Brentwood City Council
May 27, 2025

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-390-048 $170.20
019-390-049 $170.20
019-390-050 $170.20
019-390-051 $170.20
019-390-052 $170.20
019-390-053 $170.20
019-390-054 $170.20
019-390-055 $170.20
019-390-056 $170.20
019-390-057 $170.20
019-390-058 $170.20
019-390-059 $170.20
019-390-060 $170.20
019-390-061 $170.20
019-390-062 $170.20
019-390-063 $170.20
019-390-064 $170.20
019-390-065 $170.20
019-390-066 $170.20
019-390-067 $170.20
019-390-068 $170.20
019-390-069 $170.20
019-390-070 $170.20
019-390-071 $170.20
019-390-072 $170.20
019-390-073 $170.20
019-390-074 $170.20
019-390-075 $170.20
019-390-076 $170.20
019-390-077 $170.20
019-390-078 $170.20
019-390-079 $170.20
019-390-080 $170.20
019-390-081 $170.20
019-390-082 $170.20
019-390-083 $170.20
019-390-084 $170.20
019-390-085 $170.20
019-390-086 $170.20
019-390-087 $170.20
019-390-088 $170.20
019-390-089 $170.20
019-390-090 $170.20
019-390-091 $170.20
019-390-092 $170.20
019-390-093 $170.20
019-390-094 $170.20
019-390-095 $170.20
019-390-096 $170.20
019-390-097 $170.20
019-390-098 $170.20
019-390-099 $170.20
019-390-100 $170.20
019-390-101 $170.20
019-390-102 $170.20
019-390-103 $170.20
019-390-104 $170.20
019-390-105 $170.20
019-390-106 $170.20
019-390-107 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-390-108 $170.20
019-390-109 $170.20
019-390-110 $170.20
019-390-111 $170.20
019-390-112 $170.20
019-390-113 $170.20
019-390-114 $170.20
019-390-115 $170.20
019-390-116 $170.20
019-390-117 $170.20
019-390-118 $170.20
019-390-119 $170.20
019-390-123 $170.20
019-400-001 $170.20
019-400-002 $170.20
019-400-003 $170.20
019-400-004 $170.20
019-400-005 $170.20
019-400-006 $170.20
019-400-007 $170.20
019-400-008 $170.20
019-400-009 $170.20
019-400-010 $170.20
019-400-011 $170.20
019-400-012 $170.20
019-400-013 $170.20
019-400-014 $170.20
019-400-015 $170.20
019-400-016 $170.20
019-400-017 $170.20
019-400-018 $170.20
019-400-019 $170.20
019-400-020 $170.20
019-400-021 $170.20
019-400-022 $170.20
019-400-023 $170.20
019-400-024 $170.20
019-400-025 $170.20
019-400-026 $170.20
019-400-027 $170.20
019-400-028 $170.20
019-400-029 $170.20
019-400-030 $170.20
019-400-031 $170.20
019-400-032 $170.20
019-400-033 $170.20
019-400-034 $170.20
019-410-001 $170.20
019-410-002 $170.20
019-410-003 $170.20
019-410-004 $170.20
019-410-005 $170.20
019-410-006 $170.20
019-410-007 $170.20
019-410-008 $170.20
019-410-009 $170.20
019-410-010 $170.20
019-410-011 $170.20
019-410-012 $170.20
019-410-013 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-410-014 $170.20
019-410-015 $170.20
019-410-016 $170.20
019-410-017 $170.20
019-410-018 $170.20
019-410-019 $170.20
019-410-020 $170.20
019-410-021 $170.20
019-410-022 $170.20
019-410-023 $170.20
019-410-024 $170.20
019-410-025 $170.20
019-410-026 $170.20
019-410-027 $170.20
019-420-001 $170.20
019-420-002 $170.20
019-420-003 $170.20
019-420-004 $170.20
019-420-005 $170.20
019-420-006 $170.20
019-420-007 $170.20
019-420-008 $170.20
019-420-009 $170.20
019-420-010 $170.20
019-420-011 $170.20
019-420-012 $170.20
019-420-013 $170.20
019-420-014 $170.20
019-420-015 $170.20
019-420-016 $170.20
019-420-017 $170.20
019-420-018 $170.20
019-420-019 $170.20
019-420-020 $170.20
019-420-021 $170.20
019-420-022 $170.20
019-420-023 $170.20
019-420-024 $170.20
019-420-025 $170.20
019-430-001 $170.20
019-430-002 $170.20
019-430-003 $170.20
019-430-004 $170.20
019-430-005 $170.20
019-430-006 $170.20
019-430-007 $170.20
019-430-008 $170.20
019-430-009 $170.20
019-430-010 $170.20
019-430-011 $170.20
019-430-012 $170.20
019-430-013 $170.20
019-430-014 $170.20
019-430-015 $170.20
019-430-016 $170.20
019-430-017 $170.20
019-430-018 $170.20
019-430-019 $170.20
019-430-020 $170.20
019-430-021 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-430-022 $170.20
019-430-023 $170.20
019-430-024 $170.20
019-430-025 $170.20
019-430-026 $170.20
019-430-027 $170.20
019-430-028 $170.20
019-430-029 $170.20
019-430-030 $170.20
019-430-031 $170.20
019-430-032 $170.20
019-430-033 $170.20
019-430-034 $170.20
019-430-035 $170.20
019-430-036 $170.20
019-430-037 $170.20
019-430-038 $170.20
019-430-039 $170.20
019-430-040 $170.20
019-430-041 $170.20
019-430-042 $170.20
019-440-001 $170.20
019-440-002 $170.20
019-440-003 $170.20
019-440-004 $170.20
019-440-005 $170.20
019-440-006 $170.20
019-440-007 $170.20
019-440-008 $170.20
019-440-009 $170.20
019-440-010 $170.20
019-440-011 $170.20
019-440-012 $170.20
019-440-013 $170.20
019-440-014 $170.20
019-440-015 $170.20
019-440-016 $170.20
019-440-017 $170.20
019-440-018 $170.20
019-440-019 $170.20
019-440-020 $170.20
019-440-021 $170.20
019-440-022 $170.20
019-440-023 $170.20
019-440-024 $170.20
019-440-025 $170.20
019-440-026 $170.20
019-440-027 $170.20
019-440-028 $170.20
019-440-029 $170.20
019-440-030 $170.20
019-440-031 $170.20
019-440-032 $170.20
019-440-033 $170.20
019-440-034 $170.20
019-440-035 $170.20
019-440-036 $170.20
019-440-037 $170.20
019-440-038 $170.20
019-440-039 $170.20
- 79 - 05/04/25

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-440-040 $170.20
019-450-001 $170.20
019-450-002 $170.20
019-450-003 $170.20
019-450-004 $170.20
019-450-005 $170.20
019-450-006 $170.20
019-450-007 $170.20
019-450-008 $170.20
019-450-009 $170.20
019-450-010 $170.20
019-450-011 $170.20
019-450-012 $170.20
019-450-013 $170.20
019-450-014 $170.20
019-450-015 $170.20
019-450-016 $170.20
019-450-017 $170.20
019-450-018 $170.20
019-450-019 $170.20
019-450-020 $170.20
019-450-021 $170.20
019-450-022 $170.20
019-450-023 $170.20
019-450-024 $170.20
019-450-025 $170.20
019-450-026 $170.20
019-450-027 $170.20
019-450-028 $170.20
019-450-029 $170.20
019-450-030 $170.20
019-450-031 $170.20
019-450-032 $170.20
019-450-033 $170.20
019-450-034 $170.20
019-450-035 $170.20
019-450-036 $170.20
019-450-037 $170.20
019-450-038 $170.20
019-450-039 $170.20
019-450-040 $170.20
019-460-001 $170.20
019-460-002 $170.20
019-460-003 $170.20
019-460-004 $170.20
019-460-005 $170.20
019-460-006 $170.20
019-460-007 $170.20
019-460-008 $170.20
019-460-009 $170.20
019-460-010 $170.20
019-460-011 $170.20
019-460-012 $170.20
019-460-013 $170.20
019-460-014 $170.20
019-460-015 $170.20
019-460-016 $170.20
019-460-017 $170.20
019-460-018 $170.20
019-460-019 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-460-020 $170.20
019-460-021 $170.20
019-460-022 $170.20
019-460-023 $170.20
019-460-024 $170.20
019-460-025 $170.20
019-460-026 $170.20
019-460-027 $170.20
019-460-028 $170.20
019-460-029 $170.20
019-460-030 $170.20
019-460-031 $170.20
019-470-001 $170.20
019-470-002 $170.20
019-470-003 $170.20
019-470-004 $170.20
019-470-005 $170.20
019-470-006 $170.20
019-470-007 $170.20
019-470-008 $170.20
019-470-009 $170.20
019-470-010 $170.20
019-470-011 $170.20
019-470-012 $170.20
019-470-013 $170.20
019-470-014 $170.20
019-470-015 $170.20
019-470-016 $170.20
019-470-017 $170.20
019-470-018 $170.20
019-470-019 $170.20
019-470-020 $170.20
019-480-001 $170.20
019-480-002 $170.20
019-480-003 $170.20
019-480-004 $170.20
019-480-005 $170.20
019-480-006 $170.20
019-480-007 $170.20
019-480-008 $170.20
019-480-009 $170.20
019-480-010 $170.20
019-480-011 $170.20
019-480-012 $170.20
019-480-013 $170.20
019-480-014 $170.20
019-480-015 $170.20
019-480-016 $170.20
019-480-017 $170.20
019-480-018 $170.20
019-480-019 $170.20
019-480-020 $170.20
019-480-021 $170.20
019-480-022 $170.20
019-480-023 $170.20
019-480-024 $170.20
019-480-025 $170.20
019-480-026 $170.20
019-480-027 $170.20
019-480-028 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-480-029 $170.20
019-480-030 $170.20
019-480-031 $170.20
019-480-032 $170.20
019-480-033 $170.20
019-480-034 $170.20
019-480-035 $170.20
019-480-036 $170.20
019-480-037 $170.20
019-480-038 $170.20
019-480-039 $170.20
019-480-040 $170.20
019-480-041 $170.20
019-480-042 $170.20
019-480-043 $170.20
019-480-044 $170.20
019-480-045 $170.20
019-480-046 $170.20
019-480-047 $170.20
019-490-001 $170.20
019-490-002 $170.20
019-490-003 $170.20
019-490-004 $170.20
019-490-005 $170.20
019-490-006 $170.20
019-490-007 $170.20
019-490-008 $170.20
019-490-009 $170.20
019-490-010 $170.20
019-490-011 $170.20
019-490-012 $170.20
019-490-013 $170.20
019-490-014 $170.20
019-490-015 $170.20
019-490-016 $170.20
019-490-017 $170.20
019-490-018 $170.20
019-490-019 $170.20
019-490-020 $170.20
019-490-021 $170.20
019-490-022 $170.20
019-490-023 $170.20
019-490-024 $170.20
019-490-025 $170.20
019-490-026 $170.20
019-490-027 $170.20
019-490-028 $170.20
019-490-029 $170.20
019-490-030 $170.20
019-490-031 $170.20
019-490-032 $170.20
019-490-033 $170.20
019-490-034 $170.20
019-490-035 $170.20
019-490-036 $170.20
019-490-037 $170.20
019-490-038 $170.20
019-490-039 $170.20
019-490-040 $170.20
019-490-041 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-490-042 $170.20
019-490-043 $170.20
019-490-044 $170.20
019-490-045 $170.20
019-490-046 $170.20
019-490-047 $170.20
019-490-048 $170.20
019-490-049 $170.20
019-490-050 $170.20
019-490-051 $170.20
019-490-052 $170.20
019-490-053 $170.20
019-490-054 $170.20
019-500-001 $170.20
019-500-002 $170.20
019-500-003 $170.20
019-500-004 $170.20
019-500-005 $170.20
019-500-006 $170.20
019-500-007 $170.20
019-500-008 $170.20
019-500-009 $170.20
019-500-010 $170.20
019-500-011 $170.20
019-500-012 $170.20
019-500-013 $170.20
019-500-014 $170.20
019-500-015 $170.20
019-500-016 $170.20
019-500-017 $170.20
019-500-018 $170.20
019-500-019 $170.20
019-500-020 $170.20
019-500-021 $170.20
019-500-022 $170.20
019-500-023 $170.20
019-500-024 $170.20
019-500-025 $170.20
019-500-026 $170.20
019-500-027 $170.20
019-500-028 $170.20
019-500-029 $170.20
019-500-030 $170.20
019-500-031 $170.20
019-500-032 $170.20
019-500-033 $170.20
019-500-034 $170.20
019-500-035 $170.20
019-500-036 $170.20
019-500-037 $170.20
019-500-038 $170.20
019-500-039 $170.20
019-500-040 $170.20
019-500-041 $170.20
019-500-042 $170.20
019-500-043 $170.20
019-500-044 $170.20
019-500-045 $170.20
019-500-046 $170.20
019-500-047 $170.20
- 80 - 05/04/25

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-500-048 $170.20
019-500-049 $170.20
019-500-050 $170.20
019-500-051 $170.20
019-500-052 $170.20
019-500-053 $170.20
019-500-054 $170.20
019-500-055 $170.20
019-500-056 $170.20
019-500-057 $170.20
019-500-058 $170.20
019-500-059 $170.20
019-500-060 $170.20
019-500-061 $170.20
019-500-062 $170.20
019-500-063 $170.20
019-500-064 $170.20
019-500-065 $170.20
019-500-066 $170.20
019-500-067 $170.20
019-500-068 $170.20
019-500-069 $170.20
019-500-070 $170.20
019-500-071 $170.20
019-500-072 $170.20
019-500-073 $170.20
019-510-001 $170.20
019-510-002 $170.20
019-510-003 $170.20
019-510-004 $170.20
019-510-005 $170.20
019-510-006 $170.20
019-510-007 $170.20
019-510-008 $170.20
019-510-009 $170.20
019-510-010 $170.20
019-510-011 $170.20
019-510-012 $170.20
019-510-013 $170.20
019-510-014 $170.20
019-510-015 $170.20
019-510-016 $170.20
019-510-017 $170.20
019-510-018 $170.20
019-510-019 $170.20
019-510-020 $170.20
019-510-021 $170.20
019-510-022 $170.20
019-510-023 $170.20
019-510-024 $170.20
019-510-025 $170.20
019-510-026 $170.20
019-510-027 $170.20
019-510-028 $170.20
019-510-029 $170.20
019-510-030 $170.20
019-510-031 $170.20
019-510-032 $170.20
019-510-033 $170.20
019-510-034 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-510-035 $170.20
019-520-001 $170.20
019-520-002 $170.20
019-520-003 $170.20
019-520-004 $170.20
019-520-005 $170.20
019-520-006 $170.20
019-520-007 $170.20
019-520-008 $170.20
019-520-009 $170.20
019-520-010 $170.20
019-520-011 $170.20
019-520-012 $170.20
019-520-013 $170.20
019-520-014 $170.20
019-520-015 $170.20
019-520-016 $170.20
019-520-017 $170.20
019-520-018 $170.20
019-520-019 $170.20
019-520-020 $170.20
019-520-021 $170.20
019-520-022 $170.20
019-520-023 $170.20
019-520-024 $170.20
019-520-025 $170.20
019-520-026 $170.20
019-520-027 $170.20
019-520-028 $170.20
019-520-029 $170.20
019-520-030 $170.20
019-520-031 $170.20
019-520-032 $170.20
019-520-033 $170.20
019-520-034 $170.20
019-520-035 $170.20
019-520-036 $170.20
019-520-037 $170.20
019-520-038 $170.20
019-520-039 $170.20
019-520-040 $170.20
019-520-041 $170.20
019-520-042 $170.20
019-520-043 $170.20
019-520-044 $170.20
019-520-045 $170.20
019-520-046 $170.20
019-520-047 $170.20
019-520-048 $170.20
019-520-049 $170.20
019-520-050 $170.20
019-520-051 $170.20
019-520-052 $170.20
019-520-053 $170.20
019-520-054 $170.20
019-520-055 $170.20
019-520-056 $170.20
019-520-057 $170.20
019-520-058 $170.20
019-520-059 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-520-060 $170.20
019-520-061 $170.20
019-520-062 $170.20
019-520-063 $170.20
019-520-064 $170.20
019-520-065 $170.20
019-520-066 $170.20
019-520-067 $170.20
019-530-001 $170.20
019-530-002 $170.20
019-530-003 $170.20
019-530-004 $170.20
019-530-005 $170.20
019-530-006 $170.20
019-530-007 $170.20
019-530-008 $170.20
019-530-009 $170.20
019-530-010 $170.20
019-530-011 $170.20
019-530-012 $170.20
019-530-013 $170.20
019-530-014 $170.20
019-530-015 $170.20
019-530-016 $170.20
019-530-017 $170.20
019-530-018 $170.20
019-530-019 $170.20
019-530-020 $170.20
019-530-021 $170.20
019-530-022 $170.20
019-530-023 $170.20
019-530-024 $170.20
019-530-025 $170.20
019-530-026 $170.20
019-530-027 $170.20
019-530-028 $170.20
019-530-029 $170.20
019-530-030 $170.20
019-530-031 $170.20
019-530-032 $170.20
019-540-001 $170.20
019-540-002 $170.20
019-540-003 $170.20
019-540-004 $170.20
019-540-005 $170.20
019-540-006 $170.20
019-540-007 $170.20
019-540-008 $170.20
019-540-009 $170.20
019-540-010 $170.20
019-540-011 $170.20
019-540-012 $170.20
019-540-013 $170.20
019-540-014 $170.20
019-540-015 $170.20
019-540-016 $170.20
019-540-017 $170.20
019-540-018 $170.20
019-540-019 $170.20
019-540-020 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-540-021 $170.20
019-540-022 $170.20
019-540-023 $170.20
019-540-024 $170.20
019-540-025 $170.20
019-540-026 $170.20
019-550-001 $170.20
019-550-002 $170.20
019-550-003 $170.20
019-550-004 $170.20
019-550-005 $170.20
019-550-006 $170.20
019-550-007 $170.20
019-550-008 $170.20
019-550-009 $170.20
019-550-010 $170.20
019-550-011 $170.20
019-550-012 $170.20
019-550-013 $170.20
019-550-014 $170.20
019-550-015 $170.20
019-550-016 $170.20
019-550-017 $170.20
019-550-018 $170.20
019-550-019 $170.20
019-550-020 $170.20
019-550-021 $170.20
019-550-022 $170.20
019-550-023 $170.20
019-550-024 $170.20
019-560-001 $170.20
019-560-002 $170.20
019-560-003 $170.20
019-560-004 $170.20
019-560-005 $170.20
019-560-006 $170.20
019-560-007 $170.20
019-560-008 $170.20
019-560-009 $170.20
019-560-010 $170.20
019-560-011 $170.20
019-560-012 $170.20
019-560-013 $170.20
019-560-014 $170.20
019-560-015 $170.20
019-560-016 $170.20
019-560-017 $170.20
019-560-018 $170.20
019-560-019 $170.20
019-560-020 $170.20
019-560-021 $170.20
019-560-022 $170.20
019-560-023 $170.20
019-560-024 $170.20
019-560-025 $170.20
019-560-026 $170.20
019-560-027 $170.20
019-560-028 $170.20
019-560-029 $170.20
019-560-030 $170.20
- 81 - 05/04/25

