HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 11012021 - Finance Cte Agenda Pkt
FINANCE COMMITTEE
November 1, 2021
9:00 A.M.
VIRTUAL MEETING pursuant to Government
Code Section 54953(e)(1)(A)
The Public may observe and participate in the
Virtual Zoom Meeting by using this link:
https://cccounty-us.zoom.us/j/88094679929
Meeting ID: 880 9467 9929
Or by dialing (888) 278-0254
Conference Code: 468751
To indicate you wish to speak on an agenda item
via Zoom, please “raise your hand” in the Zoom
application. If you are joining the meeting via a
telephone, you may dial *9 using your phone’s dial
pad.
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. CONSIDER approving the Record of Action for the September 13, 2021, Finance
Committee meeting (Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director)
4. CONSIDER accepting the Measure X Community Advisory Board 2021 Report of
Training and Attendance (Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director)
5. CONSIDER recommending a policy on the evaluation of Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFDs) to the Board of Supervisors for adoption. (Timothy Ewell,
Chief Assistant County Administrator)
6.The next meeting is currently scheduled for December 6, 2021.
7.Adjourn
The Finance Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities
planning to attend Finance Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72
hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Finance Committee less than 96 hours
prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 1025 Escobar St., 4th Floor, Martinez,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Lisa Driscoll, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 655-2047, Fax (925) 655-2066
lisa.driscoll@cao.cccounty.us
FINANCE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:11/01/2021
Subject:Record of Action for September 13, 2021 Finance Committee Meeting
Submitted For: FINANCE COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Record of Action
Presenter: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director Contact: Lisa Driscoll (925) 655-2047
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the discussions made in the
meetings.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its September 13, 2021
meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the Record of Action for the September 13, 2021 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
Record of Action Finance Committee meeting of 9-13-21
FINANCE COMMITTEE
RECORD OF ACTION FOR
September 13, 2021
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Present: Karen Mitchoff, Chair
John Gioia, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Monica Nino, County Administrator; Lisa Driscoll, Finance Director; Timothy Ewell,
Chief Assistant County Administrator; Laura Strobel, Senior Deputy County
Administrator; Sonia Bustamante, BOS District I; John Kopchik, Director, Department
of Conservation and Development; Amalia Cunningham, Assistant Deputy Director,
Department of Conservation and Development; Samuel Driggers, Department of
Conservation and Development; Ramesh Kanzaria, Capital Projects Division
Manager, Public Works; Chris Wikler, BOS District IV
Attendees:Joshua Ewen, City of Brentwood; Joseph Dieguez, Kosmont Companies
1.Introductions
No introductions were necessary.
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not
on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
No public comments.
3.Staff recommends approval of the Record of Action for the June 7, 2021
meeting.
Approved as presented.
4.ACCEPT semi-annual Capital Projects update.
Ramesh Kanzaria presented the semi-annual capital projects report. Public
comment was accepted. The summary page was discussed including how to
make it a more readable document. The Committee directed Mr. Kanzaria to
include the Supervisorial District in a column next to the address for each
project. County Administrator Monica Nino had suggested changes that she
will forward for inclusion in the next report. The report was accepted as
presented.
presented.
5.REVIEW draft County Policy on evaluation of joint Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts with cities within the County; PROVIDE feedback to staff
and markups to proposed policy; and DETERMINE whether to forward to the
full Board of Supervisors for review and adoption.
Timothy Ewell presented staff’s recommended policy on the evaluation of
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs). The Committee
discussed the draft policy, recognized the lack of depth in the few existing
EIFD policies, and complimented staff on the policy’s thoroughness. The
Committee gave direction to add to the policy favoring certain types of jobs
that would benefit residents and help address the County’s unfavorable
jobs/housing balance. Staff was directed to announce the new draft to the
Public Managers Association and to distribute it to City Managers allowing for
comments prior to returning to the Finance Committee on November 1, 2021,
and the full Board of Supervisors on November 9, 2021.
6.The next meeting is currently scheduled for October 4, 2021.
The October 4, 2021 meeting has been canceled. The next regularly
scheduled meeting is November 1, 2021.
7.Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:20 AM.
