Costa County Animal Services Department, Contra Costa County College District Police Department, Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office, Contra Costa County Probation, Clayton Police Department, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, Department of Consumer Affairs Investigations Division, Department of Homeland Security Federal Protection Services, Department of Homeland Security Investigations, El Cerrito Police Department,, Hercules Police Department, Livermore Police Department, Martinez Adult School, Martinez Police Department, Moraga Police Department, Oakland Police Department, Oakland Schools Police, Oakley Police Department, Pittsburg Police Department, Pleasant Hill Police Department, Richmond Police Department, San Pablo Police Department, San Ramon Police Department, Santa Clara Police Department, Union City Police Department, U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Postal Service Inspector General and the Walnut Creek Police Department. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Range Use Contract March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 664 FISCAL IMPACT: No net County cost - 100% Participant fees BACKGROUND: Local, state, and federal law enforcement officers are required to complete firearms qualifications on a regular basis. The Office of the Sheriff has a firing range and classroom that can be used by other law enforcement agencies for firearms qualifications when not in use by County staff. The recommended contracts provide for use of the Sheriff's Range Facilities, including firearms range and classroom, for firearms qualification of these government agencies' employees. The County Counsel's Office has approved the mutual indemnification language included in the contracts. The contract agencies will pay a per day fee for access to the Sheriff's Range Facility. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action on this request would mean a loss of revenue for the County and a valuable loss of services for outside agencies. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 665 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Standard Agreement (Amendment) #29-784-9 (State #03-75796, A12) with the State of California, Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), effective December 31, 2016, to amend Standard Agreement #29-784 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #29-784-1 through #29-784-8), with no change in the original payment limit of $1,594,000, to extend the term from December 31, 2016 through December 31, 2020, to allow the County to continue providing Local Initiative Program services. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will reflect no change in the original amount payable to County of $1,594,000 for the Local Initiative Program services that are not approved for Federal funding. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: On August 15, 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved Standard Agreement #29-784 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #29-784-1 through #29-784-8) with the California DHCS for the period from August 1, 2003 through December 31, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Standard Agreement (Amendment) #29-784-9 with the State of California, Department of Health Care Services March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 666 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Standard Agreement (Amendment) #29-784-9 will allow the County to continue providing Local Initiative Program services that are not approved for Federal funding, through December 31, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, funding for continuous services to County Medi-Cal recipients will not be provided. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 667 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and Authorize the County Administrator, or designee, to apply for and accept funding in an amount up to $10,000 from the California State Arts Council for the Veterans Initiative in the Arts program. FISCAL IMPACT: If approved, the grant will require a 100% County match of which 50% can be an in-kind match. The maximum general fund impact would be $5,000 and will be included in the FY 2017-18 Recommended Budget for the Arts Commission. BACKGROUND: The Veterans Initiative in the Arts (VIA) program is rooted in the California Arts Council’s (CAC) desire to increase equity, access, and opportunities for veterans to participate in quality arts programming that is sensitive and responsive to their unique experiences. The VIA program provides project and partnership support for State-Local Partners (SLPs) to reach veterans, active military, and their families. VIA serves to enrich the lives of veterans through arts programming that is sensitive and responsive to their unique experiences. In 2014, the County as the State-Local-Partner in APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Enid Mendoza, (925) 335-1039 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Veterans in the Arts Initiative Grant March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 668 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Contra Costa, responded to the CAC VIA pilot grant opportunity with a proposal to develop the AboutFace: Building Veterans Self-understanding through Self-expression project. After a successful AboutFace pilot project in FY 15-16, the County competed for the FY 16-17 VIA grant. CAC VIA grant monies of $9,400 were awarded to the County to support the second year of this project, and the Arts Commission FY 2016-17 budget includes $4,700 for the County match. The Arts Commission of Contra Costa County (AC5) is currently wrapping up the 2016-17 fiscal year AboutFace project, which expanded painting workshops throughout the five County districts. Through the FY 2016-17 AboutFace project, the County is offering various two-day self-portrait painting workshops to interested Contra Costa County veterans, at no cost and with all painting materials provided. Through a recent partnership with Library Adult Services, the painting workshops have been offered at local County libraries. Approval of this request will allow the County to compete for the new grant so that more County veterans can participate in the AboutFace project during the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not compete for the grant and be able to provide AboutFace project painting workshops to veterans in FY 2017-18. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 669 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Child's Best Interest, a corporation of California, to increase the payment limit by $43,125 to a new payment limit of $199,375 and to extend the term from August 31, 2017 to November 30, 2017 for increased ombudsman services to program applicants, recipients, community members, and staff while the Department process a new Request For Proposal. (10% County, 45% State, 45% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $199,375.00 - Administrative Overhead: % County, 45% State, 45% Federal BACKGROUND: Under this contract, a Child's Best Interest, provides comprehensive ombudsman services for the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD). The ombudsman receives and investigates complaints, gathers information, and works to resolve issues using various mediation skills. Complaints maybe received from the Children and Family Services Director, Division Managers, program applicants, recipients, other County departments, community-based organizations, individual community members, elected officials, and others. As systemic issues are identified, the ombudsman makes formal recommendations to EHSD Director/s to improve service delivery. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 3-1648 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend and Extend Contract with Child's Best Interest for Ombudsman Services March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 670 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Participants and staff in Contra Costa County will not receive ombudsman services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The ombudsman services provided under this contract support all five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; (2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; (3)"Families that are Economically Self-Sufficient"; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5)"Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Through comprehensive ombudsman services and follow-up consultation, EHSD's Children and Family Services Bureau can improve its service delivery to children and families throughout Contra Costa County March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 671 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with STAND! For Families Free of Violence, a non-profit corporation, effective March 1, 2017, to increase the payment limit by $15,000 to a new payment limit of $218,470 for additional shelter-based services to domestic violence victims and their families for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (38% County, 62% Other) FISCAL IMPACT: $218,470.00 (38% County General Fund; 62% Other - Pubic Records Fees and Fines) BACKGROUND: Contractor is a domestic violence shelter-based agency providing services in compliance with the requirements of California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18294. This contract addresses the social needs of the County's population by providing a crisis call center number 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and provides at least 6,580 shelter bed days to a minimum of 122 women and children in crisis situations. Contractor works to increase victim safety, reduce family violence, and participate in local community service networks to ensure appropriate responses APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 3-1648 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with STAND! For Families Free of Violence for Increased Shelter Services March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 672 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to survivors' needs. Services include emergency shelter services, danger assessment, safety planning, psychological support and peer counseling, and domestic violence education and information. Contractor also conducts 40-hour trainings to volunteers working with domestic violence victims and their children. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County victims of domestic violence and their families will not have ready access to valuable emergency and ongoing support services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports two of the five community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5)"Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families” by providing a safe environment where children of families with domestic violence can receive appropriate emergency, support, and follow-up services. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 673 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the Contra Costa County Bar Association to increase the payment limit by $1,300,000 to a new payment limit of $4,950,000 for the continued provision of criminal conflict defense services, with no change to the term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $1,300,000, 100% County General Fund. BACKGROUND: Since 1983, the County has contracted with the Contra Costa County Bar Association for the provision of conflict defense services. The original contract was in response to the escalating cost of conflict defense services under the old system of court-appointed counsel. Subsequently, in FY 1991/92, the Public Defender created an Alternate Defender’s Office to handle conflict cases. The cases referred to the Bar Association generally represent multiple co-defendant cases in which the Alternate Defender’s Office can represent only one co-defendant. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor RECUSE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH CONTRA COSTA BAR FOR CRIMINAL CONFLICT DEFENSE SERVICES March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 674 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > The contract with the Bar Association for conflict defense services includes only the costs associated with representing criminal and delinquency cases referred to the Bar Association through a written affidavit of conflict by the Public Defender and the Alternate Defender. In prior years, the contract also provided for legal representation in juvenile dependency cases. County-provided juvenile dependency services were terminated by the Superior Court in July 2008. The current contract with the Bar Association covers the two-year period of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017. The payment limit for fiscal year 2016/17 is currently $3,650,000. The proposed contract amendment will increase the payment limit by an additional $1,300,000 in fiscal year 2016/17 to reflect costs associated with increased attorney caseloads referred by the Public Defender or Alternate Defender. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Payment of criminal conflict attorney services is a mandated County cost. If the recommended action is not approved, the contract with the Bar Association the County will remain obligated to pay the Bar for cases assigned and still in progress. The appointment and payment of independent attorneys for new conflict cases that cannot be handled by the Alternate Defender’s Office will revert to the court-appointed method used prior to the Bar Association contract. All active and new criminal and delinquency conflict cases will be referred to the courts for appointment of defense counsel with the County fiscal responsible for all costs involved. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 675 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Amendment Agreement #23-523-3 with API Healthcare Corporation, a corporation, effective April 1, 2017, to amend Contract #23-523-2, to increase the payment limit by $203,508, from $487,500 to a new payment limit of $691,008, with no change in the original term of June 30, 2016 through June 29, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 21, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-523-2 with API Healthcare Corporation for the implementation, licensing and hosting of Contractor’s Patient Classification software and Staffing and Scheduling software, for the period from June 30, 2016 through June 29, 2019. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #23-523-3 will allow the Contractor to provide additional software consultation and maintenance services with no change in the original term through June 29, 2019. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 925-335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #23-523-3 with API Healthcare Corporation March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 676 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit will not receive the consultation and maintenance services needed for Patient Classification and Staffing and Scheduling Systems. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 677 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Amendment Agreement #23-556-2 with Performance Logic, Inc., a corporation, effective April 1, 2017, to amend Contract #23-556 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #23-556-1), to increase the payment limit by $93,500, from $89,870 to a new payment limit of $183,370, with no change in the original term of September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise fund I. (No rate increase). BACKGROUND: On November 2015, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #23-556 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #23-556-1) with Performance Logic, Inc. for the provision of annual licensing, software consulting, upgrade and maintenance services to the Health Services Information Systems Unit, for the period from September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2018. Approval APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 925-313-6220 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #23-556-2 with Performance Logic, Inc. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 678 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of Contract Amendment Agreement #23-556-2 will allow the Contractor to provide additional software consultation and maintenance services to integrate software at County facilities, with no change in the original term through August 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit will not receive the consultation services needed for system integration at County facilities. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 679 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #24-751-85 with Anka Behavioral Health, Incorporated, a non-profit corporation, effective March 1, 2017, to amend Novation Contract #24-751-84, to increase the payment limit by $961,107, from $3,253,485 to a new payment limit of $4,214,592, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $480,554, from $1,626,742 to a new payment limit of $2,107,296 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Amendment is funded 35% Federal Financial Participation; 65% Mental Health Realignment (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On October 18, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #24-751-84 with Anka Behavioral Health, Incorporated for the provision of community services; support programs and residential mental health services including, but not limited to: vocational, community APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-751-85 with Anka Behavioral Health, Incorporated March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 680 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) living, socialization, and Medi-Cal rehabilitative programs, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #24-751-85 will allow the Contractor to provide additional services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, clients will not receive mental health services provided by this contractor. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 681 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-744-3 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, effective April 1, 2017, to increase the payment limit by $105,000, from $105,000 to a new total payment limit of $210,000 with no change in the original term of May 1, 2013 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise I Funds. (No Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On August 6, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-744 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-744-1 and Extension Agreement #26-744-2) with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, for the period from May 1, 2013 through June 30, 2019, for the provision of a residency training program in family medicine at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-744-3 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 682 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-744-3 will allow the Contractor to provide additional residency training programs in family medicine at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers, through June 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, County will not be able to expand the residency training program at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 683 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-798-2, with Infectious Disease Doctors Medical Group, Inc. a professional corporation, effective March 1, 2017, to amend Contract #26-798, to increase the payment limit by $10,000, from $250,000 to a new payment limit of $260,000, with no change in the original term of May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 7, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-798-1 with Infectious Disease Doctors Medical Group, Inc. for the provision of weekly infectious disease consulting services including, but not limited to: clinic sessions, on-call coverage and training, for the period from May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2016. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-798-2 will allow the Contractor to provide additional hours of infectious disease consulting services through April 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, patients requiring infectious disease consulting will not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-798-2 with Infectious Disease Doctors Medical Group, Inc. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 684 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment #26-995-15 with George Lee, an individual, effective May 1, 2017, to amend Contract #26-995-14, to increase the payment limit by $250,000, from $1,485,000 to a new payment limit of $1,735,000, with no change in the original term of August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On September 15, 2015 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-995-14 with George Lee, M.D., for the provision of anesthesiology services, including, but not limited to: consultation, clinics, training, medical and/or surgical procedures and on-call coverage for the General and Obstetrics Units at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2018. Approval of Contract Amendment #26-995-15 will allow the Contractor to provide additional hours of anesthesiology services at CCRMC through July 31, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-995-15 with George Lee, M.D. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 685 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, patients requiring anesthesiology services will not have access to Contractor’s services. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 686 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #74-315-12 with Community Options for Families and Youth, Incorporated, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2017, to amend Novation Contract #74-315-11, to increase the payment limit by $200,000, from $2,153,912 to a new payment limit of $2,353,912, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $100,000, from $1,076,956 to a new payment limit of $1,176,956 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 43% Federal Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment; 29% County Realignment; 28% Mental Health Services Act. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 19, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74–315–11 with Community Options for Families and APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-315-12 with Community Options for Families and Youth, Incorporated March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 687 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Youth, Incorporated for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017, for the provision of Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) and Multisystemic Behavioral Therapy. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-315-12 will allow the Contractor to provide additional services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, seriously emotionally disturbed children and adolescents will not have access to Contractor’s additional mental health services CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This TBS program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 688 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #74-402-6 with Aspiranet, a non-profit corporation, effective March 1, 2017, to amend Novation Contract #74-402-5, to increase the payment limit by $73,870, from $176,130 to a new payment limit of $250,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $36,935, from $88,065 to a new payment limit of $125,000, with no change in the term of the automatic extension, through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Amendment is funded 50% Mental Health Realignment; 50% Federal Funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On May 24, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-402-5 with Aspiranet to provide therapeutic behavioral services (TBS) to County referred clients that have been placed in group homes in Stanislaus County and to clients residing in Contra Costa County at facilities throughout the County, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, which APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-402-6 with Aspiranet March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 689 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-402-6 will allow the Contractor to provide additional TBS through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, additional clients requiring TBS services will not have access to Contractor’s services. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 690 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #74-475-24(3) with Isaac Burns, MFT, an individual, effective March 1, 2017, to amend Contract #74-475-24(2), to increase the payment limit by $78,000, from $30,000 to a new payment limit of $108,000, for Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 50% by Federal Medi-Cal and 50% State. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: In October 2016, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #74-475-24(2) with Isaac Burns, MFT, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018, for the provision of Medi-Cal specialty mental health services. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization during the term of the Contract APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Robert Curotto, Marcy Wilhelm C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-475-24(3) with Isaac Burns, MFT March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 691 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) was higher than originally anticipated. Approval of Contract Amendment #74-475-24(3) will allow the Contractor to provide additional mental health services through June 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, services provided to Contra Costa Mental Health Plan Medi-Cal beneficiaries could be negatively impacted, including access to services, choice of providers, cultural competency, language capacity, geographical locations of service providers, and waiting lists. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 692 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #74-475-9(3) with Paul Kramer, MFT, A Professional Corporation, effective March 1, 2017, to amend Contract #74-475-9(2), to increase the payment limit by $185,000, from $40,000 to a new payment limit of $225,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 50% by Federal Medi-Cal and 50% State. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: In December 2016, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #74-475-9(2) with Paul Kramer, MFT, A Professional Corporation, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018, for the provision of Medi-Cal specialty mental health services. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization during the term of the Contract was higher than originally anticipated. Approval of Contract Amendment #74-475-9(3) will allow the Contractor to provide additional mental health services through June 30, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-475-9(3) with Paul Kramer, MFT, A Professional Corporation March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 693 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, services provided to Contra Costa Mental Health Plan Medi-Cal beneficiaries could be negatively impacted, including access to services, choice of providers, cultural competency, language capacity, geographical locations of service providers, and waiting lists. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 694 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #76-546-1 with Nicole C. Hickey, M.D., an individual, effective April 1, 2017, to amend Contract #76-546, to increase the payment limit by $46,000, from $375,000 to a new payment limit of $421,000, with no change in the original term of May 15, 2016 through May 14, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 7, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-546 with Nicole C. Hickey, M.D., for the provision of pulmonology services, including, but not limited to: consultation, clinic coverage, training, administration, and medical and/or surgical procedures in the Critical Care Unit at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) for the period May 15, 2016 through May 14, 2017. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #76-546-1 will allow the Contractor to provide additional hours of pulmonary services through May 14, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #76-546-1 with Nicole C. Hickey, M.D. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 695 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Fire Chief, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with American Medical Response West (AMR), effective April 1, 2017, to update Exhibit D (Ambulance Unit Hour Rates) in the Service Plan with no change to original term or payment limit, for emergency ambulance services. FISCAL IMPACT: The AMR ambulance unit hour rate increase is intended to be cost neutral. The District's ambulance service rates will increase by 3.8%, but only a fraction of amounts billed are actually collected. That fraction is applied to the 3.8% CPI increase to determine AMR's ambulance unit hour rate increase. AMR collects 100% of ambulance unit hours invoiced to the District. Other factors impact District transport revenue, so in fact this action is theoretically cost neutral. Factors that impact future transport collections include transport volume, services provide (e.g., mileage and oxygen), payer mix, payment caps, and potential changes to the Affordable Care Act and other relevant legislation. Based on the formula included in the service plan, the Ambulance Unit Hour Rates will increase by an amount not to exceed 1.0108%. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Terence Carey, Asst Fire Chief (925) 941-3504 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 81 To:Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board of Directors From:Jeff Carman, Chief, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:AMR Ambulance Unit Hour Rate Adjustment March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 696 BACKGROUND: Effective January 1, 2016, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (District) became the exclusive operator of emergency ambulance service within Exclusive Operating Areas 1, 2, and 5 in Contra Costa County. The District contracts with American Medical Response West (AMR) for actual ambulance unit hours. Service Plan Section P.2. of the Contract between the District and AMR states the following: Ambulance Unit Hourly Rate Adjustments. Beginning on April 1, 2017, and on each April 1 thereafter, the Per Unit Hour Rate will increase by the percentage equal to the product of (a) District's collection realization percentage (i.e., the percentage of patient billings actually collected) for the preceding year, times (b) the increase in the rates that the District changes for services under the CCCEMSA Contract that is based on the charges in the Consumer Price Index. The ambulance unit hour rates are specified in Exhibit D to the Service Plan of the Contract between the District and AMR. This amendment applies the above-described calculations to the unit hour rates in Exhibit D and adjusts them accordingly. Under the District's Contract with the Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services Agency (CCCEMSA), the District is also entitled to regular rate increases after the first twelve (12) month of service. The District's increase is based on changes in the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers for Medical Care (U.S. city average) (1982-4=100) ("CPI"). The District's annual rate increase is the greater of three (3) percent or the increase in the CPI for the subject calendar year. The CPI for calendar year 2016 is 3.8%; therefore, the District is requesting a 3.8% increase in its Ambulance Services Rate Schedule effective April 1, 2017. To determine AMR's increase, 0.038 (or 3.8%) will be multiplied by the collection realization percentage for calendar year 2015. Calendar year 2015 collection data (provided by AMR) is being used for this calculation because calendar year 2016 collections are not mature (i.e., the percentage of patient billings actually collected, particularly in the last quarter of the year, will not reflect long term actual collections). Likewise, the April 1, 2018, increase for ambulance unit hour rates will be determined using the District's collection realization percentage for calendar year 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: AMR is contractually entitled to a unit hour rate increase on April 1, 2017. The District will not have an accurate ambulance unit hour rate schedule embedded in the service contract without approval of this action. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 697 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a purchase order amendment with Royal Wholesale Electric Co., to increase the payment limit by $100,000, to a new payment limit of $190,000, for will call electrical parts and supplies for the period of May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2019, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: This cost is to be funded through the Public Works Facilities Services budget - 100% General Fund BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for electrical device maintenance within County facilities. Electrical supply items not stocked at the Waterbird yard facility are available to staff at several electrical parts houses in the area. As bid,on BidSync #1604-178, Electrical Will Call Purchases, Royal Wholesale Electric Co. was awarded this commodity. This commodity was originally bid for one year with four possible one year extensions. This request represents the second and third possible one year extension. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, then purchasing will call electrical parts through Royal Wholesale Electric Co. will discontinue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Stan Burton, (925) 313-7077 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE a Purchase Order Amendment with Royal Wholesale Electric Co. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 698 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute Amendment No. 5 to Consulting Services Agreement with Carey & Co. Inc., (Carey) to increase the payment limit by $49,000, to a new payment limit of $879,000, to provide additional construction administration services, and to extend the termination date to December 1, 2017, for Exterior Renovations at 625 Court Street, Martinez Project. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund. BACKGROUND: On September 25, 2012, the County entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Carey to provide architectural services for the subject project. During building investigations, it was observed that a structural deficiency exists at the roof/wall connection. On June 25, 2013, the Consulting Services Agreement was amended to include a building structural analysis to determine if there are any other structural deficiencies in the building, the risks the deficiencies APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ramesh Kanzaria, (925) 313-2000 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Amendment No. 5 to the Consulting Services Agreement with Carey & Co. for the Exterior Renovations at 625 Court Street (WH190D) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 699 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) pose in the event of an earthquake, and repair options and costs. Upon completion of the structural analysis, which recommended seismic upgrades to the building, it was determined that additional consulting services are required to address the impact of the seismic upgrades on the existing building mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems, and existing life safety and accessibility conditions. On April 22, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment No. 2 to Carey's agreement to provide for the additional services required for a building systems, life safety and accessibility conditions analysis, including a cost estimate for any work required due to the seismic upgrades. Upon completion of the structural and building systems, life safety, and accessibility condition analyses, it was decided that the project would include certain additional upgrades to the building’s structural system that were identified in the structural analysis report. It was further decided that the project would include certain additional ADA and other improvements to building deficiencies that were identified in the facility condition analysis report conducted by ISES Corporation for the County in 2007. Amendment No. 3 to Carey’s agreement provided for the additional services required to include these upgrades and improvements in the project. Due to a longer than expected construction schedule, changed and unforeseen conditions, and additional services, an increase in construction administration time and expense was required to complete the project. On December 6, 2016, the Board approved Amendment No. 4 which provided for the additional construction administration services. Continued construction delays due to unseasonably wet weather and further unforeseen conditions, including new structural framing at the east landing entry, require additional construction administration and design services. Amendment No. 5 will provide for those additional services necessary for Carey & Co. to assist in the completion and close-out of the projects. It is recommended that the Board approve Amendment No. 5 to the existing Carey & Co. Inc., Consulting Services Agreement dated September 25, 2012. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without Amendment No. 5, Carey & Co. will be unable to provide the additional construction administration services required to complete and close-out the project. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 700 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD), Information Technology Unit, a purchase order with OmniPro Systems, Inc. of San Francisco in an amount not to exceed $179,170 to procure 700 computer drives and power supplies to upgrade EHSD's fleet of desktop personal computers for the period March 15, 2017 through June 30, 2017. (10% County; 48% State; 42% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $179,170: 100% Administrative Overhead (10% County; 48% State; 42% Federal) BACKGROUND: With purchasing computer equipment to upgrade the department's fleet of desktop personal computers (refurbishing older computers that still have expendable life), Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) will produce more usable personal computers (PCs) at a lower cost than purchasing brand new PCs. In accordance with Administrative Bulletin No. 611.0, County Departments are required to get Board approval for single item purchases greater than $100,000. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, 3-1514 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorize Purchasing Agent to Issue Purchase Order March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 701 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the additional computer equipment to refurbish older personal computers (PCs), Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) would have to purchase additional PCs. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 702 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Director, to execute a Change Order to Purchase Order F004960 with West Interactive, to add $70,000 for a new total amount not to exceed $150,000 for TeleVox software with no change in the original term for period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: Televox HouseCalls Automated Messaging Software and appointment reminder system provides meaningful use services to the Ambulatory and Mental Health Service Departments for appointment reminders to CCRMC patients pertaining to mammography reminders, mammography no-show/follow-up, pediatric immunization, adhoc cancelled appointments reminders, etc. Televox interfaces with the Epic electronic records system. Approval of the agreement will allow the vendor to continue providing services through June 30, 2017. The Agreement obligates the County to indemnify the vendor for breaches of the agreement or claims arising from County materials used with the system. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 925-335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Change Order to Purchase Order F004960 with West Interactive for TeleVox Software March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 703 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the agreement and pay for the services would interrupt the messaging system reminders and fail to remind patients of important appointments or cancellations. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 704 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Justice Benefits Incorporated, Ltd. effective May 15, 2017, to extend the term through May 31, 2018, with no change to the original payment limit of $300,000, for continued training and Title IV-E claiming assistance. FISCAL IMPACT: Actual cost to the Probation Department will not exceed 15% of the total Title IV-Claim, approximately $90,000 annually. BACKGROUND: Title IV-E of the Social Security Act authorized the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs to provide federal matching funds to states for directly administering the programs. Its objectives were to improve the quality of care of children in foster care, reduce the number of children in foster care, return children to their homes as soon as conditions permit, and facilitate the adoption or permanent placement of children who cannot be returned to their homes. A single State agency is designed to claim Federal Title IV-E. In California, the agency is the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). The state designates implementation at the local level APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:Todd Billeci, County Probation Officer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment with Justice Benefits Incorporated March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 705 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) through the county’s Social Services Agency. In Contra Costa County that agency is Employment and Human Services (EHSD). In late 2013, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) conducted site visits of two Probation departments in California. During their visits they determined that Probation did not have a clear understanding of which juveniles could properly be claimed under Title IV-E. As a result the DHHS froze funding to all Probation departments. At the time they froze funding to all Probation Departments while CDSS worked DHHS to ensure that Probation departments statewide received training to ensure compliance with Title IV-E. Funding for Probation statewide has now been lifted but Contra Costa Probation has seen Title IV-E revenue drop from $4.5 million annually to $424,000. On April 24, 2015 CDSS audited Contra Costa Probation’s Title IV-E claims. During this audit it was determined that Probation is properly claiming the correct juveniles but there was concern that Probation was under reporting the amount of time they are working with these youths. Justice Benefits, Inc. (JBI), founded in 1997, specializes in Federal Revenue Maximization for state and local entities. They are the national experts in Title IV-E claiming assistance for Probation departments and they contract with 30 Probation departments in California alone. Contra Costa Probation needs the assistance of JBI to determine how to accurately capture the amount of time deputies work with Title IV-E eligible youths. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County will no longer have the training and claiming expertise provided by Justice Benefits Incorporated, Ltd. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This action supports four of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card, 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; 3) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and, 4) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families". March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 706 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with John Murdock and Associates, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $231,000 to provide specialized forensic services for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Agency User fees. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff-Coroner is in need of dedicated forensic services and training. Casework most often is performed through the Sheriff's Office Forensic Services Division, which is currently in need of additional assistance. John Murdock is a world renowned forensic firearms expert. John Murdock and Associates will predominately conduct forensic casework and firearms comparison for cases using the County laboratory. He will also provide training and case consultation. The contract is expected to have 100% cost recovery in addition to possible revenue through billing to other agencies. The County will ensure compliance with laboratory accreditation standards through our Forensic Services Division. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action on this contract would result in the Office of the Sheriff not being able to provide needed services to the County and other agencies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 79 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Murdock & Assoc for Forensic Firearms Examination Services March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 707 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 708 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with University of California San Francisco with a payment amount not to exceed $306,218 to provide local evaluation services of the Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative / Lethality Assessment Program for the period of March 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: $306,318.00: 100% Federal CFDA# 16.590 BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Alliance to End Abuse (Alliance) applied for and received funds from the US Department of Justice, Office on Violence against Women (OVW), Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative (Project) in 2013. The Project was implemented in two phases. The first phase of assessment was completed in September 2014 and Alliance was one of four sites selected by OVW to participate in the second phase of implementation and to implement the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP), a recognized promising practice. The primary purpose of the Project is to implement and measure through APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 3-1648 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with University of California San Francisco for Evaluation of Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 709 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) formal evaluation, the effectiveness of the LAP with the objective of reducing domestic violence homicides and near homicides. The Project will build the capacity of the County to improve identification of and services for high-risk victims while better monitoring high-risk offenders to reduce domestic violence-related homicide. This Project will document and disseminate solutions for replication across the country. Contra Costa County is engaging the Contractor to assist in carrying out activities consistent with the requirements of this OVW-funded Project including required evaluations, participation in OVW-sponsored technical, research, data collection, and reporting. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County will not meet the grant requirements of the Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 710 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #23-600 with Global Healthcare Exchange, LLC., in an amount not to exceed $70,000 including agreeing to indemnify the Contractor, for a contract management system to assist with purchase order payments and pricing at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, for the period from March 28, 2017 through March 27, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: Global Healthcare Exchange, LLC contract management system will assist Contra Costa Regional Medical Center to create process efficiencies and purchase order compliance. Through real-time price validation and purchase order updates from the top six group purchasing organizations (GPOs), Global Healthcare Exchange, LLC will assist with savings on purchases made. Approval of Contract #23-600 will allow the Contractor to provide the contract management system for the Materials Management Unit at Contra APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 925-335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-600 with Global Healthcare Exchange, LLC March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 711 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Costa Regional Medical Center, through March 27, 2018. This Contract includes a provision to indemnify the Contractor for claims arising out of Contractor’s performance under this Contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Department will not be able take advantage of contract management system and savings from process efficiencies. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 712 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-294-40 with Staff Care, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $5,469,000, to provide temporary locum tenens physician services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 5, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-294-37 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-294-38) with Staff Care, Inc., for the provision of locum tenens physicians to cover during vacation, sick leave, and extended leave relief for County-employed physicians at CCRMC for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-294-40 will allow the Contractor to continue providing temporary locum tenens physician services, through December 31, 2019. This Contract contains modifications to Paragraph 18. (Indemnification) of the General Conditions. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-294-40 with Staff Care, Inc. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 713 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring appropriate physician coverage during temporary staff absences will not have access to Contractor’s services. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 714 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-305-36 with Vista Staffing Solutions, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,575,000, to provide temporary locum tenens physicians at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate Increase) BACKGROUND: On January 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-305-35, with Vista Staffing Solutions, Inc., for the provision of locum tenens physicians to work as temporary employees to ensure appropriate medical staff coverage at CCRMC for the period from December 1, 2015 through November 30, 2016. The contract includes modifications to General Conditions, Paragraph 18. (Indemnification). Approval of Contract #26-305-36 will allow the Contractor to continue providing temporary locum tenens physicians at CCRMC through November 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County will not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-305-36 with Vista Staffing Solutions, Inc. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 715 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-362-12 with Apheresis Care Group, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $400,000, to provide therapeutic apheresis services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Services (CCRMC), for the period from April 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On April 29, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-362-11 with Apheresis Care Group, Inc., to provide the necessary equipment and qualified professional staff to conduct therapeutic apheresis services, such as therapeutic plasmapheresis and hemodialysis procedures at CCRMC for the period from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2017. Approval of Contract #26-362-12 will allow Contractor to continue providing therapeutic apheresis services through June 30, 2020. This contract includes modifications to the County General Conditions including mutual indemnification. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-362-12 with Apheresis Care Group, Inc. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 716 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contractor will not provide therapeutic apheresis services at CCRMC. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 717 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-429-25 with Jackson & Coker Locum Tenens, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, for the provision of temporary help physicians at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC) and the County’s Main Detention Facility, for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 19, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-429-24 with Jackson & Coker Locum Tenens, LLC, for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, for the provision of temporary physicians to cover vacation, sick leave, and extended leave relief for County-employed physicians at CCRMC and County’s Main Detention Facility. Approval of Contract #26-429-25 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide temporary physicians through December 31, 2017. The contract contains modifications to the County General Conditions Paragraph 18. (Indemnification). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-429-25 with Jackson & Coker Locum Tenens, LLC March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 718 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County will not have access to Contractor’s services. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 719 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-742-7 with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $352,000, to provide residential board and care services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) patients in the Patch Program, for the period from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% County funds budgeted for the the Patch Program. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: The County’s Patch Program provides residential board and care for post medical, surgical and/or custodial care patients who have been discharged from CCRMC and would otherwise not have appropriate follow up care. On May 24, 2016 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-742-5 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-742-6) with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc. for the provision of residential board and care services for CCRMC patients in the Patch Program for the period from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. Approval of Contract #26-742-7 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide residential board and care services through March 31, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-742-7 with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 720 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, post-surgery patients will not have access to Contractor’s services. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 721 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-798-3 with Infectious Disease Doctors Medical Group, APC, a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $260,000, to provide infectious disease consulting services and training at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 7, 2016 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-798-1 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-798-2), with Infectious Disease Doctors Medical Group, APC, for the provision of weekly infectious disease consulting services including but not limited to clinic sessions, on-call coverage and training for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. Approval of Contract #26-798-3 will allow Contractor to continue to provide infectious disease consulting services through April 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring infectious disease consulting services will not have access to the Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-798-3 with Infectious Disease Doctors Medical Group, APC March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 722 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-136-11 with Touchstone Counseling, a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, to provide outpatient psychotherapy services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: In March 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-136-10 with Touchstone Counseling Services, Inc., for the provision of outpatient psychotherapy services to CCHP members for the period from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2017. Approval of Contract #27-136-11 will allow Contractor to continue providing outpatient psychotherapy services through March 31, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized professional health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-136-11 with Touchstone Counseling March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 723 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-578-9 with Dialysis Access Center Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $400,000 to provide dialysis services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: On March 31, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-578-8 with Dialysis Access Center Inc., to provide dialysis services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2017. Approval of Contract #27-578-9 will allow the Contractor to continue providing these services through March 31, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized professional health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary 325-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-578-9 with Dialysis Access Center Inc. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 724 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #27-635-7 with Iraj Babaee (dba Advanced Hearing Systems), in an amount not to exceed $150,000, to provide audiology/hearing aid services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period from May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: In June 2015, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #27-635-6 for the provision of audiology/hearing aid services to Contra Costa Health Plan members, for the period from May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2017. Approval of Contract #27-635-7 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide audiology/hearing aid services through April 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, CCHP members requiring audiology/hearing aid services will not have access to Contractor’s services, which may result in a reduction in the overall levels of service to the community. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-635-7 with Iraj Babaee (dba Advanced Hearing Systems) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 725 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Change Order to existing Purchase Order F004211 with Direct Systems Support to increase the amount by $169,000, to a total of $355,000 for support services for IBM and Lenovo servers with no change in the original term of March 21, 2016 through December 28, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department (HSD) Information Technology Unit (IT) Unit extensively uses Lenovo/IBM server hardware for the IT datacenter. Direct Systems Support manages HSD IT server hardware and support with IBM and Lenovo to ensure that there isn’t a lapse in support services. This purchase will provide the HSD IT Unit with support for servers that support the Epic Electronic Health Records (EHR) and other healthcare related software for the entire HSD. IBM and Lenovo provide support for Health Services servers to correct defects and functionality issues pursuant to the IBM Master Services Attachment and related Statement(s) of Work. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 925-335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Allyson Eggert C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Direct Systems Support (Legacy System) Purchase Order March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 726 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Purchase Order is not approved, HSD will not have the necessary support in place. The servers contain Epic EHR data, and could result in the inability to access and possible loss of patient information for the entire Health Services Department; causing Patient Care issues and emergencies. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 727 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District $33,000 for EMS Fire First Responder medical equipment, medical supplies and EMS training to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, upon approval of EMS Director for FY 2016-17. (100% Measure H Funds, CSA EM-1, Zone A). FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this expenditure has been budgeted under CSA EM-1; Zone A (Measure H). There is no General Fund impact. BACKGROUND: These funds are allocated to partially offset fire services’ added costs for medical supplies, equipment, and training through participation in an enhanced Emergency Medical Services system established through CSA EM-1. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Fire services would need to fund medical supplies, equipment and training out of their existing funds. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Pat Frost, 925-646-4690 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Patricia Weisinger C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Fire Funding for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Enhancements from Measure H Funds March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 728 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Conservation and Development, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC (MDA), to extend the term from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2018 with no change to the payment limit of $85,000 for continuing independent registered municipal financial advisor services. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the County General Fund. The cost of financial advisory services is covered in the cost of issuance included in each bond issuance. Fees are negotiated for each borrowing transaction based upon the size and complexity of the transition. Non-issuance and Special Project services are billed hourly and will be funded by Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund monies. BACKGROUND: The County issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Independent Registered Municipal Financial Advisor (IRMA) services on July 18, 2014, and Montague DeRose and Associates, LLC (MDA) was selected to provide the service. The contract terms specified in the RFP indicate an initial contract agreement through June 30, 2016, with a two-year renewal option. The contract amendment exercises the two-year renewal option with no change to the original payment limit. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kristen Lackey (925) 674-7888 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 55 To:Successor to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Independent Registered Municipal Financial Advisor Contract March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 729 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) MDA is a small business financial advisory firm with nearly 20 years of experience assisting municipalities with the issuance of bonds. The firm is fully compliant with all Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) regulations applicable to municipal financial advisors, and is registered with both the SEC and the MSRB as an IRMA. The County, through the County Administrator's office, also contracts with MDA for IRMA services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County, in its capacity as Successor Agency to the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, would not have the necessary expertise of an Independent Registered Municipal Financial Advisor. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 730 RECOMMENDATION(S): Authorize the Purchasing Agent to purchase, on behalf of the Health Services Department, Mental Health Division, Safeway Gift Cards to use as incentives for consumer participation as allowed under Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), in the amount of $7,500.00 (500 cards at $15.00/each). FISCAL IMPACT: 100% MHSA-Proposition 63; no County General Fund allocation will be used. BACKGROUND: Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, was passed by voters on November 2, 2004. This proposition imposes an additional 1% tax on taxable personal income above $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs. Gift Cards are provided to mental health consumers and family members as an incentive for ongoing and meaningful participation and involvement as full partners in the MHSA planning processes, from the inception of the planning through implementation and evaluation of identified activities. State Department of Mental Health Letter Number 05-01 requires the participation of mental health consumers and family APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Lisa Cabral C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase of Safeway Gift Cards for Consumer Input of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA)-Prop 63 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 731 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) members in this process. Additionally, counties must continue to be engaged in ongoing community planning processes for MHSA annual plan updates and for any new MHSA plan. As such, in order to obtain broader stakeholder input, gift cards allow the county to provide a way to reward those mental health consumers and their family members who so willingly volunteer many hours to participate in the myriad MHSA planning processes. Gift cards enable the volunteer participants to cover the expenses of their transportation to/from planning meetings and also covers the expenses of their meals when they need to be away from home. The gift cards allow the county to relieve the financial burden of those volunteer mental health consumer and family members who may not have the extra funds to allow their participation. The gift cards will be administered in accordance with the requirements outlined in Administrative Bulletin #615. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If there are no incentives available, Consumer and Family member participation and involvement will decrease during the Community Program Planning Process, which is a required component for the MHSA Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plan. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 732 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Seneca Family of Agencies, a non-profit corporation, effective March 1, 2017, to increase the payment limit by $461,372 to a new total payment limit of $1,261,919 for additional services to increase placement stability of children with no change in term for August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $1,261,919 : 39% County, 49% State, 12% Federal Funds BACKGROUND: Seneca Family of Agencies provides Wraparound Services, a community based intervention program that provides children with service alternatives to group homes care through expanded family-based services. Wraparound Services are services that are wrapped around a child living with his or her birth parent, relative, adoptive parent, foster parent or guardian. These services build on the strengths of each child and family and are tailored to address their unique and changing needs. Funding also provides 24 hours, 7 days a week non-emergency advise and consultation with foster parents and other caregivers by phone. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Seneca Family of Agencies Amendment March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 733 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: At risk youth in restrictive group home settings will have less opportunities to transition into family-based services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports four of the five community outcomes established in the Chileans' Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; 3) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and, 4) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families" by placing at risk youth into family-based or less restrictive service settings. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 734 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Superior Mechanical Services, Inc (Contract # C497536), to increase the payment limit by $50,000 to a new payment limit of $140,000 to provide home weatherization equipment and services, including mechanical ventilation services, to low income residents throughout Contra Costa County, with no change to the original contract term of August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: The additional purchase amount ($50,000) is fully reimbursable through contracts with the State of California Department of Community Services and Development to expend various State and federal grant funds for a variety of weatherization projects throughout the county. BACKGROUND: The Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) has partnered with the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) for the past 20 years to provide energy saving home improvements to low income families throughout unincorporated Contra Costa County, as well as the 19 cities in the county. Funding is provided by State and federal grant programs including, but not limited to, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), the Energy Crisis Intervention Program (ECIP), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Cap and Trade Auction Funds for the Low Income Weatherization Program (LIWP) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Laura Glass 925-674-7834 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 80 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Weatherization Contract - Superior Mechanical Services (C47536) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 735 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With these grants, the Weatherization Program may provide homes with equipment and services such as mechanical ventilation, hot water heaters, furnaces, refrigerators, microwaves, doors, windows, LED (light emitting diode) light bulbs, LED night lights, Tier 2 advanced power strips, occupancy sensors, weather-stripping, ceiling fans, and attic insulation. Homes receive a blower door test (a diagnostic tool to locate and correct air infiltration), and homes with gas appliances receive a combustion appliance safety test that checks for carbon monoxide gas leakage. Homes with gas appliances are provided with a carbon monoxide alarm. Superior Mechanical Services will repair, replace or provide mechanical ventilation systems to low income households through the Weatherization Program. This service is required by the contract between the County and the State Department of Community Services and Development. The increase in the budget is needed to provide additional service. Under its grant funding contract, the Weatherization Program is required to meet minimum unit production goals (number of homes weatherized) by the end of its grant contract term, July 31, 2017. Failure to maintain the required production goals may result in the State reallocating our share of funding to other counties and could jeopardize our future funding. These contracts will allow the Weatherization Program to have ready access to mechanical ventilation and other necessary supplies and equipment to weatherize homes and meet production goals. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The installation of mechanical ventilation, repairs to these systems and other services necessary to implement the Weatherization Program would not occur. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Approval of this item will enable the Weatherization Program install mechanical ventilation that improve health, safety, comfort and quality of life for children residing in the households served. This supports outcomes #3 and #5 established in the children's report card: 3) Families are economically self-sufficient; and 5) Families are safe, stable and nurturing. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 736 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, in accordance with Government Code Section 65400. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements that every jurisdiction must include in its General Plan. State law mandates that all local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The Association of Bay Area Governments allocates the Bay Area regional housing need to all the cities and counties in the Bay Area. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, the County is required to submit an annual report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development and the State Office of Planning and Research by April 1st of each year. Jurisdictions are also required to submit the annual report to their legislative bodies for review and comment. Attached to this Board Order is the County's 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Christine Louie, (925) 674-7787 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 84 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Annual Housing Element Progress Report for Calendar Year 2016 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 737 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The County's Housing Element (Fifth Cycle) covers the planning period from 2015 to 2023 and plans for the provision of 1,367 units of housing in the unincorporated County. This is the second report for the Fifth Cycle Housing Element. In 2016, the County issued 191 building permits for single-family dwellings, 19 building permits were issued for accessory dwelling units, or second units, 6 building permits were issued for 2 to 4-unit buildings (16 units), and 3 building permits were issued for mobile homes. Of these issued building permits, a total of 28 units were determined to be moderate-income housing units based on the location of the units and the type of dwelling (e.g. accessory dwelling units). The number of building permits issued for above-moderate income housing was 201 units. During this reporting period, the County issued building permits for a total of 229 units. Calendar Year 2016 is the second year in the eight-year planning cycle. To date, the total number of units the County has issued building permits is 578 units, which includes 8 low-income units, 93 moderate-income units, and 477 above-moderate income units. This total is 42 percent of the County's Regional Housing Needs Allocation for this planning cycle. The County continues to implement 31 housing related programs, including programs designed to remove governmental constraints to maintaining, improving, and developing housing. A summary of the programs and recent accomplishments are included as Table C in the attached report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There is no consequence of a negative action. The County is required to provide the annual Housing Element Progress Report to the Board of Supervisors in a public meeting to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on the report. ATTACHMENTS 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 738 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodPursuant to GC 65400 local governments must provide by April 1 of each year the annual report for the previous calendar year to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). By checking the “Final” button and clicking the “Submit” button, you have submitted the housing portion of your annual report to HCD only. Once finalized, the report will no longer be available for editing.The report must be printed and submitted along with your general plan report directly to OPR at the address listed below: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/2016March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes739 (9) Total of Moderate and Above Moderate from Table A328 201(10) Total by Income Table A/A300 28 201(11) Total Extremely Low-IncomeUnits*0-ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodAffordability by Household IncomesVery Low-IncomeProject Identifier(may be APN No., project name or address)Unit CategoryNote below the number of units determined to be affordable without financial or deed restrictions and attach an explanation how the jurisdiction determined the units were affordable. Refer to instructions.8Housing without Financial Assistanceor Deed Restrictions4Table A5aHousing with Financial Assistance and/or Deed Restrictions67Housing Development Information53Low-IncomeModerate-IncomeAboveModerate-IncomeTotal Unitsper Project1TenureR=RenterO=Owner2Deed RestrictedUnitsEst. # Infill Units*See InstructionsSee InstructionsAssistance Programs for Each DevelopmentAnnual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction Very Low-, Low-, and Mixed-Income Multifamily ProjectsCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/2016* Note: These fields are voluntaryMarch 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes740 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting Period(3) Acquisition of Units(2) Preservation of Units At-Risk(5) Total Units by IncomeActivity TypeVery Low-IncomeAnnual Building Activity Report Summary - Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired pursuant to GC Section 65583.1(c)(1)(1) Rehabilitation ActivityAffordability by Household IncomesPlease note: Units may only be credited to the table below when a jurisdiction has included a program it its housing element to rehabilitate, preserve or acquire units to accommodate a portion of its RHNA whichmeet the specific criteria as outlined in GC Section 65583.1(c)(1) Low-IncomeTable A2* Note: This field is voluntary(4) The Description should adequately document how each unit complies with subsection (c )(7) of Government Code Section 65583.1TOTAL UNITSExtremely Low-Income*CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/20160 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes741 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting Period6. TotalNo. of Units Permitted for Above Moderate1. Single FamilyNo. of Units Permitted for Moderate 2. 2 - 4 Units 3. 5+ Units7. Number of infill units*5. Mobile HomesAnnual building Activity Report Summary for Above Moderate-Income Units(not including those units reported on Table A) 4. Second UnitTable A3* Note: This field is voluntaryCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/2016420193280187140002010March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes742 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodYear8Year7Year5Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Remaining Need for RHNA Period ► ► ► ► ► Year1Total Units to Date (all years)LowNon-Restricted Very LowDeed RestrictedNon-RestrictedYear4Note: units serving extremly low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals.Total Units ► ► ► Deed Restricted Enter Calendar Year starting with the first year of the RHNA allocation period. See Example.Year3 Above Moderate ModerateYear2 Permitted Units Issued by AffordabilityRHNA Allocation by Income LevelTotal Remaining RHNAby Income LevelYear9Year6Total RHNA by COG.Enter allocation number:Income LevelTable B CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/2016374000000000000000000037421808000000000000000082102436528000000093150532276 201 000000-477551367349 229 0000000578789March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes743 Neighborhood Preservation ProgramImprove the quality of existing housing &neighborhoods.Ongoing There were five homes within the unincorporated county that wererehabilitated. Of those five projects, two were moderate income, two were lowincome, and one was extremely low income. Weatherization ProgramAssist homeowners and renters withminor home repairs.Ongoing 297 units have been weatherized in County cities, towns, and communities.221 units were extremely low income, 75 units were very low income, and 1unit was low income. Code EnforcementMaintain & improve the quality of existinghousing & neighborhoods.Ongoing There were a total of 951 cases opened with 893 cases closed. Approximately99% of all cases were residential. Preservation of Affordable Housing Assisted with PublicFundsPreserve the existing stock of affordablehousing.Ongoing The County provided $300,000 in HOME and CDBG funding for a 14-unitrehabilitation project located in Bay Point. Additionally, the County provided$4.125 million in funding recommendations for HOME, HOPWA, and CDBG tosupport the rehabilitation of 283 rental units in the Cities of Concord andPinole. New Construction of Affordable Housing Increase the supply of affordable housing,including units affordable to extremely lowincome households.Annual:Award HOME,CDBG, andThe County provided $1.55 million in CDBG funding for a 42-unit rental projectlocated in North Richmond. Additionally, the County provided $1.67 million infunding recommendations for HOME, HOPWA, and CDBG to support the-ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodProgram Description(By Housing Element Program Names)Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583.Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.Name of ProgramObjectiveTimeframein H.E.Status of Program ImplementationProgram Implementation StatusTable CCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/2016March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes744 HOPWAfunds toexperiencedhousingdevelopersdevelopment of 138 new rental units in the cities of El Cerrito, Pittsburg, andWalnut Creek. The County also issued $23,571,320 in tax-exempt bonds for143 new units in the cities of Walnut Creek and Antioch. Housing Successor to the former RedevelopmentAgencyUtilize County owned property (formerredevelopment agency) to developaffordable housingDispositionagreementsby 2020.The Rodeo Senior Housing Extension project in Rodeo had an ExclusiveNegotiating Agreement approved in December. The County issued a Requestfor Qualifications/Request for Proposal in December for the Orbisonia Heightsproject in Bay Point. The property at 1250 Las Juntas in Walnut Creek wassold in December to Habitat for Humanity. This property is located within thecity limits. Inclusionary HousingIntegrate affordable housing withinmarket-rate developments.Ongoing In-lieu fees were collected for developments within a subdivision. The totalfees collected was $23,249. Acquisition/ RehabilitationImprove existing housing and increasesupply of affordable housing.Ongoing There were no projects in this reporting period within the unincorporatedCounty. The County issued $45,464,000 in tax-exempt bonds for 235 units inthe Cities of Pinole and Concord. Second UnitsFacilitate the development of secondunits.Ongoing There were 19 building permits issued for second units. Affordability by DesignDevelop affordability by design programto promote creative solutions to buildingdesign and construction.2017 There is nothing to report for this reporting period. New Initiatives ProgramDevelop new programs or policies to fundor incentivize affordable housingdevelopment2017 The County is implementing the State's Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance. Special Needs HousingIncrease the supply of special needshousing.Ongoing There were no projects in this reporting period within the unincorporatedCounty. The County provided $487K in HOME funds to support thedevelopment of a 30-unit rental project in the City of Pittsburg for homelessveterans and veterans.Developmental Disabled HousingIncrease the supply of housing availableto persons with developmental disabilities.Ongoing There were no projects this reporting period in the unincorporated County. Accessible HousingIncrease the supply of accessiblehousing.Ongoing The County provided funding for a multifamily rental project in North Richmondthat will include 4 fully accessible units; 3 physically disabled units and 1vision/hearing impaired unit. Additionally, the County provided funding forprojects located in the Cities of El Cerrito, Pittsburg and Walnut Creek thatincluded a total of 11 fully accessible units; 8 physically disabled units and 3vision/hearing impaired units. March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes745 Reasonable AccommodationIncrease the supply of special needs andaccessible housing.Ongoing Through the NPP program, the County assisted in the funding of 5 fullyaccessible bathroom renovations and 1 addition of an exterior stair lift. Inaddition, the County provides access to language assistance via phone calls,emails, and/or general correspondence to all residents of the County requiringthese services.Council on Homelessness, formerly known as, ContraCosta Interagency Council on HomelessnessMeet the housing & supportive servicesneeds of the homelessOngoing This program is currently known as the Council on Homelessness. Theycontinue to support the development of permanent supportive housing. HearthAct funds are used for the support of existing permanent supportive housingunits or placement of people into permanent supportive housing. Farmworker HousingIncrease the supply of farmworkerhousing.Annually:Includefarmworkerhousing inCDBG, HOMENOFA (See#5 above)There were none built this reporting period. First-Time Homebuyer OpportunitiesProvide additional homeownershipopportunities.Ongoing The County provided 54 households with the Mortgage Credit CertificateProgram (MCC) throughout the county and cities, a total of $3,566,301 in MCCfunds. Extremely Low Income HousingPromote development of housingaffordable to extremely low incomehouseholds.Annually:Prioritize x-low incomehousing infundingrecommendationsThe County continues to provide funding preferences to developers whoinclude units that are affordable to extremely-low income households. Therewere a total of 225 extremely low income housing projects during this reportingperiod (See Neighborhood Preservation Program and WeatherizationProgram). Sites InventoryProvide for adequate housing sites,including 'as-right development' sites forhomeless facilitiesOngoingmaintenanceof siteinventory.There are no changes or updates for this reporting period. Mixed-Use DevelopmentsEncourage mixed-use developments. 2015 ¿ 2016:Reviewexistingordinance anddevelopmentpatterns.There are no projects to report. Density Bonus & Other Development Incentives Support affordable housing development. Ongoing There are no projects to report for this reporting period. Infill DevelopmentFacilitate infill development. Biennially: The County continues to use the Small Lot Review process to assist applicantsMarch 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes746 Review siteinventory,adjust forplanned andcompleteddevelopmentsin developing infill single-family residences on substandard-size lots andstreamline the administrative review process for infill housing in the formerredevelopment areas. Planned Unit DistrictProvide flexibility in design for residentialprojects.Ongoing There are no updates to report during this period. Development FeesReduce the cost of development Ongoing There are no updates to report during this period. Quick Turn-around ProgramDevelop program to expedite review ofsmall projects, and conditions of approval.2016 This program continues to be utilized for ensuring expedited review of infillprojects and various planning applications including tree permits, variances,and design reviews. Review of Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Periodically review subdivision ordinanceto ensure it does not unduly constrainhousing development.Revise zoning code to allow emergencyshelters by right, single room occupancyhousing, transitional and permanentsupportive housing, and agriculturalworker housing.Ongoing:period reviewof zoning andsubdivisionordinancesThere are no updates to report during this period. The agricultural workerhousing, permanent supportive housing, and transitional housing draft zoningordinance is expected in 2017. Coordinated County Department Review ofDevelopment ApplicationsExpedite application review through abetter coordinated process with otherCounty departments.Ongoing The County strives to coordinate and reach-out to other County departmentsand agencies when processing new applications. Anti-Discrimination ProgramPromote fair housing.Completeupdate to theAI afterpromulgationof newregulationsThe Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) was adopted by the Board ofSupervisors on May 25, 2010. A major effort to update the AI occurred in 2016.The final AI updated document is anticipated to be presented to the CountyBoard of Supervisors in Spring 2017. Residential Displacement ProgramLimit number of households beingdisplaced or relocated because of Countysponsored programs or projects.Ongoing There are no updates to report this period within the unincorporated County. Residential Energy Conservation Program Participate in Bay Area regional efforts toreduce energy consumption.2016: DraftCountyguidelinesSolar permits for roof-mounted residential PV systems are available on-lineunder the Application and Permit Center web page. Instructions for in-personand on-line submittal for expedited review is posted on the County's web page.The number of solar permits issued is 1,563. March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes747 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodGeneral Comments:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/2016March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes748 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Resolution No. 2017/115 designating Public Works Department positions authorized to sign applications and file with the California Emergency Management Agency for obtaining federal financial assistance, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) requires a new Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies every 3 years. The resolution designates Public Works positions that are authorized to sign the Cal EMA forms to receive reimbursement for Contra Costa County related disasters. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not be reimbursed by Cal EMA for disaster related expenses. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Wanda Quever (925) 313-2372 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 96 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorization to sign and file applications with California Emergency Management March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 749 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/115 Cal EMA Form 130 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2017/115 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 750 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/28/2017 by the following vote: AYE: Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT:John Gioia ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/115 IN THE MATTER OF: Designation of Applicant's agent resolution for non-State Agencies. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors for the County of Contra Costa that 1) Public Works Director or 2) Deputy Public Works Director or 3) Public Works Chief of Administrative Services are hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the County of Contra Costa, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it with the California Emergency Management Agency for the purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Contra Costa, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, hereby authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the California Emergency Management Agency for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required. Contact: Wanda Quever (925) 313-2372 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: 4 1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 751 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Cal OES ID No: ______________________ Cal OES 130 DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION FOR NON-STATE AGENCIES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE OF THE (Governing Body) (Name of Applicant) THAT , OR (Title of Authorized Agent) , OR (Title of Authorized Agent) (Title of Authorized Agent) is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the , a public entity (Name of Applicant) established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act. THAT the ________________________________________________, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, (Name of Applicant) hereby authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required. Please check the appropriate box below: This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters up to three (3) years following the date of approval below. This is a disaster specific resolution and is effective for only disaster number(s) ________________________ Passed and approved this day of , 20 (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) CERTIFICATION I, , duly appointed and of (Name) (Title) , do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a (Name of Applicant) Resolution passed and approved by the of the (Governing Body) (Name of Applicant) on the day of , 20 . (Signature) (Title) Cal OES 130 (Rev.9/13) Page 1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 752 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Cal OES 130 - Instructions Cal OES Form 130 Instructions A Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies is required of all Applicants to be eligible to receive funding. A new resolution must be submitted if a previously submitted Resolution is older than three (3) years from the last date of approval, is invalid or has not been submitted. When completing the Cal OES Form 130, Applicants should fill in the blanks on page 1. The blanks are to be filled in as follows: Resolution Section: Governing Body: This is the group responsible for appointing and approving the Authorized Agents. Examples include: Board of Directors, City Council, Board of Supervisors, Board of Education, etc. Name of Applicant: The public entity established under the laws of the State of California. Examples include: School District, Office of Education, City, County or Non-profit agency that has applied for the grant, such as: City of San Diego, Sacramento County, Burbank Unified School District, Napa County Office of Education, University Southern California. Authorized Agent: These are the individuals that are authorized by the Governing Body to engage with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services regarding grants applied for by the Applicant. There are two ways of completing this section: 1. Titles Only: If the Governing Body so chooses, the titles of the Authorized Agents would be entered here, not their names. This allows the document to remain valid (for 3 years) if an Authorized Agent leaves the position and is replaced by another individual in the same title. If “Titles Only” is the chosen method, this document must be accompanied by a cover letter naming the Authorized Agents by name and title. This cover letter can be completed by any authorized person within the agency and does not require the Governing Body’s signature. 2. Names and Titles: If the Governing Body so chooses, the names and titles of the Authorized Agents would be listed. A new Cal OES Form 130 will be required if any of the Authorized Agents are replaced, leave the position listed on the document or their title changes. Governing Body Representative: These are the names and titles of the approving Board Members. Examples include: Chairman of the Board, Director, Superintendent, etc. The names and titles cannot be one of the designated Authorized Agents, and a minimum of two or more approving board members need to be listed. Certification Section: Name and Title: This is the individual that was in attendance and recorded the Resolution creation and approval. Examples include: City Clerk, Secretary to the Board of Directors, County Clerk, etc. This person cannot be one of the designated Authorized Agents or Approving Board Member (if a person holds two positions such as City Manager and Secretary to the Board and the City Manager is to be listed as an Authorized Agent, then the same person holding the Secretary position would sign the document as Secretary to the Board (not City Manager) to eliminate “Self Certification.” Cal OES 130 (Rev.9/13) Page 2 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 753 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 754 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONTINUE the emergency actions originally taken by the Board of Supervisors effective January 19 and February 14, 2017 regarding the hazardous conditions caused by a series of severe rainstorms in Contra Costa County. FISCAL IMPACT: This action is necessary to maintain eligibility for Contra Costa County and its cities to receive disaster relief funds to cover costs of the emergency response and damage repairs needed as a result of the significant storm events in early January 2017 that continued into February. The initial damage estimates for the County from the January 6 -10, 2017 storms are estimated at $9.5 million; additional damage from the February storms has not yet been estimated. The County does not currently have funds designated for the response and repair of the storm damages and has, therefore, applied for relief funds. BACKGROUND: Conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen within the County, caused by a series of severe rainstorms that began in January 2017 and have continued into February, and have led to widespread flooding, mudslides, sinkholes and damage to public buildings, flood control facilities and roadways, including the collapse of a portion of Alhambra Valley Road at Pinole Creek, caused by a massive sinkhole. Due to the continued rains and saturated soil conditions, a portion of Morgan Territory Road, approximately one mile south of Marsh Creek Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County, began showing signs of sliding during the week of February 20. The movement caused a break in the existing water line and the slide has continued, cracking the road surface to the point that the road is no longer passable. Residents to the south of the slide location are now required to travel south to Livermore APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 98 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:CONTINUATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCIES ARISING OUT OF JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2017 STORM DAMAGE March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 755 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > as their only access option. To address the emergency situation, the Board of Supervisors is exploring alternate access routes while Morgan Territory Road remains closed. The repair work to Morgan Territory Road will require removal of debris, excavation, installation of a structural retaining wall system, backfill, construction of embankment, new pavement, and pavement striping. These conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of the County. The initial damage estimate encompasses the County’s response and cleanup of various sites throughout the county and estimated costs to repair damages from the storm. The estimate includes road infrastructure, flood control infrastructure, public building facilities and park and recreation facilities. The majority of the damage occurred on or along rural county roads. The largest and most significant damage occurred on Alhambra Valley Road at Pinole Creek, and on Morgan Territory Road in Clayton, where there were washouts of the roads. Flood control infrastructure also experienced storm related damage. Public building and park facilities suffered minimal impact from the storm. A slideshow illustrating the storm damage can be accessed at this link: January 2017 Storm Damage Slideshow . The effects of the storms continue to be dynamic. Since the Board's original emergency declaration of January 19, Public Works Department crews have been responding to isolated mudslides, localized flooding, downed trees and drainage issues throughout the county, along with intermittent road closures including Marsh Creek Road, Morgan Territory Road, and a partial closure at Alhambra Valley Road at Ferndale Road. There have additionally been isolated issues related to County buildings/facilities including 50 Douglas Drive, 12000 Marsh Creek Rd (Detention Facility) and the County Hospital. Public Works crews continue to respond to items as they are reported. On March 7, 2017, the Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency and authorized the Public Works Director to proceed in the most expeditious manner with the Morgan Territory Road slide repair project. Government Code Section 8630 requires that, for a body that meets weekly, the need to continue the emergency declaration be reviewed at least every 30 days until the local emergency is terminated, which shall occur at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. Since the conditions that warranted proclamations of an emergency persist, it is appropriate for the Board to continue the local emergency actions regarding the hazardous conditions caused by storm damage. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Pursuant to Resolution No. 2017/404, the proclamation of local emergencies by the Board of Supervisors on January 19 and February 14, 2017 (Resolutions No. 2017/404 and 2017/65) cannot remain in effect more than 30 days unless they are reviewed and continued by the Board of Supervisors. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 756 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999 regarding the issue of homelessness in Contra Costa County. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: On November 16, 1999, the Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 8630 on homelessness in Contra Costa County. Government Code Section 8630 requires that, for a body that meets weekly, the need to continue the emergency declaration be reviewed at least every 14 days until the local emergency is terminated. In no event is the review to take place more than 21 days after the previous review. On March 7, 2017 the Board of Supervisors reviewed and approved the emergency declaration. With the continuing high number of homeless individuals and insufficient funding available to assist in sheltering all homeless individuals and families, it is appropriate for the Board to continue the declaration of a local emergency regarding homelessness. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 97 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Continue Extension of Emergency Declaration Regarding Homelessness March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 757 RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully depreciated vehicles and equipment no longer needed for public use, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Section 1108-2.212 of the County Ordinance Code authorizes the Purchasing Agent to dispose of any personal property belonging to Contra Costa County and found by the Board of Supervisors not to be required for public use. The property for disposal is either obsolete, worn out, beyond economical repair, or damaged beyond repair. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Public Works would not be able to dispose of surplus vehicles and equipment. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Nida Rivera, (925) 313-2124 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 93 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Disposal of Surplus Property March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 758 ATTACHMENTS Surplus Vehicles & Equipment March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 759 ATTACHMENT TO BOARD ORDER MARCH 28, 2017 Department Description/Unit/Make/Model Serial No. Condition A. Obsolete B. Worn Out C. Beyond economical repair D. Damaged beyond repair PUBLIC DEFENDER 2011 FORD FUSION #0801 (82004 MILES) 3FADP0L39BR213704 D. DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR SHERIFF 2011 FORD TAURUS #1018 (100838 MILES) 1FAHP2DW4BG106458 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2010 FORD CROWN VICTORIA #2027(90533 MILES) 2FABP7BV9AX115422 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2010 TOYOTA CAMRY HYB. #1212 (109116 MILES) 4T1BB3EK3AU121836 B. WORN OUT PUBLIC DEFENDER 2010 TOYOTA CAMRY HYB. #1213 (97488 MILES) 4T1BB3EK1AU123293 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2009 FORD CROWN VICTORIA #1956 (103361 MILES) 2FAFP71V29X140220 B. WORN OUT PUBLIC WORKS 2000 GMC SAVANA VAN #4540 (104640 MILES) 1GTFG25R4Y1165354 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2008 FORD TAURUS #1007 (96902 MILES ) 1FAHP24W28G159927 B. WORN OUT March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 760 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Community Facilities District Tax Administration Report on County of Contra Costa Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities), as required by Sections 50075.3 and 53411 of the California Government Code, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: This report relates to special taxes approved by voters and payment for authorized services by said special taxes. Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007-1 funds its own administration, including preparation of Annual CFD Tax Administration Reports. BACKGROUND: On August 14, 2007, the County of Contra Costa Board of Supervisors established CFD No. 2007-1. In a landowner election held the same day, the sole owner of property within the CFD voted to authorize the levy of a Mello-Roos special tax on property within CFD No. 2007-1. At CFD formation, the CFD boundary included two parcels in the Bay Point area of Contra Costa County (County). The future potential annexation area of CFD No. 2007-1 includes all parcels in the unincorporated area of the County that will be developed or redeveloped. In Fiscal Year 2015-2016, three additional development projects had completed annexation into CFD No. 2007-1 for a total of 18 properties that are now a part of this CFD. It is anticipated that subsequent development projects within the unincorporated areas of the County will continue to annex into CFD No. 2007-1. The purpose of the CFD is to generate special tax revenue to fund specified stormwater management facilities services provided by the County to the property owners within CFD 2007-1. The County began to provide authorized APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: John Steere, (925) 313-2281 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Mike Carlson, Deputy Public Works Director, Warren Lai, Engineering Services, Wanda Quever, Finance, Cece Sellgren, Flood Control, John Steere, Flood Control, Catherine Windham, Flood Control C. 87 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Tax Administration Report for Community Facilities District No. 2007-1. Project No. 7517-6W7249 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 761 CFD services during Fiscal Year 2009-2010. California Government Code Sections 50075.3 and 53411 require that specified information be provided to the Board of Supervisors on an annual basis. The reporting requirements include information on Mello-Roos CFD Special Taxes collected and the status of any project required or authorized to be funded by the special taxes. The attached CFD Tax Administration Report fulfills the requirement of the Government Code. Information provided in the CFD Tax Administration Report in compliance with regulatory reporting requirements is summarized below: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 762 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Section 50075.3 Item (a): Identify amount of special taxes that have been collected and expended. Response to Item (a): The fiscal year 2015-2016 special tax levy was $15,901. The total levy has been used to pay Authorized Tier 1 Services as well as administrative costs for the CFD. Item (b): Identify the status of any project required or authorized to be funded by the special taxes. Response to Item (b): The services authorized to be funded from special taxes include stormwater facilities management services that are further described in Section VI of the CFD Tax Administration Report. These services are ongoing. Section 53411 Item (a): Identify the amount of bonds that have been collected and expended. Item (b): Identify the status of any projects required or authorized to be funded from bond proceeds. Response to Items (a) and (b): Section 53411 is not applicable to CFD No. 2007-1, which did not authorize the sale of any bonds or any projects to be funded from bond proceeds. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County may be out of compliance with California Government Code Sections 50075.3 and 53411. ATTACHMENTS CFD Report March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 763 555)University)Ave,)Suite)280)•)Sacramento,)CA)95825 Phone:)l916p)561-0890)•)Fax:)l916p)561-0891 www.goodwinconsultinggroup.net COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2007-1 (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES) CFD TAX ADMINISTRATION REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 January 11, 2017 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 764 Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 II. Purpose of Report ................................................................................................................2 III. Special Tax Requirement .....................................................................................................3 IV. Special Tax Levy .................................................................................................................4 V. Development Status .............................................................................................................8 VI. Authorized Services .............................................................................................................9 VII. Delinquencies .....................................................................................................................11 VIII. Senate Bill 165 Reporting Requirements ...........................................................................12 IX. Assembly Bill 1666 Requirements ....................................................................................13 Appendix A – Summary of Fiscal Year 2016-17 Special Tax Levy Appendix B – Fiscal Year 2016-17 Special Tax Levy for Individual Assessor’s Parcels Appendix C – Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax Appendix D – Boundary Map of Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 Appendix E – Assessor’s Parcel Maps for Fiscal Year 2016-17 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 765 County of Contra Costa i Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following summary provides a brief overview of the main points from this report regarding the County of Contra Costa Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities) (“CFD No. 2007-1” or the “CFD”): Fiscal Year 2016-17 Special Tax Levy Number of Taxed Parcels Total Special Tax Levy 57 $18,249 For further detail regarding the special tax levy, or special tax rates, please refer to Section IV of this report. Development Status for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Type of Property Parcels Agricultural Property 1 parcel Single Family Property 49 parcels Multi-Family Property 0 parcels Other Property 7 parcels For more information regarding the status of development in CFD No. 2007-1, please see Section V of this report. Delinquency Summary Delinquent Amount for FY 2015-16 (as of September 20, 2016) Total Levy for FY 2015-16 Delinquency Rate $122 $15,901 0.77% For additional delinquency information, please see Section VII of this report. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 766 County of Contra Costa 1 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report I. INTRODUCTION Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 On August 14, 2007, the County of Contra Costa (the “County”) Board of Supervisors established CFD No. 2007-1. In a landowner election held on the same day, the sole owner of property within the CFD voted to authorize the levy of a Mello-Roos special tax on property within CFD No. 2007-1. Special tax revenue will fund stormwater management facilities services for the property owners of CFD No. 2007-1 as well as for property owners of territories to be annexed to the CFD in the future. At CFD formation, the CFD boundary included only two parcels located in the north-central part of the County. The future annexation area of CFD No. 2007-1 includes all parcels in the unincorporated portion of the County. It is anticipated that new development in the unincorporated areas of the County will annex into CFD No. 2007-1. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 The California State Legislature (the “Legislature”) approved the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 that provides for the levy of a special tax within a defined geographic area (i.e., a community facilities district), if such a levy is approved by two-thirds of the qualified electors in the area. Community facilities districts can generate funding for a broad range of facilities and eligible services. These services include police protection services, fire protection and suppression services, library services, recreation program services, maintenance of parks, parkways and open space, flood and storm protection services, and road maintenance and street lighting services. Special taxes can be allocated to property in any reasonable manner other than on an ad valorem basis. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 767 County of Contra Costa 2 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report II. PURPOSE OF REPORT This CFD Tax Administration Report (the “Report”) presents findings from research and financial analysis performed by Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. to determine the fiscal year 2016-17 special tax levy for CFD No. 2007-1. The Report is intended to provide information to interested parties regarding the current financial obligations of the CFD and special taxes levied in fiscal year 2016-17. In addition, the Report provides all of the information that must be filed with the County Board of Supervisors pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 165. The remainder of the Report is organized as follows:  Section III identifies the financial obligations of the CFD for fiscal year 2016-17.  Section IV provides a summary of the special tax categories and the methodology that is used to apportion the special tax among parcels in the CFD.  Section V provides an update of the development activity occurring within the CFD, including new building permit activity.  Section VI provides information regarding services authorized to be funded by CFD special taxes.  Section VII provides information regarding special tax delinquencies in the CFD.  Section VIII provides a summary of the reporting requirements set forth in Senate Bill 165, the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act, and the information needed for the County to respond to these requirements.  Section IX provides information on requirements set forth in Assembly Bill 1666. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 768 County of Contra Costa 3 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report III. SPECIAL TAX REQUIREMENT Pursuant to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax (the “RMA”), which was adopted as an exhibit to the Resolution of Formation of CFD No. 2007-1, special taxes will be levied to pay for the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement and Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement. The Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement means the amount for each separate Tax Zone in CFD No. 2007-1 necessary in each fiscal year to (i) pay for Authorized Tier 1 Services, (ii) pay administrative expenses, (iii) cure any delinquencies in the payment of Tier 1 special taxes levied in prior fiscal years or (based on delinquencies in the payment of Tier 1 special taxes which have already taken place) are expected to occur in the current fiscal year, and (iv) to create or replenish reserve funds. The Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement means the amount for any permanent stormwater management facility (“PSWMF”) Service Area within a Tax Zone in CFD No. 2007-1 necessary in each fiscal year to (i) pay for Authorized Tier 2 Services, (ii) pay administrative expenses that have not been included in the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement, (iii) cure any delinquencies in the payment of Tier 2 special taxes levied in prior fiscal years or (based on delinquencies in the payment of Tier 2 special taxes which have already taken place) are expected to occur in the current fiscal year, and (iv) to create or replenish reserve funds. For fiscal year 2016-17, the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement is $0. The fiscal year 2016-17 Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement for Tax Zone 1 is $18,249, as shown in the table below. Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Tax Zone 1 Authorized Tier 1 Services /1 $15,148 Reserve Fund $3,102 Fiscal Year 2016-17 Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement /2 $18,249 /1 Includes costs associated with the administration of the CFD. /2 Total may not sum due to rounding. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 769 County of Contra Costa 4 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report IV. SPECIAL TAX LEVY Special taxes within CFD No. 2007-1 are levied pursuant to the methodology set forth in the RMA. The RMA establishes various special tax categories against which the special tax can be levied, the maximum special tax rates, and the methodology by which the special tax is applied. (Capitalized terms are defined in the RMA in Appendix C of this Report.) Special Tax Categories The RMA establishes tax categories based on a parcel’s current development status. Developed Property is defined as any parcel of taxable property within CFD No. 2007-1 for which (i) a building permit for new construction or substantial redevelopment of a residential or non- residential structure was issued prior to June 1 of the preceding fiscal year, or (ii) land use entitlement(s) involving the creation or redevelopment of impervious surface is granted and exercised where no building permit is required. There are several different types of Developed Property in CFD No. 2007-1; they are further defined as follows:  Agricultural Property means all parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for construction of a structure located on land that is designated for agricultural use pursuant to the County’s General Plan.  Single Family Property is defined as parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for construction of a single family residential unit that does not share a common wall with another unit, except for attached residential second units established pursuant to Section 82-24 of the Zoning Ordinance Code. A parcel of Single Family Property with an attached residential second unit established pursuant to Section 82-24 will be taxed as one parcel of Single Family Property. Parcels of Agricultural Property and parcels where single family residential use is not the primary use are not considered Single Family Property.  Multi-Family Property is defined as parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for construction of a residential structure that (i) is located within a mobile home park, or (ii) consists of two or more residential units that share common walls, including duplex, triplex and fourplex units, townhomes, condominiums and apartment units. Multi-Family Property excludes residential second units established pursuant to Section 82-24 of the Zoning Ordinance Code.  Other Property means parcels of Developed Property that are not Agricultural Property, Single Family Property, or Multi-Family Property. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 770 County of Contra Costa 5 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report Maximum Special Tax Rates Each Tax Zone has its own set of maximum special tax rates applicable to each category of property in CFD No. 2007-1. As of the date of this Report, there is only one Tax Zone in the CFD. The maximum special tax rates applicable to each category of property in CFD No. 2007-1 are set forth in Section C of the RMA. The following table identifies the maximum special taxes that can be levied on property in Tax Zone 1 of CFD No. 2007-1 for fiscal year 2016-17. Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 Fiscal Year 2016-17 Maximum Special Tax Rates Tax Zone 1 Agricultural Property, Single Family Property, and Multi-Family Property Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax Total Maximum Special Taxes Agricultural Property N/A $753.68 $12,529.16 $13,282.84 Less than 5,000 Parcel Sq.Ft. $467.42 $7,770.18 $8,237.60 5,000 to 5,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $475.30 $7,901.42 $8,376.72 6,000 to 6,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $483.88 $8,043.84 $8,527.72 7,000 to 7,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $491.80 $8,175.82 $8,667.62 8,000 to 9,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $503.02 $8,362.24 $8,865.26 10,000 to 13,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $526.76 $8,756.72 $9,283.48 14,000 to 19,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $565.02 $9,392.80 $9,957.82 20,000 to 29,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $622.40 $10,346.52 $10,968.92 30,000 to 39,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $690.36 $11,476.24 $12,166.60 Greater than or Equal to 40,000 Parcel Sq.Ft.$753.68 $12,529.16 $13,282.84 Less than 2,500 Unit Sq.Ft. $357.50 $5,943.22 $6,300.72 2,500 to 2,999 Unit Sq.Ft. $360.50 $5,993.20 $6,353.70 3,000 to 3,999 Unit Sq.Ft. $373.08 $6,201.98 $6,575.06 4,000 to 4,999 Unit Sq.Ft. $388.92 $6,465.22 $6,854.14 5,000 to 5,999 Unit Sq.Ft. $405.38 $6,738.88 $7,144.26 6,000 to 6,999 Unit Sq.Ft. $421.88 $7,013.30 $7,435.18 7,000 to 7,999 Unit Sq.Ft. $437.72 $7,276.52 $7,714.24 Greater than or Equal to 8,000 Unit Sq.Ft.$445.66 $7,408.52 $7,854.18 Single Family Property Multi-Family Property Type of Property Square Footage (Sq.Ft.) Fiscal Year 2016-17 Per Parcel Per Unit Per Parcel March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 771 County of Contra Costa 6 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 Fiscal Year 2016-17 Maximum Special Tax Rates Tax Zone 1 Other Property * Totals may not sum due to rounding. Apportionment of Special Taxes The amount of special tax levied on each parcel in the CFD each fiscal year will be determined by application of Section D of the RMA. Pursuant to this section, the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement will be allocated as follows: For each Tax Zone, the Tier 1 special tax will be levied until the amount of the levy equals the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement. The first step requires the Tier 1 special taxes to be levied proportionately on each parcel of Developed Property that is not Taxable Public Property up to 100% of Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax for that Tax Zone, until the amount levied is equal to the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement for the Tax Zone. If additional revenue is needed after the first step is completed, then the Tier 1 special tax will be levied proportionately on each parcel of Taxable Public Property up to 100% of the Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax that had applied to the parcel prior to the parcel becoming Taxable Public Property, until the amount levied is equal to the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement for the Tax Zone. The Tier 1 special tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem taxes, provided, however, that the County may bill directly, collect at a different time or in a different manner. Also pursuant to Section D of the RMA, the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement shall be allocated as follows: For each PSWMF Service Area in a Tax Zone, the Tier 2 special tax, if applicable, will be levied until the amount of the levy equals the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement. The first step requires the Tier 2 special taxes to be levied proportionately on each parcel of Developed Property that is not Taxable Public Property up to 100% of Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax for that Tax Zone, until the amount levied is equal to the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement for the PSWMF Service Area. Base Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax (per Parcel) Incremental Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax (per Impervious Square Foot) Base Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax (per Parcel) Incremental Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax (per Impervious Square Foot) Base Maximum Special Taxes (per Parcel) Incremental Maximum Special Taxes (per Impervious Square Foot) $367.38 $0.03 $7,481.19 $0.16 $7,848.57 $0.19 Fiscal Year 2016-17 Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax Total Maximum Special Taxes* March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 772 County of Contra Costa 7 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report If additional revenue is needed after the first step is completed, then the Tier 2 special tax will be levied proportionately on each parcel of Taxable Public Property up to 100% of the Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax that had applied to the parcel prior to the parcel becoming Taxable Public Property, until the amount levied is equal to the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement for the PSWMF Service Area. The Tier 2 special tax shall be billed directly to the property owner(s) within a PSWMF Service Area on an as needed basis. Application of the Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax rate to all the parcels of Developed Property for fiscal year 2016-17 will generate Tier 1 special tax revenue of $42,271. However, since the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement for fiscal year 2016-17 is only $18,249, Developed Property will not be taxed at the maximum tax rate. Only the amount needed to generate the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement of $18,249 will be levied, which is approximately 43.17% of the maximum. Since the tax on Developed Property fully funds the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement for fiscal year 2016-17, no tax shall be levied on Taxable Public Property. Since the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement for fiscal year 2016-17 is $0, no Tier 2 special taxes shall be levied. A summary of the maximum and actual special taxes levied in fiscal year 2016-17 is presented in Appendix A. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 773 County of Contra Costa 8 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report V. DEVELOPMENT STATUS As of May 31, 2016, 57 building permits have been issued within CFD No. 2007-1. Of these 57 permits, 49 have been issued on parcels of Single Family Property, one has been issued on a parcel of Agricultural Property, and seven have been issued on parcels of Other Property. Based on the current status of development in CFD No. 2007-1, the following table summarizes the allocation of parcels to special tax categories defined in the RMA: Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 Allocation to Special Tax Categories Fiscal Year 2016-17 Type of Property Number of Parcels Agricultural Property 1 Single Family Property 49 Multi-Family Property 0 Other Property 7 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 774 County of Contra Costa 9 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report VI. AUTHORIZED SERVICES The Resolution of Formation adopted on August 14, 2007, authorizes the funding of the following services within CFD No. 2007-1: Services The services to be funded, in whole or in part, by the CFD include all direct and incidental costs related to County oversight and enforcement of the obligations of property owners and homeowners’ associations for the monitoring, inspection, reporting, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction, and replacement of PSWMFs for property included in the CFD: Tier 1. Periodic monitoring, inspection and reporting of PSWMFs, including but not limited to site visits, completion of inspection forms and records, review of property owner self-inspection and other records; provision of certification letters and/or maintenance recommendations; management of data and records related to operation and maintenance of PSWMFs; preparation and submission of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and other governmental reports and CFD required reports; and the accumulation of administrative and liability reserves. Tier 2. Code enforcement, nuisance abatement, and other activities related to the operation and maintenance of PSWMFs, including but not limited to additional site visits, letters and notices to property owners and others; hearings; lien recordation and enforcement; attorney’s fees and other legal expenses; periodic maintenance activities, such as mulching, removing trash and invasive vegetation, filling soil, mowing, and trimming vegetation; repair, reconstruction, and replacement work; and the accumulation of administrative and liability reserves. In addition to the specific services described under Tier 1 and Tier 2, the CFD may fund any other costs, expenses, or liabilities in connection with the monitoring, inspection, reporting, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction, and replacement of PSWMFs. The CFD may fund any of the following related to the services described above: obtaining, constructing, furnishing, operating and maintaining equipment, apparatus or facilities, paying the salaries and benefits of personnel (including but not limited to inspection and maintenance workers and other personnel), and for payment of other related expenses (including but not limited to employee benefit expenses and an allocation of general overhead expenses). Any services to be funded by the CFD must be in addition to those provided in the territory of the CFD before the date of creation of the CFD, and may not supplant services already available within that territory when the CFD is created. It is expected that the services will be provided by the County, either with its own employees or by contract with third parties, or by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, or any combination thereof. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 775 County of Contra Costa 10 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report Administrative Expenses The direct and indirect expenses incurred by the County in connection with the establishment and administration of the CFD (including, but not limited to, the levy and collection of the special taxes) including the fees and expenses of attorneys, any fees of the County related to the CFD or the collection of special taxes, an allocable share of the salaries of County staff directly related thereto and a proportionate amount of the County’s general administrative overhead related thereto, any amounts paid by the County from its general fund with respect to the CFD or the services authorized to be financed by the CFD, and expenses incurred by the County in undertaking action to foreclose on properties for which the payment of special taxes is delinquent, and all other costs and expenses of the County in any way related to the CFD. Other The incidental expenses that may be financed by the CFD include: (i) all costs associated with the establishment and administration of the CFD, the determination of the amount of and collection of taxes, the payment of taxes, and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the CFD, (ii) any other expenses incidental to the provision of the services eligible to be funded by the CFD, and (iii) any amounts necessary to maintain a reserve required by the County for the payment of the costs of the services. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 776 County of Contra Costa 11 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report VII. DELINQUENCIES As of September 20, 2016, the Contra Costa County Auditor’s Office reports the following delinquency amounts for CFD No. 2007-1: Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 Delinquencies as of September 20, 2016 Fiscal Year Parcels Delinquent Delinquent Amount CFD Tax Levied Percent Delinquent 2015-16 1 $122 $15,901 0.77% March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 777 County of Contra Costa 12 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report VIII. SENATE BILL 165 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS On September 18, 2000, former Governor Gray Davis approved Senate Bill 165 which enacted the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act. In approving the bill, the Legislature pointed out that local agencies need to demonstrate to the voters that special taxes and bond proceeds are being spent on the facilities and services for which they were intended. To further this objective, the Legislature added Sections 50075.3 and 53411 to the California Government Code setting forth annual reporting requirements relative to special taxes collected and bonds issued by a local public agency. A response to each of the reporting requirements in SB 165 is provided below. Pursuant to Sections 50075.3 and 53411, the chief fiscal officer of the County will, by January 1, 2002, and at least once a year thereafter, file a report with the Board of Supervisors (which may be this CFD Tax Administration Report) setting forth the following information. Section 50075.3 Item (a): Identify amount of special taxes that have been collected and expended. The fiscal year 2015-16 special tax levy was $15,901. Since the CFD is on the County Teeter Plan, the full amount of the tax levy was remitted to the CFD. The total levy was used to pay Authorized Tier 1 Services as well as administrative costs for the CFD. Item (b): Identify the status of any project required or authorized to be funded by the special taxes. The services authorized to be funded from special taxes include stormwater facilities management services and are further described in Section VI of this Report. These services are ongoing. Section 53411 Item (a): Identify the amount of bonds that have been collected and expended. Item (b): Identify the status of any projects required or authorized to be funded from bond proceeds. Response to Items (a) and (b): Section 53411 is not applicable to CFD No. 2007-1, which did not authorize the sale of any bonds or any projects to be funded from bond proceeds. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 778 County of Contra Costa 13 Fiscal Year 2016-17 CFD No. 2007-1 CFD Tax Administration Report IX. ASSEMBLY BILL 1666 REQUIREMENTS On July 25, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill No. 1666, adding Section 53343.2 to the California Government Code (“GC”). The bill enhances the transparency of community facilities districts by requiring that certain reports be accessible on a local agency’s web site. Pursuant to Section 53343.2, a local agency that has a web site shall, within seven months after the last day of each fiscal year of the district, display prominently on its web site the following information: Item (a): A copy of an annual report, if requested, pursuant to GC Section 53343.1. The report required by Section 53343.1 includes CFD budgetary information for the prior fiscal year and is only prepared by a community facilities district at the request of a person who resides in or owns property in the community facilities district. If the annual report has not been requested to be prepared, then a posting to the web site would not be necessary. Item (b): A copy of the report provided to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (“CDIAC”) pursuant to GC Section 53359.5. Under Section 53359.5, local agencies must provide CDIAC with the following: (i) notice of proposed sale of bonds; (ii) annual reports on the fiscal status of bonded districts; and (iii) notice of any failure to pay debt service on bonds, or of any draw on a reserve fund to pay debt service on bonds. Item (c): A copy of the report provided to the State Controller’s Office pursuant to GC Section 12463.2. This section refers to the parcel tax portion of a local agency’s Financial Transactions Report that is prepared for the State Controller’s Office annually. Note that school districts are not subject to the reporting required by GC Section 12463.2. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 779 APPENDIX A Summary of Fiscal Year 2016-17 Special Tax Levy March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 780 Impervious FY 2016-17 Sq. Ft.Total Special Tax Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 1 Tier 2 Agricultural Property $753.68 $12,529.16 n/a n/a $325.38 $0.00 n/a n/a 1 parcels n/a $325.38 Single Family Property Less than 5,000 Parcel Sq.Ft.$467.42 $7,770.18 n/a n/a $201.80 $0.00 n/a n/a 9 parcels n/a $1,816.20 5,000 to 5,999 Parcel Sq.Ft.$475.30 $7,901.42 n/a n/a $205.20 $0.00 n/a n/a 2 parcels n/a $410.40 6,000 to 6,999 Parcel Sq.Ft.$483.88 $8,043.84 n/a n/a $208.90 $0.00 n/a n/a 3 parcels n/a $626.70 7,000 to 7,999 Parcel Sq.Ft.$491.80 $8,175.82 n/a n/a $212.32 $0.00 n/a n/a 5 parcels n/a $1,061.60 8,000 to 9,999 Parcel Sq.Ft.$503.02 $8,362.24 n/a n/a $217.16 $0.00 n/a n/a 3 parcels n/a $651.48 10,000 to 13,999 Parcel Sq.Ft.$526.76 $8,756.72 n/a n/a $227.42 $0.00 n/a n/a 3 parcels n/a $682.26 14,000 to 19,999 Parcel Sq.Ft.$565.02 $9,392.80 n/a n/a $243.94 $0.00 n/a n/a 7 parcels n/a $1,707.58 20,000 to 29,999 Parcel Sq.Ft.$622.40 $10,346.52 n/a n/a $268.70 $0.00 n/a n/a 9 parcels n/a $2,687.00 30,000 to 39,999 Parcel Sq.Ft.$690.36 $11,476.24 n/a n/a $298.04 $0.00 n/a n/a 2 parcels n/a $596.08 Greater than or Equal to $753.68 $12,529.16 n/a n/a $325.38 $0.00 n/a n/a 6 parcels n/a $1,952.28 40,000 Parcel Sq.Ft. Multi-Family Property Less than 2,500 Unit Sq.Ft.$357.50 $5,943.22 n/a n/a $154.34 $0.00 n/a n/a 0 units n/a $0.00 2,500 to 2,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$360.50 $5,993.20 n/a n/a $155.64 $0.00 n/a n/a 0 units n/a $0.00 3,000 to 3,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$373.08 $6,201.98 n/a n/a $161.06 $0.00 n/a n/a 0 units n/a $0.00 4,000 to 4,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$388.92 $6,465.22 n/a n/a $167.90 $0.00 n/a n/a 0 units n/a $0.00 5,000 to 5,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$405.38 $6,738.88 n/a n/a $175.02 $0.00 n/a n/a 0 units n/a $0.00 6,000 to 6,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$421.88 $7,013.30 n/a n/a $182.14 $0.00 n/a n/a 0 units n/a $0.00 7,000 to 7,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$437.72 $7,276.52 n/a n/a $188.98 $0.00 n/a n/a 0 units n/a $0.00 Greater than or Equal to $445.66 $7,408.52 n/a n/a $192.40 $0.00 n/a n/a 0 units n/a $0.00 8,000 Unit Sq.Ft. Other Property $367.38 $7,481.19 $0.03 $0.16 $158.60 $0.00 $0.01 $0.00 7 parcels 329,882 $5,732.48 Total FY 2016-17 Special Tax Levy $18,249.44 Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. County of Contra Costa Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 Special Tax Levy Summary for FY 2016-17 (Stormwater Management Facilities) Units Parcels/ Maximum Special Taxes Tax Zone 1 Type of Property FY 2016-17 Actual Special Taxes FY 2016-17 (per parcel) (per unit) (per parcel) (per unit) (per parcel)(per Impervious Square Foot)(per Impervious Square Foot) (per parcel) (per parcel) (per parcel) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 781 APPENDIX B Fiscal Year 2016-17 Special Tax Levy for Individual Assessor’s Parcels March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 782 Parcel Impervious Assessor's Tax Development Type of Square Square Parcel Number Zone Status Property Footage Footage 095-060-026-2 1 Developed Single Family 4,393 $201.80 $0.00 $201.80 095-060-027-0 1 Developed Single Family 3,740 $201.80 $0.00 $201.80 095-060-028-8 1 Developed Single Family 3,742 $201.80 $0.00 $201.80 095-060-029-6 1 Developed Single Family 4,393 $201.80 $0.00 $201.80 095-060-030-4 1 Developed Single Family 5,351 $205.20 $0.00 $205.20 095-060-031-2 1 Developed Single Family 3,157 $201.80 $0.00 $201.80 095-060-032-0 1 Developed Single Family 3,162 $201.80 $0.00 $201.80 095-060-033-8 1 Developed Single Family 3,454 $201.80 $0.00 $201.80 095-060-034-6 1 Developed Single Family 4,426 $201.80 $0.00 $201.80 096-031-022-5 1 Developed Other N/A 53,431 $774.96 $0.00 $774.96 098-180-027-9 1 Undeveloped Single Family N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 098-180-030-3 1 Undeveloped Single Family N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 099-210-023-0 1 Developed Other N/A 19,026 $378.08 $0.00 $378.08 116-100-051-6 1 Developed Single Family 14,985 $243.94 $0.00 $243.94 116-100-052-4 1 Developed Single Family 21,649 $268.70 $0.00 $268.70 116-100-053-2 1 Developed Single Family 24,611 $268.70 $0.00 $268.70 116-100-054-0 1 Developed Single Family 17,947 $243.94 $0.00 $243.94 116-100-055-7 1 Developed Single Family 18,034 $243.94 $0.00 $243.94 116-100-056-5 1 Developed Single Family 16,553 $243.94 $0.00 $243.94 116-100-057-3 1 Developed Single Family 17,380 $243.94 $0.00 $243.94 116-100-058-1 1 Developed Single Family 31,537 $298.04 $0.00 $298.04 148-480-014-7 1 Developed Other N/A 125,987 $1,611.90 $0.00 $1,611.90 159-040-094-9 1 Developed Other N/A 27,925 $480.74 $0.00 $480.74 166-010-042-9 1 Developed Single Family 18,330 $243.94 $0.00 $243.94 166-010-043-7 1 Developed Single Family 14,280 $243.94 $0.00 $243.94 166-010-044-5 1 Undeveloped Single Family 22,825 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 166-010-045-2 1 Developed Single Family 37,000 $298.04 $0.00 $298.04 166-010-046-0 1 Undeveloped Single Family 30,400 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 166-010-047-8 1 Developed Single Family 50,200 $325.38 $0.00 $325.38 166-010-048-6 1 Developed Single Family 24,700 $268.70 $0.00 $268.70 166-010-049-4 1 Developed Single Family 22,170 $268.70 $0.00 $268.70 166-010-050-2 1 Undeveloped Single Family 39,200 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 180-131-001-0 1 Undeveloped Single Family 36,024 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 184-100-034-0 1 Developed Single Family 6,217 $208.90 $0.00 $208.90 184-100-035-7 1 Developed Single Family 4,343 $201.80 $0.00 $201.80 184-100-036-5 1 Developed Single Family 6,971 $208.90 $0.00 $208.90 184-100-037-3 1 Developed Single Family 9,129 $217.16 $0.00 $217.16 184-100-038-1 1 Developed Single Family 7,349 $212.32 $0.00 $212.32 184-100-039-9 1 Developed Single Family 13,573 $227.42 $0.00 $227.42 184-100-040-7 1 Developed Single Family 13,993 $227.42 $0.00 $227.42 184-100-041-5 1 Developed Single Family 11,496 $227.42 $0.00 $227.42 184-100-042-3 1 Developed Single Family 7,187 $212.32 $0.00 $212.32 184-100-043-1 1 Developed Single Family 7,864 $212.32 $0.00 $212.32 184-100-044-9 1 Developed Single Family 6,787 $208.90 $0.00 $208.90 184-100-045-6 1 Developed Single Family 8,090 $217.16 $0.00 $217.16 184-100-046-4 1 Developed Single Family 8,061 $217.16 $0.00 $217.16 184-100-047-2 1 Developed Single Family 7,514 $212.32 $0.00 $212.32 184-100-048-0 1 Developed Single Family 5,083 $205.20 $0.00 $205.20 184-100-049-8 1 Developed Single Family 7,578 $212.32 $0.00 $212.32 184-311-004-8 1 Undeveloped Single Family 33,500 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 184-450-038-7 1 Developed Other N/A 28,533 $487.74 $0.00 $487.74 /1 187-180-018-9 1 Developed Single Family 59,067 $537.40 $0.00 $537.40 187-231-034-5 1 Developed Single Family 24,350 $268.70 $0.00 $268.70 187-231-035-2 1 Developed Single Family 20,909 $268.70 $0.00 $268.70 192-240-024-5 1 Developed Single Family 41,469 $325.38 $0.00 $325.38 County of Contra Costa Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities) Special Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Special Tax Special Tax FY 2016-17 Total Actual Special Tax FY 2016-17 Tier 1 Actual FY 2016-17 Tier 2 Actual Page 1 of 2March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 783 Parcel Impervious Assessor's Tax Development Type of Square Square Parcel Number Zone Status Property Footage Footage County of Contra Costa Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities) Special Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Special Tax Special Tax FY 2016-17 Total Actual Special Tax FY 2016-17 Tier 1 Actual FY 2016-17 Tier 2 Actual 192-240-025-2 1 Undeveloped Single Family 66,342 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 195-351-044-1 1 Developed Single Family 41,251 $325.38 $0.00 $325.38 195-351-045-8 1 Developed Single Family 56,149 $325.38 $0.00 $325.38 198-081-021-0 1 Developed Single Family 21,780 $268.70 $0.00 $268.70 198-081-022-8 1 Developed Single Family 21,780 $268.70 $0.00 $268.70 198-100-005-0 1 Developed Single Family 40,075 $325.38 $0.00 $325.38 198-100-006-8 1 Undeveloped Single Family 42,253 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 198-100-009-2 1 Developed Single Family 78,626 $325.38 $0.00 $325.38 198-100-010-0 1 Undeveloped Single Family 87,294 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 223-042-007-3 1 Developed Agricultural N/A $325.38 $0.00 $325.38 380-010-026-9 1 Developed Other N/A 74,980 $1,023.52 $0.00 $1,023.52 /2 420-080-025-0 1 Developed Other N/A 70,820 $975.54 $0.00 $975.54 /3 Total Special Tax Levy for FY 2016-17 $18,249.44 /1 Project spans over three parcels; the Incremental Special Tax per Impervious Square Foot for APNs 184-450-039-5 and 184-450-040-3 is levied on APN 184-450-038-7. /2 Project spans over two parcels; the Incremental Special Tax per Impervious Square Foot for APN 380-010-023-6 is levied on APN 380-010-026-9. /3 Project spans over three parcels; the Incremental Special Tax per Impervious Square Foot for APNs 419-180-020-2 and 420-080-004-5 is levied on APN 420-080-025-0. Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc. Page 2 of 2March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 784 APPENDIX C Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 785 CCC CFD No. 2007-1 1 July 2, 2007 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2007-1 (STORMWATER FACILITY MAINTENANCE) RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX Special Taxes applicable to each Assessor’s Parcel in Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Facility Maintenance) [herein “CFD No. 2007-1” or “CFD”] shall be levied and collected according to the tax liability determined by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of CFD No. 2007-1, through the application of the appropriate Special Taxes, as described below. All of the property in CFD No. 2007-1, unless exempted by law or by the provisions of Section E below, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided, including property subsequently annexed to CFD No. 2007-1 unless a separate Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax is adopted for the annexation area. A. DEFINITIONS The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings: “Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311), Division 2, of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. “Administrative Expenses” means the direct and indirect expenses incurred by the CFD or the County in connection with the establishment and administration of CFD No. 2007-1 (including, but not limited to, the levy and collection of the Special Taxes) including the fees and expenses of attorneys, any fees of the County or the CFD related to CFD No. 2007-1 or the collection of Special Taxes, an allocable share of the salaries of County or CFD staff directly related thereto and a proportionate amount of the County’s and the CFD’s general administrative overhead related thereto, any amounts paid by the County or the CFD from their respective general funds with respect to CFD No. 2007-1 or the services authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2007-1, and expenses incurred by the County or the CFD in undertaking action to foreclose on properties for which the payment of Special Taxes is delinquent, any amounts necessary to maintain a reserve required by CFD No. 2007-1 for the payment of services and all other costs and expenses of the County or the CFD in any way related to CFD No. 2007-1. “Administrator” means the person or firm designated by the Board of Supervisors to administer the Special Taxes according to this RMA. “Agricultural Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for construction of a structure located on land that is designated for agricultural use pursuant to the County’s General Plan. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 786 CCC CFD No. 2007-1 2 July 2, 2007 “Assessor’s Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor’s Parcel number. “Authorized Services” means, collectively, the Authorized Tier 1 Services and Authorized Tier 2 Services. “Authorized Tier 1 Services” means the public services identified as Tier 1 services that are authorized to be funded by CFD No. 2007-1, as set forth in the CFD formation documents adopted by the Board of Supervisors. “Authorized Tier 2 Services” means the public services identified as Tier 2 services that are authorized to be funded by CFD No. 2007-1, as set forth in the CFD formation documents adopted by the Board of Supervisors. “Board of Supervisors” means the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2007-1. “County” means the County of Contra Costa. “Developed Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Taxable Property for which (i) a building permit for new construction or substantial redevelopment of a residential or non- residential structure was issued prior to June 1 of the preceding Fiscal Year, or (ii) land use entitlement(s) involving the creation or redevelopment of impervious surface is granted and exercised where no building permit is required. . Developed Property shall not include Parcels on which a structure(s) exists at the time CFD No. 2007-1 was formed unless additional building permits are issued for additional development or substantial redevelopment on the Parcel or, for future annexations, at the time that Parcel(s) is annexed to CFD No. 2007-1. “Fiscal Year” means the period starting on July 1 and ending on the following June 30. “Impervious Square Foot” or “Impervious Square Footage” means the impervious square footage assigned to a Parcel as determined by the County Public Works Department. “Maximum Special Taxes” means, collectively, the Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax and Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax. “Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax” means the maximum Tier 1 Special Tax that can be levied on Taxable Property in any Fiscal Year determined in accordance with Section C below. “Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax” means the maximum Tier 2 Special Tax that can be levied on Taxable Property in any Fiscal Year determined in accordance with Section C below. “Multi-Family Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for construction of a residential structure that (i) is located within a mobile home park, or (ii) consists of two or more residential units that share common walls, including duplex, triplex and fourplex units, townhomes, condominiums and apartment March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 787 CCC CFD No. 2007-1 3 July 2, 2007 units. Multi-Family Property excludes residential second units established pursuant to Section 82-24 of the Zoning Ordinance Code. “Other Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Developed Property that are not Agricultural Property, Single Family Property, or Multi-Family Property. “Parcel” see definition of Assessor’s Parcel. “Parcel Square Foot” or “Parcel Square Footage” means, for Agricultural Property and Single Family Property, the square footage assigned to a Parcel as determined by the County Public Works Department based on information from the Assessor’s Parcel map. “PSWMF” means any permanent stormwater management facility for treatment and/or flood control, as determined by the County Public Works Department, located within the boundaries of CFD No. 2007-1. “PSWMF Service Area” means an area within a Tax Zone, as determined by the County Public Works Department, that is comprised of one or more Parcels that are served by a specific PSWMF. “Public Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2007-1 that is owned or irrevocable offered for dedication to the federal government, State of California, County, or other local governments or public agencies. “RMA” means this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax. “Single Family Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for construction of a single family residential unit that does not share a common wall with another unit, except for attached residential second units established pursuant to Section 82-24 of the Zoning Ordinance Code. A Parcel of Single Family Property with an attached residential second unit established pursuant to Section 82-24 will be taxed as one Parcel of Single Family Property pursuant to this RMA. Excepted from classification as Single Family Property are Parcels of Agricultural Property and Parcels for which the single family residential use is not the primary use. “Special Taxes” means, collectively, the Tier 1 Special Tax and Tier 2 Special Tax. “Taxable Property” means all Assessors’ Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2007-1 that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section E below. “Taxable Public Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Assessors’ Parcels in CFD No. 2007-1 that had, in prior Fiscal Years, been taxed as Developed Property and subsequently have come under the ownership of a public agency. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 788 CCC CFD No. 2007-1 4 July 2, 2007 “Tax Zone” means one of the mutually exclusive tax zones identified in Attachment 2 of this RMA. Attachment 2 will be updated to include new Tax Zones or new Parcels added to CFD No. 2007-1 as a result of future annexations to the CFD. “Tier 1 Special Tax” means a special tax levied in any Fiscal Year to pay the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement. “Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement” means the amount for each separate Tax Zone in CFD No. 2007-1 necessary in any Fiscal Year to (i) pay for Authorized Tier 1 Services, (ii) pay Administrative Expenses for the Fiscal Year, (iii) cure any delinquencies in the payment of Tier 1 Special Taxes levied in prior Fiscal Years or (based on delinquencies in the payment of Tier 1 Special Taxes which have already taken place) are expected to occur in the current Fiscal Year, and (iv) to create or replenish reserve funds. “Tier 2 Special Tax” means a special tax levied in any Fiscal Year to pay the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement. “Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement” means, for any PSWMF Service Area within a Tax Zone, that amount necessary in any Fiscal Year to (i) pay for Authorized Tier 2 Services, (ii) pay Administrative Expenses that have not been included in the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement, (iii) cure any delinquencies in the payment of Tier 2 Special Taxes levied in prior Fiscal Years or (based on delinquencies in the payment of Tier 2 Special Taxes which have already taken place) are expected to occur in the current Fiscal Year, and (iv) to create or replenish reserve funds. “Unit” means (i) for Single Family Property, an individual single-family unit, (ii) for Multi- Family Property, an individual residential unit within a duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhome, condominium, apartment structure, or mobile home park. “Unit Square Foot” or “Unit Square Footage” means, for Multi-Family Property, the square footage assigned to a Parcel as determined by the County Public Works Department, based on information from the Assessor’s Parcel map, divided by the number of Units on that Parcel. B. DATA COLLECTION FOR ANNUAL TAX LEVY Each Fiscal Year, the Administrator shall identify the current Assessor’s Parcel numbers for all Parcels of Developed Property within CFD No. 2007-1 and shall determine within which Tax Zone each Assessor’s Parcel is located. Upon each annexation of property into CFD No. 2007-1, the Administrator shall update Attachment 2 of this RMA to include each new Parcel that is annexed into an existing Tax Zone or, if a new Tax Zone is created, each new Tax Zone and the Assessor’s Parcel(s) included in the Tax Zone. If a new Tax Zone is created, the Administrator shall update Attachment 1 of this RMA to include the Maximum Special Taxes for that Tax Zone. The Administrator shall also determine: (i) whether each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property is Agricultural Property, Single Family Property, Multi-Family Property, or Other Property, (ii) for Parcels of Agricultural Property and Single Family Property, the Parcel Square Footage of each Parcel, (ii) for Parcels of Multi-Family Property, the number of Units, the total March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 789 CCC CFD No. 2007-1 5 July 2, 2007 square footage of each Parcel, and the Unit Square Footage of each Unit, and (iii) for Other Property, the Impervious Square Footage of each Parcel. For Multi-Family Property, the number of Units shall be determined by referencing the development plan for the property or other County development records. Finally, the Administrator shall also determine the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement for each Tax Zone. The Administrator shall, on an ongoing basis, coordinate with County staff to determine whether a Tier 2 Special Tax levy will be required for any PSWMF Service Area. If such a levy is required, the Administrator shall determine the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement for the PSWMF Service Area subject to the Tier 2 Special Tax levy. The Administrator shall also determine the current Assessor’s Parcel number, the Parcel Square Footage of all Parcels of Agricultural Property and Single Family Property, the Unit Square Footage of all Parcels of Multi-Family Property, and the Impervious Square Footage of all Parcels of Other Property in the PSWMF Service Area subject to the levy. In any Fiscal Year, if it is determined that (i) a parcel map for a portion of property in CFD No. 2007-1 was recorded after January 1 of the prior Fiscal Year (or any other date after which the Assessor will not incorporate the newly-created Parcels into the then current tax roll), (ii) because of the date the parcel map was recorded, the Assessor does not yet recognize the new Parcels created by the parcel map, and (iii) one or more of the newly-created Parcels meets the definition of Developed Property, the Administrator shall calculate the Special Tax for the property affected by recordation of the parcel map by determining the Special Tax that applies separately to each newly-created Parcel, then applying the sum of the individual Special Taxes to the Parcel that was subdivided by recordation of the parcel map. C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAXES The Maximum Special Tax rates for each Tax Zone are shown in Attachment 1 of this RMA. The Maximum Special Taxes for a Parcel of Taxable Property shall be determined by the following: 1. Agricultural Property or Single Family Property The Maximum Special Taxes for a Parcel of Agricultural Property or Single Family Property is the sum of the applicable Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax and the Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax rates shown in Attachment 1 of this RMA for the Tax Zone and the then current Fiscal Year. 2. Multi-Family Property The Maximum Special Taxes for a Parcel of Multi-Family Property is the sum of (i) the number of Units on the Parcel multiplied by the applicable Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax rate for such Parcel, and (ii) the number of Units on the Parcel multiplied by the applicable Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax rate for such Parcel, as shown in Attachment 1 of this RMA for the Tax Zone and the then current Fiscal Year. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 790 CCC CFD No. 2007-1 6 July 2, 2007 3. Other Property The Maximum Special Taxes for a Parcel of Other Property is the sum of the Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax and Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax for such Parcel. The Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax for such Parcel is the sum of: (i) the base Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax for the Tax Zone, and (ii) the incremental Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax multiplied by the Parcel’s Impervious Square Footage for the Tax Zone, as shown in Attachment 1 of this RMA. The Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax for such Parcel is the sum of: (i) the base Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax for the Tax Zone, and (ii) the incremental Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax multiplied by the Parcel’s Impervious Square Footage for the Tax Zone, as shown in Attachment 1 of this RMA. D. METHOD OF LEVY AND MANNER OF COLLECTION OF THE SPECIAL TAXES The Special Taxes shall be levied and collected according to the methodology outlined below: 1. Tier 1 Special Tax For each Tax Zone, the Tier 1 Special Tax shall be levied as follows until the amount of the levy equals the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement for that Tax Zone. Step 1: The Tier 1 Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Parcel of Developed Property that is not Taxable Public Property up to 100% of the Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax for that Tax Zone, as shown in Attachment 1 of this RMA, until the amount levied is equal to the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement for the Tax Zone. Step 2: If additional revenue is needed after Step 2, the Tier 1 Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Parcel of Taxable Public Property up to 100% of the Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax that had applied to the Parcel prior to the Parcel becoming Taxable Public Property, until the amount levied is equal to the Tier 1 Special Tax Requirement for the Tax Zone. The Tier 1 Special Tax for CFD No. 2007-1 shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that the County may bill directly, collect at a different time or in a different manner. 2. Tier 2 Special Tax For any PSWMF Service Area in a Tax Zone, the Tier 2 Special Tax, if applicable, shall be levied as follows until the amount of the levy equals the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement for that PSWMF Service Area. Step 1: The Tier 2 Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Parcel of Developed Property that is not Taxable Public Property up to 100% of the March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 791 CCC CFD No. 2007-1 7 July 2, 2007 Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax for that Tax Zone, as shown in Attachment 1 of this RMA, until the amount levied is equal to the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement for the PSWMF Service Area. Step 2: If additional revenue is needed after Step 1, the Tier 2 Special Tax shall be levied proportionately on each Parcel of Taxable Public Property up to 100% of the Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax that had applied to the Parcel prior to the Parcel becoming Taxable Public Property, until the amount levied is equal to the Tier 2 Special Tax Requirement for the PSWMF Service Area. The Tier 2 Special Tax for CFD No. 2007-1 shall be billed directly to the property owner(s) within a PSWMF Service Area on an as needed basis. E. LIMITATIONS Notwithstanding any other provision of this RMA, no Special Tax shall be levied on Public Property that is not Taxable Public Property or property owned by a homeowner’s or property owner’s association. F. INTERPRETATION OF SPECIAL TAX FORMULA The County reserves the right to make minor administrative and technical changes to this document that do not materially affect the rate and method of apportioning Special Taxes. In addition, the interpretation and application of any section of this document shall be left to the County’s discretion. Interpretations may be made by the County by resolution of the Board of Supervisors for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity in this RMA. G. APPEAL OF SPECIAL TAX LEVY Any property owner claiming that the amount or application of the Special Tax is not correct may file a written notice of appeal with the Administrator not later than one calendar year after having paid the Special Tax that is disputed. The Administrator shall promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the property owner, consider written and oral evidence regarding the amount of the Special Tax, and decide the appeal. If the property owner disagrees with the Administrator’s decision relative to the appeal, the owner may then file a written appeal with the Board of Supervisors whose subsequent decision shall be binding. If the decision of the Administrator (if the appeal is not filed with the Board of Supervisors) or the Board of Supervisors (if the appeal is filed with the Board of Supervisors) requires the Special Tax to be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, no cash refund shall be made for prior years’ Special Tax levies, but an adjustment shall be made to the next Special Tax levy. This procedure shall be exclusive and its exhaustion by any property owner shall be a condition precedent to any legal action by such owner. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 792 Agricultural Property N/A $564.17 per Parcel $9,378.63 per Parcel $9,942.80 per Parcel Less than 5,000 Parcel Sq.Ft. $349.88 per Parcel $5,816.32 per Parcel $6,166.20 per Parcel 5,000 TO 5,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $355.79 per Parcel $5,914.56 per Parcel $6,270.35 per Parcel 6,000 TO 6,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $362.20 per Parcel $6,021.17 per Parcel $6,383.37 per Parcel 7,000 TO 7,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $368.14 per Parcel $6,119.97 per Parcel $6,488.11 per Parcel 8,000 TO 9,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $376.54 per Parcel $6,259.51 per Parcel $6,636.05 per Parcel 10,000 TO 13,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $394.30 per Parcel $6,554.79 per Parcel $6,949.09 per Parcel 14,000 TO 19,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $422.94 per Parcel $7,030.92 per Parcel $7,453.86 per Parcel 20,000 TO 29,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $465.89 per Parcel $7,744.83 per Parcel $8,210.72 per Parcel 30,000 TO 39,999 Parcel Sq.Ft. $516.76 per Parcel $8,590.48 per Parcel $9,107.24 per Parcel Greater than or Equal to 40,000 Parcel Sq.Ft.$564.17 per Parcel $9,378.63 per Parcel $9,942.80 per Parcel Less than 2,500 Unit Sq.Ft.$267.61 per Unit $4,448.77 per Unit $4,716.38 per Unit 2,500 TO 2,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$269.85 per Unit $4,486.17 per Unit $4,756.02 per Unit 3,000 TO 3,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$279.27 per Unit $4,642.46 per Unit $4,921.73 per Unit 4,000 TO 4,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$291.12 per Unit $4,839.50 per Unit $5,130.62 per Unit 5,000 TO 5,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$303.44 per Unit $5,044.35 per Unit $5,347.79 per Unit 6,000 TO 6,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$315.80 per Unit $5,249.76 per Unit $5,565.56 per Unit 7,000 TO 7,999 Unit Sq.Ft.$327.65 per Unit $5,446.80 per Unit $5,774.45 per Unit Greater than or Equal to 8,000 Unit Sq.Ft.$333.59 per Unit $5,545.60 per Unit $5,879.19 per Unit Maximum Special Taxes for Tax Zone 11 Attachment 1 County of Contra Costa Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Facility Maintenance) For Agricultural Property, Single Family Property, and Multi-Family Property Type of Property Square Footage (Sq.Ft.) Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax Maximum Special Taxes for FY 2007-082 Maximum Special Taxes 2Beginningin January 2008, and each January thereafter, the MaximumSpecial Taxes shown in this Attachment 1 shall be adjusted by applying the greater of (i) the increase, if any, in the Local Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area for All Urban Consumers that had occurred since January of the prior year, or (ii) the increase, if any, in the Engineering News Record’s Common Labor Index that had occurred since January of the prior year. Each annual adjustment of the Maximum Special Taxes shall be come effective on the following July 1. Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax 1Tax Zones that are added to CFD No. 2007-1 as a result of future annexations will have their Maximum Special Taxes determined during the annexation process. This Attachment 1 shall be updated to reflect each new annexation. Multi-Family Property Single Family Property March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 793 Base Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax (per Parcel) Incremental Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax (per Impervious Square Foot) Base Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax (per Parcel) Incremental Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax (per Impervious Square Foot) Base Maximum Special Taxes (per Parcel) Incremental Maximum Special Taxes (per Impervious Square Foot) $275.00 $0.02 $5,600.00 $0.12 $5,875.00 $0.14 Maximum Special Taxes for Tax Zone 11 For Other Property Maximum Special Taxes Attachment 1 Cont. County of Contra Costa Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Facility Maintenance) Maximum Tier 1 Special Tax Maximum Special Taxes for FY 2007-082 1Tax Zones that are added to CFD No. 2007-1 as a result of future annexations will have their Maximum Special Taxes determinedduring the annexation process. This Attachment 1 shall be updated to reflect each new annexation. 2Beginning in January 2008, and each January thereafter, the Maximum Special Taxes shown in this Attachment 1 shall be adjusted by applying the greater of (i) the increase, if any, in the Local Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area for All Urban Consumers that had occurred since January of the prior year, or (ii) the increase, if any, in the Engineering News Record’s Common Labor Index that had occurred since January of the prior year. Each annual adjustment of the Maximum Special Taxes shall be come effective on the following July 1. Maximum Tier 2 Special Tax March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 794 1 098-180-027 098-180-030 1The property identified by the Assessor’s Parcel numbers listed above shall remain part of the identified Tax Zone regardless of changes in the configuration of the Assessor’s Parcels or changes to APNs in future Fiscal Years. This Attachment 2 shall be updated to reflect Parcels that are added to a Tax Zone or Tax Zones that are added to CFD No. 2007-1 as a result of future annextions. Identification of Tax Zones Tax Zone Assessor's Parcels Included in Tax Zone1 Attachment 2 County of Contra Costa Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Facility Maintenance) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 795 APPENDIX D Boundary Map of Community Facilities District No. 2007-1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 796 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes797 APPENDIX E Assessor’s Parcel Maps for Fiscal Year 2016-17 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 798 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 799 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 800 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 801 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 802 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 803 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 804 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 805 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 806 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes807 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 808 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes809 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 810 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes811 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 812 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 813 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 814 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 815 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes816 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 817 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 818 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 819 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute the Maintenance of Effort Certification Form for Fiscal Year 2016/17 as required by Chapter 886, Statutes of 1994 to receive Proposition 172 (public safety sales tax increment) funds, and to submit the Certificate to the County Auditor-Controller. FISCAL IMPACT: This Certificate of Maintenance of Effort is required by State statute as implemented by guidelines issued by the California State Controller. Failure to submit the required certification form would result in the loss of more than $80.8 million in State Proposition 172 funds for the current fiscal year. BACKGROUND: This ½ cent sales tax was authorized in 1994 as a result of the 1993/94 state budget process. Proposition 172 (Senate Bill 509) designated that the ½ cent sales tax be deposited to newly-created state and local public safety trust funds and allocated to local agencies to fund public safety activities such as police, sheriff, fire, district attorney, county corrections, and ocean lifeguards. Court operations were explicitly excluded. To prevent supplantation of local revenues that would have otherwise been allocated to public safety functions with Proposition 172 sales tax, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2788 as Chapter 886, Statutes of 1994. AB 2733 requires a local agency to commit at least the same resources as were committed in FY 1992/93 (minus certain exclusions), adjusted each year by any growth in its Proposition 172 revenue, as maintenance of effort (MOE) in order to qualify to receive Proposition 172 (Public Safety Sales Tax). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 99 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:FY 2016/17 CERTIFICATION OF PROPOSITION 172 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 820 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) >AB 2733 does not specifically define what is meant by “public safety services” and allows each county to make its own computation. In implementing the MOE section of Assembly Bill 2788 on May 16, 1995, as indicated in the Certification Form, it was most advantageous for this County to define public safety as follows: District Attorney (Department 0242), Probation (Departments (0308, 0309, 0310), Public Defender (Department 0243), Sheriff-Coroner (Departments 0255, 0277, 0300, and 0359), and Inmate Medical Care (Department 0301). It should be noted that the definition of “public safety services” for computation of the MOE obligation does not in any way detract from the Board’s authority to designate those funds to whatever public safety department or service it chooses. The Board of Supervisors, in 1993, directed that all public safety sales tax proceeds will be allocated to the District Attorney and Sheriff departments. Due to the downturn in the California economy, public safety sales taxes received by Contra Costa County has gradually declined since FY 2005/06, by more than 10% over that five-year period. For the 2016/17 fiscal year, it is estimated that Proposition 172 funds will provide $66.7 million to fund operations in the Sheriff's Office and $14.1 million to fund operations in the District Attorney’s Office. 2005/06 Actual $69,281,424 2006/07 Actual $67,318,904 2007/08 Actual $65,314,410 2008/09 Actual $57,641,994 2009/10 Actual $55,379,148 2010/11 Actual $60,388,430 2011/12 Actual $63,922,867 2012/13 Actual $67,178,163 2013/14 Actual $72,053,360 2014/15 Actual $74,736,241 2015/16 Actual $74,141,898 2016/17 Budgeted $80,750,580 We have determined that for FY 2016/17, the adopted budget for the County-defined public safety services exceeded the County’s MOE obligation by more than $170.3 million. In computing the MOE, we followed the Public Safety MOE Requirement Uniform Guidelines for California Counties and Cities approved by the State Association of County Auditors. By authorizing the County Administrator to execute and submit the MOE Certification Form to the County Auditor-Controller, the Board will assure that the County will receive its full allotment of Proposition 172 funds for the current year. Attachment A: FY 2016/17 Prop. 172 Maintenance of Effort Certification Form Attachment B: FY 2016/17 Prop. 172 Maintenance of Effort Calculation Worksheet (Form A) Attachment C: FY 2016/17 Prop. 172 Maintenance of Effort Base Year Calculation (Form C) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to file the required certification will jeopardize the County's eligibility to receive public safety sales tax revenue. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: FY 2016/17 Prop. 172 Maintenance of Effort Certification Form March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 821 Attachment B: FY 2016/17 Prop. 172 Maintenance of Effort Calculation Worksheet (Form A) Attachment C: FY 2016/17 Prop. 172 Maintenance of Effort Base Year Calculation (Form C) March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 822 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes823 Form A: AB2788 MOE Calculation Worksheet Contra Costa 2016/17 Step #1: Public Safety Services as Previously Defined In 1994/95, the County established their definition of public safety services consistent with Government Code Section 30052. Listed below are all departments included in this definition. District Attorney Health Detention-Inmates Probation Public Defender Sheriff (including Coroner) Step #2: Growth Adjusted Base Year The County determined the AB2788 base year amount in 1994/95 on Form B by using the 1992/93 adopted budget for all defined public safety departments. Line 2.1: Total Base Year Forward 125,266,802.28 (Adjusted AB2788 Base Amount from Prior Year Form A, Line 3.2) Step #3: New Base Amount for Local Agency AB2788 includes a growth factor provision equal to the previous years' growth in Proposition 172 revenues. The Auditor-Controller's Office will provide cities and counties with this amount. If appropriate, this amount should be added to the AB2788 Base Year. Line 3.1: Growth Amount 588,814.13 Line 3.2: Total Base Amount for Local Agency 125,855,616.41 (Total of lines 2.1 and 3.1) Step #4: Determine AB2788 Public Safety Budget for Certification Year The County should determine the AB2788 Public Safety Budget for the Certification year. The same departments and adjustments that were included in the AB2788 base year calculation have been entered on Form C. Please complete Form C to provide the following: Line 4.1: Total AB2788 Public Safety Budget 296,166,713.00 Step #5: AB2788 Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Calculation Please complete the AB2788 Certification Form using the above information. The calculation would be as follows: Line 1 of the Certification Form Take the amount of Line 4.1, Form A Line 2 of the Certification Form Less the amount of LIne 3.2, Form A Line 3 of the Certification Form Equals the amount over/(under) AB2788 MOE requirement. Form A March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 824 Form C: AB2788 Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) Base Year CalculationCertification Year: 2016/17CONTRA COSTA COUNTYPlease complete the following Form to calculate the AB2788 MOE base year. Describe all AB2788 adjustments in the space provided below.Public Safety Certification YearAdjusted AB2788Department Adopted Budget (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Certification YearDistrict Attorney (0242) 39,575,607 10,000 5,720,574 200,000 289,265 875,000 32,480,768Probation (0308) 32,949,404 7,919,911 151,580 24,877,913Probation (0309) 28,241,349 5,720,000 22,521,349Probation (0310) 13,038,535 4,700,000 8,338,535Public Defender (0243) 22,691,420 4,000 2,002,53720,684,883Sheriff (0255) 119,351,103 3,062,923 150,000 1,336,211 16,520,667 98,281,302Sheriff Contract Services (0277) 18,588,054 34,000 18,554,0540Sheriff Detention (0300) 79,727,511 4,775,251 12,123,351 280,115 62,548,794Sheriff-Coroner (0359) 2,866,8852,866,885Hlth Detention Inmates (0301) 23,566,313 2923,566,284 Total 380,596,181 7,876,203 160,000 34,822,584 200,000 18,554,054 16,809,932 4,700,000 875,000 431,695 0 296,166,713 Enter amount onAB2788 MOE Adjustments: Comments: Form A, Line 4.1 (1) Fixed Assets, Lease Purchases & Debt Service(2) POST (3) Grants(4) Transfers/Recording Fees for Real Estate Fraud(5) Court Security, Hospital Security, EHS Security(6) Contracts with Other Jurisdictions(7) State Aid & Fed Aid Placement(8) Narcotics, Environmental, Fraud Forfeitures/Damages(9) STC ReimbursementCompleted By: Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator Phone: (925) 335-1036Date: 3/22/2017AB 2788 AdjustmentsMarch 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes825 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACCEPT the annual progress report by the Department of Conservation and Development on implementation of the County General Plan (2005-2020), as required under California Government Code Section 65400. 