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-560-031 $170.20
019-560-032 $170.20
019-560-033 $170.20
019-560-034 $170.20
019-560-035 $170.20
019-560-036 $170.20
019-560-037 $170.20
019-560-038 $170.20
019-570-001 $170.20
019-570-002 $170.20
019-570-003 $170.20
019-570-004 $170.20
019-570-005 $170.20
019-570-006 $170.20
019-570-007 $170.20
019-570-008 $170.20
019-570-009 $170.20
019-570-010 $170.20
019-570-011 $170.20
019-570-012 $170.20
019-570-013 $170.20
019-570-014 $170.20
019-570-015 $170.20
019-570-016 $170.20
019-570-017 $170.20
019-570-018 $170.20
019-570-019 $170.20
019-570-020 $170.20
019-570-021 $170.20
019-570-022 $170.20
019-570-023 $170.20
019-570-024 $170.20
019-570-025 $170.20
019-570-026 $170.20
019-570-027 $170.20
019-570-028 $170.20
019-570-029 $170.20
019-570-030 $170.20
019-570-031 $170.20
019-570-032 $170.20
019-570-033 $170.20
019-570-034 $170.20
019-570-035 $170.20
019-570-036 $170.20
019-570-037 $170.20
019-570-038 $170.20
019-570-039 $170.20
019-570-040 $170.20
019-580-001 $170.20
019-580-002 $170.20
019-580-003 $170.20
019-580-004 $170.20
019-580-005 $170.20
019-580-006 $170.20
019-580-007 $170.20
019-580-008 $170.20
019-580-009 $170.20
019-580-010 $170.20
019-580-011 $170.20
019-580-012 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-580-013 $170.20
019-580-014 $170.20
019-580-015 $170.20
019-580-016 $170.20
019-580-017 $170.20
019-580-018 $170.20
019-580-019 $170.20
019-580-020 $170.20
019-580-021 $170.20
019-580-022 $170.20
019-580-023 $170.20
019-580-024 $170.20
019-580-025 $170.20
019-580-026 $170.20
019-580-027 $170.20
019-580-028 $170.20
019-580-029 $170.20
019-580-030 $170.20
019-580-031 $170.20
019-580-032 $170.20
019-580-033 $170.20
019-580-034 $170.20
019-580-035 $170.20
019-580-036 $170.20
019-590-001 $170.20
019-590-002 $170.20
019-590-003 $170.20
019-590-004 $170.20
019-590-005 $170.20
019-590-006 $170.20
019-590-007 $170.20
019-590-008 $170.20
019-590-009 $170.20
019-590-010 $170.20
019-590-011 $170.20
019-590-012 $170.20
019-590-013 $170.20
019-590-014 $170.20
019-590-015 $170.20
019-590-016 $170.20
019-590-017 $170.20
019-590-018 $170.20
019-590-019 $170.20
019-590-020 $170.20
019-590-021 $170.20
019-590-022 $170.20
019-590-023 $170.20
019-590-024 $170.20
019-590-025 $170.20
019-590-026 $170.20
019-590-027 $170.20
019-590-028 $170.20
019-590-029 $170.20
019-590-030 $170.20
019-590-031 $170.20
019-590-032 $170.20
019-590-033 $170.20
019-590-034 $170.20
019-590-035 $170.20
019-590-036 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-590-037 $170.20
019-600-001 $170.20
019-600-002 $170.20
019-600-003 $170.20
019-600-004 $170.20
019-600-005 $170.20
019-600-006 $170.20
019-600-007 $170.20
019-600-008 $170.20
019-600-009 $170.20
019-600-010 $170.20
019-600-011 $170.20
019-600-012 $170.20
019-600-013 $170.20
019-600-014 $170.20
019-600-015 $170.20
019-600-016 $170.20
019-600-017 $170.20
019-600-018 $170.20
019-600-019 $170.20
019-600-020 $170.20
019-600-021 $170.20
019-600-022 $170.20
019-600-023 $170.20
019-600-024 $170.20
019-600-025 $170.20
019-600-026 $170.20
019-600-027 $170.20
019-600-028 $170.20
019-600-029 $170.20
019-600-030 $170.20
019-600-031 $170.20
019-600-032 $170.20
019-600-033 $170.20
019-600-034 $170.20
019-600-035 $170.20
019-600-036 $170.20
019-600-037 $170.20
019-600-038 $170.20
019-600-039 $170.20
019-600-040 $170.20
019-600-041 $170.20
019-600-042 $170.20
019-600-043 $170.20
019-600-044 $170.20
019-600-045 $170.20
019-600-052 $170.20
019-600-053 $170.20
019-600-054 $170.20
019-600-055 $170.20
019-600-056 $170.20
019-600-057 $170.20
019-600-058 $170.20
019-600-059 $170.20
019-600-060 $170.20
019-600-061 $170.20
019-600-062 $170.20
019-600-063 $170.20
019-600-064 $170.20
019-600-065 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-600-066 $170.20
019-600-067 $170.20
019-600-068 $170.20
019-600-069 $170.20
019-600-070 $170.20
019-600-071 $170.20
019-600-072 $170.20
019-600-073 $170.20
019-600-074 $170.20
019-600-075 $170.20
019-600-076 $170.20
019-600-077 $170.20
019-600-078 $170.20
019-600-079 $170.20
019-600-080 $170.20
019-600-081 $170.20
019-600-082 $170.20
019-600-083 $170.20
019-600-084 $170.20
019-600-085 $170.20
019-600-086 $170.20
019-600-087 $170.20
019-600-088 $170.20
019-600-089 $170.20
019-600-094 $170.20
019-600-095 $170.20
019-600-096 $170.20
019-600-097 $170.20
019-600-098 $170.20
019-600-099 $170.20
019-610-001 $170.20
019-610-002 $170.20
019-610-003 $170.20
019-610-004 $170.20
019-610-005 $170.20
019-610-006 $170.20
019-610-007 $170.20
019-610-008 $170.20
019-610-009 $170.20
019-610-010 $170.20
019-610-011 $170.20
019-610-012 $170.20
019-610-013 $170.20
019-610-014 $170.20
019-610-015 $170.20
019-610-016 $170.20
019-610-017 $170.20
019-610-018 $170.20
019-610-019 $170.20
019-610-020 $170.20
019-610-021 $170.20
019-610-022 $170.20
019-610-023 $170.20
019-610-024 $170.20
019-610-025 $170.20
019-610-026 $170.20
019-610-027 $170.20
019-610-028 $170.20
019-610-029 $170.20
019-610-030 $170.20
- 82 - 05/04/25

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-610-031 $170.20
019-610-032 $170.20
019-610-033 $170.20
019-610-034 $170.20
019-610-035 $170.20
019-610-036 $170.20
019-610-037 $170.20
019-610-038 $170.20
019-610-039 $170.20
019-610-040 $170.20
019-610-041 $170.20
019-610-042 $170.20
019-610-043 $170.20
019-610-044 $170.20
019-610-045 $170.20
019-610-046 $170.20
019-610-047 $170.20
019-610-048 $170.20
019-620-052 $170.20
019-620-053 $170.20
019-620-054 $170.20
019-620-055 $170.20
019-620-056 $170.20
019-620-057 $170.20
019-620-058 $170.20
019-620-059 $170.20
019-620-060 $170.20
019-620-061 $170.20
019-620-062 $170.20
019-620-063 $170.20
019-620-064 $170.20
019-620-065 $170.20
019-620-066 $170.20
019-620-067 $170.20
019-620-068 $170.20
019-620-069 $170.20
019-620-070 $170.20
019-620-071 $170.20
019-620-072 $170.20
019-620-073 $170.20
019-620-074 $170.20
019-620-075 $170.20
019-620-076 $170.20
019-620-077 $170.20
019-620-078 $170.20
019-620-079 $170.20
019-620-080 $170.20
019-620-081 $170.20
019-620-085 $170.20
019-620-086 $170.20
019-620-087 $170.20
019-620-088 $170.20
019-620-089 $170.20
019-620-090 $170.20
019-620-091 $170.20
019-620-092 $170.20
019-620-093 $170.20
019-620-094 $170.20
019-620-095 $170.20
019-620-096 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-620-097 $170.20
019-620-098 $170.20
019-620-099 $170.20
019-620-100 $170.20
019-620-101 $170.20
019-620-102 $170.20
019-620-103 $170.20
019-620-104 $170.20
019-620-105 $170.20
019-620-106 $170.20
019-620-107 $170.20
019-620-108 $170.20
019-620-109 $170.20
019-620-110 $170.20
019-620-111 $170.20
019-620-112 $170.20
019-620-113 $170.20
019-620-114 $170.20
019-620-115 $170.20
019-620-116 $170.20
019-620-117 $170.20
019-620-118 $170.20
019-620-119 $170.20
019-620-120 $170.20
019-620-121 $170.20
019-620-122 $170.20
019-620-123 $170.20
019-620-124 $170.20
019-620-125 $170.20
019-620-126 $170.20
019-620-127 $170.20
019-620-128 $170.20
019-620-129 $170.20
019-620-130 $170.20
019-620-131 $170.20
019-620-132 $170.20
019-620-133 $170.20
019-620-134 $170.20
019-620-135 $170.20
019-630-004 $170.20
019-630-005 $170.20
019-630-006 $170.20
019-630-007 $170.20
019-630-008 $170.20
019-630-009 $170.20
019-630-010 $170.20
019-630-011 $170.20
019-630-012 $170.20
019-630-018 $170.20
019-630-019 $170.20
019-630-020 $170.20
019-630-021 $170.20
019-630-022 $170.20
019-630-023 $170.20
019-630-024 $170.20
019-630-025 $170.20
019-630-026 $170.20
019-630-027 $170.20
019-630-028 $170.20
019-630-029 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-630-030 $170.20
019-630-031 $170.20
019-630-032 $170.20
019-630-033 $170.20
019-630-034 $170.20
019-630-035 $170.20
019-630-036 $170.20
019-630-037 $170.20
019-630-045 $170.20
019-630-046 $170.20
019-630-047 $170.20
019-630-048 $170.20
019-630-049 $170.20
019-630-050 $170.20
019-630-051 $170.20
019-630-052 $170.20
019-630-053 $170.20
019-630-054 $170.20
019-630-055 $170.20
019-630-056 $170.20
019-630-057 $170.20
019-630-058 $170.20
019-630-059 $170.20
019-630-060 $170.20
019-630-061 $170.20
019-630-062 $170.20
019-630-063 $170.20
019-630-064 $170.20
019-630-065 $170.20
019-630-066 $170.20
019-630-067 $170.20
019-630-068 $170.20
019-630-069 $170.20
019-630-070 $170.20
019-630-071 $170.20
019-630-072 $170.20
019-630-073 $170.20
019-630-074 $170.20
019-630-075 $170.20
019-630-076 $170.20
019-630-077 $170.20
019-630-078 $170.20
019-630-079 $170.20
019-630-080 $170.20
019-630-081 $170.20
019-630-082 $170.20
019-630-083 $170.20
019-630-084 $170.20
019-630-085 $170.20
019-630-086 $170.20
019-630-087 $170.20
019-630-088 $170.20
019-630-089 $170.20
019-630-090 $170.20
019-630-091 $170.20
019-630-092 $170.20
019-630-093 $170.20
019-630-094 $170.20
019-630-095 $170.20
019-630-096 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-630-097 $170.20
019-630-098 $170.20
019-630-099 $170.20
019-630-100 $170.20
019-630-101 $170.20
019-630-102 $170.20
019-630-103 $170.20
019-630-104 $170.20
019-630-105 $170.20
019-630-106 $170.20
019-630-107 $170.20
019-630-108 $170.20
019-630-109 $170.20
019-630-110 $170.20
019-640-001 $170.20
019-640-002 $170.20
019-640-003 $170.20
019-640-004 $170.20
019-640-005 $170.20
019-640-006 $170.20
019-640-007 $170.20
019-640-008 $170.20
019-640-009 $170.20
019-640-010 $170.20
019-640-011 $170.20
019-640-012 $170.20
019-640-013 $170.20
019-640-014 $170.20
019-640-015 $170.20
019-640-016 $170.20
019-640-017 $170.20
019-640-018 $170.20
019-640-019 $170.20
019-640-020 $170.20
019-640-021 $170.20
019-640-022 $170.20
019-640-023 $170.20
019-640-024 $170.20
019-640-025 $170.20
019-640-026 $170.20
019-640-027 $170.20
019-640-028 $170.20
019-640-029 $170.20
019-640-030 $170.20
019-640-031 $170.20
019-640-032 $170.20
019-640-033 $170.20
019-640-034 $170.20
019-640-035 $170.20
019-640-036 $170.20
019-640-037 $170.20
019-640-038 $170.20
019-640-039 $170.20
019-640-040 $170.20
019-640-041 $170.20
019-640-042 $170.20
019-640-043 $170.20
019-650-001 $170.20
019-650-002 $170.20
019-650-003 $170.20
- 83 - 05/04/25

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-650-004 $170.20
019-650-005 $170.20
019-650-006 $170.20
019-650-007 $170.20
019-650-008 $170.20
019-650-009 $170.20
019-650-010 $170.20
019-650-011 $170.20
019-650-012 $170.20
019-650-013 $170.20
019-650-014 $170.20
019-650-015 $170.20
019-650-016 $170.20
019-650-017 $170.20
019-650-018 $170.20
019-650-019 $170.20
019-650-020 $170.20
019-650-021 $170.20
019-650-022 $170.20
019-650-023 $170.20
019-660-001 $170.20
019-660-002 $170.20
019-660-003 $170.20
019-660-004 $170.20
019-660-005 $170.20
019-660-006 $170.20
019-660-007 $170.20
019-660-008 $170.20
019-660-009 $170.20
019-660-010 $170.20
019-660-011 $170.20
019-660-012 $170.20
019-660-013 $170.20
019-660-014 $170.20
019-660-015 $170.20
019-660-016 $170.20
019-660-017 $170.20
019-660-018 $170.20
019-660-019 $170.20
019-660-020 $170.20
019-660-021 $170.20
019-660-022 $170.20
019-660-023 $170.20
019-660-024 $170.20
019-660-025 $170.20
019-660-026 $170.20
019-660-027 $170.20
019-660-028 $170.20
019-660-029 $170.20
019-660-030 $170.20
019-660-031 $170.20
019-660-032 $170.20
019-660-033 $170.20
019-660-034 $170.20
019-660-035 $170.20
019-670-019 $170.20
019-670-020 $170.20
019-670-021 $170.20
019-670-022 $170.20
019-670-023 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-670-024 $170.20
019-670-025 $170.20
019-670-026 $170.20
019-670-027 $170.20
019-670-028 $170.20
019-670-029 $170.20
019-670-030 $170.20
019-670-031 $170.20
019-680-023 $35.06
019-680-024 $170.20
019-680-025 $170.20
019-680-026 $170.20
019-680-027 $170.20
019-680-028 $170.20
019-680-029 $170.20
019-680-030 $170.20
019-680-031 $170.20
019-680-032 $170.20
019-680-033 $170.20
019-680-034 $170.20
019-680-035 $170.20
019-680-036 $170.20
019-680-037 $170.20
019-680-038 $170.20
019-680-039 $170.20
019-680-040 $170.20
019-680-041 $170.20
019-680-042 $170.20
019-690-001 $170.20
019-690-002 $170.20
019-690-003 $170.20
019-690-004 $170.20
019-690-005 $170.20
019-690-006 $170.20
019-690-007 $170.20
019-690-008 $170.20
019-690-009 $170.20
019-690-010 $170.20
019-690-011 $170.20
019-690-012 $170.20
019-690-013 $170.20
019-690-014 $170.20
019-690-015 $170.20
019-690-016 $170.20
019-690-017 $170.20
019-690-018 $170.20
019-690-019 $170.20
019-690-020 $170.20
019-690-021 $170.20
019-690-022 $170.20
019-690-023 $170.20
019-690-024 $170.20
019-690-025 $170.20
019-690-026 $170.20
019-690-027 $170.20
019-690-028 $170.20
019-690-029 $170.20
019-690-030 $170.20
019-690-031 $170.20
019-690-032 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-690-033 $170.20
019-690-034 $170.20
019-690-035 $170.20
019-690-036 $170.20
019-690-037 $170.20
019-690-038 $170.20
019-690-039 $170.20
019-690-040 $170.20
019-690-041 $170.20
019-690-042 $170.20
019-690-043 $170.20
019-690-044 $170.20
019-690-045 $170.20
019-690-046 $170.20
019-690-047 $170.20
019-690-048 $170.20
019-690-049 $170.20
019-690-050 $170.20
019-690-051 $170.20
019-690-053 $170.20
019-700-001 $170.20
019-700-002 $170.20
019-700-003 $170.20
019-700-004 $170.20
019-700-005 $170.20
019-700-006 $170.20
019-700-007 $170.20
019-700-008 $170.20
019-700-009 $170.20
019-700-010 $170.20
019-700-011 $170.20
019-700-012 $170.20
019-700-013 $170.20
019-700-014 $170.20
019-700-015 $170.20
019-700-016 $170.20
019-700-017 $170.20
019-700-018 $170.20
019-700-019 $170.20
019-700-020 $170.20
019-700-021 $170.20
019-700-022 $170.20
019-700-023 $170.20
019-700-024 $170.20
019-700-025 $170.20
019-700-026 $170.20
019-700-027 $170.20
019-700-028 $170.20
019-700-029 $170.20
019-700-030 $170.20
019-700-031 $170.20
019-710-001 $170.20
019-710-002 $170.20
019-710-003 $170.20
019-710-004 $170.20
019-710-005 $170.20
019-710-006 $170.20
019-710-007 $170.20
019-710-008 $170.20
019-710-009 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-710-010 $170.20
019-710-011 $170.20
019-710-012 $170.20
019-710-013 $170.20
019-710-014 $170.20
019-710-015 $170.20
019-710-016 $170.20
019-710-017 $170.20
019-710-018 $170.20
019-710-019 $170.20
019-710-020 $170.20
019-710-021 $170.20
019-710-022 $170.20
019-720-001 $170.20
019-720-002 $170.20
019-720-003 $170.20
019-720-004 $170.20
019-720-005 $170.20
019-720-006 $170.20
019-720-007 $170.20
019-720-008 $170.20
019-720-009 $170.20
019-720-010 $170.20
019-720-011 $170.20
019-720-012 $170.20
019-720-013 $170.20
019-720-014 $170.20
019-720-015 $170.20
019-720-016 $170.20
019-720-017 $170.20
019-720-018 $170.20
019-720-019 $170.20
019-720-020 $170.20
019-720-021 $170.20
019-720-022 $170.20
019-720-023 $170.20
019-720-024 $170.20
019-720-025 $170.20
019-720-026 $170.20
019-720-027 $170.20
019-720-028 $170.20
019-720-029 $170.20
019-720-030 $170.20
019-720-031 $170.20
019-720-032 $170.20
019-720-033 $170.20
019-720-034 $170.20
019-720-035 $170.20
019-720-036 $170.20
019-720-037 $170.20
019-720-038 $170.20
019-720-039 $170.20
019-720-040 $170.20
019-720-041 $170.20
019-720-042 $170.20
019-720-043 $170.20
019-720-044 $170.20
019-720-045 $170.20
019-720-046 $170.20
019-720-047 $170.20
- 84 - 05/04/25

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-720-048 $170.20
019-720-049 $170.20
019-720-050 $170.20
019-720-051 $170.20
019-720-052 $170.20
019-720-053 $170.20
019-720-054 $170.20
019-720-055 $170.20
019-720-056 $170.20
019-720-057 $170.20
019-720-058 $170.20
019-720-059 $170.20
019-720-060 $170.20
019-720-061 $170.20
019-720-062 $170.20
019-720-063 $170.20
019-720-064 $170.20
019-720-065 $170.20
019-720-066 $170.20
019-720-067 $170.20
019-720-068 $170.20
019-720-069 $170.20
019-720-070 $170.20
019-720-071 $170.20
019-720-072 $170.20
019-720-073 $170.20
019-720-074 $170.20
019-720-075 $170.20
019-720-076 $170.20
019-720-077 $170.20
019-720-078 $170.20
019-730-001 $170.20
019-730-002 $170.20
019-730-003 $170.20
019-730-004 $170.20
019-730-005 $170.20
019-730-006 $170.20
019-730-007 $170.20
019-730-008 $170.20
019-730-009 $170.20
019-730-010 $170.20
019-730-011 $170.20
019-730-012 $170.20
019-730-013 $170.20
019-730-014 $170.20
019-730-015 $170.20
019-730-016 $170.20
019-730-017 $170.20
019-730-018 $170.20
019-730-019 $170.20
019-730-020 $170.20
019-730-021 $170.20
019-730-022 $170.20
019-730-023 $170.20
019-730-024 $170.20
019-730-025 $170.20
019-730-026 $170.20
019-730-027 $170.20
019-730-028 $170.20
019-730-029 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-730-030 $170.20
019-730-031 $170.20
019-730-032 $170.20
019-730-033 $170.20
019-730-034 $170.20
019-730-035 $170.20
019-730-036 $170.20
019-730-037 $170.20
019-730-038 $170.20
019-730-039 $170.20
019-730-040 $170.20
019-730-041 $170.20
019-730-042 $170.20
019-730-043 $170.20
019-730-044 $170.20
019-730-045 $170.20
019-730-046 $170.20
019-730-047 $170.20
019-730-048 $170.20
019-730-049 $170.20
019-730-050 $170.20
019-730-051 $170.20
019-730-052 $170.20
019-730-053 $170.20
019-730-054 $170.20
019-730-055 $170.20
019-730-056 $170.20
019-730-057 $170.20
019-730-058 $170.20
019-730-059 $170.20
019-740-001 $170.20
019-740-002 $170.20
019-740-003 $170.20
019-740-004 $170.20
019-740-005 $170.20
019-740-006 $170.20
019-740-007 $170.20
019-740-008 $170.20
019-740-009 $170.20
019-740-010 $170.20
019-740-011 $170.20
019-740-012 $170.20
019-740-013 $170.20
019-740-014 $170.20
019-740-015 $170.20
019-740-016 $170.20
019-740-017 $170.20
019-740-018 $170.20
019-740-019 $170.20
019-740-020 $170.20
019-740-021 $170.20
019-740-022 $170.20
019-740-023 $170.20
019-740-024 $170.20
019-740-025 $170.20
019-740-026 $170.20
019-740-027 $170.20
019-740-028 $170.20
019-740-029 $170.20
019-740-030 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-740-031 $170.20
019-740-032 $170.20
019-740-033 $170.20
019-740-034 $170.20
019-740-035 $170.20
019-740-036 $170.20
019-740-037 $170.20
019-740-038 $170.20
019-740-039 $170.20
019-740-040 $170.20
019-740-041 $170.20
019-740-042 $170.20
019-740-043 $170.20
019-740-044 $170.20
019-740-045 $170.20
019-740-046 $170.20
019-740-047 $170.20
019-740-048 $170.20
019-740-049 $170.20
019-740-050 $170.20
019-740-051 $170.20
019-740-052 $170.20
019-740-053 $170.20
019-740-054 $170.20
019-740-055 $170.20
019-750-001 $170.20
019-750-002 $170.20
019-750-003 $170.20
019-750-004 $170.20
019-750-005 $170.20
019-750-006 $170.20
019-750-007 $170.20
019-750-008 $170.20
019-750-009 $170.20
019-750-010 $170.20
019-750-011 $170.20
019-750-012 $170.20
019-750-013 $170.20
019-750-014 $170.20
019-750-015 $170.20
019-750-016 $170.20
019-750-017 $170.20
019-750-018 $170.20
019-750-019 $170.20
019-750-020 $170.20
019-750-021 $170.20
019-750-022 $170.20
019-750-023 $170.20
019-750-024 $170.20
019-750-025 $170.20
019-750-026 $170.20
019-750-027 $170.20
019-750-028 $170.20
019-750-029 $170.20
019-750-030 $170.20
019-750-031 $170.20
019-750-032 $170.20
019-750-033 $170.20
019-750-034 $170.20
019-750-035 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-750-036 $170.20
019-750-037 $170.20
019-750-038 $170.20
019-750-039 $170.20
019-750-040 $170.20
019-750-041 $170.20
019-750-042 $170.20
019-750-043 $170.20
019-750-044 $170.20
019-750-045 $170.20
019-750-046 $170.20
019-750-047 $170.20
019-750-048 $170.20
019-750-049 $170.20
019-750-054 $170.20
019-750-055 $4.44
019-750-058 $170.20
019-750-059 $170.20
019-750-060 $170.20
019-750-061 $170.20
019-750-062 $170.20
019-750-063 $170.20
019-760-001 $170.20
019-760-002 $170.20
019-760-003 $170.20
019-760-004 $170.20
019-760-005 $170.20
019-760-006 $170.20
019-760-007 $170.20
019-760-008 $170.20
019-760-010 $170.20
019-760-011 $170.20
019-760-012 $170.20
019-760-013 $170.20
019-760-014 $170.20
019-760-015 $170.20
019-760-016 $170.20
019-760-017 $170.20
019-760-018 $170.20
019-760-019 $170.20
019-760-020 $170.20
019-760-021 $170.20
019-760-022 $170.20
019-760-023 $170.20
019-760-024 $170.20
019-760-025 $170.20
019-760-026 $170.20
019-760-027 $170.20
019-760-028 $170.20
019-760-029 $170.20
019-760-030 $170.20
019-760-031 $170.20
019-760-032 $170.20
019-760-033 $170.20
019-760-034 $170.20
019-760-035 $170.20
019-760-036 $170.20
019-760-037 $170.20
019-760-038 $170.20
019-760-039 $170.20
- 85 - 05/04/25