For Additional Information Contact:
Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director
Phone (925) 335-1023, Fax (925) 646-1353
lisa.driscoll@cao.cccounty.us
FINANCE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:11/01/2021
Subject:Measure X Community Advisory Board 2021 Report of Training and
Attendance
Submitted For: FINANCE COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2/2/21 D.4
Referral Name: Measure X Community Advisory Committee
Presenter: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director Contact: Lisa Driscoll (925) 655-2047
Referral History:
ACCEPT the Measure X Community Advisory Board 2021 Report of Training and Attendance.
Referral Update:
Attendance
Advisory board member attenance is tracked. It should be noted that this board met 26 times in a
very short time period which caused higher than what would be normal scheduling conflicts.
MEMBERS Seat Title Attendance
BK Williams District I Appointee 96%
Edith Pastrano District I Appointee 83%
Kathryn Chiverton District II Appointee 100%
Jim Cervantes District II Appointee 87%
Odessa LeFrancois District III Appointee 100%
David Cruise District III Appointee 96%
Dr. Michelle Hernandez District IV Appointee 70%
Sharon Quezada Jenkins District IV Appointee 83%
Michelle Stewart District V Appointee 83%
Ali Saidi District V Appointee 100%
Jerry Short At-large 96%
Kimberly Aceves-Iniquez At-large 78%
Ruth Fernandez At-large 91%
Debbie Toth At-large 100%
Sandra Wall At-large 61%
Susun Kim At-large 91%
Mariana Moore At-large 96%
Cathy Hanville District I Alternate 96%
Steven Bliss District II Alternate 81%
Sandro Trujillo District III Alternate 22%
MEMBERS Seat Title Attendance
Pello Walker District IV Alternate 78%
Gigi Crowder District V Alternate 100%
Genoveva Calloway At-large Alternate 70%
Melissa Stafford Jones At-large Alternate 70%
Diana Honig At-large Alternate 96%
Lindy Lavender At-large Alternate 87%
Peter Benson At-large Alternate 65%
Training
Measure X Community Advisory Board members and alternates were appointed by the Board of
Supersivors on April 6, 2021. Appointed members of county advisory and independent bodies
must comply with county policies. County policies require members to complete two trainings
within three months of appointment. The following members are not in compliance with required
training:
Incumbent Seat Title
Edith Pastrano District I Appointee
David Cruise District III Appointee
Sandro Trujillo District III Alternate
Ali Saidi District V Appointee
Jerry Short At-large
Sandra Wall At-large
Mariana Moore (CHAIR)At-large
Melissa Stafford Jones At-large Alternate
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Provide staff direction regarding membership status.
Attachments
Attendance by Meeting Date
Measure X Community Advisory Board Meeting AttendanceMEMBERS Seat Title Attendance4/13/2021 4/21/2021 4/28/2021 5/5/2021 5/12/2021 5/19/2021 5/26/2021 6/9/2021 6/16/2021 6/23/2021 6/30/2021 7/7/2021 7/14/2021 7/21/2021 7/28/2021 8/4/2021 8/11/2021 8/18/2021 8/20/2021 8/25/2021 9/1/2021 9/8/2021 9/17/2021 9/22/2021 10/6/2021Supervisorial SeatsBK Williams District I Appointee 96%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentEdith Pastrano District I Appointee 83%Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present PresentAbsentPresentAbsentPresent PresentKathryn Chiverton District II Appointee 100%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentJim Cervantes District II Appointee 87%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentOdessa LeFrancois District III Appointee 100%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentDavid Cruise District III Appointee 96%Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentDr. Michelle Hernandez District IV Appointee 70%Present Present Present PresentAbsent AbsentPresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsent AbsentPresent Present PresentAbsentPresentAbsentSharon Quezada Jenkins District IV Appointee 83%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent PresentAbsentPresent PresentAbsentMichelle Stewart District V Appointee 83%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsent AbsentPresent Present PresentAbsentPresent Present PresentAbsentPresent PresentAli Saidi District V Appointee 100%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAt‐Large SeatsJerry Short At‐large 96%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentKimberly Aceves‐Iniquez At‐large 78%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresentAbsentPresent Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present PresentAbsent AbsentPresentRuth Fernandez At‐large 91%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present PresentAbsentDebbie Toth At‐large 100%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentSandra Wall At‐large 61%Present PresentAbsentPresent PresentAbsentPresent PresentAbsent Absent AbsentPresent Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresentAbsentPresent Present PresentAbsentPresentAbsentSusun Kim At‐large 91%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentMariana Moore At‐large 96%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAlternates:Cathy