2. DIRECT Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff to forward the annual progress report on the County General Plan to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), as required under California Government Code Section 65400. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the General Fund. The report on the County's progress in implementing its General Plan is funded 100% from the Land Development Fund, FY 2016/2017. BACKGROUND: California Government Code Section 65400 requires the planning agency for certain cities and all 58 counties to submit an annual report to their legislative body (city council or board of supervisors, respectively), OPR, and HCD on the status of their General Plan and progress on its implementation. The annual report provides the local legislative body with information regarding the status of its General Plan and gives OPR the opportunity to identify statewide trends in land use decision making, including how local planning and development activities relate to statewide planning goals and policies. Additionally, it enables OPR to track progress on a local jurisdiction's General Plan in terms of its comprehensiveness and consistency with the current OPR General Plan Guidelines and other APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: (925) 674-7791 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 83 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:General Plan Annual Report for Calendar Year 2016 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 826 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) State mandates. There is no standardized form or format for preparation of the General Plan annual progress report. OPR leaves it up to each jurisdiction to determine which locally-relevant issues are important to include, but they do suggest general content to cover within the report. The attached report covering calendar year 2016 follows the general guidance of OPR in terms of content. Staff notes that under a separate section of the Government Code, all local jurisdictions are required to submit a report to HCD on certain housing information, including the jurisdiction's progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to development of housing. On March 28, 2017, the Board is scheduled to consider accepting the County's General Plan Housing Element implementation report for 2016. Information in that report is incorporated into the attached General Plan annual progress report. Staff calls to the Board's attention the County's progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. Current data indicates that through calendar year 2016, the second year of the current eight-year Housing Element cycle, the County has issued building permits for 42.3 percent of its allocated share of the region's housing needs. While the data indicates the County has made significant progress in achieving gross housing production goals, production of new housing units available to households in the low- and very low-income categories continues to be stagnant. In 2016, zero permits were issued for new units available to low- and very low-income households. Through the first two years of the current housing cycle only eight such permits have been issued, constituting 0.014 percent of the total building permits issued for new units. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: State law requires DCD to submit this report to the Board of Supervisors prior to submitting it to OPR and HCD. The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Board of Supervisors on General Plan implementation. ATTACHMENTS 2016 GP Annual Progress Report March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 827 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2016 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT Submitted to: Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County March 28, 2017 Prepared by: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 828 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF ANNUAL REPORT ................................. 1 II.GENERAL PLAN STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................... 1 A. GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND ..................................................... 1 TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS - STATUS .............................. 2 B. ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR CALENDAR C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION INITIATED IN 2016 D. COMPLIANCE WITH OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES AND ASSOCIATED DIRECTIVES ...4 III.HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTION AND PROGRESS IN MEETING SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ............................................... 5 A. SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEED S........................................ 5 TABLE 2: SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ...................... 5 B. HOUSING PRODUCTION .................................................................... 6 TABLE 3: UNIT COUNT OF UNINCORPORATED COUNTY HOUSING PRODUCTION...................................................................................... 6 C. BARRIERS TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITY IN CALENDAR YEAR 2016 ...............................6 IV.GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND WORK ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTION FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2017 AND 2018............................................................................................................ 7 .................................................................................................... 3 YEAR 2016 ......................................................................................... 2 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 829 I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF ANNUAL REPORT The intent of this report is to demonstrate the County’s compliance with California Government Code Section 65400(b)(1), which mandates that all cities and counties submit to their legislative bodies an annual report on the status of their General Plan and progress in its implementation. A copy of this report will, as required under the statute, be provided to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). A separate report will be provided to HCD in fulfillment of another statutory requirement to report certain housing information, including the County’s progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the development of housing, as defined in Government Code sections 65584 and 65583(c)(3). In compliance with Section 65400(b)(1) of the Government Code, this report covering calendar year 2016 has been prepared for the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors’ consideration and acceptance. This report: 1.Summarizes the status of the Contra Costa County General Plan and describes steps that have been taken to implement General Plan policies in calendar year 2016; 2.Provides a summary of General Plan Amendments (GPAs) that were approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2016; 3.Describes Housing Element implementation, specifically the County’s progress in meeting its share of the regional housing needs over the current reporting period (current Housing Element cycle) and its efforts to remove governmental constraints to maintenance, improvement, and development of housing pursuant to Government Code Section 65583; and 4.Concludes with a discussion on goals, objectives, and work activities related to General Plan implementation for calendar years 2017 and 2018. II.GENERAL PLAN STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION A. GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) is a division of the planning agency for the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County and is responsible for proper preparation and administration of the County General Plan (County Ordinance Code §26-2.808(1)). The County Board of Supervisors adopted a comprehensive General Plan in January 1991 following an extensive public outreach and participation process initiated in 1986. This updated General Plan superseded the County’s prior General Plan (and each of the previously adopted elements), and consolidated several area-specific General Plans into one comprehensive document. The General Plan was re-adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July 1996 to consolidate General Plan Amendments approved between 1991 to 1995 and to correct minor errors and omissions discovered in the original 1991 General Plan text. This reconsolidated General Plan covered the period from 1995 through 2010. The General Plan was re-adopted again by the Board of Supervisors in January 2005 to consolidate General Plan Amendments adopted between 1995 and 2004, revise text and maps to reflect the 1999 incorporation of the City of Oakley (formerly an unincorporated community that was covered under the County March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 830 General Plan), and incorporate the 2001 Housing Element update. The second County General Plan reconsolidation covers the period from 2005 through 2020. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65302, there are seven mandatory General Plan elements. Each of the mandatory elements in the Contra Costa County General Plan was prepared and/or updated in full compliance with the General Plan Guidelines, as established by OPR. The County General Plan also includes two non-mandatory elements indicated in italics in Table 1, below. Table 1 indicates the status of the County General Plan elements, including the year the element was first adopted and the year it was last revised. TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS – STATUS Element First Adopted Last Revised Land Use 1963 2005 Transportation/Circulation 1963 2005 Housing 19701 2014 Conservation 1973 2005 Open Space 1973 2005 Safety 1975 2005 Noise 1975 2005 Growth Management 1991 2005 Public Facilities/Services 1972 2005 B. ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2016 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), the County may amend the mandatory elements of the General Plan up to four times per calendar year. However, each amendment may include more than one change to the General Plan. DCD refers to amendments of the mandatory elements as “consolidated” amendments because each may include more than one change the General Plan. The Board of Supervisors, acting in its capacity as the legislative body for the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, adopted four amendments to the County General Plan during calendar year 2016, which are summarized as follows: 1st Consolidated General Plan Amendment Buchanan Field Airport Business Park (County File GP#16-0002): Amended Land Use Element Policy 3-98 to increase the development limit for one parcel at Buchanan Field Airport from 18,500 square feet to 52,300 square feet. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 21, 2016. 2007 Flood Legislation (County File #16-0004): Amended the Land Use, Conservation, and Safety Elements to achieve compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 162 (Wolk), Senate Bill (SB) 5 (Machado), and several related bills known together as the “2007 Flood Legislation.” 1 A preliminary Housing Element was approved in 1970 - one year after State legislation established the Housing Element as a mandatory element to the General Plan. Following new statutory requirements for Housing Elements established in the mid- 1970s, the Housing Element was formally adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December 1980. The element was subsequently updated through the State-mandated Housing Element update process in 1985, 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2009. The current Housing Element, adopted on December 2, 2014, was certified by HCD in March 11, 2015. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 831 Numerous goals, policies, and implementation measures were added to these Elements along with several maps. The County Floodplain Management Ordinance also was amended to conform with the amended General Plan elements. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 21, 2016. 2nd Consolidated General Plan Amendment Roadway Network Plan Revisions (County File GP#16-0006): Amended the Transportation and Circulation Element, Roadway Network Plan, to reduce the planned width for a portion of Camino Tassajara and indicate a “Special Planning Area” in the vicinity of the planned State Route 239 and Vasco Road-Byron Highway Connector projects. The Land Use Element was also amended to add a policy explaining the significance of the Special Planning Area. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2016. Other General Plan Amendments Growth Management Element Correspondence Table (County File #GP16-0001): Amended the Growth Management Element, a non-mandatory element, to include a new table and text illustrating consistency (correspondence) between the General Plan and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Model Growth Management Element. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 29, 2016. C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION INITIATED IN 2016 Proposals to amend the General Plan, whether submitted from the private sector or County- initiated, must receive pre-authorization by the Board of Supervisors before DCD may initiate the full General Plan Amendment process. In calendar year 2016 the Board of Supervisors gave pre-authorization to the following General Plan Amendments: Buchanan Field Airport Business Park (County File GP#16-0002): See description above. Pre-authorized by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2016. KOMAC, Inc. GPA Study (County File #GP16-0003): Consider a change to the General Plan Land Use Element Map to re-designate a 0.73-acre site from Multiple-Family Residential – High Density (MH) to Commercial (CO) in support of applications to develop a small retail building on a vacant lot on San Pablo Avenue, in the unincorporated San Pablo area. Pre-authorized by the Board of Supervisors on April 12, 2016. Hamilton Tree Service GPA Study (County File: GP#16-0005): Consider a change to the General Plan Land Use Element Map to re-designate a 2.7-acre site from Multiple-Family Residential – Low Density (ML) to Agricultural Lands (AL) in support of applications to expand an existing tree removal and mulching business located at 4949 Pacheco Boulevard, in the unincorporated Martinez area. Pre-authorized by the Board of Supervisors on July 12, 2016. Aretê, Inc. GPA Study (County File: GP#16-0007): Consider a change to the General Plan Land Use Element Map to re-designate a 0.51-acre site from Office (OF) to Multiple- Family Residential – Medium Density (MM) in support of applications to develop nine townhomes at 214 Center Avenue, in the unincorporated Pacheco area. Pre-authorized by the Board of Supervisors on October 18, 2016. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 832 D. COMPLIANCE WITH OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES AND ASSOCIATED DIRECTIVES Section 65400 of the Government Code requires jurisdictions to discuss the degree to which the adopted General Plan complies with the State of California General Plan Guidelines as issued by OPR. The Guidelines provide a definitive interpretation of State statutes and case law as they relate to the General Plan. Additionally, the Guidelines outline the general framework for preparation and revision of a General Plan, Attorney General Opinions, and the relationship of the General Plan to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Guidelines are advisory in nature rather than prescriptive, and thereby preserve opportunities for a local jurisdiction to address contemporary planning topics in a locally appropriate manner. DCD staff has reviewed the latest set of General Plan Guidelines, issued by OPR in October 2003, and determined that the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) is consistent. In addition to the General Plan Guidelines, OPR has issued other advisories and guidance related to State planning law requirements for cities and counties. DCD has endeavored to incorporate these advisories into the County’s planning process. Specifically, in November 2005 OPR issued a supplement to the Guidelines providing advisory guidance to cities and counties on the process for consulting with California Native American tribes during the adoption or amendment of local General Plans or Specific Plans for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Places (also known as SB 18 Tribal Consultation). DCD has established a protocol for SB 18 Tribal Consultation on General Plan Amendments and Specific Plans in accordance with the November 2005 supplemental issued by OPR. In December 2010 OPR updated the Guidelines to provide guidance on amending circulation elements in response to AB 1358 (Leno), The California Complete Streets Act, which requires cities and counties to plan for development of multi-modal transportation networks. In 2008, the Board of Supervisors amended the Land Use, Transportation and Circulation, and Open Space Elements of the General Plan to include language supporting the Complete Streets philosophy. Then in July 2016 the Board adopted the Complete Streets Policy of Contra Costa County, which builds upon the 2008 amendments. Pursuant to AB 1358, Complete Streets/multi-modal transportation planning will be fully integrated into the Transportation and Circulation Element upon its next substantial revision, which is anticipated to occur in 2020 (see below). In May 2015 OPR issued a technical advisory on fire hazard planning which among other things, provides guidance on amending safety elements pursuant to SB 1241 (Kehoe). DCD is in the process of amending the County General Plan Safety Element to comply with SB 1241 (see below). OPR has also worked to improve communication and encourage collaboration between local governments and the United States military on land use planning and development issues in response to passage in 2002 of SB 1468 (Knight) and SB 1462 (Kuehl) in 2004. SB 1462 requires local jurisdictions to establish a notification process to inform the United States military of certain local land use proposals to avoid conflicts with military installations and training activities. SB 1468 resulted in preparation of the California Advisory Handbook for Community and Military Compatibility Planning to encourage collaboration between cities, counties, builders, and military personnel by providing tools and guidance regarding compatibility planning between communities and military installations and activities. Since there is a limited number of military installations in Contra Costa County, and only two in the unincorporated area, the impact of these requirements for the County to notify the U.S. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 833 Military of pending land use planning and development applications has been negligible. Nevertheless, DCD has established a protocol to determine whether notification to the U.S. military is necessary if a project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation or within special airspace as defined in the Public Resources Code § 21098. DCD uses the California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst, which was prepared by the State Resources Agency in conjunction with OPR to help cities and counties find the location of military installations and training facilities within their jurisdiction and to determine if a project triggers notification to the U.S. Military. III.HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTION AND PROGRESS IN MEETING SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS The County General Plan Housing Element was preliminarily approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1970, approximately one year after State law established the element as one of the mandatory elements of the General Plan, and formally adopted by the Board in December 1980 following new mandated requirements established in the mid-1970s. It has been subsequently updated as part of the mandated cycle of Housing Element updates adopted by the State Legislature beginning in 1985. The Housing Element was updated when it was incorporated as part of the comprehensive update to the General Plan in January 1991. Subsequently, the Housing Element was updated in 1995 and included in the 1996 General Plan reconsolidation (1995-2010), updated in December 2001 and included in the 2005 General Plan reconsolidation (2005-2020), updated in 2009, and updated most recently in 2014 pursuant to SB 375 (Steinberg). The current Housing Element sets forth the County’s housing goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures, and was certified by HCD on March 11, 2015. The attached tables listed as A, A3, B, and C are taken from Contra Costa County’s Annual Housing Element Progress Report for 2016. These tables contain more detailed information pertaining to progress and implementation activities for the 5th Cycle Housing Element (2015- 2023) which began January 31, 2015. A. SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS The following table summarizes the County’s share of projected regional housing needs in the San Francisco Bay Area over the 5th Cycle Housing Element planning period that covers 2015 to 2023: TABLE 2: SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by Income Category for San Francisco Bay Area and Contra Costa County, 2015-2023 State Affordability - Income Category SF Bay Area Total RHNA Contra Costa County RHNA Unincorporated + Cities Unincorporated only Very-Low Income 46,680 5,264 374 Low Income 28,940 3,086 218 Moderate Income 33,420 3,496 243 Above-Moderate Income 78,950 8,784 532 TOTAL Housing Need 187,990 20,630 1,367 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 834 The RHNA for the 5th Cycle was adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in July 2013.2 B. HOUSING PRODUCTION Table 3 provides a breakdown by income level of the County’s housing production for 2016 along with a running total for the current Housing Element cycle: TABLE 3: UNIT COUNT OF UNINCORPORATED COUNTY HOUSING PRODUCTION Income Level RHNA by Income Level Units Built in 2016 (Percentage)3 Total 5th Cycle Units Built (Percentage)4 Total Remaining RHNA Units Very-Low Deed Restricted 374 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 374 Non-Restricted 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Low Deed Restricted 218 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 210 Non-Restricted 0 (0.0%) 8 (0.01%) Moderate 243 28 (11.5%) 93 (38.3%) 150 Above-Moderate 532 201 (37.8%) 477 (89.7%) 55 TOTAL 1,367 229 (16.7%) 578 (42.3%) 789 As indicated, the County issued 229 permits for new residential units in 2016, equaling 16.7 percent of the entire 5th Cycle RHNA. Through 2016, the second year of the eight-year 5th Cycle, the County has already issued permits for 42.3 percent of its RHNA share. However, only 28 permits were issued in 2016 for units which would be affordable to moderate-income households [income at 81 to 120 percent of the area median income, or AMI, for Contra Costa County] and no permits were issued for units that would be available to very low- or low-income households (income at 51 to 80 percent of the AMI). While the County is well on its way toward meeting its total RHNA share, 82.5 percent of new housing production has been in the above-moderate income category and less than 1 percent has been in the very- low and low income categories. C. BARRIERS TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITY IN CALENDAR YEAR 2016 Market factors such as the high cost of land suitable for residential development and high construction costs continue to be the most significant constraints on development of affordable housing in Contra Costa County. The County attempts to counter these factors with strategies and subsidy programs, which are identified in the General Plan Housing Element, aimed at developing affordable rental housing and expanding homeownership opportunities. The key funding sources the County utilizes include Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Act, Emergency Solutions Grant Funds, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, Mental Health Services Act, Housing Successor (former Redevelopment Set-Aside) Funds, bond financing, Mortgage Credit Certificates, low-income housing tax credits, and Section 8 Assistance. 2 Source: ABAG Website, Regional Housing Need Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022 3 Indicates percentage of units constructed during the current reporting year relative to the total RHNA for each income category. 4 Indicates cumulative percentage of units constructed for the 5th Cycle relative to the total RHNA for each income category. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 835 Table C, attached, briefly outlines the housing programs contained in the Housing Element and describes their 2016 performance. Some notable County actions include: Issuing $23.57 million in tax-exempt bonds for construction of 143 new units in the cities of Walnut Creek and Antioch. Issuing $45.46 million in tax-exempt bonds for rehabilitation of 235 units in the cities of Pinole and Concord. Weatherizing 297 residential units (221 extremely-low income, 75 very-low income, and 1 low income). Providing 54 Mortgage Credit Certificates worth $3.56 million for first-time home buyers. Providing $487,000 in HOME funds to support development of a 30-unit rental project for veterans and homeless veterans in the City of Pittsburg. A barrier to affordable housing also exists in the form of discrimination. Contra Costa County affirmatively furthers fair housing through the ongoing support of fair housing counseling, education, and outreach activities. In addition, all housing projects funded by the County are required to undertake broad marketing activities in a manner consistent with federal and State fair housing laws, including outreach to underserved populations. The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2010. A major effort to update the AI was initiated in 2015 and continued through 2016. IV.GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND WORK ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GENERAL PL AN IMPLEMENTION FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2017 AND 2018 In 2017 and 2018 DCD will continue a significant work effort associated with General Plan implementation in response to the following State mandates: Safety Element Fire Hazard Severity Map – As required under SB 1241, the Fire Hazard Severity Map in the Safety Element will be updated to reflect new mapping by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) of wildland fire hazards and risks, and to identify State responsibility areas and very-high fire hazard severity zones in Contra Costa County. Accordingly, the Safety Element’s goals, policies, and implementation measures related to wildland fire hazards will be reviewed and updated, as necessary. Land Use Element Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities – SB 244 (Wolk, 2011) requires cities and counties to address the infrastructure and service needs of unincorporated disadvantaged communities (DUCs) in their respective General Plans. Disadvantaged unincorporated communities are defined under SB 244 as: Containing 10 or more dwelling units in close proximity to one another; Within a city Sphere of Influence (SOI), or is an island surrounded by a city, or is geographically isolated and has existed for more than 50 years; and, Having a median household income that is 80 percent or less than the statewide median household income. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 836 SB 244 requires that the Land Use Element be updated to identify DUCs and analyze the water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire protection deficiencies and needs for each. Funding alternatives for extension of services to the DUCs must also be identified. The County’s SB 244 DUC analysis was initiated in 2014 in conjunction with the 5th Cycle Housing Element update, and DCD anticipates completing this work in 2017. General Plan Update The term of the current County General Plan extends through calendar year 2020. In the second quarter of 2017 DCD intends to present the Board of Supervisors with options for updating the General Plan. Upon receiving Board direction on a preferred option, DCD will issue a RFQ/RFP to prospective consultants with the goal of securing a consultant by the end of the year, allowing work to begin in earnest in 2018. List of Attachments (Tables taken from 2016 Housing Element Progress Report to HCD) Table A: Annual Building Activity Report Summary – New Construction of Very Low-, Low-, and Mixed-Income Multi-family Projects Table A3: Annual Building Activity Report for Above Moderate-Income Units (not including those units reported on Table A) Table B: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Table C: Program Implementation Status March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 837 (9) Total of Moderate and Above Moderate from Table A328 201(10) Total by Income Table A/A300 28 201(11) Total Extremely Low-IncomeUnits*0-ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodAffordability by Household IncomesVery Low-IncomeProject Identifier(may be APN No.,project name or address)UnitCategoryNote below the number of units determined to be affordable without financial or deed restrictions and attach an explanation how the jurisdiction determined the units were affordable. Refer to instructions.8Housing withoutFinancial Assistanceor Deed Restrictions4Table A5aHousing with FinancialAssistance and/orDeed Restrictions67Housing Development Information53Low-IncomeModerate-IncomeAboveModerate-IncomeTotal UnitsperProject1TenureR=RenterO=Owner2DeedRestrictedUnitsEst. # InfillUnits*See InstructionsSee InstructionsAssistanceProgramsfor EachDevelopmentAnnual Building Activity Report Summary - New ConstructionVery Low-, Low-, and Mixed-Income Multifamily ProjectsCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/2016* Note: These fields are voluntaryMarch 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes838 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting Period6.TotalNo. of Units Permittedfor Above Moderate1.Single FamilyNo. of Units Permittedfor Moderate2.2 - 4 Units3.5+ Units7.Number of infillunits*5.Mobile HomesAnnual building Activity Report Summary for Above Moderate-Income Units(not including those units reported on Table A)4.Second UnitTable A3* Note: This field is voluntaryCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/2016420193280187140002010March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes839 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodYear8Year7Year5Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Remaining Need for RHNA Period ► ► ► ► ► Year1Total Unitsto Date(all years)LowNon-RestrictedVery LowDeedRestrictedNon-RestrictedYear4Note: units serving extremly low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals.Total Units ► ► ► Deed RestrictedEnter Calendar Year starting with the first yearof the RHNA allocation period. See Example.Year3 Above ModerateModerateYear2Permitted Units Issued by AffordabilityRHNAAllocation byIncome LevelTotalRemaining RHNAby Income LevelYear9Year6Total RHNA by COG.Enter allocation number:Income LevelTable BCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/2016374000000000000000000037421808000000000000000082102436528000000093150532276 201 000000-477551367349 229 0000000578789March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes840 Neighborhood Preservation ProgramImprove the quality of existing housing &neighborhoods.Ongoing There were five homes within the unincorporated county that wererehabilitated. Of those five projects, two were moderate income, two were lowincome, and one was extremely low income. Weatherization ProgramAssist homeowners and renters withminor home repairs.Ongoing 297 units have been weatherized in County cities, towns, and communities.221 units were extremely low income, 75 units were very low income, and 1unit was low income. Code EnforcementMaintain & improve the quality of existinghousing & neighborhoods.Ongoing There were a total of 951 cases opened with 893 cases closed. Approximately99% of all cases were residential. Preservation of Affordable Housing Assisted with PublicFundsPreserve the existing stock of affordablehousing.Ongoing The County provided $300,000 in HOME and CDBG funding for a 14-unitrehabilitation project located in Bay Point. Additionally, the County provided$4.125 million in funding recommendations for HOME, HOPWA, and CDBG tosupport the rehabilitation of 283 rental units in the Cities of Concord andPinole. New Construction of Affordable Housing Increase the supply of affordable housing,including units affordable to extremely lowincome households.Annual:Award HOME,CDBG, andThe County provided $1.55 million in CDBG funding for a 42-unit rental projectlocated in North Richmond. Additionally, the County provided $1.67 million infunding recommendations for HOME, HOPWA, and CDBG to support the-ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodProgram Description(By Housing Element Program Names)Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583.Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to themaintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.Name of ProgramObjectiveTimeframein H.E.Status of Program ImplementationProgram Implementation StatusTable CCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2016 12/31/2016March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes841 HOPWAfunds toexperiencedhousingdevelopersdevelopment of 138 new rental units in the cities of El Cerrito, Pittsburg, andWalnut Creek. The County also issued $23,571,320 in tax-exempt bonds for143 new units in the cities of Walnut Creek and Antioch. Housing Successor to the former RedevelopmentAgencyUtilize County owned property (formerredevelopment agency) to developaffordable housingDispositionagreementsby 2020.The Rodeo Senior Housing Extension project in Rodeo had an ExclusiveNegotiating Agreement approved in December. The County issued a Requestfor Qualifications/Request for Proposal in December for the Orbisonia Heightsproject in Bay Point. The property at 1250 Las Juntas in Walnut Creek wassold in December to Habitat for Humanity. This property is located within thecity limits. Inclusionary HousingIntegrate affordable housing withinmarket-rate developments.Ongoing In-lieu fees were collected for developments within a subdivision. The totalfees collected was $23,249. Acquisition/ RehabilitationImprove existing housing and increasesupply of affordable housing.Ongoing There were no projects in this reporting period within the unincorporatedCounty. The County issued $45,464,000 in tax-exempt bonds for 235 units inthe Cities of Pinole and Concord. Second UnitsFacilitate the development of secondunits.Ongoing There were 19 building permits issued for second units. Affordability by DesignDevelop affordability by design programto promote creative solutions to buildingdesign and construction.2017 There is nothing to report for this reporting period. New Initiatives ProgramDevelop new programs or policies to fundor incentivize affordable housingdevelopment2017 The County is implementing the State's Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance. Special Needs HousingIncrease the supply of special needshousing.Ongoing There were no projects in this reporting period within the unincorporatedCounty. The County provided $487K in HOME funds to support thedevelopment of a 30-unit rental project in the City of Pittsburg for homelessveterans and veterans.Developmental Disabled HousingIncrease the supply of housing availableto persons with developmental disabilities.Ongoing There were no projects this reporting period in the unincorporated County. Accessible HousingIncrease the supply of accessiblehousing.Ongoing The County provided funding for a multifamily rental project in North Richmondthat will include 4 fully accessible units; 3 physically disabled units and 1vision/hearing impaired unit. Additionally, the County provided funding forprojects located in the Cities of El Cerrito, Pittsburg and Walnut Creek thatincluded a total of 11 fully accessible units; 8 physically disabled units and 3vision/hearing impaired units. March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes842 Reasonable AccommodationIncrease the supply of special needs andaccessible housing.Ongoing Through the NPP program, the County assisted in the funding of 5 fullyaccessible bathroom renovations and 1 addition of an exterior stair lift. Inaddition, the County provides access to language assistance via phone calls,emails, and/or general correspondence to all residents of the County requiringthese services.Council on Homelessness, formerly known as, ContraCosta Interagency Council on HomelessnessMeet the housing & supportive servicesneeds of the homelessOngoing This program is currently known as the Council on Homelessness. Theycontinue to support the development of permanent supportive housing. HearthAct funds are used for the support of existing permanent supportive housingunits or placement of people into permanent supportive housing. Farmworker HousingIncrease the supply of farmworkerhousing.Annually:Includefarmworkerhousing inCDBG, HOMENOFA (See#5 above)There were none built this reporting period. First-Time Homebuyer OpportunitiesProvide additional homeownershipopportunities.Ongoing The County provided 54 households with the Mortgage Credit CertificateProgram (MCC) throughout the county and cities, a total of $3,566,301 in MCCfunds. Extremely Low Income HousingPromote development of housingaffordable to extremely low incomehouseholds.Annually:Prioritize x-low incomehousing infundingrecommendationsThe County continues to provide funding preferences to developers whoinclude units that are affordable to extremely-low income households. Therewere a total of 225 extremely low income housing projects during this reportingperiod (See Neighborhood Preservation Program and WeatherizationProgram). Sites InventoryProvide for adequate housing sites,including 'as-right development' sites forhomeless facilitiesOngoingmaintenanceof siteinventory.There are no changes or updates for this reporting period. Mixed-Use DevelopmentsEncourage mixed-use developments. 2015 ¿ 2016:Reviewexistingordinance anddevelopmentpatterns.There are no projects to report. Density Bonus & Other Development Incentives Support affordable housing development. Ongoing There are no projects to report for this reporting period. Infill DevelopmentFacilitate infill development. Biennially: The County continues to use the Small Lot Review process to assist applicantsMarch 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes843 Review siteinventory,adjust forplanned andcompleteddevelopmentsin developing infill single-family residences on substandard-size lots andstreamline the administrative review process for infill housing in the formerredevelopment areas. Planned Unit DistrictProvide flexibility in design for residentialprojects.Ongoing There are no updates to report during this period. Development FeesReduce the cost of development Ongoing There are no updates to report during this period. Quick Turn-around ProgramDevelop program to expedite review ofsmall projects, and conditions of approval.2016 This program continues to be utilized for ensuring expedited review of infillprojects and various planning applications including tree permits, variances,and design reviews. Review of Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Periodically review subdivision ordinanceto ensure it does not unduly constrainhousing development.Revise zoning code to allow emergencyshelters by right, single room occupancyhousing, transitional and permanentsupportive housing, and agriculturalworker housing.Ongoing:period reviewof zoning andsubdivisionordinancesThere are no updates to report during this period. The agricultural workerhousing, permanent supportive housing, and transitional housing draft zoningordinance is expected in 2017. Coordinated County Department Review ofDevelopment ApplicationsExpedite application review through abetter coordinated process with otherCounty departments.Ongoing The County strives to coordinate and reach-out to other County departmentsand agencies when processing new applications. Anti-Discrimination ProgramPromote fair housing.Completeupdate to theAI afterpromulgationof newregulationsThe Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) was adopted by the Board ofSupervisors on May 25, 2010. A major effort to update the AI occurred in 2016.The final AI updated document is anticipated to be presented to the CountyBoard of Supervisors in Spring 2017. Residential Displacement ProgramLimit number of households beingdisplaced or relocated because of Countysponsored programs or projects.Ongoing There are no updates to report this period within the unincorporated County. Residential Energy Conservation Program Participate in Bay Area regional efforts toreduce energy consumption.2016: DraftCountyguidelinesSolar permits for roof-mounted residential PV systems are available on-lineunder the Application and Permit Center web page. Instructions for in-personand on-line submittal for expedited review is posted on the County's web page.The number of solar permits issued is 1,563. March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes844 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Public Authority Advisory Committee members $24 per meeting, not to exceed three (3) meetings per month for a total cost of $5,976 in stipends to defray meeting attendance costs for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: $5,976: In-Home Supportive Services funds (50% Federal, 50% State). BACKGROUND: In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority Advisory Committee members receive $24-stipends to attend Committee meetings paid through the Auditor-Controller to defray attendance costs to members. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without stipends, meeting costs may be prohibitive to member attendance. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 90 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:In-Home Supportive Services, Public Authority Advisory Committee Stipends March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 845 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Interagency Agreement #76-548 with Planned Parenthood Shasta Diablo, Inc. dba Planned Parenthood Northern California , a non-profit corporation, to provide training at their site for County’s Family Medicine Residency Program, for the period from July 1, 2016 through July 1, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide Planned Parenthood Shasta Diablo, Inc. dba Planned Parenthood Northern California and family medicine residents with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 94 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement #76-548 with Planned Parenthood Shasta Diablo, Inc. dba Planned Parenthood Northern California March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 846 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for residents is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. Planned Parenthood Shasta Diablo, Inc. dba Planned Parenthood Northern California can provide the training to County’s Family Medicine Residency Program, while at the same time, benefitting from the residents services to patients. Under Interagency Agreement #76-548, Agency will provide training to residents in the County’s Family Medicine Residency Program through July 1, 2017 through July 1, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the residents will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at Planned Parenthood Northern California clinics. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 847 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) #1155 for ombudsman services in an amount not to exceed $175,000 for the period December 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: $175,000: 10% County, 48% State, 42% Federal BACKGROUND: The ombudsman promotes and maintains positive working relationships between multiple parties associated with Children and Families Services including, but not limited to clients, Child Welfare Services, Public Benefits, Aging and Adult Services, Workforce Services, and Community Services & Head Start Programs. The ombudsman will receive and investigate issues and complaints referred by the Employment and Human Services (EHSD) Director, Child and Family Services Bureau Director, EHSD Division Managers, and other entities. Part of the role of the ombudsman is to assist clients in understanding the investigative process and their rights and responsibilities. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Ombudsman services would not be available to EHSD clients. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 89 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for Ombudsman Services March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 848 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Substantial Amendment to the County's FY 2016/17 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Action Plan by changing the scope of work for the improvements to the Ambrose Recreation & Park District Community Center located at 3105 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point. FISCAL IMPACT: CDBG funds are provided to the County on a formula allocation basis through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance #14.218. There is no fiscal impact to the County General Fund, as the allocation is from the federal CDBG program funds. BACKGROUND: On May 10, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved the Contra Costa County Action Plan for FY 2016/17 CDBG funds. Originally, Ambrose Recreation & Park District was awarded $47,385 in CDBG funds under the Infrastructure/Public Facilities (IPF) category to replace the ceiling tiles and paint the interior of the auditorium at the Ambrose Community Center located at 3105 Willow Pass Road in Bay Point. Ambrose Recreation & Park District has requested, and CDBG staff recommends, a change to the project's scope of work to solely be for interior painting of the auditorium and to eliminate the replacement of the ceiling tiles of the auditorium from the project scope. On further review, the Ambrose Recreation and Park District determined the ceiling repair was less extensive than originally anticipated and that they would complete that work with other resources. This shift would enable needed additional interior painting to be performed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kristin Sherk (925) 674-7887 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 88 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Proposed Substantial Amendment to the County's FY 2016/17 CDBG Action Plan - Change in Scope to the Ambrose Community Center March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 849 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Ambrose Community Center provides a variety of recreation, parks, youth and adult programs, senior nutrition, holiday activities, classes and special events for the Bay Point Community. The auditorium is used for a wide variety of the recreational, cultural, and social activities and is the most utilized space at the Ambrose Community Center. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not approving the Substantial Amendment will delay and/or prevent the improvements to the Ambrose Recreation & Park District Community Center. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Ambrose Community Center furthers the Children's Report Card outcome of helping families be safe, stable and nurturing. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 850 RECOMMENDATION(S): REFER to the Finance Committee the an evaluation of policy options for reviewing Master Compensation Agreements submitted for approval by Successor Agencies of former Redevelopment Agencies throughout the County. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: As part of the 2011 Budget Act, and in order to protect funding for core public services at the local level, the Legislature approved the dissolution of the state’s 400 plus Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs). After a period of litigation, RDAs were officially dissolved as of February 1, 2012. As a result of the elimination of the RDAs, property tax revenues are now being used to pay required payments on existing bonds, other obligations, and pass-through payments to local governments. The remaining property tax revenues that exceed the enforceable obligations are now being allocated to cities, counties, special districts, and school and community college districts, thereby providing critical resources to preserve core public services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Hon. Robert R. Campbell, Auditor-Controller, Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director, Eric Gelston, Deputy County Counsel C. 95 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:REFER TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ESTABLISHMENT OF A POLICY FOR REVIEWING MASTER COMPENSATION AGREEMENTS SUBMITTED BY SUCCESSOR AGENCIES TO FORMER RDAS March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 851 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) To help facilitate the wind-down process at the local level, successor agencies were established to manage redevelopment projects currently underway, make payments on enforceable obligations, and dispose of redevelopment assets and properties. Each Successor Agency has an Oversight Board that supervises its work. The Oversight Board is comprised of representatives of the local agencies that serve the redevelopment project area: the city, county, special districts, and K-14 educational agencies. Oversight Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to holders of enforceable obligations, as well as to the local agencies that would benefit from property tax distributions from the former redevelopment project area. FINDING OF COMPLETION Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 34179.7, the California Department of Finance (DOF) was authorized to issue a finding of completion to a Successor Agency, once the following conditions had been met and verified by December 31, 2015: The Successor Agency had paid the full amount as determined during the Due Diligence Reviews and the County Auditor-Controller has reported those payments to DOF, and The Successor Agency had paid the full amount as determined during the July True-Up process, or The Successor Agency had paid the full amount upon a final judicial determination of the amounts due and confirmation that those amounts have been paid by the County Auditor-Controller, or The Successor Agency had entered into a written installment payment plan with DOF for the payments owed from above. Upon receiving the finding of completion, a Successor Agency is allowed to do the following: Place loan agreements between the former redevelopment agency and sponsoring entity on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), as an enforceable obligation, provided the oversight board makes a finding that the loan was for legitimate redevelopment purposes per HSC Section 34191.4 (b) (1) Loan repayments will be governed by criteria in HSC section 34191.4 9 (a) (2). Utilize proceeds derived from bonds issued prior to Jan. 1, 2011 in a manner consistent with the original bond covenants per HSC Section 34191.4 (c) However, if on a payment plan, and a Successor Agency fails to fully make one or more payments agreed to in the written installment plan, the benefits above may be revoked. LONG RANGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34191.5, within six months after receiving a Finding of Completion from DOF, a Successor Agency is required to submit for approval to it's Oversight Board and DOF a Long-Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP) that addresses the disposition and use of the real properties of the former redevelopment agency. If DOF had not approved a plan by January 1, 2016, then the Successor Agency was to have disposed of their property pursuant to 34177 (e). COMPENSATION AGREEMENTS Some LRPMPs prepared by successor agencies include a provision providing that certain real property of the former redevelopment agency would be retained and used for future development purposes pursuant to HSC 34179.5(c)(5)(C). As part of that, LRPMPs submitted by successor agencies have contemplated the use of “compensation agreements” between an individual successor agency and affected taxing entities (ATEs), the terms of which are not subject to approval by DOF, pursuant to HSC 34180(f)(1). Specifically, HSC 34180(f)(1) states that: If a city, county, or city and county wishes to retain any properties or other assets for future redevelopment activities, funded from its own funds and under its own auspices, it must reach a compensation agreement with the other taxing entities to provide payments to them in proportion to their shares of the base property tax, as determined pursuant to Section 34188, for the value of the property retained. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 852 The County has received multiple requests to enter into compensation agreements from successor agencies and is likely to receive additional requests in the future. Today’s action refers the issue of establishing policy guidelines for evaluating whether or not to enter into compensation agreements with successor agencies and under what terms. This will ensure that the County, including ATEs governed by the Board of Supervisors, receive appropriate financial compensation, consistent with the spirit of RDA dissolution. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: This issue will not be referred to the Finance Committee. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 853 RECOMMENDATION(S): For the purpose of allowing SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County to change the use of the Lyle Morris Center in Antioch: 1. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute the amended and restated HOME Investment Partnerships Act program agreement, and other related documents; and 2. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute First Amendment to Ground Lease. FISCAL IMPACT: No General Fund impact. HOME funds are provided to the County on a formula allocation basis through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. CFDA 14.239 BACKGROUND: In 2000, the County and SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County (Shelter Inc.) entered into a ground lease with a term of 20 years so that Shelter Inc. could lease a portion of County-owned property located at 4553 Delta Fair Boulevard in Antioch (the Property). Also in 2000, the County provided a revocable grant to Shelter Inc. of $587,000 in HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) funds and granted approximately $1.6 million from the County General Fund to support the construction of a 20 unit apartment building. The HOME funds were used to support the construction of nine units. Shelter Inc. and the County entered into a regulatory agreement with a 40 year term. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Kara Douglas, 674-7880 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 82 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval of Amendments to HOME Investment Partnerships Act Legal Documents for the Lyle Morris Family Center in Antioch March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 854 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Both the ground lease and the regulatory agreement restrict the use of the building for transitional housing. The development, recently known as the Lyle Morris Family Center (the Center), provided transitional housing for homeless households until August 2016. Operation of the Center was primarily funded by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In the past several years, HUD has placed an increasing emphasis on permanent supportive housing over transitional housing. In May 2016, HUD announced that it would no longer fund the transitional housing program operated by Shelter Inc. and other providers. Shelter Inc. is requesting that the County amend the ground lease, operating agreement, and the HOME regulatory agreement so that Shelter Inc. can convert the facility into permanent housing for families who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. The revised documents continue to require that four units be occupied by extremely-low income (incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income (AMI)) tenants and five units be occupied by very-low income (incomes at or below 50 percent AMI) tenants. The revised documents also require that an additional two units be occupied by low-income tenants and seven units be occupied by tenants with incomes at or below 65 percent AMI. Shelter Inc. expects that a significant number of households will have rental subsidies such as Housing Choice Vouchers, Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing vouchers, or Shelter Plus Care. These subsidies will allow households to pay just 30 percent of their income in rent. Shelter, Inc. is also changing the name to Lyle Morris Apartments. County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors agree to this request. Attached are documents that would amend and replace the HOME documents. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Shelter Inc. cannot continue to operate the Center as transitional housing. If the County does not amend the HOME regulatory agreement, Shelter Inc. will be forced to close the Center. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This action supports Children’s Impact Statement number 4: Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing. ATTACHMENTS First Amendment to Grant Agreement First Amendment to Ground Lease County Regulatory Agreement HOME Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 855 1 863\31\2039559.2 FIRST AMENDMENT TO REVOCABLE GRANT AGREEMENT This first amendment to revocable grant agreement (“First Amendment”) is dated ___________, 2017, and is between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “County”) and SHELTER, INC. OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“Grantee”). RECITALS A. The County and Grantee are parties to a revocable grant agreement dated as of June 30, 2000 (the “Grant Agreement”), pursuant to which Grantee received a grant of Five Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($587,000) (the “Grant”). The Grant was used to construct a 20-unit residential facility on County-owned land in Antioch, California that is commonly known as 4553 Delta Fair Boulevard (the “Facility”). The Center was originally known as the East County Family Transitional Center, then the Lyle Morris Family Center. Grantee now desires to change the name of the facility to the Lyle Morris Apartments. B. Under the terms of the Grant Agreement, only transitional (i.e., temporary) housing is permitted at the Facility. The County and Grantee desire to amend the Grant Agreement to extend its term and to permit the Facility to be used to provide affordable, permanent, housing. The parties therefore agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Unless otherwise defined in this First Amendment, all defined terms used in this First Amendment have the meaning ascribed to them in the Grant Agreement. 2. Section 1.1(g) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 1.1 Definitions 1.1 (g) "Development" means the Developer’s leasehold interest in the Property and fee interest in the twenty (20) affordable housing units developed on the Property, and attendant site improvements. 3. Section 1.1(s) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 1.1 Definitions (s) “Regulatory Agreement” shall mean (i) the Amended and Restated HOME Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated as of _________, 2017, between the County and Grantee, and (ii) the Regulatory Agreement and March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 856 2 863\31\2039559.2 Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated as of ____________, 2017, between the County and Grantee, both of which will be recorded against the Land. 4. Section 1.1(t) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 1.1 (t) "Term" means the period of time that (i) begins on June 30, 2000, and (ii) ends on the day that immediately precedes the fifth-fifth anniversary of the date of the first amendment to this Agreement. 5. Section 4.12 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 4.12 Operation of Development Beginning _________ 2017, Grantee shall at all times operate the Development to provide rental housing for low-income tenants. In selecting tenants and establishing the rent payable by tenants, Grantee shall comply with the terms of the Regulatory Agreements. 6. Section 7.9 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 7.9 Notices If at any time after the execution of this Agreement it shall become necessary or convenient for one of the parties hereto to serve any notice, demand or communication upon the other party, such notice, demand or communication shall be in writing and shall be served personally or by depositing the same in the registered United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and (1) if intended for County shall be addressed to: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Assistant Deputy Director and (2) if intended for Grantee shall be addressed to: SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County 1333 Willow Pass Road, Suite 206 Concord, CA 94520 Attn: Chief Executive Officer 8. All references to "County Deputy Director-Redevelopment" in the Grant Agreement are deleted in their entirety and replaced with "Assistant Deputy Director, Department of Conservation and Development." 9. Leasing Requirements. Prior to leasing any Unit in the Development, Grantee shall provide to the County for its review and approval a copy of its updated marketing plan, March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 857 3 863\31\2039559.2 tenant selection plan, and lease, all of which must reflect compliance with the Regulatory Agreement. 10. Operating Budget. Prior to leasing any Unit in the Development and at the beginning of each year of the Term, Grantee shall provide to the County an annual budget for the operation of the Development. The County may request additional information to assist the County in evaluating the financial viability of the Development. Unless rejected by the County in writing within thirty (30) days after receipt of the budget, the budget will be deemed accepted. If rejected by the County in whole or in part, Grantee shall submit a new or corrected budget within thirty (30) calendar days after notification of the County's rejection and the reasons therefor. The provisions of this Section relating to time periods for resubmission of new or corrected budgets will continue to apply until such budget has been approved by the County. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 858 4 863\31\2039559.2 11. All other terms of the Grant Agreement remain unchanged. The parties are signing this First Amendment as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph. COUNTY: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California By: John Kopchik Director, Department of Conservation and Development GRANTEE: SHELTER, INC. OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a California non-profit public benefit corporation By: John Eckstrom Chief Executive Officer March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 859 1 863\31\2039561.2 FIRST AMENDMENT TO GROUND LEASE This first amendment to ground lease (“First Amendment”) is dated ________, 2017, and is between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “County”) and SHELTER, INC. OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“Lessee”). RECITALS A. The County and Lessee are parties to a ground lease dated as of February 1, 2000, pursuant to which the Lessee is leasing from the County a portion of County-owned land in Antioch, California that (i) has Assessor’s Parcel No. 074-080-033, and (ii) is commonly known as 4553 Delta Fair Boulevard (the “Lease”). B. At the time the County and Lessee entered into the Lease, the Land was unimproved. Under the terms of the Lease, Lessee was required to develop, construct, own and operate a facility that would provide transitional housing and various services for those who are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness. Lessee succeeded in constructing the facility, which was originally known as the East County Family Transitional Center, then the Lyle Morris Family Center. Lessee now desires to convert the facility to residential rental units, available to eligible tenants, and to change the name of the facility to the Lyle Morris Apartments. C. Under the terms of the Lease, only transitional (i.e., temporary) housing is permitted at the facility. The County and Lessee desire to amend the Lease to permit the facility to be used to provide affordable, permanent, housing. The parties therefore agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Unless otherwise defined in this First Amendment, all defined terms used in this First Amendment have the meaning ascribed to them in the Lease. 2. Section 1.1(e) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 1.1 Definitions (e) “Center” shall mean the structures on the Land that consist of twenty (20) residential units and community space and all ancillary parking and landscaping improvements. 3. Section 1.1(q) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 1.1 Definitions March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 860 2 863\31\2039561.2 (q) “Regulatory Agreements” shall mean (i) the Amended and Restated HOME Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated as of January __, 2017, between the County and Lessee, and (ii) the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated as of January __, 2017, between the County and Lessee, both of which will be recorded against the Land. 4. Section 1.1(r) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 1.1 Definitions (r) “Residents” shall mean the residents who are authorized by the Lessee to occupy the Improvements. 5. Section 2.3 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 2.3 Payment of Rent Lessee shall pay to the Lessor rent in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) per year. The Lessor and Lessee acknowledge that on the date of this Lease, Lessee has paid prepaid rent for the entire 20-year term of the Lease. 6. Section 4.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 4.1 Use of Development (a) Lessee shall at all times during the Lease Term operate the Development to provide low-income housing. In selecting Residents and establishing the rent payable by Residents, Lessee shall comply with the terms of the Regulatory Agreements. (b) Lessee shall comply with all applicable and lawful statutes, rules, orders, ordinances, requirements and regulations of the United States, the State of California, and any other governmental authority having jurisdiction over the Development; however, the Lessee may, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, dispute the applicability or the validity of any charge, complaint, or action taken pursuant to or under color of any statues, rule, order, ordinance, requirement or regulation, defend against same, and in good faith diligently conduct any necessary proceedings to prevent and avoid any adverse consequence of same. Lessee agrees that any such contest shall be prosecuted to a final conclusion as speedily as reasonably possible. (c) Lessee shall: (i) not use the Development for any disorderly or unlawful purpose, but only to provide affordable housing and related services; March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 861 3 863\31\2039561.2 (ii) use best efforts, including but not limited to seeking legal or equitable relief where appropriate, to prevent any Resident from committing or maintaining any nuisance or unlawful conduct on or about the Development; (iii) use best efforts to prevent any Resident from violating any of the covenants and conditions of this Lease, the Operating Agreement, or the Approved Financing Documents with respect to the Development; (iv) use best efforts to abate any violation of this Lease by any Resident upon notice from the County; and (v) permit the County and its agents to inspect the Development at any reasonable time during the Lease Term. 7. Section 9.2 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Section 9.2 Notices If at any time after the execution of this Lease it shall become necessary or convenient for one of the parties hereto to serve any notice, demand or communication upon the other party, such notice, demand or communication shall be in writing and shall be served personally or by depositing the same in the registered United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and (1) if intended for County shall be addressed to: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Assistant Deputy Director and (2) if intended for Lessee shall be addressed to: SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County 1333 Willow Pass Road, Suite 206 Concord, CA 94520 Attn: Chief Executive Officer [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 862 4 863\31\2039561.2 8. All other terms of the Lease remain unchanged. The parties are signing this First Amendment as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph. COUNTY: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California By: Julia R. Bueren Director of Public Works LESSEE: SHELTER, INC. OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a California non-profit public benefit corporation By: John Eckstrom Chief Executive Officer March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 863 1 863\31\1994352.4 NO FEE DOCUMENT RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Assistant Deputy Director No fee for recording pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 __________________________________________________________________________ COUNTY REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS This Amended and Restated County Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "County Regulatory Agreement") is made and entered into as of _______________, 2017, by and between the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("Grantee"). RECITALS A. Defined terms used but not defined in these recitals are as defined in Article 1 of this County Regulatory Agreement. B. The County leased certain real property located in the County of Contra Costa, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property") to the Grantee pursuant to a ground lease dated as of February 1, 2000. C. The County and the Grantee previously entered into a HOME Revocable Grant Agreement dated June 30, 2000 (the "Grant Agreement") pursuant to which County provided a grant of Five Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($587,000) in HOME funds (the "County Grant") to Grantee to construct a twenty (20) unit transitional center for homeless households (the "Development") on the Property. D. The County Grant is funded with HOME Investment Partnership Act funds received by County from HUD pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzales National Housing Act of 1990. E. The County agreed to make the County Grant to Grantee on the condition that the Development be maintained and operated in accordance with restrictions concerning affordability, operation, and maintenance of the Development, as specified in the Grant March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 864 2 863\31\1994352.4 Agreement and a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated as of June 30, 2000, which was recorded as Doc-2000-0170178-00 in the official records of Contra Costa County (the "Original Regulatory Agreement"). F. The parties desire to replace the Original Regulatory Agreement with the HOME Regulatory Agreement in order to permit a different use of the Development. Specifically, the parties desire that Grantee be required to use the Development to provide affordable, permanent, housing in accordance with the terms of the HOME Regulatory Agreement and this County Regulatory Agreement. Upon execution of the HOME Regulatory Agreement and this County Regulatory Agreement, the Original Regulatory Agreement will be superseded in its entirety by the HOME Regulatory Agreement and this County Regulatory Agreement, which will be recorded against the Property. G. In consideration of receipt of the County Grant, Grantee agrees to observe all the terms and conditions set forth below. THEREFORE, County and Grantee hereby agree as follows. ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Definitions. When used in this County Regulatory Agreement, the following terms have the respective meanings assigned to them in this Article 1. (a) "Actual Household Size" means the actual number of persons in the applicable household. (b) "Adjusted Income" means the total anticipated annual income of all persons in a household as calculated in accordance with 24 CFR 92.203(b)(1) (which incorporates 24 CFR 813). (c) "Assumed Household Size" means the assumed household size under the HOME program for a two-bedroom unit or three-bedroom unit, as applicable. (d) "County-Assisted Units" means the nineteen (19) Units designated as assisted by the County. (e) "County Deed of Trust" means the deed of trust to County on the Property that (i) secures repayment of the County Grant and the performance of the Grant Agreement, the HOME Regulatory Agreement and this County Regulatory Agreement, and (ii) was recorded in the official records of Contra Costa County on August 9, 2000 as Document No. 2000-0170177- 00. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 865 3 863\31\1994352.4 (f) "County Grant" has the meaning ascribed to it in Recital C. (g) "Development" means the Property and the twenty (20) housing units developed on the Property, as well as any additional improvements, and all landscaping, roads and parking spaces existing thereon, as the same may from time to time exist. (h) "Extremely Low Income Household" means a household with an Adjusted Income which does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of Median Income, adjusted for Actual Household Size. (i) "Extremely Low Income Units" means the Units which, pursuant to Section 2.1(a) below, are required to be occupied by Extremely Low Income Households. (j) "Grant Agreement" means the HOME Revocable Grant Agreement entered into by and between County and Grantee, dated as of June 30, 2000, as amended from time to time. (k) "HOME" means the HOME Investment Partnership Act Program pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzales National Housing Act of 1990, as amended. (l) "HOME Regulatory Agreement" means the Amended and Restated HOME Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants of even date herewith, between the County and Grantee evidencing HOME requirements applicable to the Grant, which is being recorded against the Property concurrently herewith. (m) "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (n) "Low Income Household" means a household with an Adjusted Income that does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of Median Income, with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than eighty percent (80%) of Median Income on the basis of HUD findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. (o) "Median Income" means the median gross yearly income, adjusted for Actual Household Size or Assumed Household Size as specified herein, in the County of Contra Costa, California, as published from time to time by HUD and the State of California. In the event that such income determinations are no longer published, or are not updated for a period of at least eighteen (18) months, County shall provide Grantee with other income determinations which are reasonably similar with respect to methods of calculation to those previously published by HUD and the State. (p) "Original Regulatory Agreement" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph E of the Recitals. (q) "Property" has the meaning ascribed to it in Recital B. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 866 4 863\31\1994352.4 (r) "Rent" means the total of monthly payments by the Tenant of a Unit for the following: use and occupancy of the Unit and land and associated facilities, including parking; any separately charged fees or service charges assessed by Grantee which are required of all Tenants, other than security deposits; an allowance for the cost of an adequate level of service for utilities paid by the Tenant, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and refrigeration fuel, but not telephone service or cable TV; and any other interest, taxes, fees or charges for use of the land or associated facilities and assessed by a public or private entity other than Grantee, and paid by the Tenant. (s) "Sixty-Five Percent Income Household" means a household (i) with an Adjusted Income that does not exceed sixty-five percent (65%) of Median Income, adjusted for Actual Household Size. (t) "Sixty-Five Percent Income Units" means the Units which, pursuant to Section 2.1(c) below, are required to be occupied by Sixty-Five Percent Income Households. (u) "Tenant" means a household occupying a Unit. (v) "Term" means the term of this County Regulatory Agreement which commences on the date of this County Regulatory Agreement, and unless sooner terminated pursuant to the terms of this County Regulatory Agreement, expires on the fifty-fifth (55th) anniversary of the date of this County Regulatory Agreement. (w) "Unit" means one of the twenty (20) housing units included in the Development. (x) "Very Low Income Household" means a household with an Adjusted Income that does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of Median Income, with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than fifty percent (50%) of Median Income on the basis of HUD findings that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. (y) "Very Low Income Units" means the Units which, pursuant to Section 2.1(b) below, are required to be occupied by Very Low Income Households. ARTICLE 2 AFFORDABILITY AND OCCUPANCY COVENANTS 2.1 Occupancy Requirements. (a) Extremely Low Income Units. No fewer than four (4) of the County- Assisted Units shall be rented to and occupied by or, if vacant, available for occupancy by Extremely Low Income Households. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 867 5 863\31\1994352.4 (b) Very Low Income Units. No fewer than seven (7) of the County-Assisted Units shall be rented to and occupied by or, if vacant, available for occupancy by Very Low Income Households. (c) Sixty-Five Percent Income Units. No fewer than eight (8) of the County- Assisted Units shall be rented to and occupied by or, if vacant, available for occupancy by Sixty- Five Percent Income Households. (d) Intermingling of Units. The County-Assisted Units shall be intermingled with, and shall be of comparable quality to, all other units on the Property. A minimum of two (2) of the three-bedroom units shall be County-Assisted Units. Tenants in all Units shall have equal access to and enjoyment of all common facilities of the Development. 2.2 Allowable Rent. (a) Extremely Low Income Rent. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.3 below, the Rent (including utility allowance) charged to Tenants of the Extremely Low Income Units shall not exceed one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of thirty percent (30%) of Median Income, adjusted for Assumed Household Size. (b) Very Low Income Rent. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.3 below, the Rent (including utility allowance) charged to Tenants of the Very Low Income Units shall not exceed one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of fifty percent (50%) of Median Income, adjusted for Assumed Household Size. (c) Sixty-Five Percent Income Rent. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.3 below, the Rent (including utility allowance) charged to Tenants of the Sixty-Five Percent Income Units shall not exceed one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of sixty-five percent (65%) of Median Income, adjusted for Assumed Household Size. (d) County Approval of Rent. Initial amounts for Rent for all County- Assisted Units shall be approved by County prior to occupancy. All increases in Rent for residents of County-Assisted Units shall also be subject to County approval. The County shall provide Grantee with a schedule of maximum permissible charges for Rent for the County- Assisted Units annually. 2.3 Increased Income of Tenants. (a) Increase from Extremely Low Income to Very Low Income. If, upon recertification of the income of a Tenant of a County-Assisted Unit, the Borrower determines that a former Extremely Low Income Household's Adjusted Income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for an Extremely Low Income Household, but does not exceed the maximum qualifying income for a Very Low Income Household, then, upon expiration of the Tenant's lease: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 868 6 863\31\1994352.4 (1) Such Tenant's Unit shall be considered a Very Low Income Unit; (2) Such Tenant's Rent may be increased to the Very Low Income Rent, upon sixty (60) days written notice to the Tenant; and (3) The Borrower shall rent the next available Unit to an Extremely Low Income Household at Rent not exceeding the maximum Rent specified in Section 2.2(a) to comply with the requirements of Section 2.1(a) and Section 2.2(a) above. Increase above Very Low Income but below Low Income. If, upon recertification of the income of a Tenant of a County-Assisted Unit, the Borrower determines that a former Extremely Low Income Household's. Very Low Income Household's, or Sixty-Five Percent Income Household's Adjusted Income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Sixty-Five Percent Income Household, but does not exceed the maximum qualifying income for a Low Income Household, then, upon expiration of the Tenant's lease: (1) Such Tenant's Unit shall be considered a Sixty-Five Percent Income Unit; (2) Such Tenant's Rent may be increased to the Sixty-Five Percent Income Rent, upon sixty (60) days written notice to the Tenant; and (3) The Borrower shall rent the next available Unit to an Extremely Low Income Household, Very Low Income Household or Sixty-Five Percent Income Household at Rent not exceeding the maximum Rent specified in Section 2.2 to comply with the requirements of Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 above. (b) Non-Qualifying Household. If, upon recertification of the income of a Tenant of a County-Assisted Unit, Grantee determines that a former Extremely Low Income Household, Very Low Income Household, or Sixty-Five Percent Income Household has an Adjusted Income exceeding the maximum qualifying income for a Low Income Household, such Tenant shall be permitted to continue to occupy the Unit. Upon the expiration of such Tenant's lease, Borrower shall with 60 days’ advance written notice, increase such Tenant’s Rent to the lesser of (i) one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of the actual Adjusted Income of the Tenant, and (ii) the fair market rent. Grantee shall rent the next available County-Assisted Unit to an Extremely Low Income Household, a Very Low Income Household, or a Sixty-Five Percent Income Household to meet the requirements of Section 2.1above as applicable. (c) Termination of Occupancy. Upon termination of occupancy of a County- Assisted Unit by a Tenant, such Unit shall be deemed to be continuously occupied by a household of the same income level as the initial income level of the vacating Tenant, until such Unit is reoccupied, at which time the income character of the Unit shall be redetermined. 2.4 Units Available to the Disabled. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 869 7 863\31\1994352.4 In compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a minimum of one (1) County-Assisted Unit shall be fully accessible to mobility impaired persons and an additional one (1) County-Assisted Unit shall be accessible to vision and/or hearing impaired persons. ARTICLE 3 INCOME CERTIFICATION AND REPORTING 3.1 Income Status Certification. Grantee will obtain, complete and maintain on file, immediately prior to initial occupancy and annually thereafter, income certifications from each Tenant renting any of the County- Assisted Units. Grantee shall make a good faith effort to verify that the income provided by an applicant or occupying household in an income certification is accurate by taking two or more of the following steps as a part of the verification process: (a) obtain a pay stub for the most recent pay period; (b) obtain an income tax return for the most recent tax year; (c) conduct a credit agency or similar search; (d) obtain an income verification form from the applicant's current employer; (e) obtain an income verification form from the Social Security Administration and/or the California Department of Social Services if the applicant receives assistance from either of such agencies; or (f) if the applicant is unemployed and has no such tax return, obtain another form of independent verification. Copies of Tenant income certifications shall be available to County upon request. 3.2 Annual Report to County. Grantee shall submit to County (a) not later than the forty-fifth (45th) day after the close of each calendar year, or such other date as may be requested by County, a statistical report, including income, rent, and service fee data for all County-Assisted Units, setting forth the information called for therein, and (b) within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a written request, any other information or completed forms requested by County in order to comply with reporting requirements of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the State of California, or the County. 3.3 Additional Information. Grantee shall provide any additional information reasonably requested by County. County shall have the right to examine and make copies of all books, records or other documents of Grantee which pertain to the Development. 3.4 Tenant Records. Grantee shall maintain complete, accurate and current records pertaining to the income and household size of Tenants residing in County-Assisted Units, and shall permit any duly authorized representative of County to inspect records. All Tenant lists, applications and waiting lists relating to the Development shall at all times be kept separate and identifiable from any March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 870 8 863\31\1994352.4 other business of Grantee and shall be maintained as required by County, in a reasonable condition for proper audit and subject to examination during business hours by representatives of County. Grantee shall retain copies of all materials obtained or produced with respect to occupancy of the County-Assisted Units for a period of at least five (5) years. 3.5 Development Records. (a) Grantee shall keep and maintain at the principal place of business of the Grantee set forth in Section 6.14 below, or elsewhere with the County's written consent, full, complete and appropriate books, records and accounts relating to the Development. Grantee shall cause all books, records and accounts relating to its compliance with the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of the Grant Agreement to be kept and maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied, and to be consistent with requirements of this County Regulatory Agreement. Grantee shall cause all books, records, and accounts to be open to and available for inspection and copying by HUD, the County, its auditors or other authorized representatives at reasonable intervals during normal business hours. Grantee shall cause copies of all tax returns and other reports that Grantee may be required to furnish to any government agency to be open for inspection by the County at all reasonable times at the place that the books, records and accounts of Grantee are kept. Grantee shall preserve such records for a period of not less than five (5) years after their creation in compliance with all HUD records and accounting requirements. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, monitoring, inspection or other action relating to the use of the Grant is pending at the end of the record retention period stated herein, then Grantee shall retain the records until such action and all related issues are resolved. Grantee shall cause the records to include all invoices, receipts, and other documents related to expenditures from the Grant funds. Grantee shall cause records to be accurate and current and in a form that allows the County to comply with the record keeping requirements contained in 24 C.F.R. 92.508. Such records are to include but are not limited to: (i) Records providing a full description of the activities undertaken with the use of the Grant funds; (ii) Records demonstrating compliance with the maintenance requirements of this County Regulatory Agreement; (iii) Records documenting compliance with the fair housing, equal opportunity, and affirmative fair marketing requirements; (iv) Financial records; and (v) Records demonstrating compliance with marketing, tenant selection, affordability, and income requirements. (b) The County shall notify Grantee of any records it deems insufficient. Grantee has fifteen (15) calendar days after the receipt of such a notice to correct any deficiency in the records specified by the County in such notice, or if a period longer than March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 871 9 863\31\1994352.4 fifteen (15) days is reasonably necessary to correct the deficiency, then Grantee must begin to correct the deficiency within fifteen (15) days and correct the deficiency as soon as reasonably possible. 3.6 On-site Inspection. County shall have the right to perform an on-site inspection of the Development at least one time per year. Grantee agrees to cooperate in such inspection. ARTICLE 4 OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT 4.1 Residential Use. The Development shall be operated as affordable housing for Extremely Low Income Households, Very Low Income Households and Sixty-Five Percent Income Households. No part of the Development shall be operated as transient housing with occupancy of less than thirty (30) days. 4.2 Compliance with Grant Agreement. Grantee shall comply with all the terms and provisions of the Grant Agreement. 4.3 Taxes and Assessments. Grantee shall pay all real and personal property taxes, assessments and charges and all franchise, income, employment, old age benefit, withholding, sales, and other taxes assessed against it, or payable by it, at such times and in such manner as to prevent any penalty from accruing, or any line or charge from attaching to the Property; provided, however, that Grantee shall have the right to contest in good faith, any such taxes, assessments, or charges. In the event Grantee exercises its right to contest any tax, assessment, or charge against it, Grantee, on final determination of the proceeding or contest, shall immediately pay or discharge any decision or judgment rendered against it, together with all costs, charges and interest. 4.4 Property Tax Exemption. Grantee shall not apply for a property tax exemption for the property under any provision of law except California Revenue and Taxation Section 214 (g), without the prior written consent of the County. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 872 10 863\31\1994352.4 ARTICLE 5 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE 5.1 Management Responsibilities. The Grantee is responsible for all management functions with respect to the Development, including without limitation the selection of tenants, certification and recertification of household size and income, evictions, collection of rents and deposits, maintenance, landscaping, routine and extraordinary repairs, replacement of capital items, and security. County shall have no responsibility over management of the Development. 5.2 Management Agent; Periodic Reports. The Development shall at all times be managed by an experienced management agent reasonably acceptable to County, with demonstrated ability to operate residential facilities like the Development in a manner that will provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing (as approved, the "Management Agent"). A resident manager shall also be required. The Grantee shall submit for County's approval the identity of any proposed Management Agent (and County pre- approves, initial self-management of the Development by Grantee). The Grantee shall also submit such additional information about the background, experience and financial condition of any proposed Management Agent as is reasonably necessary for County to determine whether the proposed Management Agent meets the standard for a qualified Management Agent set forth above. If the proposed Management Agent meets the standard for a qualified Management Agent set forth above, County shall approve the proposed Management Agent by notifying the Grantee in writing. Unless the proposed Management Agent is disapproved by County within thirty (30) days, which disapproval shall state with reasonable specificity the basis for disapproval, it shall be deemed approved. 5.3 Performance Review. County reserves the right to conduct an annual (or more frequently, if deemed necessary by County) review of the management practices and financial status of the Development. The purpose of each periodic review will be to enable County to determine if the Development is being operated and managed in accordance with the requirements and standards of this County Regulatory Agreement. The Grantee shall cooperate with County in such reviews. 5.4 Replacement of Management Agent. If, as a result of a periodic review, County determines in its reasonable judgement that the Development is not being operated and managed in accordance with any of the material requirements and standards of this County Regulatory Agreement, County shall deliver notice to Grantee of its intention to cause replacement of the Management Agent, including the reasons therefor. Within fifteen (15) days of receipt by Grantee of such written notice, County staff and the Grantee shall meet in good faith to consider methods for improving the financial and operating status of the Development, including, without limitation, replacement of the Management Agent. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 873 11 863\31\1994352.4 If, after such meeting, County staff recommends in writing the replacement of the Management Agent, Grantee shall promptly dismiss the then Management Agent, and shall appoint as the Management Agent a person or entity meeting the standards for a Management Agent set forth in Section 5.2 above and approved by County pursuant to Section 5.2 above. Any contract for the operation or management of the Development entered into by Grantee shall provide that the contract can be terminated as set forth above. Failure to remove the Management Agent in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall constitute default under this County Regulatory Agreement, and County may enforce this provision through legal proceedings as specified in Section 6.6 below. 5.5 Approval of Management Policies. The Grantee shall submit its written management policies with respect to the Development to County for its review, and shall amend such policies in any way necessary to ensure that such policies comply with the provisions of this County Regulatory Agreement. 5.6 Property Maintenance. The Grantee agrees, for the entire Term of this County Regulatory Agreement, to maintain all interior and exterior improvements, including landscaping, on the Property in good condition and repair (and, as to landscaping, in a healthy condition) and in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, ordinances, orders and regulations of all federal, state, county, municipal, and other governmental agencies and bodies having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials, and in accordance with the following maintenance conditions: County places prime importance on quality maintenance to protect its investment and to ensure that all County and County-assisted affordable housing projects within County are not allowed to deteriorate due to below-average maintenance. Normal wear and tear of the Development will be acceptable to County assuming the Grantee agrees to provide all necessary improvements to assure the Development is maintained in good condition. The Grantee shall make all repairs and replacements necessary to keep the improvements in good condition and repair. In the event that the Grantee breaches any of the covenants contained in this section and such default continues for a period of five (5) days after written notice from County with respect to graffiti, debris, waste material, and general maintenance or thirty (30) days after written notice from County with respect to landscaping and building improvements, then County, in addition to whatever other remedy it may have at law or in equity, shall have the right to enter upon the Property and perform or cause to be performed all such acts and work necessary to cure the default. Pursuant to such right of entry, County shall be permitted (but is not required) to enter upon the Property and perform all acts and work necessary to protect, maintain, and preserve the improvements and landscaped areas on the Property, and to attach a lien on the Property, or to assess the Property, in the amount of the expenditures arising from such acts and work of March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 874 12 863\31\1994352.4 protection, maintenance, and preservation by County and/or costs of such cure, which amount shall be promptly paid by the Grantee to County upon demand. ARTICLE 6 MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 Lease Provisions. In leasing the County-Assisted Units, Grantee shall use a form of Tenant lease approved by County. The form of Tenant lease shall also comply with all requirements of this County Regulatory Agreement and the Grant Agreement, and shall, among other matters: (a) provide for termination of the lease and consent by the Tenant to immediate eviction for failure: (1) to provide any information required under this County Regulatory Agreement or reasonably requested by Grantee to establish or recertify the Tenant's qualification, or the qualification of the Tenant's household, for occupancy in the Development in accordance with the standards set forth in this County Regulatory Agreement, or (2) to qualify as an Extremely Low Income Household or Very Low Income Household or Sixty-Five Percent Income Household as a result of any material misrepresentation made by such Tenant with respect to the income computation or certification; and (b) be for an initial term of not less than one year (1) (unless a shorter term is mutually agreed by the Tenant and the Grantee) and provide for no increase in Rent during such time period. After the initial term of tenancy, the lease may be month to month by mutual agreement of Grantee and the Tenant, however Rent may not be raised more often than once a year. Grantee will provide each Tenant with at least sixty (60) days' written notice of any increase in Rent applicable to such Tenant, and with such further notice as may be required by Section 2.3 above. (c) any termination of a lease or refusal by Grantee to renew must be preceded by no less than thirty (30) days written notice to the tenant by Grantee specifying the grounds for the action. 6.2 Nondiscrimination. All of the Units shall be available for occupancy on a continuous basis to members of the general public who are income eligible. Grantee shall not give preference to any particular class or group of persons in renting the Units, except to the extent that the Units are required to be leased to Extremely Low Income Households, Very Low Income Households, and Sixty-Percent Income Households. There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, source of income (e.g. SSI), ancestry, or disability, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of any Unit nor shall Grantee or any person claiming under or through Grantee, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use, or March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 875 13 863\31\1994352.4 occupancy, of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees of any Unit or in connection with the employment of persons for the construction, operation and management of any Unit. 6.3 Term. The provisions of this County Regulatory Agreement shall apply to the Property for the entire Term even if the entire County Grant is paid in full prior to the end of the Term. This County Regulatory Agreement shall bind any successor, heir or assign of Grantee, whether a change in interest occurs voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law or otherwise, except as expressly released by County. County makes the County Grant on the condition, and in consideration of, this provision, and would not do so otherwise. 6.4 Notice of Expiration of Term. (a) At least six (6) months prior to the expiration of the Term, Grantee shall provide by first-class mail, postage prepaid, a notice to all Tenants containing (a) the anticipated date of the expiration of the Term, (b) any anticipated increase in Rent upon the expiration of the Term, (c) a statement that a copy of such notice will be sent to County, and (d) a statement that a public hearing may be held by County on the issue and that the Tenant will receive notice of the hearing at least fifteen (15) days in advance of any such hearing. Grantee shall also file a copy of the above-described notice with the County's Assistant Deputy Director, Department of Conservation. (b) In addition to the notice required above, Grantee shall comply with the requirements set forth in California Government Code Sections 65863.10 and 65863.11. Such notice requirements include: (i) a twelve (12) month notice to existing tenants, prospective tenants and Affected Public Agencies (as defined in California Government Code Section 65863.10(a)) prior to the expiration of the Term, (ii) a six (6) month notice requirement to existing tenants, prospective tenants and Affected Public Agencies prior to the expiration of the Term; (iii) a notice of an offer to purchase the Development to "qualified entities" (as defined in California Government Code Section 65863.11(d)), if the Development is to be sold within five (5) years of the end of the Term; (iv) a notice of right of first refusal within the one hundred eighty (180) day period that qualified entities may purchase the Development. 6.5 Covenants to Run With the Land. County and Grantee hereby declare their express intent that the covenants and restrictions set forth in this County Regulatory Agreement shall run with the land, and shall bind all successors in title to the Property, provided, however, that on the expiration of the Term of this County Regulatory Agreement said covenants and restrictions shall expire. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereafter executed covering or conveying the Property or any portion thereof, shall be held conclusively to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to such covenants and restrictions, regardless of whether such covenants or restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument, unless County expressly releases such conveyed portion of the Property from the requirements of this County Regulatory Agreement. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 876 14 863\31\1994352.4 6.6 Enforcement by County. If Grantee fails to perform any obligation under this County Regulatory Agreement, and fails to cure the default within thirty (30) days after County has notified Grantee in writing of the default or, if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, failed to commence to cure within thirty (30) days and thereafter diligently pursue such cure and complete such cure within ninety (90) days, County shall have the right to enforce this County Regulatory Agreement by any or all of the following actions, or any other remedy provided by law. (a) Calling the County Grant. County may declare a default under the Grant Agreement, require repayment of the Grant (including interest due pursuant to the Grant Agreement), and proceed with foreclosure under the County Deed of Trust. (b) Action to Compel Performance or for Damages. County may bring an action at law or in equity to compel Grantee's performance of its obligations under this County Regulatory Agreement, and/or for damages. (c) Remedies Provided Under Grant Agreement. County may exercise any other remedy provided under the Grant Agreement. 6.7 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. In any action brought to enforce this County Regulatory Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs and expenses of suit, including attorneys' fees. This section shall be interpreted in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1717 and judicial decisions interpreting that statute. 6.8 Recording and Filing. County and Grantee shall cause this County Regulatory Agreement, and all amendments and supplements to it, to be recorded in the Official Records of the County of Contra Costa. 6.9 Governing Law. This County Regulatory Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 6.10 Waiver of Requirements. Any of the requirements of this County Regulatory Agreement may be expressly waived by County in writing, but no waiver by County of any requirement of this County Regulatory Agreement shall, or shall be deemed to, extend to or affect any other provision of this County Regulatory Agreement. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 877 15 863\31\1994352.4 6.11 Amendments. This County Regulatory Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by all the parties hereto or their successors in title, and duly recorded in the real property records of County of Contra Costa. 6.12 Notices. Any notice requirement set forth herein shall be deemed to be satisfied three (3) days after mailing of the notice first-class United States certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the appropriate party as follows: Grantee: SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County 1070 Concord Ave. Concord, CA 94520 Attention: Chief Executive Officer County: County of Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Assistant Deputy Director Such addresses may be changed by notice to the other party given in the same manner as provided above. 6.13 Severability. If any provision of this County Regulatory Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining portions of this County Regulatory Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 6.14 Multiple Originals; Counterparts. This County Regulatory Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts. 6.15 HOME Regulatory Agreement. The County and Grantee are entering into this County Regulatory Agreement concurrently with the HOME Regulatory Agreement. The HOME Regulatory Agreement as it applies to the County-Assisted Units will be in effect until December 31, 2022 (the "HOME Term") and includes HOME requirements applicable to the use of the County Grant. Compliance with the terms of the HOME Regulatory Agreement will be deemed compliance with this County Regulatory Agreement during the HOME Term. In the event of a conflict between this County March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 878 16 863\31\1994352.4 Regulatory Agreement and the HOME Regulatory Agreement during the HOME Term, the terms of the HOME Regulatory Agreement will prevail. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 879 S-1 863\31\1994352.4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, County and Grantee are executing this County Regulatory Agreement by duly authorized representatives, all on the date first written above. GRANTEE: SHELTER, INC. OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation By:________________________________ John Eckstrom, Chief Executive Officer COUNTY: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California By: __________________ John Kopchik Director, Department of Conservation and Development Approved as to form: SHARON L. ANDERSON County Counsel By: Kathleen Andrus Deputy County Counsel March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 880 863\31\1994352.4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF __________________ ) On ____________________, before me, ___________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ______________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Notary Public A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 881 863\31\1994352.4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF __________________ ) On ____________________, before me, ___________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ______________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Notary Public A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 882 A-1 863\31\1994352.4 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 883 1 863\31\2039560.4 NO FEE DOCUMENT RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Assistant Deputy Director No fee for recording pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 __________________________________________________________________________ AMENDED AND RESTATED HOME REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS This Amended and Restated HOME Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "HOME Regulatory Agreement") is made and entered into as of _______________, 2017, by and between the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("Grantee"). RECITALS A. Defined terms used but not defined in these recitals are as defined in Article 1 of this HOME Regulatory Agreement. B. The County leased certain real property located in the County of Contra Costa, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property") to the Grantee pursuant to a ground lease dated as of February 1, 2000. C. The County and the Grantee previously entered into a HOME Revocable Grant Agreement dated June 30, 2000 (the "Grant Agreement") pursuant to which County provided a grant of Five Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($587,000) in HOME funds (the "County Grant") to Grantee to construct a twenty (20) unit transitional center for homeless households (the "Development") on the Property. D. The County Grant is funded with HOME Investment Partnership Act funds received by County from HUD pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzales National Housing Act of 1990. E. The County agreed to make the County Grant to Grantee on the condition that the Development be maintained and operated in accordance with restrictions concerning affordability, operation, and maintenance of the Development, as specified in the Grant March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 884 2 863\31\2039560.4 Agreement and a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated as of June 30, 2000, which was recorded as Doc-2000-0170178-00 in the official records of Contra Costa County (the "Original Regulatory Agreement"). F. The parties desire to replace the Original Regulatory Agreement with this HOME Regulatory Agreement in order to permit a different use of the Development. Specifically, the parties desire that Grantee be required to use the Development to provide affordable, permanent, housing in accordance with the terms of this HOME Regulatory Agreement and the County Regulatory Agreement. Upon execution of this HOME Regulatory Agreement and the County Regulatory Agreement, the Original Regulatory Agreement will be superseded in its entirety by this HOME Regulatory Agreement and the County Regulatory Agreement, which will be recorded against the Property. G. In consideration of receipt of the County Grant, Grantee agrees to observe all the terms and conditions set forth below. THEREFORE, County and Grantee hereby agree as follows. ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Definitions. When used in this HOME Regulatory Agreement, the following terms shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in this Article 1. (a) "Actual Household Size" means the actual number of persons in the applicable household. (b) "Adjusted Income" means the total anticipated annual income of all persons in a household as calculated in accordance with 24 CFR 92.203(b)(1) (which incorporates 24 CFR 813). (c) "Assumed Household Size" means the assumed household size under the HOME program for a two-bedroom unit or three-bedroom unit, as applicable. (d) "County-Assisted Units" means the nineteen (19) Units designated as assisted by the County. (e) "County Deed of Trust" means the deed of trust to County on the Property that (i) secures repayment of the County Grant and the performance of the Grant Agreement, this HOME Regulatory Agreement and the County Regulatory Agreement, and (ii) was recorded in the official records of Contra Costa County on August 9, 2000 as Document No. 2000-0170177- 00. (f) "County Grant" has the meaning ascribed to it in Recital C. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 885 3 863\31\2039560.4 (g) "County Regulatory Agreement" means the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants of even date herewith, between the County and Grantee evidencing County requirements applicable to the Grant, to be recorded against the Property concurrently herewith. (h) "Development" means the Property and the twenty (20) housing units developed on the Property, as well as any additional improvements, and all landscaping, roads and parking spaces existing thereon, as the same may from time to time exist. (i) "Extremely Low Income Household" means a household with an Adjusted Income which does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of Median Income, adjusted for Actual Household Size. (j) "Extremely Low Income Units" means the Units which, pursuant to Section 2.1(a) below, are required to be occupied by Extremely Low Income Households. (k) "Grant Agreement" means the HOME Revocable Grant Agreement entered into by and between County and Grantee dated as of June 30, 2000, as amended from time to time. (l) "High HOME Rent" means the rent limit established by HUD for units assisted under the HOME program and occupied by Low Income Households set out in 24 CFR 92.2. (m) "HOME" means the HOME Investment Partnership Act Program pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzales National Housing Act of 1990, as amended. (n) "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (o) "Low Income Household" means a household with an Adjusted Income that does not exceed the qualifying limit for a low income family under the HOME Program as defined in 24 CFR 92.2. (p) "Median Income" means the median gross yearly income, adjusted for Actual Household Size or Assumed Household Size as specified herein, in the County of Contra Costa, California, as published from time to time by HUD and the State of California. In the event that such income determinations are no longer published, or are not updated for a period of at least eighteen (18) months, County shall provide Grantee with other income determinations which are reasonably similar with respect to methods of calculation to those previously published by HUD and the State. (q) "Original Regulatory Agreement" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph E of the Recitals. (r) "Property" has the meaning ascribed to it in Recital B. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 886 4 863\31\2039560.4 (s) "Rent" means the total of monthly payments by the Tenant of a Unit for the following: use and occupancy of the Unit and land and associated facilities, including parking; any separately charged fees or service charges assessed by Grantee which are required of all Tenants, other than security deposits; an allowance for the cost of an adequate level of service for utilities paid by the Tenant, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and refrigeration fuel, but not telephone service or cable TV; and any other interest, taxes, fees or charges for use of the land or associated facilities and assessed by a public or private entity other than Grantee, and paid by the Tenant. (t) "Sixty-Five Percent Income Household" means a household (i) with an Adjusted Income that does not exceed sixty-five percent (65%) of Median Income, adjusted for Actual Household Size. (u) "Sixty-Five Percent Income Units" means the Units which, pursuant to Section 2.1(c) below, are required to be occupied by Sixty-Five Percent Income Households. (v) "Tenant" means a household occupying a Unit. (w) "Term" means the term of this HOME Regulatory Agreement, which commenced on June 30, 2000 and continues until December 31, 2022. (x) "Unit" means one of the twenty (20) housing units included in the Development. (y) "Very Low Income Household" means a household with an Adjusted Income that does not exceed the qualifying limit for a very low income family under the HOME program as defined in 24 CFR 92.2. (z) "Very Low Income Units" means the Units which, pursuant to Section 2.1(b) below, are required to be occupied by Very Low Income Households. ARTICLE 2 AFFORDABILITY AND OCCUPANCY COVENANTS 2.1 Occupancy Requirements. (a) Extremely Low Income Units. No fewer than four (4) of the County- Assisted Units shall be rented to and occupied by or, if vacant, available for occupancy by Extremely Low Income Households. (b) Very Low Income Units. No fewer than an additional seven (7) of the County-Assisted Units shall be rented to and occupied by or, if vacant, available for occupancy by Very Low Income Households. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 887 5 863\31\2039560.4 (c) Sixty-Five Percent Income Units. No fewer than an additional eight (8) of the County-Assisted Units shall be rented to and occupied by or, if vacant, available for occupancy by Sixty-Five Percent Income Households. (d) Intermingling of Units. The County-Assisted Units shall be intermingled with, and shall be of comparable quality to, all other units on the Property. A minimum of two (2) of the three-bedroom units shall be County-Assisted Units. Tenants in all Units shall have equal access to and enjoyment of all common facilities of the Development. 2.2 Allowable Rent. (a) Extremely Low Income Rent. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.3 below, the Rent (including utility allowance) charged to Tenants of the Extremely Low Income Units shall not exceed one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of thirty percent (30%) of Median Income, adjusted for Assumed Household Size. (b) Very Low Income Rent. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.3 below, the Rent (including utility allowance) charged to Tenants of the Very Low Income Units shall not exceed the rent limit established by HUD for Units assisted under the HOME program and occupied by Very Low Income Households set out in 24 CFR 92.252. (c) Sixty-Five Percent Income Rent. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.3 below, the Rent (including utility allowance) charged to Tenants of the Sixty-Five Percent Income Units shall not exceed the High HOME Rent. (d) County Approval of Rent. Initial amounts for Rent for all County- Assisted Units shall be approved by County prior to occupancy. All increases in Rent for residents of County-Assisted Units shall also be subject to County approval. The County shall provide Grantee with a schedule of maximum permissible charges for Rent for the County- Assisted Units annually. 2.3 Increased Income of Tenants. (a) Increase from Extremely Low Income to Very Low Income. If, upon recertification of the income of a Tenant of a County-Assisted Unit, the Borrower determines that a former Extremely Low Income Household's Adjusted Income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for an Extremely Low Income Household, but does not exceed the maximum qualifying income for a Very Low Income Household, then, upon expiration of the Tenant's lease: (1) Such Tenant's Unit shall be considered a Very Low Income Unit; (2) Such Tenant's Rent may be increased to the Very Low Income Rent, upon sixty (60) days written notice to the Tenant; and March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 888 6 863\31\2039560.4 (3) The Borrower shall rent the next available Unit to an Extremely Low Income Household at Rent not exceeding the maximum Rent specified in Section 2.2(a) to comply with the requirements of Section 2.1(a) and Section 2.2(a) above. (b) Increase above Very Low Income but below Low Income. If, upon recertification of the income of a Tenant of a County-Assisted Unit, the Borrower determines that a former Extremely Low Income Household's. Very Low Income Household's, or Sixty-Five Percent Income Household's Adjusted Income has increased and exceeds the qualifying income for a Sixty-Five Percent Income Household, but does not exceed the maximum qualifying income for a Low Income Household, then, upon expiration of the Tenant's lease: (1) Such Tenant's Unit shall be considered a Sixty-Five Percent Income Unit; (2) Such Tenant's Rent may be increased to the High HOME Rent, upon sixty (60) days written notice to the Tenant; and (3) The Borrower shall rent the next available Unit to an Extremely Low Income Household, Very Low Income Household or Sixty-Five Percent Income Household at Rent not exceeding the maximum Rent specified in Section 2.2 to comply with the requirements of Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 above. (c) Non-Qualifying Household. If, upon recertification of the income of a Tenant of a County-Assisted Unit, Grantee determines that a former Extremely Low Income Household, Very Low Income Household or Sixty-Five Percent Income Household has an Adjusted Income exceeding the maximum qualifying income a Low Income Household, such Tenant shall be permitted to continue to occupy the Unit. Upon the expiration of such Tenant's lease, Borrower shall with 60 days’ advance written notice, increase such Tenant’s Rent to the lesser of (i) one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of the actual Adjusted Income of the Tenant, and (ii) the fair market rent. Grantee shall rent the next available County-Assisted Unit to an Extremely Low Income Household, a Very Low Income Household or a Sixty-Five Percent Income Household to meet the requirements of Section 2.1above, as applicable. (d) Termination of Occupancy. Upon termination of occupancy of a County- Assisted Unit by a Tenant, such Unit shall be deemed to be continuously occupied by a household of the same income level as the initial income level of the vacating Tenant, until such Unit is reoccupied, at which time the income character of the Unit shall be redetermined. 2.3 Units Available to the Disabled. In compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a minimum of one (1) County-Assisted Unit shall be fully accessible to mobility impaired persons and an additional one (1) County-Assisted Unit shall be accessible to vision and/or hearing impaired persons. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 889 7 863\31\2039560.4 ARTICLE 3 INCOME CERTIFICATION AND REPORTING 3.1 Income Status Certification. Grantee shall obtain, complete and maintain on file, immediately prior to initial occupancy and annually thereafter, income certifications from each Tenant renting any of the County-Assisted Units. Grantee shall make a good faith effort to verify that the income provided by an applicant or occupying household in an income certification is accurate by taking two or more of the following steps as a part of the verification process: (a) obtain a pay stub for the most recent pay period; (b) obtain an income tax return for the most recent tax year; (c) conduct a credit agency or similar search; (d) obtain an income verification form from the applicant's current employer; (e) obtain an income verification form from the Social Security Administration and/or the California Department of Social Services if the applicant receives assistance from either of such agencies; or (f) if the applicant is unemployed and has no such tax return, obtain another form of independent verification. Copies of Tenant income certifications shall be available to County upon request. 3.2 Annual Report to County. Grantee shall submit to County (a) not later than the forty-fifth (45th) day after the close of each calendar year, or such other date as may be requested by County, a statistical report, including income, rent, and service fee data for all County-Assisted Units, setting forth the information called for therein, and (b) within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a written request, any other information or completed forms requested by County in order to comply with reporting requirements of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the State of California, or the County. 3.3 Additional Information. Grantee shall provide any additional information reasonably requested by County. County shall have the right to examine and make copies of all books, records or other documents of Grantee which pertain to the Development. 3.4 Tenant Records. Grantee shall maintain complete, accurate and current records pertaining to the income and household size of Tenants residing in County-Assisted Units and shall permit any duly authorized representative of County to inspect records. All Tenant lists, applications and waiting lists relating to the Development shall at all times be kept separate and identifiable from any other business of Grantee and shall be maintained as required by County, in a reasonable condition for proper audit and subject to examination during business hours by representatives of County. Grantee shall retain copies of all materials obtained or produced with respect to occupancy of the County-Assisted Units for a period of at least five (5) years. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 890 8 863\31\2039560.4 3.5 Development Records. (a) Grantee shall keep and maintain at the principal place of business of the Grantee set forth in Section 6.14 below, or elsewhere with the County's written consent, full, complete and appropriate books, records and accounts relating to the Development. Grantee shall cause all books, records and accounts relating to its compliance with the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of the Grant Agreement to be kept and maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied, and to be consistent with requirements of this HOME Regulatory Agreement. Grantee shall cause all books, records, and accounts to be open to and available for inspection and copying by HUD, the County, its auditors or other authorized representatives at reasonable intervals during normal business hours. Grantee shall cause copies of all tax returns and other reports that Grantee may be required to furnish to any government agency to be open for inspection by the County at all reasonable times at the place that the books, records and accounts of Grantee are kept. Grantee shall preserve such records for a period of not less than five (5) years after their creation in compliance with all HUD records and accounting requirements. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, monitoring, inspection or other action relating to the use of the Grant is pending at the end of the record retention period stated herein, then Grantee shall retain the records until such action and all related issues are resolved. Grantee shall cause the records to include all invoices, receipts, and other documents related to expenditures from the Grant funds. Grantee shall cause records to be accurate and current and in a form that allows the County to comply with the record keeping requirements contained in 24 C.F.R. 92.508. Such records are to include but are not limited to: (i) Records providing a full description of the activities undertaken with the use of the Grant funds; (ii) Records demonstrating compliance with the HUD property standards and lead-based paint requirements set forth in 24 C.F.R. 92.251; (iii) Records documenting compliance with the fair housing, equal opportunity, and affirmative fair marketing requirements; (iv) Financial records as required by 24 C.F.R. 92.505, and 2 C.F.R. Part 200; (v) Records demonstrating compliance with the HOME marketing, tenant selection, affordability, and income requirements; (vi) Records demonstrating compliance with MBE/WBE requirements; (vii) Records demonstrating compliance with 24 C.F.R. Part 135 which implements Section 3 of the Housing Development Act of 1968; (viii) Records demonstrating compliance with applicable relocation requirements, which must be retained for at least five (5) years after the date by which persons displaced from the property have received final payments; and March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 891 9 863\31\2039560.4 (ix) Records demonstrating compliance with labor requirements including certified payrolls from Grantee's general contractor evidencing that applicable prevailing wages have been paid. (b) The County shall notify Grantee of any records it deems insufficient. Grantee has fifteen (15) calendar days after the receipt of such a notice to correct any deficiency in the records specified by the County in such notice, or if a period longer than fifteen (15) days is reasonably necessary to correct the deficiency, then Grantee must begin to correct the deficiency within fifteen (15) days and correct the deficiency as soon as reasonably possible. 3.6 On-site Inspection. County shall have the right to perform an on-site inspection of the Development at least one time per year. Grantee agrees to cooperate in such inspection. ARTICLE 4 OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT 4.1 Residential Use. The Development shall be operated as affordable housing for Extremely Low Income Households, Very Low Income Households and Sixty-Five Percent Income Households. No part of the Development shall be operated as transient housing with occupancy of less than thirty (30) days. 4.2 Compliance with Grant Agreement. Grantee shall comply with all the terms and provisions of the Grant Agreement. 4.3 Taxes and Assessments. Grantee shall pay all real and personal property taxes, assessments and charges and all franchise, income, employment, old age benefit, withholding, sales, and other taxes assessed against it, or payable by it, at such times and in such manner as to prevent any penalty from accruing, or any line or charge from attaching to the Property; provided, however, that Grantee shall have the right to contest in good faith, any such taxes, assessments, or charges. In the event Grantee exercises its right to contest any tax, assessment, or charge against it, Grantee, on final determination of the proceeding or contest, shall immediately pay or discharge any decision or judgment rendered against it, together with all costs, charges and interest. 4.4 Property Tax Exemption. Grantee shall not apply for a property tax exemption for the property under any provision of law except California Revenue and Taxation Section 214 (g), without the prior written consent of the County. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 892 10 863\31\2039560.4 ARTICLE 5 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE 5.1 Management Responsibilities. The Grantee is responsible for all management functions with respect to the Development, including without limitation the selection of tenants, certification and recertification of household size and income, evictions, collection of rents and deposits, maintenance, landscaping, routine and extraordinary repairs, replacement of capital items, and security. County shall have no responsibility over management of the Development. 5.2 Management Agent; Periodic Reports. The Development shall at all times be managed by an experienced management agent reasonably acceptable to County, with demonstrated ability to operate residential facilities like the Development in a manner that will provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing (as approved, the "Management Agent"). A resident manager shall also be required. The Grantee shall submit for County's approval the identity of any proposed Management Agent (and County pre- approves, initial self-management of the Development by Grantee). The Grantee shall also submit such additional information about the background, experience and financial condition of any proposed Management Agent as is reasonably necessary for County to determine whether the proposed Management Agent meets the standard for a qualified Management Agent set forth above. If the proposed Management Agent meets the standard for a qualified Management Agent set forth above, County shall approve the proposed Management Agent by notifying the Grantee in writing. Unless the proposed Management Agent is disapproved by County within thirty (30) days, which disapproval shall state with reasonable specificity the basis for disapproval, it shall be deemed approved. 5.3 Performance Review. County reserves the right to conduct an annual (or more frequently, if deemed necessary by County) review of the management practices and financial status of the Development. The purpose of each periodic review will be to enable County to determine if the Development is being operated and managed in accordance with the requirements and standards of this HOME Regulatory Agreement. The Grantee shall cooperate with County in such reviews. 