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-760-040 $170.20
019-760-041 $170.20
019-760-042 $170.20
019-760-043 $170.20
019-760-044 $170.20
019-760-045 $170.20
019-760-046 $170.20
019-760-047 $170.20
019-760-048 $170.20
019-760-049 $170.20
019-760-050 $170.20
019-760-051 $170.20
019-760-052 $170.20
019-760-053 $170.20
019-760-054 $170.20
019-760-055 $170.20
019-760-059 $170.20
019-760-060 $170.20
019-770-001 $170.20
019-770-002 $170.20
019-770-003 $170.20
019-770-004 $170.20
019-770-005 $170.20
019-770-006 $170.20
019-770-007 $170.20
019-770-008 $170.20
019-770-009 $170.20
019-770-010 $170.20
019-770-011 $170.20
019-770-012 $170.20
019-770-013 $170.20
019-770-014 $170.20
019-770-015 $170.20
019-770-016 $170.20
019-770-017 $170.20
019-770-018 $170.20
019-770-019 $170.20
019-770-020 $170.20
019-770-021 $170.20
019-770-022 $170.20
019-770-023 $170.20
019-770-024 $170.20
019-770-025 $170.20
019-770-026 $170.20
019-770-027 $170.20
019-770-028 $170.20
019-770-029 $170.20
019-770-030 $170.20
019-770-031 $170.20
019-770-032 $170.20
019-770-033 $170.20
019-770-034 $170.20
019-770-035 $170.20
019-770-036 $170.20
019-770-037 $170.20
019-770-041 $170.20
019-770-042 $170.20
019-780-001 $170.20
019-780-002 $170.20
019-780-003 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-780-004 $170.20
019-780-005 $170.20
019-780-006 $170.20
019-780-007 $170.20
019-780-008 $170.20
019-780-009 $170.20
019-780-010 $170.20
019-780-011 $170.20
019-780-012 $170.20
019-780-013 $170.20
019-780-014 $170.20
019-780-015 $170.20
019-780-016 $170.20
019-780-017 $170.20
019-780-018 $170.20
019-780-019 $170.20
019-780-020 $170.20
019-780-021 $170.20
019-780-022 $170.20
019-780-023 $170.20
019-780-024 $170.20
019-780-025 $170.20
019-780-026 $170.20
019-780-027 $170.20
019-780-028 $170.20
019-780-029 $170.20
019-780-030 $170.20
019-780-031 $170.20
019-780-032 $170.20
019-780-033 $170.20
019-780-034 $170.20
019-780-035 $170.20
019-780-036 $170.20
019-780-037 $170.20
019-780-038 $170.20
019-780-039 $170.20
019-780-040 $170.20
019-780-041 $170.20
019-780-042 $170.20
019-780-043 $170.20
019-780-044 $170.20
019-780-045 $170.20
019-780-046 $170.20
019-780-047 $170.20
019-780-048 $170.20
019-780-049 $170.20
019-780-050 $170.20
019-780-051 $170.20
019-780-052 $170.20
019-790-001 $170.20
019-790-002 $170.20
019-790-003 $170.20
019-790-004 $170.20
019-790-005 $170.20
019-790-006 $170.20
019-790-007 $170.20
019-790-008 $170.20
019-790-009 $170.20
019-790-010 $170.20
019-790-011 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-790-012 $170.20
019-790-013 $170.20
019-790-014 $170.20
019-790-015 $170.20
019-790-016 $170.20
019-790-017 $170.20
019-790-018 $170.20
019-790-019 $170.20
019-790-020 $170.20
019-790-021 $170.20
019-790-022 $170.20
019-790-023 $170.20
019-790-024 $170.20
019-790-025 $170.20
019-790-026 $170.20
019-790-027 $170.20
019-790-028 $170.20
019-790-029 $170.20
019-790-030 $170.20
019-790-031 $170.20
019-790-032 $170.20
019-790-033 $170.20
019-790-034 $170.20
019-790-035 $170.20
019-790-036 $170.20
019-790-037 $170.20
019-790-038 $170.20
019-790-039 $170.20
019-790-040 $170.20
019-790-041 $170.20
019-790-042 $170.20
019-790-043 $170.20
019-790-044 $170.20
019-800-001 $170.20
019-800-002 $170.20
019-800-003 $170.20
019-800-004 $170.20
019-800-005 $170.20
019-800-006 $170.20
019-800-007 $170.20
019-800-008 $170.20
019-800-009 $170.20
019-800-010 $170.20
019-800-011 $170.20
019-800-012 $170.20
019-800-013 $170.20
019-800-014 $170.20
019-800-015 $170.20
019-800-016 $170.20
019-800-017 $170.20
019-800-018 $170.20
019-800-019 $170.20
019-800-020 $170.20
019-800-021 $170.20
019-800-022 $170.20
019-800-023 $170.20
019-800-024 $170.20
019-800-025 $170.20
019-800-026 $170.20
019-800-027 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-800-028 $170.20
019-800-029 $170.20
019-800-030 $170.20
019-800-031 $170.20
019-800-033 $170.20
019-810-001 $170.20
019-810-002 $170.20
019-810-003 $170.20
019-810-004 $170.20
019-810-005 $170.20
019-810-006 $170.20
019-810-007 $170.20
019-810-008 $170.20
019-810-009 $170.20
019-810-010 $170.20
019-810-011 $170.20
019-810-012 $170.20
019-810-013 $170.20
019-810-014 $170.20
019-810-015 $170.20
019-810-016 $170.20
019-810-017 $170.20
019-810-018 $170.20
019-810-019 $170.20
019-810-020 $170.20
019-810-021 $170.20
019-810-022 $170.20
019-810-023 $170.20
019-810-024 $170.20
019-810-025 $170.20
019-810-026 $170.20
019-810-027 $170.20
019-810-028 $170.20
019-820-001 $170.20
019-820-002 $170.20
019-820-003 $170.20
019-820-004 $170.20
019-820-005 $170.20
019-820-006 $170.20
019-820-007 $170.20
019-820-008 $170.20
019-820-009 $170.20
019-820-010 $170.20
019-820-011 $170.20
019-820-012 $170.20
019-820-013 $170.20
019-820-014 $170.20
019-820-015 $170.20
019-820-016 $170.20
019-820-017 $170.20
019-820-018 $170.20
019-820-019 $170.20
019-820-020 $170.20
019-820-021 $170.20
019-820-022 $170.20
019-820-023 $170.20
019-820-024 $170.20
019-820-025 $170.20
019-820-026 $170.20
019-820-027 $170.20
- 86 - 05/04/25

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-820-028 $170.20
019-820-029 $170.20
019-820-030 $170.20
019-820-031 $170.20
019-820-032 $170.20
019-820-033 $170.20
019-820-034 $170.20
019-820-035 $170.20
019-820-036 $170.20
019-820-037 $170.20
019-820-038 $170.20
019-820-039 $170.20
019-820-040 $170.20
019-820-041 $170.20
019-820-042 $170.20
019-820-043 $170.20
019-820-044 $170.20
019-820-045 $170.20
019-820-046 $170.20
019-820-047 $170.20
019-820-048 $170.20
019-820-049 $170.20
019-820-050 $170.20
019-820-051 $170.20
019-820-052 $170.20
019-820-053 $170.20
019-820-054 $170.20
019-820-055 $170.20
019-820-056 $170.20
019-820-057 $170.20
019-820-058 $170.20
019-820-059 $170.20
019-820-060 $170.20
019-820-061 $170.20
019-820-062 $170.20
019-820-063 $170.20
019-830-001 $170.20
019-830-002 $170.20
019-830-003 $170.20
019-830-004 $170.20
019-830-005 $170.20
019-830-006 $170.20
019-830-007 $170.20
019-830-008 $170.20
019-830-009 $170.20
019-830-010 $170.20
019-830-011 $170.20
019-830-012 $170.20
019-830-013 $170.20
019-830-014 $170.20
019-830-015 $170.20
019-830-016 $170.20
019-830-017 $170.20
019-830-018 $170.20
019-830-019 $170.20
019-830-020 $170.20
019-830-021 $170.20
019-830-022 $170.20
019-830-023 $170.20
019-830-024 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-830-025 $170.20
019-830-026 $170.20
019-830-027 $170.20
019-830-028 $170.20
019-830-029 $170.20
019-840-001 $170.20
019-840-002 $170.20
019-840-003 $170.20
019-840-004 $170.20
019-840-005 $170.20
019-840-006 $170.20
019-840-007 $170.20
019-840-008 $170.20
019-840-009 $170.20
019-840-010 $170.20
019-840-011 $170.20
019-840-012 $170.20
019-840-013 $170.20
019-840-014 $170.20
019-840-015 $170.20
019-840-016 $170.20
019-840-017 $170.20
019-840-018 $170.20
019-840-019 $170.20
019-840-020 $170.20
019-840-021 $170.20
019-840-022 $170.20
019-840-023 $170.20
019-840-024 $170.20
019-840-025 $170.20
019-840-026 $170.20
019-840-027 $170.20
019-840-028 $170.20
019-840-029 $170.20
019-840-030 $170.20
019-840-031 $170.20
019-840-032 $170.20
019-840-033 $170.20
019-840-034 $170.20
019-840-035 $170.20
019-840-036 $170.20
019-840-037 $170.20
019-840-038 $170.20
019-840-039 $170.20
019-840-040 $170.20
019-840-041 $170.20
019-840-042 $170.20
019-840-043 $170.20
019-840-044 $170.20
019-840-045 $170.20
019-840-046 $170.20
019-840-047 $170.20
019-840-048 $170.20
019-840-049 $170.20
019-840-050 $170.20
019-840-051 $170.20
019-840-052 $170.20
019-840-053 $170.20
019-840-054 $170.20
019-840-055 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-840-056 $170.20
019-840-057 $170.20
019-840-058 $170.20
019-840-059 $170.20
019-840-060 $170.20
019-840-061 $170.20
019-840-062 $170.20
019-840-063 $170.20
019-840-064 $170.20
019-840-065 $170.20
019-840-066 $170.20
019-840-067 $170.20
019-840-068 $170.20
019-840-069 $170.20
019-840-070 $170.20
019-840-071 $170.20
019-840-072 $170.20
019-840-073 $170.20
019-840-074 $170.20
019-840-075 $170.20
019-840-076 $170.20
019-840-077 $170.20
019-840-078 $170.20
019-840-079 $170.20
019-840-080 $170.20
019-840-081 $170.20
019-840-082 $170.20
019-840-083 $170.20
019-840-084 $170.20
019-840-085 $170.20
019-840-086 $170.20
019-840-087 $170.20
019-840-088 $170.20
019-840-089 $170.20
019-840-090 $170.20
019-840-091 $170.20
019-840-092 $170.20
019-840-093 $170.20
019-840-094 $170.20
019-840-095 $170.20
019-840-096 $170.20
019-840-097 $170.20
019-840-098 $170.20
019-840-099 $170.20
019-840-100 $170.20
019-840-101 $170.20
019-840-102 $170.20
019-840-103 $170.20
019-840-104 $170.20
019-850-001 $170.20
019-850-002 $170.20
019-850-003 $170.20
019-850-004 $170.20
019-850-005 $170.20
019-850-006 $170.20
019-850-007 $170.20
019-850-008 $170.20
019-850-009 $170.20
019-850-010 $170.20
019-850-011 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-850-012 $170.20
019-850-013 $170.20
019-850-014 $170.20
019-850-015 $170.20
019-850-016 $170.20
019-850-017 $170.20
019-850-018 $170.20
019-850-019 $170.20
019-850-020 $170.20
019-850-021 $170.20
019-850-022 $170.20
019-850-023 $170.20
019-850-024 $170.20
019-850-025 $170.20
019-850-026 $170.20
019-850-027 $170.20
019-850-028 $170.20
019-850-029 $170.20
019-850-030 $170.20
019-850-031 $170.20
019-850-032 $170.20
019-850-033 $170.20
019-850-034 $170.20
019-850-035 $170.20
019-850-036 $170.20
019-850-037 $170.20
019-850-038 $170.20
019-850-039 $170.20
019-850-040 $170.20
019-850-041 $170.20
019-850-042 $170.20
019-850-043 $170.20
019-850-044 $170.20
019-850-045 $170.20
019-850-046 $170.20
019-850-047 $170.20
019-850-048 $170.20
019-850-049 $170.20
019-850-050 $170.20
019-850-051 $170.20
019-850-052 $170.20
019-850-053 $170.20
019-850-054 $170.20
019-850-055 $170.20
019-850-056 $170.20
019-850-057 $170.20
019-850-058 $170.20
019-850-059 $170.20
019-850-060 $170.20
019-850-061 $170.20
019-850-062 $170.20
019-850-063 $170.20
019-850-064 $170.20
019-850-065 $170.20
019-850-066 $170.20
019-850-067 $170.20
019-850-068 $170.20
019-850-069 $170.20
019-850-070 $170.20
019-850-071 $170.20
- 87 - 05/04/25

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-850-072 $170.20
019-850-073 $170.20
019-850-074 $170.20
019-850-075 $170.20
019-850-076 $170.20
019-850-077 $170.20
019-850-078 $170.20
019-850-079 $170.20
019-850-080 $170.20
019-850-081 $170.20
019-850-082 $170.20
019-850-083 $170.20
019-850-084 $170.20
019-850-085 $170.20
019-850-086 $170.20
019-850-087 $170.20
019-850-088 $170.20
019-850-089 $170.20
019-850-090 $170.20
019-850-091 $170.20
019-850-092 $170.20
019-850-093 $170.20
019-850-094 $170.20
019-850-095 $170.20
019-860-001 $170.20
019-860-002 $170.20
019-860-003 $170.20
019-860-004 $170.20
019-860-005 $170.20
019-860-006 $170.20
019-860-007 $170.20
019-860-008 $170.20
019-860-009 $170.20
019-860-010 $170.20
019-860-011 $170.20
019-860-012 $170.20
019-860-013 $170.20
019-860-014 $170.20
019-860-015 $170.20
019-860-016 $170.20
019-860-017 $170.20
019-860-018 $170.20
019-860-019 $170.20
019-860-020 $170.20
019-860-021 $170.20
019-860-022 $170.20
019-860-023 $170.20
019-860-024 $170.20
019-860-025 $170.20
019-860-026 $170.20
019-860-027 $170.20
019-860-028 $170.20
019-860-029 $170.20
019-860-030 $170.20
019-860-031 $170.20
019-860-032 $170.20
019-860-033 $170.20
019-860-034 $170.20
019-860-035 $170.20
019-860-036 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-860-037 $170.20
019-860-038 $170.20
019-860-039 $170.20
019-860-040 $170.20
019-860-041 $170.20
019-860-042 $170.20
019-860-043 $170.20
019-860-044 $170.20
019-860-045 $170.20
019-860-046 $170.20
019-860-047 $170.20
019-860-048 $170.20
019-860-049 $170.20
019-860-050 $170.20
019-860-051 $170.20
019-860-052 $170.20
019-860-053 $170.20
019-860-054 $170.20
019-860-055 $170.20
019-860-056 $170.20
019-860-057 $170.20
019-860-058 $170.20
019-860-059 $170.20
019-870-001 $170.20
019-870-002 $170.20
019-870-003 $170.20
019-870-004 $170.20
019-870-005 $170.20
019-870-006 $170.20
019-870-007 $170.20
019-870-008 $170.20
019-870-009 $170.20
019-870-010 $170.20
019-870-011 $170.20
019-870-012 $170.20
019-870-013 $170.20
019-870-014 $170.20
019-870-015 $170.20
019-870-016 $170.20
019-870-017 $170.20
019-870-018 $170.20
019-870-019 $170.20
019-870-020 $170.20
019-870-021 $170.20
019-870-022 $170.20
019-870-023 $170.20
019-870-024 $170.20
019-870-025 $170.20
019-870-026 $170.20
019-870-027 $170.20
019-870-028 $170.20
019-870-029 $170.20
019-870-030 $170.20
019-870-031 $170.20
019-870-032 $170.20
019-870-033 $170.20
019-870-034 $170.20
019-870-035 $170.20
019-870-036 $170.20
019-870-037 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-870-038 $170.20
019-870-039 $170.20
019-870-040 $170.20
019-870-041 $170.20
019-870-042 $170.20
019-870-045 $170.20
019-870-046 $170.20
019-870-047 $170.20
019-870-048 $170.20
019-870-049 $170.20
019-870-050 $170.20
019-870-051 $170.20
019-870-052 $170.20
019-870-053 $170.20
019-880-001 $170.20
019-880-002 $170.20
019-880-003 $170.20
019-880-004 $170.20
019-880-005 $170.20
019-880-006 $170.20
019-880-007 $170.20
019-880-008 $170.20
019-880-009 $170.20
019-880-010 $170.20
019-880-011 $170.20
019-880-012 $170.20
019-890-001 $170.20
019-890-002 $170.20
019-890-003 $170.20
019-890-004 $170.20
019-890-005 $170.20
019-890-006 $170.20
019-890-007 $170.20
019-890-008 $170.20
019-890-009 $170.20
019-890-010 $170.20
019-890-011 $170.20
019-890-012 $170.20
019-890-013 $170.20
019-890-014 $170.20
019-890-015 $170.20
019-890-016 $170.20
019-890-017 $170.20
019-890-018 $170.20
019-890-019 $170.20
019-890-020 $170.20
019-890-021 $170.20
019-890-022 $170.20
019-890-023 $170.20
019-890-024 $170.20
019-890-025 $170.20
019-890-026 $170.20
019-890-027 $170.20
019-890-028 $170.20
019-890-029 $170.20
019-890-030 $170.20
019-890-031 $170.20
019-890-032 $170.20
019-890-033 $170.20
019-890-034 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-890-035 $170.20
019-890-036 $170.20
019-890-037 $170.20
019-890-038 $170.20
019-890-039 $170.20
019-890-040 $170.20
019-890-041 $170.20
019-890-042 $170.20
019-890-043 $170.20
019-890-044 $170.20
019-890-045 $170.20
019-890-046 $170.20
019-890-047 $170.20
019-890-048 $170.20
019-890-049 $170.20
019-890-050 $170.20
019-890-051 $170.20
019-890-052 $170.20
019-890-053 $170.20
019-890-054 $170.20
019-890-055 $170.20
019-890-056 $170.20
019-890-057 $170.20
019-890-058 $170.20
019-890-059 $170.20
019-890-060 $170.20
019-890-061 $170.20
019-890-062 $170.20
019-890-063 $170.20
019-890-064 $170.20
019-890-065 $170.20
019-890-066 $170.20
019-890-067 $170.20
019-890-068 $170.20
019-890-069 $170.20
019-890-070 $170.20
019-890-071 $170.20
019-890-072 $170.20
019-890-073 $170.20
019-890-074 $170.20
019-890-075 $170.20
019-890-076 $170.20
019-890-077 $170.20
019-890-078 $170.20
019-890-079 $170.20
019-890-080 $170.20
019-890-081 $170.20
019-890-082 $170.20
019-890-083 $170.20
019-890-084 $170.20
019-890-085 $170.20
019-890-086 $170.20
019-890-087 $170.20
019-890-088 $170.20
019-890-089 $170.20
019-890-090 $170.20
019-900-001 $69.44
019-900-002 $37.94
019-900-003 $44.58
019-900-004 $27.22
- 88 - 05/04/25