Hanville District I Alternate 96%Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentSteven Bliss District II Alternate81%Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present PresentAbsent AbsentPresent Present Present Present PresentSandro Trujillo District III Alternate22%Present PresentAbsent Absent Absent AbsentPresentAbsent AbsentPresent Present Present PresentAbsent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent AbsentPello Walker District IV Alternate 78%Absent Absent Absent Absent AbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentGigi Crowder District V Alternate 100%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentGeneveva Calloway At‐large Alternate70%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresentAbsent Absent AbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsent Absent AbsentMelissa Stafford Jones At‐large Alternate70%Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresentAbsentPresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsent AbsentPresent Present PresentAbsentPresentAbsentDiana Honig At‐large Alternate96%Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent PresentLindy Lavender At‐large Alternate87%Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent PresentPeter Benson At‐large Alternate65%AbsentPresent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present PresentAbsentPresent PresentAbsent AbsentPresentAbsentPresentAbsent Absent AbsentPresent Present Present Present
FINANCE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:11/01/2021
Subject:POLICY REGARDING EVALUATION OF ENHANCED
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS (EIFDs)
Submitted For: Monica Nino, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: POLICY REGARDING EVALUATION OF ENHANCED
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS (EIFDs)
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Chief Assistant
County Administrator
Contact: Timothy Ewell, Chief Assistant
County Administrator
Referral History:
In 2015, Senate Bill 628 (Chapter 785, Statutes of 2014) created Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFDs) effectively modifying the structure of already existing Infrastructure
Financing Districts (IFDs). Following the dissolution of redevelopment, EIFDs serve as a
financing mechanism to use tax-increment financing, similar to former redevelopment projects,
but with greater collaboration between cities and counties for economic development, housing
and other large-scale projects throughout the State. Subsequent to the creation in 2015, statutes
authorizing EIFDs have been modified on a regular basis, including broadening the listing of
eligible project types and modifying the process for the EIFD to issue bonds to fund those
projects.
Similar to financial impacts from former redevelopment agencies, the County's share of the ad
valorem property tax is impacted by a redirection of those revenues from the County to an EIFD.
The difference is that the County must opt-in to become a partner in the EIFD formation process
and pre-negotiate the share of ad valorem property tax to be reallocated to the EIFD. Due to the
size of the County and the number of cities within the County there is potential for significant
requests of County participation in EIFD development at a commensurate financial cost to the
County. As an example, the County Administrator's Office has been approached by the cities of
Pittsburg and Brentwood to gauge interest in the participation of the County in EIFDs located
within each city. Both cities are in the exploratory phase of EIFD development.
On September 7, 2021, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Finance Committee the
development of a policy related to evaluation of EIFD proposals submitted for review from
jurisdictions within the County. Recall that the County took a similar approach to evaluation of
Compensation Agreements being requested by cities as part of the redevelopment dissolution
process. Adopting and subsequently distributing a policy sets a minimum bar for cities to meet
when submitting proposals to the County for review and evaluation. It also communicates what
projects the County is interested in partnering on, consistent with stated Board of Supervisors
policy goals, and acceptable rates of financial participation for such projects by the County.
At the September 13, 2021 Finance Committee meeting, the County Administrator's Office
presented staff’s recommended policy on the evaluation of EIFDs. The Committee discussed the
draft policy, recognized the lack of depth in the few existing EIFD policies around the State and
believed that the draft Contra Costa policy was appropriately thorough. The Committee gave
direction to add elements to the policy favoring certain types of jobs that would benefit residents
and help address the County’s unfavorable jobs/housing balance. Staff was directed to announce
the new draft to the Public Managers Association (PMA) and to distribute it to City Managers
allowing for comments prior to returning to the Finance Committee on November 1, 2021, and
the full Board of Supervisors on November 9, 2021.