5.4 Replacement of Management Agent. If, as a result of a periodic review, County determines in its reasonable judgement that the Development is not being operated and managed in accordance with any of the material requirements and standards of this HOME Regulatory Agreement, County shall deliver notice to Grantee of its intention to cause replacement of the Management Agent, including the reasons therefor. Within fifteen (15) days of receipt by Grantee of such written notice, County staff and the Grantee shall meet in good faith to consider methods for improving the financial and March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 893 11 863\31\2039560.4 operating status of the Development, including, without limitation, replacement of the Management Agent. If, after such meeting, County staff recommends in writing the replacement of the Management Agent, Grantee shall promptly dismiss the then Management Agent, and shall appoint as the Management Agent a person or entity meeting the standards for a Management Agent set forth in Section 5.2 above and approved by County pursuant to Section 5.2 above. Any contract for the operation or management of the Development entered into by Grantee shall provide that the contract can be terminated as set forth above. Failure to remove the Management Agent in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall constitute default under this HOME Regulatory Agreement, and County may enforce this provision through legal proceedings as specified in Section 6.7 below. 5.5 Approval of Management Policies. The Grantee shall submit its written management policies with respect to the Development to County for its review, and shall amend such policies in any way necessary to ensure that such policies comply with the provisions of this HOME Regulatory Agreement. 5.6 Property Maintenance. The Grantee agrees, for the entire Term of this HOME Regulatory Agreement, to maintain all interior and exterior improvements, including landscaping, on the Property in good condition and repair (and, as to landscaping, in a healthy condition) and in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, ordinances, orders and regulations of all federal, state, county, municipal, and other governmental agencies and bodies having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials, and in accordance with the following maintenance conditions: County places prime importance on quality maintenance to protect its investment and to ensure that all County and County-assisted affordable housing projects within County are not allowed to deteriorate due to below-average maintenance. Normal wear and tear of the Development will be acceptable to County assuming the Grantee agrees to provide all necessary improvements to assure the Development is maintained in good condition. The Grantee shall make all repairs and replacements necessary to keep the improvements in good condition and repair. In the event that the Grantee breaches any of the covenants contained in this section and such default continues for a period of five (5) days after written notice from County with respect to graffiti, debris, waste material, and general maintenance or thirty (30) days after written notice from County with respect to landscaping and building improvements, then County, in addition to whatever other remedy it may have at law or in equity, shall have the right to enter upon the Property and perform or cause to be performed all such acts and work necessary to cure the default. Pursuant to such right of entry, County shall be permitted (but is not required) to enter upon the Property and perform all acts and work necessary to protect, maintain, and preserve the March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 894 12 863\31\2039560.4 improvements and landscaped areas on the Property, and to attach a lien on the Property, or to assess the Property, in the amount of the expenditures arising from such acts and work of protection, maintenance, and preservation by County and/or costs of such cure, which amount shall be promptly paid by the Grantee to County upon demand. ARTICLE 6 MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 Lease Provisions. In leasing the County-Assisted Units, Grantee shall use a form of Tenant lease approved by County. The lease shall not contain any provision which is prohibited by 24 CFR Section 92.253(b) and any amendments thereto. The form of Tenant lease shall also comply with all requirements of this HOME Regulatory Agreement and the Grant Agreement, and shall, among other matters: (a) provide for termination of the lease and consent by the Tenant to immediate eviction for failure: (1) to provide any information required under this HOME Regulatory Agreement or reasonably requested by Grantee to establish or recertify the Tenant's qualification, or the qualification of the Tenant's household, for occupancy in the Development in accordance with the standards set forth in this HOME Regulatory Agreement, or (2) to qualify as an Extremely Low Income Household, Very Low Income Household or Sixty-Five Percent Income Household as a result of any material misrepresentation made by such Tenant with respect to the income computation or certification; and (b) be for an initial term of not less than one year (1) (unless a shorter term is mutually agreed by the Tenant and the Grantee) and provide for no increase in Rent during such time period. After the initial term of tenancy, the lease may be month to month by mutual agreement of Grantee and the Tenant, however Rent may not be raised more often than once a year. Grantee will provide each Tenant with at least sixty (60) days' written notice of any increase in Rent applicable to such Tenant, and with such further notice as may be required by Section 2.3 above. (c) any termination of a lease or refusal by Grantee to renew shall be in conformance with 24 CFR 92.253(c) and must be preceded by no less than thirty (30) days written notice to the tenant by Grantee specifying the grounds for the action. 6.2 Nondiscrimination. All of the Units shall be available for occupancy on a continuous basis to members of the general public who are income eligible. Grantee shall not give preference to any particular class or group of persons in renting the Units, except to the extent that the Units are required to be leased to Extremely Low Income Households, Very Low Income Households, and Sixty-Five Percent Income Household. There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 895 13 863\31\2039560.4 marital status, national origin, source of income (e.g. SSI), ancestry, or disability, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of any Unit nor shall Grantee or any person claiming under or through Grantee, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy, of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees of any Unit or in connection with the employment of persons for the construction, operation and management of any Unit. 6.3 Term. The provisions of this HOME Regulatory Agreement shall apply to the Property for the entire Term even if the entire County Grant is paid in full prior to the end of the Term. This HOME Regulatory Agreement shall bind any successor, heir or assign of Grantee, whether a change in interest occurs voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law or otherwise, except as expressly released by County. County makes the County Grant on the condition, and in consideration of, this provision, and would not do so otherwise. 6.4 Compliance with Grant Agreement and Program Requirements. Grantee's actions with respect to the Property shall at all times be in full conformity with: (i) all requirements of the Grant Agreement ; and (ii) all requirements imposed on projects assisted under the HOME Investment Partnership Program as contained in 42 U.S.C. 12701 et seq., 24 CFR Part 92, and other implementing rules and regulations. 6.5 Notice of Expiration of Term. At least six (6) months prior to the expiration of the Term, Grantee shall provide by first- class mail, postage prepaid, a notice to all Tenants containing (a) the anticipated date of the expiration of the Term, (b) any anticipated increase in Rent upon the expiration of the Term, (c) a statement that a copy of such notice will be sent to County, and (d) a statement that a public hearing may be held by County on the issue and that the Tenant will receive notice of the hearing at least fifteen (15) days in advance of any such hearing. Grantee shall also file a copy of the above-described notice with the County Assistant Deputy Director- Department of Conservation. 6.6 Covenants to Run With the Land. County and Grantee hereby declare their express intent that the covenants and restrictions set forth in this HOME Regulatory Agreement shall run with the land, and shall bind all successors in title to the Property, provided, however, that on the expiration of the Term of this HOME Regulatory Agreement said covenants and restrictions shall expire. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereafter executed covering or conveying the Property or any portion thereof, shall be held conclusively to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to such covenants and restrictions, regardless of whether such covenants or restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument, unless County expressly releases such conveyed portion of the Property from the requirements of this HOME Regulatory Agreement. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 896 14 863\31\2039560.4 6.7 Enforcement by County. If Grantee fails to perform any obligation under this HOME Regulatory Agreement, and fails to cure the default within thirty (30) days after County has notified Grantee in writing of the default or, if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, failed to commence to cure within thirty (30) days and thereafter diligently pursue such cure and complete such cure within ninety (90) days, County shall have the right to enforce this HOME Regulatory Agreement by any or all of the following actions, or any other remedy provided by law. (a) Calling the County Grant. County may declare a default under the Grant Agreement, require repayment of the Grant (including interest due pursuant to the Grant Agreement), and proceed with foreclosure under the County Deed of Trust. (b) Action to Compel Performance or for Damages. County may bring an action at law or in equity to compel Grantee's performance of its obligations under this HOME Regulatory Agreement, and/or for damages. (c) Remedies Provided Under Grant Agreement. County may exercise any other remedy provided under the Grant Agreement. 6.8 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. In any action brought to enforce this HOME Regulatory Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs and expenses of suit, including attorneys' fees. This section shall be interpreted in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1717 and judicial decisions interpreting that statute. 6.9 Recording and Filing. County and Grantee shall cause this HOME Regulatory Agreement, and all amendments and supplements to it, to be recorded in the Official Records of the County of Contra Costa. 6.10 Governing Law. This HOME Regulatory Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 6.11 Waiver of Requirements. Any of the requirements of this HOME Regulatory Agreement may be expressly waived by County in writing, but no waiver by County of any requirement of this HOME Regulatory Agreement shall, or shall be deemed to, extend to or affect any other provision of this HOME Regulatory Agreement. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 897 15 863\31\2039560.4 6.12 Amendments. This HOME Regulatory Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by all the parties hereto or their successors in title, and duly recorded in the real property records of County of Contra Costa. 6.13 Notices. Any notice requirement set forth herein shall be deemed to be satisfied three (3) days after mailing of the notice first-class United States certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the appropriate party as follows: Grantee: SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County 1070 Concord Ave. Concord, CA 94520 Attention: Chief Executive Officer County: County of Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Assistant Deputy Director Such addresses may be changed by notice to the other party given in the same manner as provided above. 6.14 Severability. If any provision of this HOME Regulatory Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining portions of this HOME Regulatory Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 6.15 Multiple Originals; Counterparts. This HOME Regulatory Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts. 6.16 Revival of Agreement after Foreclosure. In the event there is a foreclosure of the Property, this HOME Regulatory Agreement will revive according to its original terms if, during the Term, the owner of record before the foreclosure, or deed in lieu of foreclosure, or any entity that includes the former owner or those with whom the former owner has or had family or business ties, obtains an ownership interest in the Development or Property. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 898 16 863\31\2039560.4 6.17 County Regulatory Agreement. The County and Grantee are entering into this HOME Regulatory Agreement concurrently with the County Regulatory Agreement. The County Regulatory Agreement as it applies to the County-Assisted Units will be in effect for fifty-five (55) years from the date of the County Regulatory Agreement which term overlaps with but is longer than the Term. Compliance with the terms of this HOME Regulatory Agreement will be deemed compliance with the County Regulatory Agreement during the Term. In the event of a conflict between this HOME Regulatory Agreement and the County Regulatory Agreement during the Term, the terms of this HOME Regulatory Agreement will prevail. 6.18 Original Regulatory Agreement. This HOME Regulatory Agreement supersedes in its entirety the Original Regulatory Agreement. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 899 S-1 863\31\2039560.4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, County and Grantee are executing this HOME Regulatory Agreement by duly authorized representatives, all on the date first written above. GRANTEE: SHELTER, INC. OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation By: __________________ John Eckstrom Chief Executive Officer COUNTY: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California By: __________________ John Kopchik Director, Department of Conservation and Development Approved as to form: SHARON L. ANDERSON County Counsel By: Kathleen Andrus Deputy County Counsel March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 900 863\31\2039560.4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On ____________ __, 201_, before me, ______________________, Notary Public, personally appeared, _________________________who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity, and that by his/her/their signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature ________________________________ (seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On ____________ __, 201_, before me, _______________, Notary Public, personally appeared, ___________________________who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity, and that by his/her/their signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature ________________________________ (seal) A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 901 A-1 863\31\2039560.4 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 902 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-119-12 with San Jose State University, an educational institution to provide supervised field instruction to its dietitian, occupational therapy and speech pathology students at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide dietitian, occupational therapy and speech pathology students at San Jose State University with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefiting from the students’ services to patients. On May 12, 2015, the Board of Supervisors APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 92 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-119-12 with San Jose State University March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 903 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) approved Contract #26-119-11 with San Jose State University, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017 for the provision of supervised fieldwork instruction experience with Health Services. Approval of Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-119-12, will allow San Jose State University students to receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience, at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers, through June 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 904 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Unpaid Student Training Agreement #76-545-1 with Diablo Medical Training, a corporation, to provide its phlebotomy students supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers, from May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide Diablo Medical Training phlebotomy students with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefiting from the students’ services to patients. On June 14, 2016, the Board of Supervisors APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 91 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #76-545-1 with Diablo Medical Training March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 905 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) approved Contract #76-545, with Diablo Medical Training phlebotomy students for the provision of supervised fieldwork instruction experience with Health Services, for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. Approval of Unpaid Student Training Agreement #76-545-1 will allow Diablo Medical Training students to receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience, at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers through April 30, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 906 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. FIND the proposed actions are consistent with the Williamson Act and the County's Williamson Act Program. 2. FIND that the construction of a solar power array for farm use only is compatible with the agricultural use of the property. 3. FIND that APN 006-190-010 is large enough to sustain the agricultural uses authorized under the proposed contract. 4. FIND the proposed actions are categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317). 5. ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/25 to (1) RESCIND Land Conservation Contract AP20-70 as to APN 006-190-010 only; and (2) APPROVE Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004 over APN 006-190-010. 6. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute, on behalf of the County, Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004 with Owners Jeff and Angie Pedersen, as Trustees of the Jeff and Angie Pedersen 2014 Family Trust, dated December 18, 2014. 7. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to record Resolution No. 2017/25 and Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004 with the County Clerk Recorder and forward a copy to the California Department of Conservation and the County Assessor's Office. 8. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption for this project. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: John Oborne, 925-674-7793 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 86 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Williamson Act Contract/ Pedersen/ AP16-0004/ Tassajara Valley Area March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 907 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) FISCAL IMPACT: None. All cost are borne by the applicant. BACKGROUND: Jeff and Angie Pedersen, as Trustees of the Jeff and Angie Pedersen 2014 Family Trust, dated December 18, 2014 (Owners) recently purchased a 20-acre parcel located in the Tassajara Valley area, commonly known as Assessor's Parcel Number 006-190-010 (the "Property"). The Property is currently encumbered under Land Conservation Contract AP 20-70, which was established by the Board of Supervisors on January 20, 1970 between the County and the then-owners Henry and Christine Reinstein. The land is currently used for grazing and there are no structures on the Property. The current Owners have applied to rescind existing Land Conservation Contract AP 20-70, only as to the Property, and simultaneously enter into a new Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004 encumbering the Property. The restricted parcel is assessed for property tax purposes at a rate that is consistent with the actual use, rather than the potential use. The Williamson Act (Government Code Section 51200 et seq.), through Land Conservation Contracts, restricts land uses and structures on property under contract. Under the Williamson Act, property may be encumbered by a Land Conservation Contract by mutual agreement between the County and landowner, provided that the land and land uses complies with the requirements of the Williamson Act and County's Williamson Act program. The Williamson Act provides for a process to rescind an existing Land Conservation Contract and simultaneously enter into a new contract by mutual agreement between the parties, provided the new contract remains consistent with the intent and purpose of the Williamson Act. The Owners have applied to rescind the existing Land Conservation Contract AP20-70, only as to the Property, and simultaneously enter into a new Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004 encumbering the Property. The Property is zoned A-80, Exclusive Agricultural District. The proposed Land Conservation Contract would apply to the entire Property and would restrict uses on the Property to those specifically enumerated by the Contract. The uses allowed in the A-80 District are consistent with the uses allowed in the A-4 District. The Owners intend to use the Property for grazing, orchards, and row crops. The new contract would authorize construction of a single-family residence, a residential second unit, a solar power array for farm use only, and several agricultural-related outbuildings. The residential structures would be limited to a 2-acre building envelope on the Property. The construction of a solar power array on contracted lands is not addressed in the County's Williamson Act Program, but can be approved as compatible with the agricultural use of the Property if consistent with the principles found in Government Code 51238.1, specifically: 1. The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural capability of the subject contracted parcel or on other contracted lands in the agricultural preserve. 2. The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or other contracted parcels in the agricultural preserve. Uses that significantly displace agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed compatible if the related use is directly related to the production of commercial agricultural products on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or neighboring lands, including activities such as harvesting, processing, or shipping. 3. The use will not result in the removal of adjacent contracted land from agricultural or open space use. The proposed solar power array is intended for farm use only, not commercial solar power generation, and will therefore be limited in scale. Agricultural operations will not be significantly displaced or impaired. The proposed solar power array will be directly related to agricultural production as it will serve as a power source, promoting the agricultural use of the property.The Owners would be required to obtain all necessary permits for construction (e.g. building permits, etc.). The new structures would be incidental to the primary agricultural use of the Property, would not conflict with ongoing and proposed agricultural uses, and thus are consistent with the intent and March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 908 would not conflict with ongoing and proposed agricultural uses, and thus are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Williamson Act and the County's Williamson Act Program. Government Code Section 51222 declares that it is in the public interest for local officials and landowners to retain agricultural lands which are subject to contracts entered into pursuant to the Williamson Act in parcels large enough to sustain agricultural uses permitted under the contract. It has been the County's practice to honor the original 20-acre minimum parcel size for contracts under the Williamson Act that were established prior to 2003, before the County amended the A-4, Agricultural Preserve District to follow the State of California minimum of 40-acres. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors find that the Property is large enough to sustain the contracted agricultural uses for the following reasons: the Property has been in continuous agricultural use since at least 1970, including after 2002 when the Property was reconfigured in its current state as a 20-acre parcel; the Owners propose to continue current agricultural uses and practices; the proposed structures will cover a small percentage of the Property and will not conflict with ongoing and proposed agricultural uses. The making of a Land Conservation Contract under the Williamson Act is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not approve Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004, the Property will remain encumbered by Land Conservation Contract AP20-70 and the proposed structures would not be authorized. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. This is a proposal for a new Land Conservation Contract. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/25 Exhibit A- Legal Description Exhibit B - Williamson Act Contract AP16-0004 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017/25 Signed Contract March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 909 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/28/2017 by the following vote: AYE: Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT:John Gioia ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/25 WHEREAS, Jeff and Angie Pedersen, as Trustees of the Jeff and Angie Pedersen 2014 Family Trust, dated December 18, 2014 (Owners) recently purchased a 20-acre parcel located in the Tassajara Valley area, commonly known as Assessor's Parcel Number 006-190-010 ( the "Property"). The Property is currently encumbered under Land Conservation Contract AP 20-70, which was established by the Board of Supervisors on January 20, 1970 between the County and the then-owners Henry and Christine Reinstein. The land is currently used for grazing and there are no structures on the Property. The current Owners have applied to rescind existing Land Conservation Contract AP 20-70, only as to the Property, and simultaneously enter into a new Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004 encumbering the Property. WHEREAS, the Williamson Act (Government Code Section 51200 et seq., through Land Conservation Contracts, restricts land uses and structures on property under contract. Under the Williamson Act, property may be encumbered by a Land Conservation Contract by mutual agreement between the County and landowner, provided that the land and land uses complies with the requirements of the Williamson Act and County's Williamson Act program. The Williamson Act provides for a process to rescind and existing Land Conservation Contract and simultaneously enter into a new contract by mutual agreement between the parties, provided the new contract remains consistent with the intent and purpose of the Williamson Act. WHEREAS, the Property is currently used for grazing, and the Owners intend to use the property for grazing, orchards and row crops, and the new contract would authorize construction of a single family residence, a residential second unit, a solar power array for farm use only, and several agriculturally related outbuildings. The residential structures would be limited to a 2-acre building envelope on the Property. WHEREAS, construction of a solar power array on contracted lands is not addressed in the County's Williamson Act Program but may be approved if consistent with the compatibility principles found in Government Code Section 51238.1. WHEREAS, the proposed solar power array is intended for farm use only, will be limited in scale, will not significantly displace or impair agricultural operations, will directly promote agricultural production by serving as a power source, and is otherwise a use compatible with the agricultural use of the Property. WHEREAS, the new structures would be incidental to the primary agricultural use on the Property, would not conflict with ongoing and proposed agricultural uses, and thus are consistent with the intent and purposed of the Williamson Act and the County's Williamson Act Program. WHEREAS, Government Code Section 51222 declares that it is in the public interest for local officials and landowners to retain agricultural lands which are subject to contracts entered into pursuant to the Williamson Act in parcels large enough to sustain agricultural uses permitted under the contract. WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors find that the Property is large enough to sustain the contracted agricultural uses for the following reasons: the Property has been in continuous agricultural use since at least 1970, including after 2002 when the Property was reconfigured in its current state as a 20-acre parcel; the Owners propose to continue current agricultural uses and practices; the proposed structures will cover a small percentage of the Property and will not conflict with ongoing and proposed agricultural uses. 4 1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 910 The making of a Land Conservation Contract under the Williamson Act is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317). BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors: 1. FIND that the proposed actions are consistent with the Williamson Act and the County's Williamson Act Program. 2. FIND that the construction of a solar power array for farm use only is compatible with the agricultural use of the property. 3. FIND that APN 006-190-010 is large enough to sustain the agricultural uses authorized under the proposed contract. 4. FINDS that the proposed actions and adoption of this resolution are categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317). 5. ADOPT Resolution no. 2017/25 to (1) RESCIND Land Conservation Contract AP 20-70 as to APN 006-190-010 only; and (2) APPROVE Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004 over APN 006-190-010. 6. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute, on behalf of the County, Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004 with Owners Jeff and Angie Pedersen, as Trustees of the Jeff and Angie Pedersen 2014 Family Trust, dated December 14, 2014. 7. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to record Resolution No 2017/25 and Land Conservation Contract AP16-0004 with the County Clerk Recorder and forward a copy to the California Department of Conservation and the County Assessor's Office. 8. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption for this project. Contact: John Oborne, 925-674-7793 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 911 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 912 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 913 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 914 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 915 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 916 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 917 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 918 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 919 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 920 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 921 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 922 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 923 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 924 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 925 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes926 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes927 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes928 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes929 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes930 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes931 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes932 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes933 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes934 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes935 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. FIND the proposed actions are consistent with the Williamson Act and the County's Williamson Act Program. 2. FIND that APN 006-190-009 is large enough to sustain the agricultural uses authorized under the proposed contract. 3. FIND the proposed actions are categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317). 4. ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/26 to (1) RESCIND Land Conservation Contract AP20-70 as to APN 006-190-009 only; and (2) APPROVE Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005 over APN 006-190-009. 5. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute, on behalf of the County, Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005 with Owners Donald and Wendy Cooper. 6. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to record Resolution No. 2017/26 and Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005 with the County Clerk Recorder and forward a copy to the California Department of Conservation and the County Assessor's Office. 7. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/28/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: John Oborne, 925-674-7793 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 85 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Williamson Act Contract/ Cooper/ AP16-0005/ Tassajara Valley Area March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 936 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) for this project. FISCAL IMPACT: None. All costs are borne by the applicant. BACKGROUND: Donald and Wendy Cooper (Owners) recently purchased a 20-acre parcel located in the Tassajara Valley area, commonly known as Assessor's Parcel No. 006-190-009 ( the "Property"). The Property is currently encumbered under Land Conservation Contract AP 20-70, which was established on January 20, 1970 by the Board of Supervisors between the County and the then-owners Henry and Christine Reinstein. The Property is currently used for grazing and there are no structures on the Property. The current Owners have applied to rescind existing Land Conservation Contract AP 20-70, only as to the Property, and simultaneously enter into a new Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005 encumbering the Property. The restricted parcel is assessed for property tax purposes at a rate that is consistent with the actual use, rather than the potential use. The Williamson Act (Government Code Section 51200 et seq.), through Land Conservation Contracts, restricts land uses and structures on property under contract. Under the Williamson Act, property may be encumbered by a Land Conservation Contract by mutual agreement between the County and landowner, provided that the land and land uses complies with the requirements of the Williamson Act and County's Williamson Act program. The Williamson Act provides for a process to rescind an existing Land Conservation Contract and simultaneously enter into a new contract by mutual agreement between the parties, provided the new contract remains consistent with the intent and purpose of the Williamson Act. The Owners have applied to rescind the existing Land Conservation Contract AP 20-70, only as to the Property, and simultaneously enter into a new Land Conservation Contract AP 16-0005 encumbering the Property. The Property is zoned A-80, Exclusive Agricultural District. The proposed Land Conservation Contract would apply to the entire Property and would restrict uses on the Property to those specifically enumerated by the Contract. The uses allowed in the A-80 District are consistent with the uses allowed in the A-4 District. The Owners intend to use the Property for grazing, livestock, orchards, and row crops. The new contract would authorize construction of a single-family residence, a residential second unit, a covered arena for personal use, and several agricultural-related outbuildings. The Owners would be required to obtain all necessary permits for construction (e.g. building permits, etc.). The new structures would be incidental to the primary agricultural use of the Property, would not conflict with ongoing and proposed agricultural uses, and thus are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Williamson Act and the County's Williamson Act Program. The residential structures would be limited to a 2-acre building envelope. Government Code Section 51222 declares that it is in the public interest for local officials and landowners to retain agricultural lands which are subject to contracts entered into pursuant to the Williamson Act on parcels large enough to sustain agricultural uses permitted under the contract. It has been the County's practice to honor the original 20-acre minimum parcel size for contracts under the Williamson Act that were established prior to 2003, before the County amended the A-4, Agricultural Preserve District to follow the State of California minimum of 40-acres. or Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors find that the Property is large enough to sustain the contracted agricultural uses for the following reasons: the Property has been in continuous agricultural use since at least 1970, including after 2002 when the Property was reconfigured in its current state as a 20-acre parcel; the Owners propose to continue current agricultural uses and practices; the proposed structures will cover a small percentage of the Property and will not conflict with ongoing and proposed agricultural uses. The making of a Land Conservation Contract under the Williamson Act is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not approve Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005, the Property will remain encumbered by March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 937 If the Board does not approve Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005, the Property will remain encumbered by Land Conservation Contract AP20-70 and the proposed structures would not be authorized. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. This is a proposal to enter into a new Land Conservation Contract. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/26 Exhibit A- Legal Description Exhibit B - WIlliamson Act Contract AP 16-0005 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017/26 Signed Contract March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 938 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/28/2017 by the following vote: AYE: Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT:John Gioia ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/26 WHEREAS, Donald and Wendy Cooper (Owners) recently purchased a 20-acre parcel located in the Tassajara Valley area, commonly known as Assessor's Parcel Number 006-190-009 ( the "Property"). The Property is currently encumbered under Land Conservation Contract AP 20-70, which was established by the Board of Supervisors on January 20, 1970 between the County and the then-owners Henry and Christine Reinstein. The Property is currently used for grazing and there are no structures on the Property. The current Owners have applied to rescind existing Land Conservation Contract AP 20-70, only as to the Property, and simultaneously enter into a new Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005 encumbering the Property. WHEREAS, the Williamson Act (Government Code Section 51200 et seq.), through Land Conservation Contracts, restricts land uses and structures on property under contract. Under the Williamson Act, property may be encumbered by a Land Conservation Contract by mutual agreement between the County and landowner, provided that the land and land uses complies with the requirements of the Williamson Act and County's Williamson Act program. The Williamson Act provides for a process to rescind and existing Land Conservation Contract and simultaneously enter into a new contract by mutual agreement between the parties, provided the new contract remains consistent with the intent and purpose of the Williamson Act. WHEREAS, the Property is currently used for grazing, and the Owners intend to use the property for grazing, orchards, and row crops, and the new contract would authorize construction of a single-family residence, a residential second unit, a ranch manager's unit and several agriculturally related outbuildings. The new structures would be incidental to the primary agricultural use on the Property, would not conflict with ongoing and proposed agricultural uses, and thus are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Williamson Act Program and the County's Williamson Act Program. WHEREAS, Government Code Section 51222 declares that it is in the public interest for local officials and landowners to retain agricultural lands which are subject to contracts entered into pursuant to the Williamson Act in parcels large enough to sustain agricultural uses permitted under the contract. WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors find that the Property is large enough to sustain the contracted agricultural uses for the following reasons: the Property has been in continuous agricultural use since at least 1970, including after 2002 when the Property was reconfigured in its current state as a 20-acre parcel; the Owners propose to continue current agricultural uses and practices; the proposed structures will cover a small percentage of the Property and will not conflict with ongoing and proposed agricultural uses. WHEREAS, the making of Land Conservation Contract under the Williamson Act is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317). BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors: 1. FINDS that the proposed actions are consistent with the Williamson Act and the County's Williamson Act Program. 2. FINDS that the 20-acre parcel, commonly identified as APN 006-190-009, and more particularly describe in Attachment " A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is large enough to sustain the agricultural uses permitted uner the contract. 4 1 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 939 3. FINDS that the proposed actions and adoption of this resolution are categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317). 4. RESCINDS Land Conservation Contract AP20-70 as to APN 006-190-009 only. 5. APPROVES Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. 6. AUTHORIZES the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute, on behalf of the County, Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005 with owners Donald and Wendy Cooper. 7. DIRECTS the Department of Conservation and Development to record Resolution No 2017/26 and Land Conservation Contract AP16-0005 with the County Clerk Recorder and forward a copy to the California Department of Conservation and the County Assessor's Offfice. 8. DIRECTS the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption for this project. Contact: John Oborne, 925-674-7793 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 28, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 940 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 941 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 942 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 943 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 944 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 945 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 946 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 947 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 948 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 949 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 950 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 951 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 952 March 28, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes 953 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes954 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes955 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes956 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes957 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes958 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes959 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes960 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes961 March 28, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Meeting Minutes962