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1

FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-900-005 $63.66
019-900-006 $50.54
019-900-007 $72.50
019-900-008 $50.54
019-900-009 $43.56
019-900-010 $37.94
019-900-011 $42.88
019-900-012 $27.90
019-900-013 $42.20
019-900-014 $49.36
019-900-015 $49.70
019-910-001 $145.36
019-910-002 $175.82
019-910-003 $221.42
019-910-006 $7,012.40
019-910-009 $212.58
019-910-010 $54.30
019-910-011 $628.20
019-910-012 $77.78
019-910-014 $181.08
019-910-015 $69.96
019-910-016 $12.24
019-920-001 $170.20
019-920-002 $170.20
019-920-003 $170.20
019-920-004 $170.20
019-920-005 $170.20
019-920-006 $170.20
019-920-007 $170.20
019-920-008 $170.20
019-920-009 $170.20
019-920-010 $170.20
019-920-011 $170.20
019-920-012 $170.20
019-920-013 $170.20
019-920-014 $170.20
019-920-015 $170.20
019-920-016 $170.20
019-920-017 $170.20
019-920-018 $170.20
019-920-019 $170.20
019-920-020 $170.20
019-920-021 $170.20
019-920-022 $170.20
019-920-023 $170.20
019-920-024 $170.20
019-920-025 $170.20
019-920-026 $170.20
019-920-027 $170.20
019-920-028 $170.20
019-920-029 $170.20
019-920-030 $170.20
019-920-031 $170.20
019-920-032 $170.20
019-920-033 $170.20
019-920-034 $170.20
019-920-035 $170.20
019-920-036 $170.20
019-920-037 $170.20
019-920-038 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-920-039 $170.20
019-920-040 $170.20
019-920-041 $170.20
019-920-042 $170.20
019-920-043 $170.20
019-920-044 $170.20
019-920-045 $170.20
019-920-046 $170.20
019-920-047 $170.20
019-920-048 $170.20
019-920-049 $170.20
019-920-050 $170.20
019-920-051 $170.20
019-920-052 $170.20
019-920-053 $170.20
019-920-054 $170.20
019-920-055 $170.20
019-920-056 $170.20
019-920-057 $170.20
019-920-058 $170.20
019-920-059 $170.20
019-920-060 $170.20
019-920-061 $170.20
019-920-062 $170.20
019-920-063 $170.20
019-920-064 $170.20
019-920-065 $170.20
019-920-066 $170.20
019-920-067 $170.20
019-920-068 $170.20
019-920-069 $170.20
019-920-070 $170.20
019-920-071 $170.20
019-920-072 $170.20
019-920-073 $170.20
019-920-074 $170.20
019-920-075 $170.20
019-920-076 $170.20
019-920-077 $170.20
019-920-078 $170.20
019-920-079 $170.20
019-920-080 $170.20
019-920-081 $170.20
019-920-082 $170.20
019-920-083 $170.20
019-920-084 $170.20
019-920-085 $170.20
019-920-086 $170.20
019-920-087 $170.20
019-920-088 $170.20
019-920-089 $170.20
019-920-090 $170.20
019-920-091 $170.20
019-920-092 $170.20
019-920-093 $170.20
019-920-094 $170.20
019-920-095 $170.20
019-920-096 $170.20
019-920-097 $170.20
019-920-098 $170.20
Assessor's
Parcel No.

Assessment
Amount
019-930-001 $296.64
019-930-002 $188.24
019-940-001 $170.20
019-940-002 $170.20
019-940-003 $170.20
019-940-004 $170.20
019-940-005 $170.20
019-940-006 $170.20
019-940-007 $170.20
019-940-008 $170.20
019-940-009 $170.20
019-940-010 $170.20
019-940-011 $170.20
019-940-012 $170.20
019-940-013 $170.20
019-940-014 $170.20
019-940-015 $170.20
019-940-016 $170.20
019-940-017 $170.20
019-940-018 $170.20
019-940-024 $170.20
019-940-025 $170.20
019-940-026 $170.20
019-940-027 $170.20
019-940-028 $170.20
019-940-029 $170.20
019-940-030 $170.20
019-940-031 $170.20
019-940-032 $170.20
019-940-033 $170.20
019-940-034 $170.20
019-940-035 $170.20
019-940-036 $170.20
019-940-037 $170.20
019-940-038 $170.20
019-940-039 $170.20
019-940-040 $170.20
019-940-041 $170.20
019-940-042 $170.20
019-940-043 $170.20
019-940-044 $170.20
019-940-045 $170.20
019-940-046 $170.20
019-940-047 $170.20
019-940-048 $170.20
019-940-052 $170.20
019-940-053 $170.20
019-940-054 $170.20
019-940-055 $170.20
019-940-056 $170.20
Totals: 21,290 $3,916,261.56
- 89 - 05/04/25

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.2
05/27/2025
SUBJECT: Public Hearing in Compliance with Assembly Bill 2561 / Government Code Section 3502.3 Regarding Vacancies,
Recruitment, and Retention Efforts
DEPARTMENT: Human Resources
STAFF: Teresa Fairbanks, Acting Human Resources Director

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Public Hearing in Compliance with Assembly Bill 2561 / Government Code Section 3502.3 Regarding Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Efforts.

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation for informational purposes during the public hearing, at which City staff will report on workforce vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with conducting the public hearing required under Government Code Section 3502.3.

BACKGROUND
In response to Assembly Bill 2561 (AB 2561), signed into law on September 22, 2024, the City of Brentwood presents this report in compliance with new transparency requirements related to staffing vacancies. AB 2561 was introduced to address the issue of job vacancies in local government, which adversely affects the delivery of public services and employee workload. Among other requirements, the bill mandates that public agencies conduct a public hearing to present the status of vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts before the agency’s governing body at least once per fiscal year prior to the adoption of the next fiscal year’s budget and identify any necessary changes to policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process. Effective January 1, 2025, AB 2561 was enacted into law and is codified as Government Code Section 3502.3.

This report includes data for calendar year 2024.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.2
05/27/2025
AB 2561 amended the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by adding Government Code Section 3502.3, which requires local public agencies to enhance transparency and accountability in public sector staffing. The purpose of AB 2561 is to address growing concerns over staffing shortages in public agencies. To mitigate these impacts, the law requires agencies to report the following:

1. Public Hearing – Present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts
As of December 31, 2024, the City had 340 full-time equivalent (FTE) budgeted positions, with 323 FTE’s represented by a recognized bargaining unit. The City’s vacancy rate as of December 31, 2024 was 11%.

Month Vacancies Hires Separations Promotions FTEs Vacancy Rate
January 30.5 7 2 1 330 9%
February 26.5 6 2 0 330 8%
March 22.5 5 1 0 330 7%
April 27.5 2 7 0 330 8%
May 26.5 3 2 1 330 8%
June 25.5 1 0 1 330 8%
July 37.5 2 4 0 340 11%
August 35.5 5 3 3 340 10%
September 38.5 2 5 2 340 11%
October 41.5 1 4 0 340 12%
November 40.5 2 1 2 340 12%
December 38.5 3 1 2 340 11%

2. Identify any policies or practices that may hinder hiring or retention Staff have reviewed City policies and practices and did not find anything hindering the City’s hiring or retention at this time. Staff will continue to make this review a priority. If any policies or practices are identified that may hinder hiring or retention, staff will inform the City Council.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.2
05/27/2025

3. Employee Organization Participation
Per AB 2561, the City must allow the recognized employee organization for each bargaining unit at the City to make presentations during the public hearing concerning vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts. (Gov.

Code § 3502.3(b)) The Human Resources Department notified represented bargaining units at the City of the opportunity to present, and received no statement of interest from any of the units to do so.

4. Additional Reporting for High Vacancy Rates
If vacancies within a single bargaining unit meet or exceed 20% of authorized full-time positions in that bargaining unit, upon request of the recognized employee organization for that bargaining unit, the City must provide additional information during the public hearing, including applicant volume, hiring timelines, and efforts to improve compensation, benefits, and working conditions. (Gov. Code § 3502.3(c))
At the end of calendar year 2024, the City’s six (6) bargaining units with recognized employee organizations, were all under the 20% vacancy rate.

While the executive and senior management employees are unrepresented and not a recognized employee organization, staff found that they too fall under the 20% vacancy rate. The vacancy rate is summarized in the table below:

Bargaining Unit Vacancy
Rate
Brentwood Employees’ Association-Miscellaneous Office Division 12% Brentwood Employees’ Association-Public Works Division 11% Brentwood Police Lieutenants Group 0%
Brentwood Managers and Confidential Employees’ Association 5% Brentwood Supervisors and Professional Employees’ Association 14% Brentwood Police Officer’s Association 9%*
* Three (3) Police Officer vacancies are “under-filled” by Police Officer Trainees graduating in calendar year 2025.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.2
05/27/2025
Unrepresented Vacancy
Rate
Unrepresented Executive & Senior Management 18%

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Not Applicable.

DATE OF NOTICE
May 9, 2025

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Staff does not recommend any alternative options to ensure that the City has a final report on file to be compliant with Assembly Bill 2561 / Government Code Section 3502.3

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Exhibit A – AB 2561 FY 2024/25 Presentation

AB 2561 Presentation Status of the City of Brentwood
Vacancies and Retention Efforts
Public Hearing
Presented by Teresa Fairbanks, Acting Director of Human Resources

1. AB 2561 Summary

2. City Vacancies and Recruitment Efforts

3. Addressing Hard-to-Fill Vacancies

4. Retention Trends & Strategies
Presentation Overview

Conduct a public hearing and receive and file the City of Brentwood’s Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends presentation.

Recommendation

Legislature declared that high vacancy rates lead to:
 Heavier workloads
 Burnout/Increased turnover, and
 Negatively impacts service delivery
Key Takeaways and Mandates
 Annual presentation on vacancies, recruitment, and retention before formal budget adoption
 Identify any policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may present obstacles in hiring
 If vacancy rate in a bargaining unit is at or above 20%, the employee group may request more comprehensive reporting
Brief Overview of AB 2561

Bargaining Unit Budgeted
Positions Vacancies Vacancy Rate
Brentwood Employees’ Association-Miscellaneous Office Division 107 12.5 12% Brentwood Employees’ Association-Public Works Division 84 9 11% Brentwood Police Lieutenants Group 4 0 0%
Brentwood Managers and Confidential Employees’ Association 19 1 5% Brentwood Police Officer’s Association 65 6 9%*
Brentwood Supervisors and Professional Employees’ Association 44 6 14% 2024 Year End Vacancy Rate
Unrepresented Budgeted
Positions Vacancies Vacancy Rate
Unrepresented Executive & Senior Management 17 3 18%
CITYWIDE TOTALS 340 37.5 11%
*Three (3) Police Officer vacancies are “under-filled” by Police Officer Trainees graduating in calendar year 2025.

Addressing Vacancies in Brentwood

Vacancy
Created
Overview of Recruitment Process
Recruitment
Requisition Job Posting Application
Screening
Eligible List Department
Interviews
Conditional
Job Offer
PreEmployment
Process
Examination
Process
Job Placement

54 Position Vacancies
Recruitment: A Look Back at 2024 (January – December)
36 Job Postings
2630
Applications
Received
51 Vacancies Filled
 Average time to fill vacancies: 94 Days
 Vacancies filled with internal candidates: 26%

2024 Vacancy Data
Vacancy Reason Vacancies
Voluntary Separation 19
Internal Promotion 10
Newly Budgeted Position 10
Retirement 10
Involuntary Separation 5
CITYWIDE TOTALS 54

The City reviewed applicable policies, procedures, and recruitment activities to identify:

Potential obstacles:
 Timing of department’s selection and impacts to hiring  Pre-employment/background process
 Applicants not understanding where they are in the process Solutions to address obstacles:
 Annual Recruitment & Selection Training for hiring managers  Work with pre-employment vendors to streamline processes  Increase communications to candidates from HR and hiring department Hiring Issues

Targeted Recruitment Strategies
Effective Recruitment & Retention Approaches
Career Development Opportunities
Employee Recognition Programs
Work-Life Integration
Creating a Positive Work Culture Employee Trainings

 The City proactively recruits for vacant positions
 The City invests in ongoing employee engagement and retention initiatives  High retention rate indicates the City is an employer of choice Key Takeaways

Questions

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
05/27/2025
SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion of the proposed 2026 ballot measure to renew the County Urban Limit Line, with possible direction to staff
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
STAFF: Darin Gale, Interim City Manager
Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file a presentation on the proposed 2026 ballot measure to renew the County Urban Limit Line, and provide any associated direction to staff to convey to Contra Costa County.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item, other than staff time spent. If the City proposes to change our current Urban Limit Line (ULL), the City would need to ensure compliance with Measure J. Measure J is Contra Costa County’s half cent transportation sales tax measure that requires each jurisdiction to adopt a ULL to qualify for “return to source” funding. On average Brentwood receives $1.25 million per year from Measure J as part of the return to source funding.

BACKGROUND
Urban Limit Line (ULL) History
On November 6, 1990, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure C, the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan (the “65/35 Plan”), which established various mechanisms aimed at containing urban sprawl and protecting resources such as agricultural land and scenic ridges. The most significant and impactful of these mechanisms are the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”) and the Urban Limit Line (ULL). Pursuant to the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35% of the land in the county may be designated for urban uses (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) in the General Plans of the County and the 19 cities therein, and at least 65% must be designated for agriculture, open space, parks, and other nonurban uses. Meanwhile, the ULL establishes a boundary beyond which no urban land uses may be designated. Working together, the 65/35 Standard and the ULL limit the geographic extent of urban development in the county.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
05/27/2025
Measure C was set to expire on December 31, 2010. On November 7, 2006, county voters approved Measure L, which carried forward most of the elements of Measure C, while adding provisions for periodic review of the ULL and establishing different processes for expanding the ULL by 30 acres or fewer and more than 30 acres. On January 8, 2008, the City Council adopted a resolution adopting the County Measure L ULL as the City’s ULL for the purposes of compliance with Measure J. (Additional information about Measure J can be found on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority website at https://ccta.net/planning/growth-management/) Measure L is in effect through December 31, 2026. Additional background information on the ULL can be found in the attached February 25, 2025 County staff report to the Board of Supervisors.

Recent County Action
The County has recently initiated work to develop a ballot measure to renew the County’s ULL, targeting the June 2026 primary. A report was presented to the Board of Supervisors on February 25, 2025, which included recommendations from County staff. The Board directed County staff to reach out to interested parties, specifically including the cities, and accept any input between now and the end of May. The County will consider any and all input as it crafts its ULL renewal measure.

County staff and City staff held a virtual meeting in mid-March, at which time it was explained that only one minor clean-up item was proposed for Brentwood. This involves shifting the line to exclude the ECCID Main Canal, which extends along portions of the city’s southern boundary (Proposed County ULL Maps). This contraction of the County ULL, totaling approximately 48.3 acres, would occur outside the City’s incorporated limits and sphere of influence, but within the City’s ULL because the City’s ULL matches the existing 2006 County ULL. The City’s ULL would be unaffected by the County’s action. No other expansions or contractions within the City’s ULL are proposed at this time.

Proposed Schedule
The 2026 Primary Election will be held on June 2, 2026, and the General Election will be held on November 3, 2026. The ULL measure can be placed on either ballot, but County staff recommended to the Board that it be placed on the Primary Election ballot in June 2026. The following outlines the steps necessary to place the measure on the Primary Election ballot:
 March-June2025: County staff seeks feedback from the public, cities, Municipal Advisory Councils, and the County Planning Commission.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
05/27/2025
 June-July 2025: Board meeting where staff will report on feedback received and present the draft ballot measure. Board provides further guidance to staff to refine the proposal, consider any environmental impacts, and return no later than February 2026 with final draft version of ballot measure and CEQA document for consideration by the Board.
 February 2026 (or sooner, if possible): Board hearing to consider placing ULL measure on ballot for Primary Election.

While this schedule includes conservative timeframes, the process ideally would be completed by the end of 2025.

ANALYSIS
The proposed clean-up within Brentwood’s ULL is minor and would simply clean-up a mapping issue where the ECCID Main Canal should be removed from it. Staff does not recommend making any other changes to Brentwood’s ULL and, if the City Council agrees, no further action is needed. If the City Council determines, however, that additional changes are warranted and/or should be considered, then staff recommends that they be clearly identified so that County staff can include them when it reports back to the Board in the next month or two.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Previous Actions

2. Contra Costa County Staff Report – February 25, 2025

3. City Council Resolution No. 2008-3

4. City Council Staff Report – January 8, 2008

5. Letters to the City Council

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On January 8, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-3 adopting the Contra Costa County Measure L Urban Limit Line as the City of Brentwood’s adopted Urban Limit Line for the purposes of compliance with Measure J to establish a voterapproved Urban Limit Line.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Legislation Text
1025 ESCOBAR STREET
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
To: Board of Supervisors
From: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation and Development Report Title: Report on 2026 Ballot Measure to Renew the County Urban Limit Line ☒Recommendation of the County Administrator ☐ Recommendation of Board Committee RECOMMENDATIONS:

ACCEPT a report from the Conservation and Development Director on a 2026 ballot measure to renew the County’s Urban Limit Line (ULL) and PROVIDE direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact at this time. DCD staff time associated with preparing the ballot measure is covered entirely by the Land Development Fund.

BACKGROUND:

Brief History of the Urban Limit Line
On November 6, 1990, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure C, the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan (the “65/35 Plan”), which established various mechanisms aimed at containing urban sprawl and protecting resources like agricultural land and scenic ridges. The most significant and impactful of these mechanisms are the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”) and ULL. Pursuant to the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the county may be designated for urban uses (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) in the General Plans of the County and 19 cities, and at least 65 percent must be designated for agriculture, open space, parks, and other non-urban uses. Meanwhile, the ULL establishes a boundary beyond which no urban land uses may be designated. Working together, the 65/35 Standard and ULL limit the geographic extent of urban development in the county.

Measure C was set to expire on December 31, 2010. On November 7, 2006, county voters approved Measure L, which carried forward most of the elements of Measure C while adding provisions for periodic ULL review and establishing different processes for expanding the ULL by 30 acres or fewer and more than 30 acres. Measure L is in effect through December 31, 2026.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance
The ULL ballot measure is a project subject to the requirements of CEQA. Staff will determine the appropriate CEQA document when the project description is further developed and stable.

File #: 25-696, Version: 1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Page 1 of 7 Printed on 2/27/2025

File #: 25-696, Version: 1
Effects of County ULL Ballot Measure on Cities
In November 2004, county voters approved Measure J, an extension of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) half-cent transportation sales tax originally approved through passage of Measure C in 1988 (this is not the same Measure C that created the ULL). A component of Measure J, the Growth Management Program (GMP), required the County and 19 cities to adopt and continuously comply with a mutually agreedupon ULL or their own voter approved ULL to receive their shares of Measure J Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds (also known as “return to source funds”) and be eligible to receive Measure J Transportation for Livable Community Funds. The effort to create a mutually agreed-upon ULL failed.

Following readoption of the County ULL in 2006, 16 of the 19 cities adopted the County’s ULL to comply with Measure J. Pittsburg, Antioch, and San Ramon adopted their own ULL (which San Ramon refers to as the Urban Growth Boundary [UGB]).

Staff reviewed the ULL adoption resolutions for the cities that adopted the County ULL. Each resolution explicitly states that the ULL adopted by the voters through Measure L is the ULL the city is adopting. Each city also adopted procedures for adjusting the ULL consistent with CCTA’s “Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line,” with some adding provisions to address local issues. Nothing in any of the cities’ resolutions suggests that their ULLs could be affected by future actions of the County, such as a subsequent ULL ballot measure. Staff concludes that the 2026 ULL ballot measure would not affect the cities’ ULLs.

ULL Issues for Discussion
Relationship between ULL Ballot Measure, General Plan, and Ordinance Code Measure C amended the General Plan Land Use Element and Ordinance Code, specifically the Zoning Code (Title 8), to establish the 65/35 Plan and ULL. Specific text was added to both documents and the voterapproved ULL map was added to the General Plan. Measure L modified the ULL map and amended the text of the General Plan and Zoning Code to extend the term of the 65/35 Plan and add procedures related to expansion and review of the ULL. The 2026 ballot measure would likely contain similar amendments to both documents.

The provisions of Measure L set to expire at the end of 2026 include the term of the 65/35 Plan and most procedures for expanding and periodically reviewing the ULL, but not the ULL itself. Were the provisions of Measure L to expire without a replacement voter-approved measure, then the 65/35 Plan and those procedures for expanding and reviewing the ULL would no longer be in effect, but the ULL would remain as part of the General Plan. The 65/35 Plan’s prohibition on designating land for urban uses outside the ULL would sunset, but General Plan policy LU-P2.3 provides a backstop by limiting development outside the ULL to non-urban uses. Absent Measure L’s requirement for a 4/5 supermajority vote to expand the ULL, the Board could expand it through the standard process to adopt a General Plan amendment (GPA), which requires a simple majority vote.

The Land Use Element and Growth Management Element of the 2045 General Plan each contain policies stating that a voter-approved ULL will be maintained. The Growth Management Element is consistent with the Measure J GMP. Failure to maintain a voter-approved ULL would cause the Growth Management Element to become inconsistent with the GMP and jeopardize the County’s “return to source” road maintenance funds, which are about $2 million annually.