Referral Update:
Today's action is to consider making additional edits to the draft EIFD policy based on comments
from cities. Following the September 13, 2021 Finance Committee meeting, staff attended the
September 16, 2021 meeting of the PMA to introduce the reasoning behind development of the
EIFD policy and announce that the County would be circulating to cities for a four-week public
comment period. The draft policy was distributed to the PMA on September 22, 2021 with a
request for responses no later than October 22, 2021.
The County received public comments from three cities: Brentwood, Concord and Walnut Creek.
Copies of each letter are included as attachments to this staff report. In addition, staff has
assembled a crosswalk of City comments to the relevant sections of the draft policy and provided
comments in response to each point raised by the cities. Staff will present the information from
cities, proposed responses to each point and suggestions for moving forward at today's meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW draft County Policy on evaluation of joint Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
with cities within the County; PROVIDE feedback to staff and markups to proposed policy; and
DETERMINE whether to forward to the full Board of Supervisors for review and adoption.
Attachments
DRAFT Policy - County Participation in Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) as of September 22,
2021
Summary, City Comments to EIFD Policy
EIFD Public Comment - City of Concord
EIFD Public Comment - City of Walnut Creek
EIFD Public Comment - City of Brentwood
As of September 22, 2021
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
POLICY ON PARTICIPATION IN
ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS
Contra Costa County supports economic development projects benefiting the residents of the County
and will review proposals from cities seeking financial partnership with the County through an Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD), pursuant to this Policy. The County will prioritize Commercial
and Industrial development that promotes creation of above minimum wage jobs within the region. In
addition, projects that offer private investment to complement investment of public funds will be
viewed favorably by the County.
Proposals shall be submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development and include the
following components for County review:
1. Contribution of Tax Increment
a. Minimum City Contribution. The City shall contribute at least the same percentage share of
tax increment that the County, excluding Affected Taxing Entities as defined by Government
Code section 53398.51(a) governed by the County Board of Supervisors .
b. Maximum County Contribution. The County will contribute no more than 50% of the County
share of future ad valorem property tax increment generated in the proposed geographic
area of the EIFD, as defined further in Section 1(d) below.
c. Correlation of Contributions. In the case that the actual dollar amount share of the percent
contributions outlined in Section 1 (a) and (b) above result in the City contribut ing a lower
dollar amount than the County, then the City will increase its dollar amount contribution to
be at least equal the County dollar amount contribution.
d. Limitations on Tax increment . The County tax i ncrement contribution to the EIFD will only
be composed of future ad valorem property tax increment growth within the proposed
geographic area of the EIFD (the “Future Increment”), excluding the base tax increment of
the area (the “Base Increment”). The Base Increment is equal to the ad valorem property tax
increment of the EIFD area for the fiscal year property tax assessment rol l in which the EIFD
was created.
2. Term of County Participation in EIFD
a. Maximum term. The County will participate in joint EIFDs for a period not longer than 25
years. This allows consistency with County policy on the issuance of municipal securities for
As of September 22, 2021
a period not longer than 20 years , but also includes an additional five -years for project
development and closeout over the li fe of the EIFD.
b. Procedures for Extension.
i. The County plans to enter into partnerships with cities for specific projects requiring
a regional funding approach best suited for an EIFD model with a duration
consistent with Section 2(a) above with the assumption that future extensions will
be unnecessary.
ii. The County will review scenarios for extending its participation in an existing EIFD,
at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors, upon receipt of an updated proposal
from a City as outlined in Section 3 below and may decide to extend its participation
in the EIFD for a period longer than the term in Section 2(a) on a case -by-case basis.
c. Termination Prior to End of Term .
i. Non-Performance. If project construction has not commenced within two -years
following creation of a joint EIFD, then the County, C ity and EIFD Governing Board
shall identify whether the project is likely to commence within one -year. If project
construction has not commenced within three-years following creation of a joint
EIFD, then the County, City and EIFD Governing Board shall imm ediately begin
proceedings to dissolve the EIFD.
ii. Change in Project Feasibility . If following creation of an EIFD and prior to the
timeline established in Section 2(c)(i ) above the County and the City determine that
the project is no longer feasible, then the County, City and EIFD Governing Board
shall immediately begin proceedings to dissolve the EIFD.
iii. Mandatory Acknowledgement. The City agrees to the terms set forth in Section
2(c)(i -ii) above as a condition of submitting its project proposal to the County for
review.