Term
The Board has discretion to set the term of any extension to the ULL and 65/35 Plan when it approves the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Page 2 of 7 Printed on 2/27/2025

File #: 25-696, Version: 1
language for the ballot measure. Measures C and L each had 20-year expirations. Staff recommends a term of at least 25 years. A 20-year term, ending in 2046, would fall between the horizon year of the 2045 General Plan and the 8th Cycle Housing Element in 2047. These planning projects, a General Plan update, Housing Element update, and ULL renewal, are each multi-year efforts that require significant staff time and resources. This should be a consideration when determining the term, if any, for inclusion in the ballot measure. The Board also could consider making the ULL permanent.

Periodic ULL Reviews
Measure L contains two provisions for reviewing the ULL: optional 5-year reviews and a mandatory mid-term (year 2016) review. The purpose of the mid-term review was to determine whether any changes to the boundary of the ULL were warranted, “based on facts and circumstances resulting from the County’s participation with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufficient to satisfy housing and jobs needs for 20 years thereafter.”
For several reasons, staff recommends against including periodic review requirements in the ballot measure.

First, the 2016 mid-term review, conducted in cooperation with the cities, demonstrated substantial development capacity within the ULL through 2036. “Higher density” and “lower density” development scenarios were analyzed and staff determined that inside the ULL there was capacity for 67,400 to 110,800 residential units and 172,000 to 190,700 jobs. Second, the County’s 2045 General Plan, adopted by the Board in November 2024, provides substantial development capacity in the unincorporated areas through its land use designations. The General Plan EIR analyzed the impacts of developing 23,200 residential units, 1.2 million square feet of commercial space, and 5 million square feet of industrial space on vacant and underutilized land inside the ULL through the General Plan’s 2045 horizon year. Finally, every jurisdiction in California is required to update the Housing Element of its General Plan every eight years. A significant component of the Housing Element update is the housing sites inventory, which demonstrates each jurisdiction’s capacity to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The California Department of Housing and Community Development will not certify a Housing Element with an inadequate sites inventory. Thus, the County and each of the 19 cities will complete three housing capacity analyses over the course of a 25-year ULL extension. Should the Board determine that periodic reviews of the ULL are warranted, then staff recommends such reviews be linked to Housing Element cycles for efficiency and that consideration be given to examining capacity to accommodate jobs.

Process and Findings for Adjusting the ULL
The County processes requests to adjust the ULL as GPAs. They are therefore subject to State and County regulations and policies governing such applications. Requests to expand the ULL are also subject to additional procedures contained in Measure L. ULL expansions of 30 or fewer acres require a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after making at least one of the following findings:
(a) A natural or man-made disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the ULL. (b) An objective study has determined that the ULL is preventing the County from providing its fair share of affordable housing or regional housing as required by State law, and the Board of Supervisors finds that a change to the ULL is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the County to meet these requirements of State law.
(c) A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have approved a CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Page 3 of 7 Printed on 2/27/2025

File #: 25-696, Version: 1
change to the ULL affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement. (d) A minor change to the ULL will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries.
(e) An objective study has determined that a change to the ULL is necessary or desirable to further the economic viability of the East Contra Costa County (Byron) Airport, and either mitigate adverse aviation related environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or further the County’s aviation-related needs.
(f) A change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law. (g) A five-year cyclical review of the ULL has determined, based on the criteria and factors for establishing the ULL set forth above, that new information is available (from city or County growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstances have changed, warranting a change to the ULL.

ULL expansions exceeding 30 acres must be approved by a 4/5 vote of the Board after making at least one of these findings, then also receive countywide voter approval. This has never occurred.

Adjustments to the ULL are rare; it has been moved only six times (1993, 1996, 2000, 2005, 2009, and 2021) since inception in 1990. Only once has it been moved as part of a private development application. Staff is not recommending specific changes to the ULL procedures or findings at this time.

Urban Limit Line Map
General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU-2, Urban Limit Line, is the official ULL map approved by the voters in 2006, as amended in 2009 and 2021. Exhibit A includes Figure LU-2 and a series of maps depicting potential ULL adjustments for the Board’s consideration. These adjustments constitute 10,787 acres of ULL contraction and 1,634 acres of ULL expansion, for a net contraction of 9,153 acres. These numbers do not include the approximately 500-acre Byron Airport Study Area expansion discussed below. Potential adjustments are categorized as follows:

Contractions
a) Restricted Development, 3,233 acres. These contractions would move outside the ULL land with permanent development restrictions. These restrictions include ownership by government agencies such as the East Bay Regional Park District and County Flood Control District; scenic, conservation, and agricultural easements; and grant deeds of development rights or similar instruments in favor of the County or other government entities. Most of this acreage is already designated Resource Conservation (RC), Parks and Recreation (PR), or Public and Semi-Public (PS) in the General Plan. These designations are non-urban and drastically limit development potential. The remaining acreage is designated Agricultural Lands (AL), which is also non-urban.
b) Buffers, 1,488 acres. These contractions would move outside the ULL land set aside as buffers around subdivisions, cemeteries, and industrial facilities (e.g., refineries and quarries). Nearly all this acreage is already designated RC in the General Plan. A small amount is designated AL. c) Constraints, 4,393 acres. These contractions move outside the ULL land with development constraints such as steep slopes, high or very high fire hazards, flood hazards, high quality agricultural soil, access issues/isolation, or lack of access to utilities. These lands are inappropriate for urban development. All this acreage has a non-urban land use designation in the General Plan except for approximately 20.5 acres in CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Page 4 of 7 Printed on 2/27/2025

File #: 25-696, Version: 1
Diablo and 1.1 acres in Byron designated for residential development. If those 21.6 acres were moved outside the ULL, then DCD would process a GPA in the future to change the land use designation to one that is non-urban, likely AL. To comply with the requirements of Senate Bill 330, that GPA would also increase density elsewhere to ensure no net loss of residential capacity. d) Align with City Limits, 888 acres. These contractions move the ULL inward to align with the incorporated limits of San Ramon, Pittsburg, and Antioch, the cities that adopted their own ULL or equivalent Urban Growth Boundary instead of adopting the County’s 2006 ULL. All land shown to be moved outside the ULL has a non-urban General Plan land use designation. e) Shoreline Simplification, 785 acres. These contractions smooth out the ULL along the shoreline and place undevelopable islands in San Pablo Bay and the Delta outside the ULL.

Expansions
a) Existing Development, 131 acres. These expansions would bring inside the ULL certain properties occupied by homes, businesses, a sports facility, and a former fire station. Some of these properties already have an urban General Plan land use designation despite being outside the ULL. b) Improved Clarity, 159 acres. These expansions eliminate existing islands or holes in the ULL that were created when land was annexed to cities, and new islands that would be created by other recommended expansions and contractions. They also eliminate instances where the ULL unnecessarily splits parcels.

Approximately 82 of these acres are owned and permanently protected by the National Park Service and East Bay Regional Park District. The remaining 77 acres are designated AL or RC in the General Plan.

Most of this acreage has no urban development potential. c) Byron Airport Study Area, approximately 500 acres. This expansion involves land between the airport and Byron Highway and is the only expansion contemplated as a precursor to potential future development.
d) Align with City Limits, 923 acres. These expansions move the ULL outward to align with city limits.

Approximately 823 of these acres are within San Ramon city limits. These expansions have no regulatory effect on the County because they are within cities.
e) Shoreline Simplification, 421 acres. These expansions smooth out the ULL along the shoreline.

Approximately 387 acres are within cities and include water adjacent to existing ports and marinas. ULL changes within the cities have no regulatory effect on the County. The remaining 34 acres are in Rodeo and unincorporated Antioch and include water adjacent to existing marinas. These areas have a Water land use designation in the General Plan. The Water designation allows shipping terminals, marinas, docks, and other marine-oriented uses and may exist inside and outside the ULL. Moving these areas inside the ULL is therefore inconsequential from a regulatory standpoint.

The potential expansions do not approve new development. Subsequent GPAs would be required to change non -urban land use designations to urban in support of more intense land uses. Such GPAs could be adopted only if they were consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan.

Byron Airport Study Area
The County owns and operates two general aviation airports, Buchanan Field Airport in Concord and Byron Airport south of Byron. The airports are self-funded and generate revenue for the County’s General Fund from leases, licenses, aircraft tax, sales tax, and other sources related to activities on airport property. While Byron CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Page 5 of 7 Printed on 2/27/2025

File #: 25-696, Version: 1
Airport embodies a significant investment of public resources, it has historically operated at a deficit. The airport’s potential as a job center and economic engine is limited by scarcity of developable land on and near the airport property and inadequate road and utility infrastructure at the airport and in the vicinity. More development not only equates to more revenue, but private development projects typically construct or improve infrastructure. Adequate acreage should therefore be available for projects large enough to absorb the cost of installing the necessary infrastructure.

The ULL around Byron Airport is a nebulous form that was initially adopted several years before the airport opened. Today it poorly reflects actual land use and development potential around the airport. About 75 percent of the non-airport land surrounding the airport and within the ULL is owned by the County or East Bay Regional Park District and permanently protected. The remaining 25 percent is under private ownership and designated AL in the General Plan, which does not allow urban development. Urban services such as water and sewer are unavailable.

While the ULL around the airport has never been moved, the possibility of an adjustment has been contemplated since 1990, as evidenced by the finding to expand the ULL that relates specifically to the economic viability of Byron Airport and furtherance of the County’s aviation-related needs. The logical location for a ULL expansion is to the east and northeast, between the airport and Byron Highway, where several hundred acres of generally poor agricultural land remain mostly undeveloped. This area is flat, not a conservation priority under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, and within the State Route 239 corridor being planned by CCTA.

Staff sees two practical options for expanding the ULL to the east/northeast of the airport. The first is to include the expansion on the ULL map presented to the voters as part of the ballot measure. If the voters approved the ballot measure, then the ULL change, as shown on the map, would take effect immediately. The second option is for the ULL map included in the ballot measure to show a maximum extent of potential expansion with accompanying language authorizing the Board to move the ULL within and up to the boundary of that area in the future. Because such expansion would almost certainly exceed 30 acres, the ballot measure would make clear that its adoption by the voters satisfied the requirement for a countywide vote for a ULL expansion exceeding 30 acres. It may also be desirable for the ballot measure to explain the purpose of the expansion, which would be to facilitate development of aviation-related uses that depend upon proximity to the airport, and to limit future urban use to just these aviation-related uses. Both expansion options would include contracting the ULL by significantly greater acreage on the airport’s north, west, and south sides.

The second option is preferable in staff’s opinion. The County has not been approached with a proposal for aviation-related development on the land east/northeast of the airport, so there is no immediate need to move the ULL. The alignment of the State Route 239 right-of-way also has not been finalized and that could affect the ideal location of the ULL boundary. Additionally, deferring a ULL expansion until needed guards against real estate speculation.

Outreach
If so directed by the Board, staff proposes to conduct public outreach regarding the ULL renewal concepts discussed in this report. Proposed outreach includes at least one presentation to the County Planning Commission (CPC), consultation with the 19 cities in the county, and distribution of materials to the Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs). Staff would make presentations to MACs upon request. Staff also plans to utilize the Envision Contra Costa website and mailing list, which has over 1,200 subscribers representing a wide range of interests.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Page 6 of 7 Printed on 2/27/2025

File #: 25-696, Version: 1
Proposed Schedule
The 2026 Primary Election will be held on June 2, 2026, and the General Election will be held on November 3, 2026. The ULL measure can be placed on either ballot, but staff recommends placing it on the Primary Election ballot in June 2026. The following outlines the steps necessary to place the measure on the Primary Election ballot:
· March-May 2025: Staff seeks feedback from the public, cities, MACs, and CPC. · June/July 2025: Board meeting where staff reports on feedback received and presents draft ballot measure. Board provides further guidance to staff to refine the proposal, consider any environmental impacts, and return no later than February 2026 with final draft version of ballot measure and CEQA document for consideration by the Board.
· February 2026 (sooner, if possible): Board hearing to consider placing ULL measure on ballot for Primary Election.

This schedule includes conservative timeframes; the process ideally would be completed by the end of 2025.

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

Staff would not receive direction on how to proceed with preparation of a 2026 ULL ballot measure.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Page 7 of 7 Printed on 2/27/2025

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
05/27/2025
SUBJECT: Additional consideration of whether tattoo studios should be allowed in the Downtown
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
STAFF: Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff regarding whether an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) should be processed to allow tattoo studios and, if so, any requirements that should be placed on them.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to amending the DSP, other than the time spent for staff to process it.

BACKGROUND
The Downtown Specific Plan was originally adopted by the City Council on November 16, 2005. As noted in the beginning of the document:

The Downtown Specific Plan is established to coordinate public and private investment in the City’s Downtown District to fulfill the community’s intention for the Downtown to remain the heart of the Brentwood community as the City goes through a period of explosive growth and change. It is both a policy document and an implementation tool, in that it contains both a strategy to manage growth and a regulatory policy to guide and govern future development within the Plan area.

The land use map for the Downtown in the DSP was divided into six district zones, each of which had its own list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses, as well as development standards.

The DSP has been amended four times over the years, as follows:

1. August 26, 2008 to accommodate the Civic Center project

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
05/27/2025

2. June 24, 2014 to address a City Council strategic initiative that included, among other things, identifying prohibited uses or uses of particular concern (e.g., tattoo parlors) for the first time in the document

3. September 13, 2016 to accommodate the library project

4. September 26, 2017 to suspend in-lieu parking fees and parking requirements for non-residential projects
Since 2017, questions have arisen as to whether the DSP should be amended and, if so, in what manner. One of these inquiries has concerned whether the City Council would consider revising the document to allow tattoo studios, which are currently prohibited, to locate Downtown.

January 28, 2025 City Council Meeting
On January 28, 2025, Vice Mayor Pierson and Council Member Oerlemans brought forth a future agenda item request to the City Council. A total of 43 written comments were submitted by e-mail before the meeting, with 42 of those in support of allowing tattoo studios in the Downtown. During public comment at the meeting, there were a total of seven speakers, with six in support and one urging careful consideration before amending the DSP. This led to a lengthy discussion by the City Council. While there was a clear level of support for a straightforward amendment to allow tattoo studios, several questions and concerns were also raised, summarized as follows:
 Are tattoo studios the highest and best use for the Downtown, given the desire for more entertainment and retail uses?
 Would a comprehensive update to the Downtown Specific Plan be a better option to determine if tattoo studios are indeed appropriate?  Would the City potentially be taking property and/or space away from other businesses that may be a better fit for the Downtown?
 If tattoo studios are indeed allowed, should they be regulated with some sort of cap or potentially limited through spacing requirements?  What are the economic development impacts as a whole of allowing tattoo studios in the Downtown?
 How does the community (Downtown Brentwood Coalition (DBC), other businesses in the Downtown, and residents) feel about allowing tattoo studios? Ultimately, the City Council unanimously adopted a motion to have staff spend time and resources on this item and bring it back for additional consideration. The motion included direction for staff to provide background information on the pros and cons of allowing tattoo studios in the Downtown, specifically as it relates to economic development impacts, as well as potential legal implications.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
05/27/2025

ANALYSIS
Economic Development Impacts
The opening of a new tattoo studio can have several economic impacts. It creates local job opportunities for tattoo artists, receptionists, and support staff, contributing to employment in the area. The studio is likely to attract both regular clients and walk-in customers, increasing foot traffic and benefiting nearby businesses such as cafes, retail shops, and salons.

The rate of daily client turnover (i.e., the number of clients served each day) depends on the number of tattoo artists working at the studio. While tattoo studios typically serve fewer clients per day than salons, they are often categorized as having a similar economic impact. On average, a tattoo studio serves between 5 and 10 clients per day per artist, depending on the size and complexity of the tattoos being done.

Tattoo studios generate minimal sales tax revenue, as tattooing services are not subject to sales tax in California. The only sales tax revenue comes from the sale of retail products, merchandise, or if the studio operates a store alongside its services.

Potential Legal Implications
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that tattooing is “purely expressive activity fully protected by the First Amendment.” (Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach (9th Cir. 2010) 621 F.3d 1051.) This does not mean that the City cannot regulate tattoo uses; it means that any such regulations must constitute reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions. (Anderson, at 1055.) As the court noted:

This determination requires an inquiry into whether the restriction: (1) is ‘justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech’; (2) is ‘narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest’; and (3) ‘leave[s] open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’
(Anderson, at 1064.) If the City Council is considering directing staff to amend the Downtown Specific Plan to include tattoo uses within its boundaries, staff recommends that staff time and resources be spent on identifying appropriate time, place, and manner restrictions for future City Council consideration.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
05/27/2025

PREVIOUS ACTION
See Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
If the City Council elects to move forward with an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan, there is no CEQA determination that needs to be made at this time.

The proper level of CEQA review will be determined by staff during the processing of the amendment, but it is not; however, expected to be extensive.

ATTACHMENT

1. Previous Actions

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On November 16, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-276 adopting the Downtown Specific Plan (GPA 05-05).

On August 26, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-222 amending the Downtown Specific Plan (GPA 07-02) to add the Brentwood Civic Center District Zone to accommodate the Civic Center project.

On June 24, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-95 amending the Downtown Specific Plan (GPA 14-001) to address technical amendments and land use policies such as applicability, signage, use categories, and prohibited uses or uses of particular concern.

On September 13, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-126 amending the Downtown Specific Plan (GPA 16-001) to modify the development standards within the Civic Core District Zone to accommodate the Brentwood library project.

On September 26, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-132 amending the Downtown Specific Plan (GPA 17-003) to temporarily suspend the in-lieu parking fee and parking requirements for non-residential projects, as well as a technical clean-up of the development regulations associated with the Civic Core District Zone.

On January 28, 2025, the City Council considered a future agenda item request from Vice Mayor Pierson and Council Member Oerlemans to study the possibility of amending the Downtown Specific Plan for the purpose of allowing tattoo studios.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.3
05/27/2025
SUBJECT: Award of Contract to Conti LLC for the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade Project, CIP Project # 337-37259; amending the 2024/25 – 2028/29 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and amending the FY 2024/25 Operating Budget
DEPARTMENT: Finance and Information Systems
STAFF: Kerry Breen, Director of Finance and Information Systems Michael Baria, Chief Information Systems Officer
Tim McEntee, Information Systems Supervisor

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution 1) approving the contract documents, awarding the bid, and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a contract and necessary documents, for the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade Project, CIP Project No. 337-37259 to Conti LLC, as the lowest responsive bidder in the amount of $962,961.19, plus funding authorization for a 10% contingency amount of $96,296.12, for a total funding authorization not to exceed amount of $1,059,257.31; 2) amending the 2024/25 – 2028/29 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and 3) amending the FY 2024/25 Operating Budget for the associated project funding transfer.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade Project, CIP Project No. 337-37259 (“Project”) is included in the amended 2024/25 – 2028/29 CIP with an approved budget of $693,600. The Information Systems Replacement Fund is the source of funding for the Project.

Due to market price changes, advancements in audiovisual technology, and a revised scope focused on enhancing core audiovisual infrastructure and updating existing components to better meet the needs of public-facing facility users and support staff, an additional project budget allocation is being requested. The majority of this increase is attributed to increased construction costs associated with the procurement and implementation of the technological recommendations and increased complexity in the design and project administration costs necessary to ensure successful delivery of the project objectives.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.3
05/27/2025
In order to meet these objectives, staff is recommending award of the contract with Conti LLC in the amount of $962,961.19, plus funding authorization for a 10% contingency amount of $96,296.12, for a total authorization not to exceed amount of $1,059,257.31.

Staff recommends amending the 2024/25 -2028/29 CIP to include a revised CIP Project sheet increasing the Project budget to $1,161,458 and amending the FY 2024/25 Operating Budget for the necessary funding transfers.

CIP budget sheet Project funding and expenditure changes being recommended in this action are as follows:

Project Expenditures
Original
Budget
2024/25
Amended Budget Difference
Legal $2,000 $2,000 $0
Planning and Design $60,000 $80,000 $20,000
Construction $624,100 $1,059,258 $435,158
Project Administration $7,500 $20,200 $12,700
Total Project Budget $693,600 $1,161,458 $467,858
Project Funding
Original
Budget
2024/25
Amended Budget Difference
Replacement–Information
Systems $693,600 $1,161,458 $467,858
Total Project Budget $693,600 $1,161,458 $467,858
The Information Systems Replacement Fund receives annual contributions from City funds in order to ensure sufficient resources are available when replacements are needed. Annual funding in the operating budget comes from the General Fund (74%), the Enterprise Funds (18%), and Other Funds (8%). Including this proposed amendment, the June 30, 2025 projected balance of the Information Systems Replacement Fund would be $3.1 million.

Annual operations and maintenance costs for the Project are estimated at $30,000 and will be funded by the Information Systems Fund.

While staff is recommending that the contract be awarded for both the base bid and bid alternates, the City Council may consider limiting the scope of the Project by

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.3
05/27/2025
directing that only the bids for the core audiovisual components be awarded (excluding bid alternates #3-#6 for video conferencing enhancements). In this scenario, the total proposed Project budget could be reduced by $130,550.67.

BACKGROUND
The age of the City’s current audiovisual infrastructure varies by location. Staff assess and maintain these systems regularly, performing repairs and hardware refresh/replacement as needed. However, users have been experiencing increasingly inconsistent audiovisual performance, largely due to the age of the core audiovisual infrastructure. The table below shows the primary public-facing facility rooms, the inservice dates showing when the core audiovisual infrastructure was introduced, and the dates and descriptions of the most recent non-routine audiovisual services:

Facility Room In-Service Last Serviced
Community Center
Halls A & B 2012 2018 – Repair from Water Damage
Community Center
Meeting Rooms 1 & 2 2012 None
Senior Center
Main Hall 2009 2017 – Repairs and Improvements
Police Department
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) 2006 2017 – Repairs and Improvements Representatives from The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc., the City’s AV system design consultant, met with City staff in order to assess the current state of the audiovisual systems in all public-facing rooms as well as the City’s Emergency Operations Center.

Staff also provided feedback regarding the types of audiovisual needs expressed by customers who rent and use the City facilities. Based on the information gathered, a scope of work was created in order to address the operational needs of both staff and customers, which included detailed audiovisual designs, as well as technical and operational specifications.

Recent advancements in audiovisual technologies and the use of virtual meeting technologies such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams have placed increased demands on audiovisual systems that exceed the capabilities of the City’s current infrastructure.

In response to these changes, in 2022/2023 staff redesigned the audiovisual system of the City’s Council Chamber. As a result, the City was able to provide a better experience to residents and improve staff’s efficiency and ability to conduct meetings within the Council Chamber.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.3
05/27/2025
In order to achieve gains in performance and efficiency, and to bring a consistent experience to additional City facilities, the Project includes bids for video conferencing enhancements in addition to the replacement of core audiovisual components at each facility.

Additionally, the inclusion of virtual meeting technologies at the Police Department EOC is integral to the operations of the center during emergencies for communication with other agencies, elected officials, media and responding City staff.

The Project was advertised on April 7, 2025, and bids were opened on April 30, 2025.

Each bidder was required to provide a base bid amount and six (6) bid alternate amounts. The low bidder was determined by the total of the base bid with all six (6) bid alternates included. The City received the following three (3) bids:

Bidder Bid Amount
Conti LLC $962,961.19
EIDIM Group Inc. dba EIDIM AV Technology $1,094,737.13
Coda Technology Group $1,245,515.06
Staff reviewed the bids and is recommending the award of the contract to Conti LLC for submitting the lowest responsible and responsive bid. The contract with Conti LLC is included as Attachment 4. A summary of Conti LLC’s bid is as follows:

Bid/Alternate Description Cost
Base Bid Core Audiovisual System Components for
Community Center Halls A & B and
Community Center Meeting Rooms 1 & 2
$514,396.82
Bid Alternate #1 Core Audiovisual System Components for Senior Activity Center Main Hall
$221,373.60
Bid Alternate #2 Core Audiovisual System Components for Brentwood Police Department Emergency
Operations Center
$108,508.34
Bid Alternate #3 Video Conferencing Enhancements for
Community Center Halls A & B
$33,578.72
Bid Alternate #4 Video Conferencing Enhancements for
Community Center Meeting Rooms 1 & 2
$46,315.15
Bid Alternate #5 Video Conferencing Enhancements for Senior Activity Center Main Hall
$15,771.05

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.3
05/27/2025
Bid/Alternate Description Cost
Bid Alternate #6 Video Conferencing Enhancements for
Brentwood Police Department Emergency
Operations Center
$23,017.51
While the scope of work identified in the base bid and bid alternates #1 and #2 are essential to the Project, the outcomes achieved from the successful completion of all bid alternates will greatly improve the City’s ability to provide audiovisual service, video conferencing capabilities and support to external customers who rent the facilities and for staff’s use in conducting City business.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)

1. Modify staff’s recommendation to implement the base bid and a mix of bid alternates #1-6; if Council directs staff to award a different mix of bid alternates, staff may need to return at a later date with a revised Contract and Resolution.

2. Continue item with direction for staff to return with additional information.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Resolution

3. Contract

4. Amended City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade CIP sheet

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On May 28, 2024, by Resolution 2024-56, the City Council adopted the 2024/25 – 2028/29 Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”), which included the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade Project, CIP Project No. 337-37259.

On October 8, 2024, by Resolution 2024-109, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement and necessary documents for City Facility Audiovisual System Design and Consulting Services for the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 337-37259 (“Project”) in the amount of $86,700, plus funding authorization for a 5% contingency of $4,335 for a total not to exceed funding authorization amount of $91,035 with The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc.

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD 1) APPROVING THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS,

AWARDING THE BID, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AND NECESSARY

DOCUMENTS, FOR THE CITY FACILITY AUDIOVISUAL SYSTEM
UPGRADE PROJECT, CIP PROJECT NO. 337-37259 TO CONTI

LLC, AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER
IN THE AMOUNT OF $962,961.19, PLUS FUNDING
AUTHORIZATION FOR A 10% CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF
$96,296.12, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT OF $1,059,257.31; 2) AMENDING THE 2024/25 –
2028/29 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM; AND 3)
AMENDING THE FY 2024/25 OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE

ASSOCIATED PROJECT FUNDING TRANSFER
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-56, the City Council adopted the City’s 2024/25 – 2028/29 Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”), which included the City Facility Audiovisual (“AV”) System Upgrade Project, CIP Project No. 337-37259 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the majority of the AV infrastructure is located in City Hall and the Community Center which were placed into production when the Civic Center opened in 2012; and
WHEREAS, City staff assess and maintains these systems regularly, performing repairs and hardware refresh/replacement as needed; and recent advancements in audiovisual technology and the use of virtual meeting technologies such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams have placed increased demands on audiovisual systems that exceed the capabilities of the City’s current audiovisual infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-109, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement and necessary documents for City Facility Audiovisual System Design and Consulting Services for the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 337-37259 (“Project”) in the amount of $86,700, plus funding authorization for a 5% contingency of $4,335 for a total not to exceed funding authorization amount of $91,035 with the Shalleck Collaborative, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2025, the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade Project was advertised, and three (3) bids were received and opened on April 30, 2025; and

WHEREAS, staff reviewed the bids received and is recommending the award of the contract for the project to Conti LLC for submitting the lowest responsive and responsible bid.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby:

1. approve the contract documents, awarding the bid, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a contract and necessary documents for the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade Project, CIP Project No. 337-37259 to Conti LLC, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $962,961.19, plus funding authorization for a 10% contingency amount of $96,296.12 for a total authorization not to exceed amount of $1,059,257.31; and

2. amend the 2024/25 – 2028/29 Capital Improvement Program to include the revised project budget; and

3. amend the FY 2024/25 Operating Budget for the associated project funding transfer of $467,858 from the Information Systems Replacement Fund.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May, 2025 by the following vote:

City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade 2025 Form CONTRACT CIP Project No. 337-37259 Page 1
Contract
This public works contract (“Contract”) is entered into by and between the City of Brentwood (“City”) and Conti LLC (“Contractor”), for work on the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade Project (“Project”).

The parties agree as follows:

1. Award of Contract. In response to the Notice Inviting Bids, Contractor has submitted a Bid Proposal to perform the Work to construct the Project. On May 27, 2025, City authorized award of this Contract to Contractor for the amount set forth in Section 4, below.

City has elected to include the following Project alternate(s) in the Contract: Bid Alternative #1: Senior Center Meeting Room, #2: Police Department EOC, #3 Community Center Hall 1 & 2 Video Conferencing, #4: Community Center Meeting Rooms 1 & 2 Video Conferencing, #5: Senior Center Meeting Room Video Conferencing, and #6: Police Department EOC Video Conferencing.

2. Contract Documents. The Contract Documents incorporated into this Contract include and are comprised of all of the documents listed below. The definitions provided in Article 1 of the General Conditions apply to all of the Contract Documents, including this Contract.

2.1 Notice Inviting Bids;

2.2 Instructions to Bidders;

2.3 Addenda, if any;

2.4 Bid Proposal and attachments thereto;

2.5 Contract;

2.6 Payment and Performance Bonds;

2.7 General Conditions;

2.8 Special Conditions;

2.9 Project Plans and Specifications;

2.10 Change Orders, if any;

2.11 Notice of Potential Award;

2.12 Notice to Proceed; and

2.13 The following: No other documents.

3. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor will perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor must provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including all necessary labor, materials, supplies, tools, equipment, transportation, onsite facilities, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor must use its best efforts to diligently prosecute and complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents.

4. Payment. As full and complete compensation for Contractor’s timely performance and completion of the Work in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, City will pay Contractor $962,961.19 (“Contract Price”) for all of Contractor’s direct and indirect costs to perform the Work, including all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, taxes, insurance, bonds and all overhead costs, in accordance with the payment provisions in the General Conditions.

5. Time for Completion. Contractor will fully complete the Work for the Project, meeting all requirements for Final Completion, within 180 calendar days from the start date set forth in

City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade 2025 Form CONTRACT CIP Project No. 337-37259 Page 2
the Notice to Proceed (“Contract Time”). By signing below, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion.

6. Liquidated Damages. As further specified in Section 5.4 of the General Conditions, if Contractor fails to complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will assess liquidated damages in the amount of $2,502.00 per day for each day of unexcused delay in achieving Final Completion, and such liquidated damages may be deducted from City’s payments due or to become due to Contractor under this Contract.

7. Labor Code Compliance.

7.1 General. This Contract is subject to all applicable requirements of Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, including requirements pertaining to wages, working hours and workers’ compensation insurance, as further specified in Article 9 of the General Conditions.

7.2 Prevailing Wages. This Project is subject to the prevailing wage requirements applicable to the locality in which the Work is to be performed for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to perform the Work, including employer payments for health and welfare, pension, vacation, apprenticeship and similar purposes. Copies of these prevailing rates are available online at http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR.

7.3 DIR Registration. City may not enter into the Contract with a bidder without proof that the bidder and its Subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code § 1725.5, subject to limited legal exceptions.

8. Workers’ Compensation Certification. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Labor Code § 3700 which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.”

9. Conflicts of Interest. Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, and agents may not have, maintain, or acquire a conflict of interest in relation to this Contract in violation of any City ordinance or requirement, or in violation of any California law, including Government Code § 1090 et seq., or the Political Reform Act, as set forth in Government Code § 81000 et seq. and its accompanying regulations. Any violation of this Section constitutes a material breach of the Contract.

10. Independent Contractor. Contractor is an independent contractor under this Contract and will have control of the Work and the means and methods by which it is performed. Contractor and its Subcontractors are not employees of City and are not entitled to participate in any health, retirement, or any other employee benefits from City.

11. Notice. Any notice, billing, or payment required by or pursuant to the Contract Documents must be made in writing, signed, dated, and sent to the other party by personal delivery, U.S. Mail, a reliable overnight delivery service, or by email as a PDF file. Notice is deemed effective upon delivery, except that service by U.S. Mail is deemed effective on the second working day after deposit for delivery. Notice for each party must be given as follows:

City:

City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade 2025 Form CONTRACT CIP Project No. 337-37259 Page 3
City of Brentwood
Finance and Information Systems
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
925.516.5425
Attn: Michael Baria, Chief Information Systems Officer
[email protected]
Copy to: Shonna Berry, Technical Assistant II
[email protected]
Contractor:

Conti LLC
920 Stillwater Road, Suite 180
West Sacramento, CA 95605
702.561.8163
Attn: Bill Famini, Tech Division Manager
[email protected]

12. General Provisions.

12.1 Assignment and Successors. Contractor may not assign its rights or obligations under this Contract, in part or in whole, without City’s written consent. This Contract is binding on Contractor’s and City’s lawful heirs, successors and permitted assigns.

12.2 Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries to this Contract.

12.3 Governing Law and Venue. This Contract will be governed by California law and venue will be in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, and no other place.

Contractor waives any right it may have pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 394, to file a motion to transfer any action arising from or relating to this Contract to a venue outside of Contra Costa County, California.

12.4 Amendment. No amendment or modification of this Contract will be binding unless it is in a writing duly authorized and signed by the parties to this Contract.

12.5 Integration. This Contract and the Contract Documents incorporated herein, including authorized amendments or Change Orders thereto, constitute the final, complete, and exclusive terms of the agreement between City and Contractor.

12.6 Severability. If any provision of the Contract Documents is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, in whole or in part, the remaining provisions of the Contract Documents will remain in full force and effect.

12.7 Iran Contracting Act. If the Contract Price exceeds $1,000,000, Contractor certifies, by signing below, that it is not identified on a list created under the Iran Contracting Act, Public Contract Code § 2200 et seq. (the “Act”), as a person engaging in investment activities in Iran, as defined in the Act, or is otherwise expressly exempt under the Act.

City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade 2025 Form CONTRACT CIP Project No. 337-37259 Page 4

12.8 Authorization. Each individual signing below warrants that he or she is authorized to do so by the party that he or she represents, and that this Contract is legally binding on that party. If Contractor is a corporation, signatures from two officers of the corporation are required pursuant to California Corporations Code § 313.

12.9 Digital/Electronic Signatures. Using a City-approved method, this Contract may be executed through the use of digital or electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code Section 16.5. The presence of an electronic signature on this Contract will be construed as the Parties’ consent to do business electronically. [Signatures are on the following page.]

City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade 2025 Form CONTRACT CIP Project No. 337-37259 Page 5
The parties agree to this Contract as witnessed by the signatures below:

CITY: Approved as to form:
s/_______________________________ s/__________________________________ Darin Gale, Interim City Manager Katherine Wisinski, City Attorney __________________________ ___________________________________ Name, Title Name, Title
Date: ___________________________ Date: ______________________________ Attest:
s/_______________________________
Amanda McVey, City Clerk
_________________________
Name, Title
Date: ___________________________
CONTRACTOR: __________________________________________
Business Name
s/_______________________________ Seal:
_________________________________
Name, Title
Date: ____________________________
Second Signature (See Section 12.8):
s/_______________________________
_________________________________
Name, Title
Date: ____________________________
___________________________________________________
Contractor’s California License Number(s) and Expiration Date(s)

END OF CONTRACT

City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade 2025 Form PAYMENT BOND CIP Project No. 337-37259 Page 6
Payment Bond
The City of Brentwood (“City”) and Conti LLC (“Contractor”) have entered into a contract for work on the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade Project (“Project”). The Contract is incorporated by reference into this Payment Bond (“Bond”).

1. General. Under this Bond, Contractor as principal and ____________________________, its surety (“Surety”), are bound to City as obligee in an amount not less than $962,961.19, under California Civil Code § 9550 et seq., to ensure payment to authorized claimants. This Bond is binding on the respective successors, assigns, owners, heirs, or executors of Surety and Contractor.

2. Surety’s Obligation. If Contractor or any of its Subcontractors fails to pay a person authorized in California Civil Code § 9100 to assert a claim against a payment bond, any amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the Contract, or any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of Contractor and its Subcontractors under California Unemployment Insurance Code § 13020 with respect to the work and labor, then Surety will pay the obligation.

3. Beneficiaries. This Bond inures to the benefit of any of the persons named in California Civil Code § 9100, so as to give a right of action to those persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this Bond. Contractor must promptly provide a copy of this Bond upon request by any person with legal rights under this Bond.

4. Duration. If Contractor promptly makes payment of all sums for all labor, materials, and equipment furnished for use in the performance of the Work required by the Contract, in conformance with the time requirements set forth in the Contract and as required by California law, Surety’s obligations under this Bond will be null and void. Otherwise, Surety’s obligations will remain in full force and effect.

5. Waivers. Surety waives any requirement to be notified of alterations to the Contract or extensions of time for performance of the Work under the Contract. Surety waives the provisions of Civil Code §§ 2819 and 2845. City waives the requirement of a new bond for any supplemental contract under Civil Code § 9550. Any notice to Surety may be given in the manner specified in the Contract and sent to Surety as follows:

Attn: _____________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: ______________________________________________ Phone: ___________________________________________________ Email: ____________________________________________________

6. Law and Venue. This Bond will be governed by California law, and venue for any dispute pursuant to this Bond will be in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, and no other place. Surety will be responsible for City’s attorneys’ fees and costs in any action to enforce the provisions of this Bond.
[Signatures are on the following page.]

City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade 2025 Form PAYMENT BOND CIP Project No. 337-37259 Page 7

7. Effective Date; Execution. This Bond is entered into and is effective on __________, 2025.

SURETY:
___________________________________
Business Name
s/__________________________________ ______________________________ Date
___________________________________
Name, Title
(Attach Acknowledgment with Notary Seal and Power of Attorney) CONTRACTOR:
___________________________________
Business Name
s/__________________________________ ______________________________ Date
___________________________________
Name, Title
APPROVED BY CITY:

City of Brentwood
s/ __________________________________ ______________________________ Date
Darin Gale, Interim City Manager__________
Name, Title

END OF PAYMENT BOND

City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade 2025 Form PAYMENT BOND CIP Project No. 337-37259 Page 8
Performance Bond
The City of Brentwood (“City”) and Conti LLC (“Contractor”) have entered into a contract for work on the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade Project (“Project”). The Contract is incorporated by reference into this Performance Bond (“Bond”).

1. General. Under this Bond, Contractor as principal and ___________________________, its surety (“Surety”), are bound to City as obligee for an amount not less than $962,961.19 to ensure Contractor’s faithful performance of its obligations under the Contract. This Bond is binding on the respective successors, assigns, owners, heirs, or executors of Surety and Contractor.

2. Surety’s Obligations. Surety’s obligations are co-extensive with Contractor’s obligations under the Contract. If Contractor fully performs its obligations under the Contract, including its warranty obligations under the Contract, Surety’s obligations under this Bond will become null and void.

Otherwise, Surety’s obligations will remain in full force and effect.

3. Waiver. Surety waives any requirement to be notified of and further consents to any alterations to the Contract made under the applicable provisions of the Contract Documents, including changes to the scope of Work or extensions of time for performance of Work under the Contract. Surety waives the provisions of Civil Code §§ 2819 and 2845.

4. Application of Contract Balance. Upon making a demand on this Bond for completion of the Work prior to acceptance of the Project, City will make the Contract Balance available to Surety for completion of the Work under the Contract. For purposes of this provision, the Contract Balance is defined as the total amount payable by City to Contractor as the Contract Price minus amounts already paid to Contractor, and minus any liquidated damages, credits, or backcharges to which City is entitled under the terms of the Contract.

5. Contractor Default. Upon written notification from City of Contractor’s termination for default under Article 13 of the Contract General Conditions, time being of the essence, Surety must act within the time specified in Article 13 to remedy the default through one of the following courses of action:

5.1 Arrange for completion of the Work under the Contract by Contractor, with City’s consent, but only if Contractor is in default solely due to its financial inability to complete the Work;

5.2 Arrange for completion of the Work under the Contract by a qualified contractor acceptable to City, and secured by performance and payment bonds issued by an admitted surety as required by the Contract Documents, at Surety’s expense; or

5.3 Waive its right to complete the Work under the Contract and reimburse City the amount of City’s costs to have the remaining Work completed.

6. Surety Default. If Surety defaults on its obligations under the Bond, City will be entitled to recover all costs it incurs due to Surety’s default, including legal, design professional, or delay costs.

7. Notice. Any notice to Surety may be given in the manner specified in the Contract and sent to Surety as follows:

Attn: ______________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: ______________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________________________ Fax: ______________________________________________________ Email: ____________________________________________________

City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade 2025 Form PAYMENT BOND CIP Project No. 337-37259 Page 9

8. Law and Venue. This Bond will be governed by California law, and venue for any dispute pursuant to this Bond will be in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, and no other place. Surety will be responsible for City’s attorneys’ fees and costs in any action to enforce the provisions of this Bond.

9. Effective Date; Execution. This Bond is entered into and effective on ____________________, 2025.

SURETY:
___________________________________
Business Name
s/__________________________________ ______________________________ Date
___________________________________
Name, Title
(Attach Acknowledgment with Notary Seal and Power of Attorney) CONTRACTOR:
___________________________________
Business Name
s/__________________________________ ______________________________ Date
___________________________________
Name, Title
APPROVED BY CITY:

City of Brentwood
s/ __________________________________ ______________________________ Date
Darin Gale, Interim City Manager_________
Name, Title

END OF PERFORMANCE BOND

Project Title: * MULTI-YEAR * Project #:

City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade 337-37259
Description/Justification:

Most city facilities include meeting/conference rooms containing audiovisual equipment for use by staff and the public. These audiovisual systems are instrumental and serve as an essential resource for city staff, facility rentals and city programs and services. The current audiovisual systems within the Civic Center were put into service when the Civic Center opened in FY 2011/12 and have reached the end of their useful life. Similarly, the Brentwood Police Department and Brentwood Senior Activity Center include a mix of old and new audiovisual components, the newest of which is approximately eight (8) years old. This project provides for the redesign services of audiovisual components within these city facilities which includes updating the systems to support current industry standards, add video conferencing capabilities (where appropriate) and enhancements to improve performance, reliability, and ease-of-use. The project further provides for the construction related services required in order to implement the audiovisual improvements identified.

Project Status:

This project is in the design phase with construction anticipated to begin in FY 2025/26.

Supplemental Information:

The future annual O & M costs will be for annual maintenance and support plans with selected audiovisual service providers.