3. Require d Elements for City Proposals
a. Executive Summary . This section should provide an overview of the City’s proposal in a
summary form easily understo od by members of the public outlining the proposed project,
including financial impacts and social benefits to the community , as outlined further below .
b. Project Description. This section should provide details related to the proposed project,
including at least the following aspects:
i. Proposed Project Details.
1. Discuss Commercial, Industrial and Residential aspects of the project
As of September 22, 2021
2. Related metrics, including number of permanent jobs above the minimum
wage, access points to public transit, number and type of housing units
(affordable and marke t rate), business park square footage , etc.
3. Stage of current planning efforts (status of approved entitlements or
Disposition and Development Agreements (DDAs) with developers, actions
taken by the City Council , etc.)
ii. Demonstration of Social Benefits.
1. Qualitative analysis of why a joint EIFD model is the best approach to
implement the City’s proposed project within the City limits , such as:
a. Why City and developer finance s alone are insufficient to
finance the project
b. Why the County is best suited to partner with the City on the
proposed project
2. How are the project goals of the City consiste nt with the stated goals of the
County Board of Supervisors in one or more policy areas, such as:
a. Workforce development/job creation
b. Transportation improvements
c. Homeless Prevention
d. Sustainability
3. To be considered favorably relative to workforce development / job
creation benefits, proposed projects should generate new permanent jobs
that cover a range of job types and industries, serve the workforce
characteristics of County residents (ideally residents local to the immediate
sub-region of the project), and require skills and knowledge at a variety of
levels. Permanent jobs generated by proposed projects should be career-
track and pay above minimum wage. Furthermore, to be favorably
considered in this category, proposed projects should contribute
significantly toward addressing the County’s overall jobs -housing balance,
which as of 2021 has far more ho mes than jobs for its residents. Job
generation in areas of the County with the fewest employment
opportunities for local residents is particularly important.
4. Projects including a Residential development component should include an
affordable housing commitment of 50%; however, a lower percentage may
be considered for units made available to households with an Area Median
Income (AMI) of 50% or lower, in which case the commitment shall be no
less than 20%.
c. Fi nancial Analysis. This section should provide a comprehensive analysis of the project
economics, including financial impacts to the County and the City over the course of the
project life and beyond, including at least the following aspects:
As of September 22, 2021
i. Financial Details Related to Project
1. Summary of assumptions, including backup context for selecting those
assumptions
2. Anticipated net growth in ad valorem property tax in the EIF D area,
both with and without development of the proposed project
3. Proposed tax increment contributions from each jurisdiction (as
percentage and dollar amount)
4. Plan of finance for any municipal securities to be used for the project
5. Assessment of other one -time revenue sources being used to finance
the project
6. Related Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), Sales Tax or other revenues to
be ge nerated from proposed project
7. Estimated new ongoing expenditures related to the project area for the
provision of municipal services, including a sustainable plan of finance
8. Sensitivity analysis illustrating how market forces may change the above
analyses
a. Impacts of cost escalation
b. Impacts of other assumptions of project feasibility that may not
materialize over the term of the EIFD project and beyond
ii. Ongoing Administrative Responsibilities
1. Proposed budget to staff the EIFD over the life of the District
2. Continuing disclosure responsibilities related to the issuance of
municipal securities or other loan instruments
3. Ongoing grant reporting responsibilities
iii. Positive Net Impact to the County . The project proposal must determine that
there is a positive net fin ancial impact to County finances.
4. County Analysis of City Proposal . In the course of evaluating the City’s proposal, it may be
necessary for the County to hire consultants to assist in the evaluation. The City shall
compensate the County for reasonable costs of outside consultants assisting the County with it’s
evaluation of the City’s proposal.
5. Miscellaneous Provisions.
a. The County shall not participate in any EIFD that uses eminent domain on inhabited
residential properties.
b. For projects with an affordable housing component, the County will be interested to
explore crediting some of the new housing toward the County’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation.
Contra Costa County
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Policy, City Comments as of October 26, 2021
Section No.Section Title City Comment City County Comment
1(a) Contribution of Tax Increment
Each City property tax distribution is obviously less than that of the County yet the policy expects equal
contributions from cities. The City suggests a more balanced approach to contributions to any
established EIFDs.Walnut Creek
Participation in EIFDs initiated by cities should be a funding mechanism of last resort for City projects.
The County uses its ad valorem property tax to fund existing health and safety services for the benefit
of all County residents, including city residents. Redirection of the County's future tax increment
reduces general purpose revenue for County services. For these reasons, the County expects to have
equal participation with cities on City projects.
2(a) Maximum Term
25 year maximum term shorter than normal. 30 year timeframe would maintain consistency with other
financing mechanisms.Walnut Creek
The 25 year timeframe is consistent with the County's Debt Management policy, which limits issues of
bonds to no longer than 20 years. The additional 5 years is designed to allow for start up and wind
down of the EIFD Joint Powers Authority.
2(b) Procedures for Extension
Is this procedure applied in advance of the project commencing or near the end of the 25-year time
horizon?Walnut Creek
This procedure is designed to be operative at anytime following establishment of the EIFD to provide
the most flexibility to the City and County.
2(c) Termination Prior to End of Term
The 2-3 year deadline needs to be further defined. At what point does this apply since several project
activities occur prior to project commencement (e.g. land acquisition, entitlements, etc.)Walnut Creek As stated in Section 2(c)(i), the 2-3 year period commences on the date that the EIFD is formed.
3(b)(ii)(3) Demonstration of Social Benefits
Meeting all of the conditions related to employment may preclude otherwise beneficial projects. City
suggests removing "and" to allow for meeting most or some of the conditions. Please provide context
about the phrase "jobs-housing balance".Walnut Creek
The County is not requiring that all of these conditions be met, but that the proposal would be
"considered favorably" if the conditions are addressed in the City proposal. The County has a known
jobs-housing imbalance, where there are currently more housing resources than jobs. Proposals
helping to address this imbalance (e.g. enhancing job creation opportunities) would receive favorable
review by the County.
3(b)(ii)(4) Demonstration of Social Benefits
Imposing an affordable housing commitment of 50% is not enforceable on private property developers
unless the developer expressly receives a public subsidy. Two suggestions: 1) Adopt Brentwood
Municipal Code Chapter 17.725 which includes a 10% inclusionary requirement on all new housing
development; or 2) Establish an Affordable Housing Trust Fund similar to former redevelopment agency
set asides.Brentwood
The County's position is that County participation in an EIFD project within the City that includes a
residential development component is a public subsidy to that developer. For EIFD projects that
include a residential development component, the County's priority is the establishment of actual
affordable housing units. While a Housing Trust Fund sounds good in theory, it is unlikely to generate
funding sufficient to actually develop meaningful affordable housing.
3(b)(ii)(4) Demonstration of Social Benefits
The affordability housing commitment of 50% in a "residential development component" would make
the use of EIFDs difficult and could potentially jeopardize the source of future tax increment and funding
for affordable housing. City supports establishing an Affordable Housing Trust Fund similar to former
redevelopment agency set asides.Concord See response above.
4 County Analysis of City Proposal City suggests an agreed upon not to exceed amount for outside consultants Walnut Creek The County would be open to this approach as part of the review of each City proposal received.
5 Miscellaneous Provisions
Each City has increased RHNA requirements making it difficult to accommodate allocating a portion of
residential housing EIFD project to the County's RHNA requirements.Walnut Creek
The County understands that all jurisdictions are under pressure to meet RHNA figures. This is not a
mandatory requirement, but a city proposal would be viewed more favorably if this provision was
addressed.
walnut-creek.org
City Manager’s Office
1666 North Main Street
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
October 22, 2021
Tim Ewell
Chief Assistant County Administrator
1025 Escobar Street, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Timothy.Ewell@cao.cccounty.us
Mr. Ewell:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the proposed County Board Policy
on Participation in Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs).