PROJECT EXPENDITURES Prior 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 TOTAL 70239 Legal 1,000 1,000 $ 2,000
90040 Planning and Design 10,000 70,000 $ 80,000
90050 Construction 125,000 450,000 484,258 $ 1,059,258
90070 Project Administration 2,500 2,500 15,200 $ 20,200 TOTAL $ 138,500 $ 523,500 $ 499,458 $ 1,161,458
PROJECT FUNDING Prior 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 TOTAL 47703
654,100 507,358 $ 1,161,458
TOTAL $ 654,100 $ 507,358 $ 1,161,458

PROJECT FINANCING CURRENT PROPOSED
Replacement - Information
Systems
Project Category: Community Facilities Improvements
Location: 150 City Park Way, 35 Oak Street,
193 Griffith Lane, 9100 Brentwood
Boulevard
Project Manager: M. Baria
Project Priority: 2C - Necessary
Est. Completion Date: 2025/26
Future Annual
O & M Impact: $30,000
Public Art
Requirement: Exempt
General Plan Policy: CSF 5-13, ED 6-2

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
05/27/2025
SUBJECT: Receive Water Supply Options Study and Provide Guidance DEPARTMENT: Public Works
STAFF: Casey Wichert, Director of Public Works
James Wolfe, Water Operations Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Receive the Water Supply Options Study and provide guidance relative to staff’s recommendation, which is:

1. Short term: to purchase additional treatment capacity at Contra Costa Water District’s Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant, and

2. Long term: to continue exploring a new Water Treatment Plant on the south end of the city using water rights purchased from Byron Bethany Irrigation District.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this water supply option study.

Should the City Council provide direction to move forward with staff’s recommendation to purchase additional treatment capacity at the RBWTP, there would be a one-time charge of $4.6 million to secure the additional treatment capacity. This would be funded through the return of $7 million that had been earmarked to the Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion project. That project has been halted due to various complexities including the size, scope, and cost of the project.

As a result, this option would not require debt financing to complete the purchase of additional treatment capacity.

While the annual operating costs are estimated at approximately $5.1 million, the City would only use the additional capacity as needed. The initial annual cost would be far less and would scale up as the population and water demand increased over the next several years. As the City’s need for the capacity grows, revenues would grow alongside increased costs, as contemplated in the water rate study. There would be no impact on current rates, and future rate studies would include applicable treatment or capacity costs along with increased usage revenue.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
05/27/2025
There are several other options presented in the study that are not recommended by staff. Those fiscal impacts range from $15.8M - $34.8M annually and would have significant rate impacts.

Staff’s recommendation is to secure the lowest-cost option for additional treatment capacity as a way to meet the near-term maximum daily demands of the system.

This will allow an additional 10 years to analyze and plan for a future project that will provide the long-term additional treatment capacity needed to support the full community at build-out.

BACKGROUND
The City’s current General Plan projects an estimated population of just under 81,000 permanent residents, along with additional commercial growth, by 2040. The City’s current water supply system was not designed to support that level of development without an expansion of supply and treatment in order to accommodate the future growth. In order to plan for the most efficient and cost-effective way to meet the future system capacity needs, staff hired an engineering consultant, CDM Smith, to perform a detailed analysis that began in 2022 and evaluated potential alternatives for ensuring sufficient water supply and treatment capacity to meet projected demands through buildout conditions. The study (attached) evaluated 14 options based on criteria such as reliability, cost, water quality, implementation ease, and environmental impact. The full evaluation of the options are included in the study, a copy of which is included in the agenda packet.

It is helpful to look at the water system needs from two separate perspectives: water supply and treatment capacity. Each is addressed below.

Water supply. The City’s existing water supply consists of:
 14,800 acre-feet of surface water from the Delta annually through a purchase agreement with East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID).  An additional 5,600 acre-ft/year of groundwater each year that can, by design, be supplied by City-owned groundwater wells. However, due to various water quality constraints, the groundwater wells can only reliably supply approximately 2,000 acre-ft/year.

This gives the system a total overall water supply of approximately 16,800 acre-feet.

The study evaluated historical water usage trends and determined that an additional 2,100 acre-ft/year of water supply will be necessary to meet the currently planned

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
05/27/2025
build-out water demand. Staff believes the projected annual water shortage of 2,100 acre-feet may be overestimated, and it is likely the existing water supply could be sufficient to meet the planned build-out demand. Staff’s reasoning for this is based on the ongoing results of water conservation efforts and continuing regulatory pressures. The below table illustrates recent water usage, with the 2006 figure representing an exemplar year of usage prior to the implementation of water conservation measures:

Table 1: Brentwood Historical Per-Capita Per-Day Water Usage Year Gallons per capita
per day (gpcd)
Note
2006 228 Exemplar year
2015 115 Drought conservation
2017 180 2017 Water Master Plan estimate
2020 171 COVID response
2022 152 Engineering estimate used for study
2023 – 2025 115 Most recent data
New regulations from the State Water Resource Control Board continue to put pressure on water suppliers to reduce water use, and if this reduction in gpcd trend continues and can be verified in the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan update, it is feasible to project the current water supply capacity will be adequate for the existing General Plan build-out projections. The 2025 Urban Water Management Plan will be completed in 2026 and staff will be able to make better projections then.

Treatment capacity. In addition to having an adequate water supply, the City needs sufficient treatment capacity to clean and purify the water supply that comes from the Delta. Groundwater by itself does not require treatment, just precautionary chlorination to ensure the water is free from harmful bacteria. The surface water, however, requires a significant amount of treatment, including coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. These processes, collectively referred to as “treatment” require a Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The City’s current treatment capacity consists of the following:
 In 2008, construction was completed on the City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant (COBWTP), which has the capacity to treat 16.5 million gallons per day (mgd).
 The City also holds the rights to 6 mgd of treatment capacity through Contra Costa Water District’s (CCWD) Randall-Bold WTP.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
05/27/2025
 When groundwater well capacity is included, the City has a maximum daily capacity to treat and deliver just over 24 mgd.

The study’s analysis projected the maximum daily demand to exceed 24 mgd between 2030 and 2035, with a need for over 30 mgd of treatment capacity at the estimated build-out condition. In 2024, the highest daily demand for treated water was 16 mgd, so adequate treatment capacity exists for the short term, but the need for additional treatment capacity is certain and dependent entirely on the pace of growth and development.

Moving forward. Of the 14 options evaluated in the study, each of them added additional treatment capacity, but not all of them added additional water supply. The options evaluated included various ways of partnering with other local water suppliers including Antioch, Byron Bethany Irrigation District (BBID), CCWD, and ECCID, and also looked to expanding the COBWTP, and constructing reverse osmosis (RO) facilities. For simplicity and comparison purposes, the following table outlines the evaluated options and their associated costs. The options are listed in order of their final project ranking and were based on the criteria established for the study, which includes other factors in addition to the cost. Staff’s recommended course of action, which is shaded and shown in bold, would not require the issuance of any debt.

Table 2: Options Evaluated in Water Supply Options Study Alternative Additional
Supply
Additional
Treatment
Capacity
Capital
Cost*
30 Year
Annual
O&M
Cost*
Annualize
d Total
Cost*
(debt
service on
capital +
O&M)
Antioch alternative 1 4,630 AFY 14.25 mgd $211.4 $7.25 $16.7 Antioch alternative 2 4,630 AFY 14.25 mgd $211.4 $7.25 $16.9 Antioch alternative 3 4,630 AFY 14.25 mgd $211.4 $8.77 $18.4 BBID to new WTP 8,524 AFY 16.5 mgd $286.6 $9.3 $23.0
ECCID Indian Slough 0 AFY 16.5 mgd $291.8 $9.7 $23.0
Antioch wholesale 4,480 AFY 9.0 mgd $42.0 $11.0 $19.6
ECCID Old River 0 AFY 16.5 mgd $357.6 $10.0 $26.3
BBID to COBWTP 8,524 AFY 16.5 mgd $275.0 $11.7 $24.8
RO groundwater 4,480 AFY 12.25 mgd $214.1 $14.6 $24.2
RO surface water 0 AFY 13.5 mgd $445.7 $14.7 $34.8

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
05/27/2025
Alternative Additional
Supply
Additional
Treatment
Capacity
Capital
Cost*
30 Year
Annual
O&M
Cost*
Annualize
d Total
Cost*
(debt
service on
capital +
O&M)
CCWD raw water to
COBWTP
5,600 AFY 16.5 mgd $106.9 $10.8 $23.3
RBWTP additional
capacity
0 AFY 3.0 mgd $4.5 $5.1 $5.1
Expand COBWTP 0 AFY 16.5 mgd $98.9 $10.7 $15.8
ECCID/CCWD Old
River

16.5 mgd $235.6 $9.1 $19.9
*All values expressed in millions.

The study’s recommended action, with which staff agrees, is to negotiate with CCWD to secure an additional 3 mgd of treatment capacity at the RBWTP. Securing an additional 3 mgd of treatment capacity at RBWTP will ensure the City can meet the near-term maximum day demands through 2030, and delay the much larger capital cost associated with expanding the COBWTP treatment capacity by 10-15 years, which will allow additional analysis and planning for a future project to meet longterm needs.

Ultimately, the City would be well served by securing additional water supply capacity in the event the City is able to attract large employers or commercial businesses. If the City is unable to secure additional water supply, continued economic growth and development of future job-creating businesses and residential projects may not be possible.

Staff’s recommended long-term option is to continue exploring a new WTP on the south end of the City using water rights purchased from BBID. Staff has received interest from the Town of Discovery Bay in partnering with the City on a joint WTP that would be able to supply water to both Brentwood and Discovery Bay. A joint project would allow cost-sharing and flexibility to phase in the capacity of a new WTP, which would be an efficient method of capital outlay.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
05/27/2025

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Focus Area 1, Goal 2.a - Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Services: Provide safe and sustainable water, wastewater and solid waste services for the build-out of the City per the City’s General Plan.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act will be conducted prior to the City committing to a definite course of action with regard to this project.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)

1. Reject the study and direct staff to return with additional information.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Water Supply Options Study

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On February 22, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-24, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement and necessary documents for the Water Supply Options Study with CDM Smith, Inc., in the amount of $324,231, plus a 10% contingency of $32,423, for a total not to exceed amount of $356,654.

MARCH 2025
Water Supply Options Study
Prepared for:

CITY OF BRENTWOOD WATER OPERATIONS DIVISION

WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE i
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................... i

1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Water Supply Options Study Purpose ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Study Principles ............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2.1 Considerations for the Overall Study................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.2 Project Development Assumptions ..................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.3 Project Comparison and Ranking Factors............................................................................1-2

1.3 Evaluation Process......................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Report Organization ...................................................................................................................... 1-3

2.0 Brentwood Water Service Area....................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Service Area Overview................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Service Area Population and Water Demands..............................................................................2-2

2.3 Water Supply Sources Overview ................................................................................................... 2-2

3.0 Water Demand Forecast................................................................................................. 3-1

4.0 Existing Supplies and Treatment..................................................................................... 4-1

5.0 Water Supply Needs Assessment.................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Uncertainty in Future Climate ....................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Uncertainty in Local, Regional and State Supply Projects.............................................................5-1

5.3 Water Supply Need........................................................................................................................ 5-1

6.0 Supply Project Options ................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Overview of Supply Options.......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Expansion of City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant..............................................................6-3

6.2.1 Overview.............................................................................................................................. 6-3

6.2.2 Components and Cost Summary ......................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.3 Benefits................................................................................................................................ 6-5

6.2.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ........................................................6-5

6.3 East Contra Costa Irrigation District – Indian Slough ....................................................................6-6

6.3.1 Overview.............................................................................................................................. 6-6

6.3.2 Components and Cost Summary ......................................................................................... 6-7

6.3.3 Benefits................................................................................................................................ 6-9

6.3.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ........................................................6-9

6.4 East Contra Costa Irrigation District – Buy-in to Contra Costa Water District Old River Intake..6-10

6.4.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 6-10

6.4.2 Components and Cost Summary .......................................................................................6-12

6.4.3 Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 6-13

CONTENTS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE ii

6.4.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ......................................................6-14

6.5 East Contra Costa Irrigation District – New Intake at Old River Conveyed to New Water Treatment Plant.......................................................................................................................... 6-15

6.5.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 6-15

6.5.2 Components and Cost Summary .......................................................................................6-16

6.5.3 Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 6-17

6.5.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ......................................................6-17

6.6 Byron-Bethany Irrigation District ................................................................................................ 6-17

6.6.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 6-17

6.6.2 Components and Cost Summary .......................................................................................6-19

6.6.3 Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 6-23

6.6.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ......................................................6-23

6.7 City of Antioch – Partnership in Expansion of Brackish Desalination Facility .............................6-25

6.7.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 6-25

6.7.2 Conceptualization .............................................................................................................. 6-26

6.7.3 Components and Cost Summary .......................................................................................6-27

6.7.4 Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 6-30

6.7.5 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ......................................................6-30

6.8 City of Antioch – Wholesale ........................................................................................................ 6-32

6.8.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 6-32

6.8.2 Components and Cost Summary .......................................................................................6-33

6.8.3 Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 6-34

6.8.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ......................................................6-35

6.9 Reverse Osmosis – Groundwater................................................................................................ 6-35

6.9.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 6-35

6.9.2 Components and Cost Summary .......................................................................................6-37

6.9.3 Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 6-39

6.9.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ......................................................6-40

6.10 Reverse Osmosis – Surface Water.............................................................................................6-41

6.10.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................... 6-41

6.10.2 Components and Cost Summary .....................................................................................6-42

6.10.3 Benefits............................................................................................................................ 6-44

6.10.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ....................................................6-44

6.11 Contra Costa Water District – Raw Water Conveyance to City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant............................................................................................................................................ 6-46

6.11.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................... 6-46

6.11.2 Components and Cost Summary .....................................................................................6-47

6.11.3 Benefits............................................................................................................................ 6-48

6.11.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ....................................................6-49

CONTENTS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE iii

6.12 Contra Costa Water District – Purchase Additional Capacity at Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant............................................................................................................................................ 6-49

6.12.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................... 6-49

6.12.2 Components and Cost Summary .....................................................................................6-49

6.12.3 Benefits............................................................................................................................ 6-51

6.12.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties ....................................................6-51

6.13 Project Cost Summaries ............................................................................................................ 6-51

6.14 System Capacity Evaluation....................................................................................................... 6-55

7.0 Ranking the Water Supply Options................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Project Ranking Approach ............................................................................................................. 7-1

7.2 Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.3 Supply Option Metric Scores......................................................................................................... 7-4

7.4 Project Ranking............................................................................................................................ 7-13

8.0 Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 8-1

9.0 References...................................................................................................................... 9-1 Figures
Figure 1.1 Evaluation Process Framework.................................................................................................1-3 Figure 2.1 City of Brentwood Water Service Area .....................................................................................2-1 Figure 6.1 Conceptual Layout of ECCID Indian Slough Alternative............................................................6-7 Figure 6.2 Conceptualization of Buy-In to Old River Intake Alternative..................................................6-12 Figure 6.3 Conceptualization of New Infrastructure for Old River Alternative .......................................6-15 Figure 6.4 Overview of BBID Alternative .................................................................................................6-19 Figure 6.5 Conceptual Location of New Water Treatment Plant and Conveyance Alignment for BBID Alternative 1...................................................................................................................................6-21 Figure 6.6 Conceptual Conveyance Alignment for BBID Alternative 2....................................................6-23 Figure 6.7 Potential Groundwater Conveyance Alignment to New RO Treatment Facility.....................6-36 Figure 6.8 Potential Brine Disposal Pipeline Alignment for RO Groundwater Option ............................6-37 Figure 6.9 Conceptual Location of Potential Surface Water RO Facility at COBWTP Site .......................6-42 Figure 6.10 Potential Brine Disposal Pipeline Alignment for RO Surface Water Option .........................6-46 Figure 6.11 Potential Conveyance Alignment for New Raw Water Pipeline Between RBWTP and COBWTP .........................................................................................................................................6-47 Figure 7.1 Project Ranking Approach Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis Method ...............................7-1 Figure 7.2 Ranking of Alternatives by Criteria .........................................................................................7-13

CONTENTS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE iv
Tables
Table 3.1 City of Brentwood Projected Population and Water Demands, 2025 to Buildout ....................3-1 Table 3.2 City of Brentwood Conditions at Buildout .................................................................................3-1 Table 5.1 Projected Demands, Supplies, and Supply Gaps for the City at Buildout..................................5-2 Table 6.1 Summary of Qualitative Aspects of Supply Options ..................................................................6-2 Table 6.2 Cost Summary for Expansion of COBWTP Alternative...............................................................6-3 Table 6.3 Historical Average, Minimum, and Maximum Chloride Concentrations at COBWTP................6-5 Table 6.4 Cost Summary for ECCID Indian Slough Alternative ..................................................................6-8 Table 6.5 Historical Average and Maximum Chloride Concentrations at COBWTP and Old River..........6-10 Table 6.6 Cost Summary for Buy-in to CCWD Old River Intake Alternative ............................................6-12 Table 6.7 Average and Maximum Chloride Concentrations at Old River and COBWTP..........................6-14 Table 6.8 Cost Summary for New Intake at Old River Alternative...........................................................6-16 Table 6.9 Cost Summary for BBID Alternative 1 ......................................................................................6-19 Table 6.10 Cost Summary for BBID Alternative 2 ....................................................................................6-21 Table 6.11 Comparison of Water Quality Data for Banks Pumping Plant and COBWTP .........................6-25 Table 6.12 Cost Summary for City of Antioch Brackish Desalination Facility Expansion.........................6-28 Table 6.13 Operating Costs for Associated with RO Production .............................................................6-29 Table 6.14 Water Quality and Quantity Mass Balance for Average Day Conditions...............................6-33 Table 6.15 Water Quality and Quantity Mass Balance for Max Day Conditions.....................................6-33 Table 6.16 Cost Summary for City of Antioch Wholesale Alternative .....................................................6-34 Table 6.17 Cost Summary for RO Treatment of Groundwater Alternative .............................................6-38 Table 6.18 Water Quality and Quantity Mass Balance for Average Day Conditions with Groundwater RO Facility.......................................................................................................................................6-39 Table 6.19 Cost Summary for RO Treatment of Surface Water Alternative............................................6-43 Table 6.20 Cost Summary for CCWD Raw Water Conveyance to COBWTP ............................................6-48 Table 6.21 Cost Summary for Purchase of Additional Capacity at RBWTP..............................................6-50 Table 6.22 Alternative Water Supply Cost Summary...............................................................................6-53 Table 7.1 Evaluation Criteria for Ranking Supply Alternatives ..................................................................7-3 Table 7.2 Narrative for Assigning Qualitative Scores.................................................................................7-4 Table 7.3 System Reliability Scores............................................................................................................7-5 Table 7.4 System Redundancy Scores........................................................................................................7-6 Table 7.5 Maintaining Water Quality.........................................................................................................7-7 Table 7.6 Customer Satisfaction/Perception Scores..................................................................................7-8 Table 7.7 Development Ease Scores..........................................................................................................7-9 Table 7.8 System Integration Ease Scores ...............................................................................................7-10 Table 7.9 Energy Intensity Scores............................................................................................................7-11 Table 7.10 Criteria Scores Assigned to Alternatives................................................................................7-12 Table 8.1 Recommended Actions ..............................................................................................................8-2

CONTENTS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE v
Appendices
Appendix A Capacity Evaluation Technical Memorandum

WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE i
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
BBID Byron-Bethany Irrigation District
CCI construction cost index
CCWD Contra Costa Water District
CDP Criterium Decision Plus
cfs cubic feet per second
City City of Brentwood
COBWTP City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant
CVP Central Valley Project
Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
DWD Diablo Water District
DWR California Department of Water Resources
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
ECCID East Contra Costa Irrigation District
ENR Engineering News-Record
FRED Federal Reserve Economic Data
FY fiscal year
GAC granular activated carbon
GPCD gallons per day per capital
ISD Ironhouse Sanitary District
kWh kilowatt-hour
LVR Los Vaqueros Reservoir
max maximum
MCDA multi-criteria decision analysis
MCL maximum contaminant level
MG million gallons
mg/L milligrams per liter

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE ii
mgd million gallons per day
MIB methylisoborneol
MOU memorandum of understanding
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M operations and maintenance
OPCC opinion of probable construction cost
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
RBWTP Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant
RO reverse osmosis
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Study Water Supply Options Study
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
WTP water treatment plant
WWTP wastewater treatment plant

WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 1-1

1.0 Introduction
The City of Brentwood (City) Water Operations Division is responsible for the production and delivery of the City's drinking water supply. State certified/licensed treatment and distribution operators monitor and maintain the City's water storage tanks, reservoirs, and delivery system and ensure the safety of the drinking water supply. The Water Operations Division also provides programs and information about water quality and supply, water conservation, non-potable water, water pressure, meter reading and leak detection.

1.1 Water Supply Options Study Purpose
The goal of the Water Supply Options Study (Study) is to identify and evaluate potential water supply alternatives that would ensure the City’s drinking water supply will be of sufficient quality and quantity to satisfy ultimate buildout conditions. The Study builds upon the water demands from the 2017 Master Plan and 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to determine sufficient supply and treatment capacity availability over the planning horizon. The City supplies a combination of groundwater, purchased water from the East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) treated at the City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and purchased water from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) treated at Randall-Bold WTP. However, issues with chlorides limit the quantity of water that supplied by the existing groundwater wells while still meeting regulatory wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharge requirements. The study established guiding principles; analyzed existing City data on supplies and demands to assess future needs for treatment capacity, supply, and storage; developed source water supply alternatives; performed hydraulic analyses to determine if system improvements would be needed to implement those alternatives; prepared planning-level cost estimates for the alternatives; and, finally, scored and ranked alternatives to identify the best performing supply options to meet the City’s needs.