The City of Walnut Creek is home to approximately 7 million square feet of commercial space
specifically zoned for office and light industrial space. These spaces are home to medical uses
and Fortune 500 companies, providing over 30,000 jobs throughout the city. These employees
travel from throughout the county to Walnut Creek as one of the region’s major employment
centers. As such, we see a great opportunity to participate in an EIFD to further job creation in
the region, if the conditions are feasible and conducive to development.
Following are our comments and feedback on the proposed Policy, with suggestions on how this
program can best help Contra Costa communities attract and retain large employers.
Term of County Participation in EIFD
1. Maximum Term. The maximum term of 25 years seems to be shorter than normal, as most
commercial financing requires a 30-year horizon. Maintaining a 30-year timeframe would
achieve consistency across the usual financing platforms. Additionally, cursory research has
shown other EIFD terms to exceed this timeframe, largely due to the scale and nature of the
projects. This restrictive timeframe could potentially limit the effectiveness of the project itself.
2. Procedures for Extension. Is the extension to occur in advance of the project or near the end
of the currently proposed 25-year horizon? It would be helpful to have this pre-approved so
appropriate parties can plan as needed.
3. Termination Prior to End of Term. The 2- to 3-year d eadline on start of projects would need
to be further defined, as land acquisition, entitlements, coordination with other agencies, and
other factors would need to be considered and will affect the actual start of the project.
walnut-creek.org
City Manager’s Office
1666 North Main Street
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Required Elements for City Proposals
1. Demonstration of Social Benefits. While the list of requirements for employment are
objectives any city would strive to achieve for the benefit of the community, meeting all of the
conditions may preclude otherwise beneficial projects. We would suggest removing the “and” to
allow for meeting some or most of the conditions. Additionally, further clarification on the
following phrase would be helpful: “proposed projects should contribute significantly toward
addressing the County’s overall jobs-housing balance”. As you know, certain projects may
provide a lower number of jobs but with high wages, vs. companies that employ a greater
number of people but possibly at just above minimum wage.
County Analysis of City Proposal
We would suggest an agreed upon not-to-exceed amount for outside consultants, perhaps as a
percentage of total estimated County benefit.
Miscellaneous Provisions
As the County knows, each city has the increased RHNA requirements recently stipulated by the
State. This provision will be difficult to accommodate given the need to meet the State’s
requirements as a city.
While we appreciate the County’s consideration of a policy, we would also point out that each
city’s property tax distribution is obviously less than that of the County’s, yet the proposed
policy expects equal contribution from cities that participate. We would suggest a more balanced
approach to contributions to any established EIFDs.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide feedback. We are available for further discussion
in exploring how this policy can be beneficial for the Contra Costa region.
Sincerely,
Dan Buckshi, City Manager
City of Walnut Creek
CC: Supervisor Candace Andersen
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff
Mayor Kevin Wilk
Mayor Pro Tem Matthew Francois
Councilmember Cindy Darling
Councilmember Loella Haskew
Councilmember Cindy Silva
Teri Killgore, Assistant City Manager
MAILING ADDRESS:
City Hall
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Phone: 925.516.5400
Fax: 925.516.5401
www.brentwoodca.gov
CITY MANAGER
150 City Park Way
Phone: 925.516.5440
Fax: 925.516.5441
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
150 City Park Way
Phone: 925.516.5405
Fax: 925.516.5407
FINANCE AND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
150 City Park Way
Phone: 925.516.5460
Fax: 925.516.5401
HUMAN RESOURCES
150 City Park Way
Phone: 925.516.5191
Fax: 925.516.5446
PARKS AND RECREATION
150 City Park Way
Phone: 925.516.5444
Fax: 925.516.5445
POLICE
9100 Brentwood Boulevard
Phone: 925.634.6911
24 Hr. Dispatch: 925.809.7911
Fax: 925.809.7799
PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
150 City Park Way
Phone: 925.516.5420
Fax: 925.516.5421
Operations Division
2201 Elkins Way
Phone: 925.516.6000
Fax: 925.516.6001
October 12, 2021
Timothy Ewell via: timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
Chief Assistant County Administrator
Contra Costa County
1025 Escobar Street, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Policy on Participation in Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts (EIFDs)
Mr. Ewell:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the prospective County
Board Policy on Participation in Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts
(EIFDs) through the Public Managers Association (PMA).
As of September 28, 2021, the Brentwood City Council approved a Resolution
of Intention (ROI) to form a Public Financing Authority and further consider
establishing of two EIFDs; The Innovation Center EIFD and the Brentwood
Boulevard – Downtown EIFD. More information at:
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/gov/cd/ed/eifds.asp
The Brentwood City Council has directed staff to coordinate with your office and
the Board of Supervisors to seek participation in both EIFDs following joint
agreement on policy objectives and proposed economic development outcomes
for the districts. City staff agree and support the County proposed EIFD policy in
concept, but for one major policy implementation hurdle, and welco me a
prospective partnership to create new commercial and job generation
opportunities for Brentwood and East County.
Based on verbal direction from the County Board Finance Committee to County
staff on September 13, 2021 and the provided Policy to the PMA, the City
desires to underscore that an Affordable Housing Commitment of 50% of all
privately owned housing units to be developed within a District boundary is
neither enforceable nor feasible.
This policy requirement is in conflict with the City of Brentwood General Plan.
The City would have no mechanism to enforce affordable housing obligations
on private property developers and owners, unless that residential developer
expressly received a public subsidy to construct its project or voluntarily
constructed affordable housing. It should be noted that residential development
with 50% or more affordability would likely severely limit taxable assessed value
and tax increment funding capacity created within these districts, as affordable
units are often built and owned through property-tax exempt entities.
Policy on Participation in EIFDs
October 12, 2021
Page 2 of 3
The City suggests the following options for the County to consider in establishing affordable
housing components within an EIFD Policy:
Option 1 – Affordability Requirement – 10% Inclusionary Housing Production
Requirement of All Residential Housing Developments Resulting in over five or more
subdivided lots or dwelling units
A 10% inclusionary requirement would be applied to all new housing development consistent
with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 17.725 Affordable Housing; including new residential
developments of five or more lots or dwelling units designed and intended for residential
occupancy in the city.
Dwelling units located within the Brentwood city limits, and with in the proposed EIFDs, for very
low-, low- and moderate-income households as required by this chapter shall be allocated by
the following percentages:
Ownership Development
Moderate-Income Households 3%
Low-Income Households 4%
Very Low-income Households 3%
Rental Development
Low-Income Households 5%
Very Low-Income Households 5%
More information about application of the 10% affordable housing requirement can be found at:
http://qcode.us/codes/brentwood/view.php?topic=17-x-17_725-17_725_003&frames=on
Option 2 – Affordable Housing Trust Fund from Property Tax Increment Revenue
The City would be open to exploring the set-aside of tax increment revenue to an EIFD Housing
Trust Fund, similar to the formula allowed by California Redevelopment Law, which was
historically a percentage of 20% of tax increment generated. The purpose of the EIFD Housing
Trust Fund would be to allocate and target select affordable housing generation projects in each
EIFD to spur community revitalization and enhance economic development opportunities across
income levels. The governing Public Finance Authority for each EIFD would be able to select, or
defer to the City Council to select, affordable housing projects; and/or affordable housing
infrastructure projects to receive a direct financial subsidy from the district.
Residential development projects that receive a direct financial subsidy, as defined in State and
EIFD law, from the a joint City-County Public Financing Authority (PFA), could be required to
meet a 50% affordable housing commitment, however, a lower percentage may be considered
for units made available to households with an Area Median Income (AMI) of 50% or lower, in
which case the commitment shall be no less than 20% of dwelling units generated, or as an
alternative, as generally consistent with the City of Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 17.725
Affordable Housing.
Policy on Participation in EIFDs
October 12, 2021
Page 3 of 3
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact me if I can answer any questions.
Sincerely,
Tim Y. Ogden
City Manager
cc: City of Brentwood Economic Development Division
City of Brentwood Community Development Department