1.2 Study Principles
The following considerations, assumptions, and factors guided the development of this Study and selection of the final recommendations on alternative water supply options for the City.

1.2.1 Considerations for the Overall Study
The primary considerations for the City are water quality, storage, and conveyance to the different pressure zones within the City’s distribution system to ensure that the level of service provided to customers is maintained and that supply reliability is protected. The City aims to achieve 100 percent level of service to customers.

Existing supply wells used by the City have chloride issues that present challenges in fully utilizing available groundwater while still meeting regulatory requirements for WWTP discharges. Therefore, the City is forced to limit the quantity of groundwater extracted to ensure that blending with surface water sources keeps discharge chloride levels below 125 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The City targets 100 mg/L for operational planning purposes, but this is not always feasible. Additional surface water treatment capacity and storage is required to maintain compliance with WWTP discharge requirements and provide the level of service the City strives to achieve.

1.0 │ INTRODUCTION
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 1-2
In water system infrastructure planned in the City includes Reservoir 1.4 (4 MG) in Zone 1 and booster pump station 2.4 to pump to Zone 2 during high water demands and fire flow demands, both part of the Bridle Gate Community development and Priority Area 1.

1.2.2 Project Development Assumptions
The following assumptions are used during the development of conceptual supply projects. The cost factors used in the evaluation of projects will be an interest rate of 2 percent and 30-year financing. Cost is not anticipated to be a strong consideration in the evaluation and ranking process but is still an important metric to evaluate when comparing projects.

Identification and selection of alternative surface water treatment options and locations are focused in Zone 1 due to the nature of the City’s distribution system and the fact that all water used in Zones 2 and 3 must be conveyed through Zone 1. Projects located in Zones 2 or 3 would likely require more infrastructure development and potentially upsizing of existing pipes to support new projects in those locations. Specific sites are identified and incorporated into the project evaluation, comparison, and ranking of alternatives.

1.2.3 Project Comparison and Ranking Factors
The identified alternatives are compared and ranked against one another to select the project(s) that will deliver the most benefits to the City while taking costs into consideration, as well. Lifecycle costs are used in calculating capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs of each alternative.

Environmental benefits and impacts are included in project comparison and ranking but are a lower priority consideration in the analysis since the City has no specific mandate or target related to environmental impacts of surface water treatment alternatives.

1.3 Evaluation Process
The process of evaluating options follows a simple framework that is modified to the specific conditions and requirements of the system being analyzed. The typical evaluation process and the proposed evaluation criteria for the Study are detailed below.

The project evaluation process follows five general steps, as shown in Figure 1.1, which begins with determining the future needs of the system and any projected supply gaps. Once the future supply needs are identified, alternatives are conceptualized that meet those future needs and evaluation criteria are established that help determine which portfolio of alternatives will meet the future needs of the system in the most beneficial manner. Effective evaluation criteria should be measurable, distinctive/unique, and concise. Quantitative metrics should be used to the greatest extent possible and qualitative metrics based on expert judgement when quantification is not feasible. Criteria should be able to distinguish one alternative from another, not overlap with another metric that is highly correlated, and not result in the same score for all alternatives. The number of criteria should ideally be kept to between five and eight to highlight meaningful trade-offs between identified alternatives.

1.0 │ INTRODUCTION
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 1-3
Figure 1.1 Evaluation Process Framework
Once the evaluation criteria have been established, the alternatives are ranked using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This method involves: (1) defining evaluation criteria and sub-criteria by which options will be compared; (2) establishing performance metrics that indicate when criteria are being achieved; (3) assigning weights of relative importance for the criteria; (4) using tools and analyses to assign metric scores to the options; and (5) ranking the supply options based on the metrics scores and criteria weighting.

1.4 Report Organization
The Study is organized as follows:
▬ Section 1.0 – Introduction
▬ Section 2.0 – Brentwood Water Service Area
▬ Section 3.0 – Water Demand Forecast
▬ Section 4.0 – Existing Supplies and Treatment
▬ Section 5.0 – Water Supply Needs Assessment
▬ Section 6.0 – Supply Project Options
▬ Section 7.0 – Ranking the Water Supply Options
▬ Section 8.0 – Recommendations
▬ Section 9.0 – References

WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 2-1

2.0 Brentwood Water Service Area

2.1 Service Area Overview
The City of Brentwood lies in eastern Contra Costa County and is bounded to the north by the City of Oakley, to the west by the City of Antioch, and to the south and east by unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County. The City was incorporated in 1948 with an area totaling 14.8 square miles (9,502 acres).

The City provides water treatment and distribution services as well as wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services for its residents and businesses. The City’s water distribution system consists of three pressure zones, one potable water treatment plant, nine groundwater wells (five of which are active), six water reservoirs, seven water booster pump stations, and 347 miles of water mains within the city limits (City of Brentwood 2013). Figure 2.1 shows the locations of these features within the water service area.

Local development began in the late 19th century, beginning as a farming community growing cherries, corn, and peaches. Since 1990, many of the old farms and orchards have been replaced by suburban developments. The predominant land use is now residential with most of the residential development being single family housing.

Figure 2.1 City of Brentwood Water Service Area

2.0 │ BRENTWOOD WATER SERVICE AREA
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 2-2

2.2 Service Area Population and Water Demands
The City was among the fastest growing cities in California during the 2000s. In 2020, the City’s water system served a population of 65,118. Population projections for the City based on the 2020 UWMP estimated that at full buildout the city limits will support a total population of 80,917, and this is anticipated to occur by 2040.

Potable water demands were roughly 10.14 million gallons per day (mgd) based on the 2024 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment for Brentwood. Non-potable demands were roughly 1 mgd for the same period. Recycled water demands at buildout have been estimated between 508 to 688 MG per year according to the 2020 UWMP (City of Brentwood 2021).

The per capita water demand assumed for this analysis is about 152 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) (based on data in the 2000 UWMP), significantly lower than the California state average of 200 GPCD.

Demands over the last three years have been declining even lower than projected in the 2020 UWMP due to current trends and state legislation driving down per capita demand to meet a 55 GPCD target by 2035.

2.3 Water Supply Sources Overview
The City’s water supply consists of surface water sourced from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), groundwater pumped from the East Contra Costa Subbasin (ECC Subbasin), and recycled water.

The City’s surface water supply stems from an agreement with ECCID that provides the City with a permanent entitlement to purchase 14,800 acre-feet per year (AFY) of surplus irrigation water from the Delta. The surface water is treated at either the Randall-Bold WTP or at the City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant (COBWTP), or it can be used as raw surface water for non-potable landscape irrigation.

The reliability of the City’s surface water supplies is relatively high since the permanent purchase entitlement from which the City’s supplies stem are protected by pre-1914 water rights, which historically have not been subject to delivery reductions during water shortages, including regulatory restricted and drought years.

The City has nine permitted groundwater wells within its service area, five of which are active wells. The total design capacity of the wells is 6.05 mgd. The reliable capacity of the wells, defined as the capacity of all the wells minus the capacity of the largest well, is 4.61 mgd. However, due to several factors including water quality concerns, the City anticipates groundwater supply to be closer to 2.5 mgd.

Recycled water supply available was estimated as 913 MG per year in the 2020 UWMP.

WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 3-1

3.0 Water Demand Forecast
The Study evaluates demands for average day and max day conditions to account for annual water supply needs and max day treatment capacity limitations. The 2017 Master Plan projections are used for average day and max day buildout water demands. However, the Master Plan only included projections at buildout, so the projected demand in five-year increments though 2045 in this Study is based on information from the 2020 UWMP.

The City’s total water demand in 2020 was 12,322 AF, or 11.0 mgd, including raw water for landscaping and water loss. Total annual demand is projected to increase to 18,940 AFY, or 16.9 mgd, for average day at buildout, with a max day demand of 30.4 mgd (City of Brentwood 2017). Brentwood’s population is projected to increase from just over 64,000 in 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau 2021) to over 85,000 by 2045 (City of Brentwood 2021), and full buildout within the City’s Planning Area is projected to result in a population of 92,500 residents, as shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 City of Brentwood Projected Population and Water Demands, 2025 to Buildout Projections Used in Study 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Buildout Population 68,752 72,589 76,640 80,917 85,433 92,336
Potable and raw water (MG) 3,817 4,030 4,255 4,492 4,743 6,177 Potable and raw water (AF) 11,714 12,368 13,058 13,785 14,556 18,958 Avg day demand (mgd) 10.5 11.0 11.7 12.3 13.0 16.9
Max day demand (mgd) 22.0 23.2 24.5 25.8 27.3 30.4
The projected supply needs at buildout for the City have evolved since the 2006 Master Plan through the 2020 UWMP. As shown in Table 3.2, the 2006 Master Plan estimated that max day capacity of 41 mgd would be required to ensure water availability to all customers. System storage would need to increase from the existing 19 MG to 33.8 MG at buildout.

Table 3.2 City of Brentwood Conditions at Buildout
Document Max Day Capacity
(mgd)
Assumed Per Capita
Use (gallons per day
per capita)
Required System
Storage (MG)
2006 Master Plan 41 228 33.8
2017 Master Plan 31 180 25.8
2020 UWMP 27 152 25.8
The 2017 Master Plan projected max day capacity at buildout would be reduced to 31 mgd due to decreasing per capita consumption over the previous decade. Changes in efficiency and customer responses to drought resulted in per capita use decreasing from 228 GPCD in 2006 to 115 GPCD in 2015.

The 2017 Master Plan used a planning value of 180 GPCD in all future years to determine max day capacity at buildout. System storage needs were projected to be 25.8 MG at buildout, which is lower than the 2006 Master Plan due to the revised demand projections and reduction in GPCD. The 2020

3.0 │ WATER DEMAND FORECAST
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 3-2
UWMP projected max day capacity at buildout to decrease even further to 27 MGD under the assumed planning value of 152 GPCD, as shown in Table 3.2.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the decreasing per capita trend witnessed in recent years in the City’s service area. Per capita demand in 2020 increased to approximately 171 GPCD, which was significantly higher than the prior five years. The 2020 UWMP used the average per capita demand from 2018 through 2020 to account for post-drought water use (2018 and 2019) while still capturing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) in the long-term projections. The 2020 UWMP assumed that changes in water use patterns and behavior would have a persistent impact on water demands in the future instead of a short-term event. The long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on water demands in the City’s service area remains unclear and warrants close monitoring of per capita trends over the next decade to update planning assumptions as necessary, including in the upcoming 2025 UWMP.

Conversely, recently updated state regulations regarding indoor water use, outdoor water use (especially commercial, industrial, and institutional customer irrigation), and water loss, under the “Making Conservation a California Way of Life” framework, may result in per capita consumption returning to 2018/2019 levels or even trending downward across the planning horizon. Recent data from other California agencies shows that efficient indoor water use can be less than 35 GPCD with best available technology and minimizing leaks and inefficient behaviors. Therefore, demand at buildout will likely be bracketed by the projections from the 2017 Master Plan and the 2020 UWMP given these recent trends.

WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 4-1

4.0 Existing Supplies and Treatment
The City has existing agreements with CCWD and ECCID for surface water supply and treatment. ECCID is the main water supplier for the City, while CCWD provides treatment at Randall-Bold WTP and supplemental water supply. CCWD also operates the COBWTP on behalf of the City. COBWTP currently has a maximum treatment capacity of 16.5 mgd using conventional treatment of flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection.

The City’s agreement with ECCID provides a permanent entitlement to purchase up to 14,800 AFY from ECCID’s pre-1914 appropriative water right. Water is available for diversion from Rock Slough and conveyance through the Contra Costa Canal, Indian Slough point of diversion and conveyance through the ECCID canal, and Old River point of diversion using the intake to the Los Vaqueros Reservoir (LVR) project (City of Brentwood 1999). The diversion at Rock Slough and conveyance through the Contra Costa Canal is the main source of raw water for the City, and this water is treated at COBWTP. Only raw water for irrigation is currently being diverted at Indian Slough and conveyed through the ECCID canal, and no ECCID water is currently diverted and conveyed from Old River (City of Brentwood 2021).

The City has a current agreement with CCWD for a permanent share of treatment capacity at RBWTP of 6 mgd (max day treatment capacity). The City’s water treated at RBWTP is purchased from ECCID, for which the City pays CCWD for treatment. However, the agreement also limits distribution of that treated water to the portions of Brentwood that overlap with the CCWD service area, which is only a small portion of the City’s water service area. Extending service to the rest of Brentwood with CCWD water would require annexation of that additional area into the CCWD and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), as CCWD’s water provider, service areas. Furthermore, the annual production through RBWTP is limited to 3,200 AFY (City of Brentwood 2009). The City is required to pay for 1,902 AFY (1.7 mgd) based on the number of connections in the overlapping service areas, so this analysis assumes Brentwood will make use of 1.7 mgd from RBWTP under all scenarios.

Maximum treatment capacity available to Brentwood is currently 22.5 mgd between RBWTP (6 mgd) and COBWTP (16.5 mgd). The WTPs are located next to one another outside the City limits. Treated water is blended from the two facilities before conveyance through a single pipeline to the City’s potable distribution system.

The City is also a partner in the LVR project. Brentwood receives emergency storage and water quality benefits for the portions of the City that overlap with the CCWD service area. ECCID water cannot be stored in LVR because of permitting and infrastructure limitations; therefore, there is limited emergency storage for areas of the City not within CCWD’s service area (City of Brentwood 2020).

Groundwater comprises approximately 15 to 20 percent of current potable supply for Brentwood.

Groundwater is chlorinated at the well heads before entering the City’s potable distribution system. This source of potable water is relatively less expensive for the City because there is no water purchase cost and only disinfection is required, but groundwater extraction has a high energy intensity at 622 kilowatthours (kWh) per AF (City of Brentwood 2021). The active wells have a capacity of 5.15 mgd; however, they have produced less than 2 mgd since 2016 because water quality issues preclude the City from

4.0 │ EXISTING SUPPLIES AND TREATMENT
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 4-2
using larger quantities (City of Brentwood 2021). The average chloride concentration of the active wells is 225 mg/L, based on monthly water quality data provided by the City.

WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 5-1

5.0 Water Supply Needs Assessment

5.1 Uncertainty in Future Climate
Climate change is having a profound impact on water supply in the Delta, a critical hub for California's water resources. Rising temperatures and altered precipitation patterns are leading to reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, diminishing the natural reservoir of water that feeds the Delta. This reduction exacerbates drought conditions, straining water availability for agriculture, industry, and residential use. Furthermore, rising sea levels are causing increased saltwater intrusion into the Delta's freshwater systems, compromising water quality and threatening the delicate balance of its ecosystem.

These challenges necessitate the development of adaptive water management strategies to secure a reliable and sustainable water supply for the region's future.

5.2 Uncertainty in Local, Regional and State Supply Projects Even though the reliability of the City’s current surface water and groundwater supply is relatively high, there are a number of issues that have been identified that could compromise the City’s supplies in the future, resulting in a shortage condition and a need for supply augmentation:
▬ State mandates during drought declarations
▬ Reduction in the availability of Delta water supplies due to:
 Climate change-related sea-level rise and extreme weather  Water quality conditions/contamination
 Mechanical breakdown of surface water diversion infrastructure, intake, or WTP facilities ▬ Declining groundwater levels, groundwater quality, or limitations on pumping implemented through the Groundwater Sustainability Plan process
▬ Reductions in treated water quality causing issues with wastewater discharge limits Any assessment of potential projects to address current and future water supply needs will have to factor in these issues to ensure a robust evaluation and prioritization of projects.

5.3 Water Supply Need
Current treatment capacity will be able to meet average day demands but will not be able to meet maximum day demands at buildout even with groundwater being used at the maximum capacity of the active wells, as shown in Table 5.1. The current surface water agreement with ECCID will not be sufficient to meet annual demands at buildout, as well. A projected supply shortage of 2,157 AFY will occur by buildout assuming continued use of groundwater at the 5-year average rate and without supplementation from another supply of surface water.

5.0 │ WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 5-2
Table 5.1 Projected Demands, Supplies, and Supply Gaps for the City at Buildout Scenario Demands
(mgd)
Treatment Capacity (mgd) Treatment Gap
(mgd) COBWTP RBWTP Groundwater
Average Day 16.91 13.44 1.7 1.77 0.0
Maximum Day 30.43 16.5 6.0 5.151 2.78
Demands
(AFY)
Supply Available (AFY)
Supply Gap (AFY)
ECCID Groundwater
Annual Average 18,940 14,800 1,983 2,1572
Notes:
1 Current actual capacity of active groundwater wells. 2 With groundwater wells at the current 5-year average rate of withdrawal of 1.77 mgd.

Increased groundwater well use could potentially provide enough water to cover the annual supply gap, particularly during dry years. However, future decreases in availability of groundwater from the San Joaquin Valley–East Contra Costa subbasin or localized issues such as decreases in well capacity could threaten this supply. Use of groundwater at the maximum available capacity would degrade the overall water quality Brentwood could provide to their customers due to its higher chloride concentration.

The City’s WWTP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit specifies effluent limits for several pollutants, including chloride at an average monthly limit of 344 mg/L and a daily maximum of 398 mg/L. Meeting the specified chloride discharge limits is an issue for Brentwood that restricts the quantity of groundwater that can be used. Increasing salinity in surface water supplies in future years could further limit the quantity of groundwater that Brentwood can use without exceeding these limits. The City has a target of 100 mg/L for chloride in source water and can accommodate up to 125 mg/L before WWTP effluent discharge compliance becomes an issue. Additionally, increased water conservation in response to drought has resulted in wastewater flows becoming more concentrated with chlorides.

Historical chloride levels from the Delta supplies during recent drought years combined with the 225 mg/L of chloride from groundwater would result in a weighted chloride concentration that exceeds the City’s operational planning threshold of 125 mg/L during drought years. Therefore, the goals for a new supply option are to provide enough additional water to meet projected demands at buildout, improve potable water quality (which in turn improves wastewater effluent quality), provide increased reliability and redundancy for Brentwood’s distribution system, and provide increased reliability of source water availability and quality during periods of prolonged drought.

Additional treatment capacity will be needed to meet projected maximum day demands of 30.4 mgd by buildout. To accommodate additional treatment capacity: (1) COBWTP could be expanded to accommodate another 16.5 mgd of treatment capacity for a total of 33 mgd of treatment capacity, (2) a new WTP could be constructed in a different location to provide redundancy and increased reliability for the potable distribution system, or (3) the City could acquire a new supply of treated water from a third party. This analysis assumes a new WTP would be sized at 16.5 mgd of treatment capacity in lieu of an expansion of COBWTP and would use the same conventional treatment processes currently

5.0 │ WATER SUPPLY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 5-3
implemented at COBWTP. An expansion of COBWTP with no additional supply alternatives from current conditions is assumed to be the “No Action” alternative in this analysis, as this is the current anticipated strategy for Brentwood’s water system.

There are additional factors which may affected the supply gap in the future. The supply gap identified Table 5.1 is based on current water demand assumptions in this report but may be reduced as per capita water efficiency is expected to continue to improve in the future (Section 2.2). Further refinement to this estimate could be made after the 2025 UWMP data is available in 2026. The City has also increased its recycled water use since reporting in the 2020 UWMP, up to 1,739 AF in 2024. Significant increases in recycled water use are not expected to continue as most large landscaping areas have already been converted and only smaller parcels remain for conversion. However, any increase in recycled water demand can offset potable water demand. Further monitoring is recommended to fine tune the supply need.

In summary, the water supply needs identified for the City which will guide the evaluation of any potential supply options are as follows:
▬ Create an additional supply of 2,157 AFY, assuming continued average groundwater use ▬ Increase treatment capacity of 30.4 mgd to meet buildout demands by 2040 ▬ Improve potable water quality delivered to customers to help meet wastewater influent requirements
▬ Provide increased reliability and redundancy for Brentwood’s distribution system ▬ Provide increased reliability of source water availability and quality during drought periods

WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-1

6.0 Supply Project Options
A key objective of the Study is to identify and evaluate water supply options that could be developed to meet the forecasted supply shortages through 2050, identified in Section 5. A range of potential water projects and programs were initially considered and evaluated as part of this effort. Initial supply options included those that were identified from previous City of Brentwood studies, as well as options not previously studied.

This section summarizes the supply alternatives considered for the City, including information on yield, costs, benefits, implementation approach, risks, and reliability during prolonged drought. This allows each option to be evaluated objectively against an established set of criteria (Section 7.0, Ranking the Water Supply Options).

Supply alternatives including stormwater recapture, recycled water, and water transfers were removed from consideration after discussion with City staff because of limited opportunities for supply or high implementation barriers. Also removed from consideration was participating on a further expansion of LVR. This project, to increase the 160,000-AF reservoir to 275,000 AF, was studied extensively by several potential partners. The City and CCWD established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in 2020 on the City’s preferred approach to participate in the project; therefore, this project was included during earlier evaluations of the Study. However, in November 2024, CCWD ended its participation in the project due to significant increases in estimated project costs and reductions in supply benefits, thereby ending the possibility of the project being implemented, so it has been removed from this report.

6.1 Overview of Supply Options
Potential supply sources available to the City include the following:
▬ City of Antioch
 Partnership in expansion of brackish desalination facility  Wholesale purchases of treated potable water
▬ Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID)
 Purchase raw water for treatment at COBWTP
 Purchase raw water for treatment at a new WTP
▬ CCWD
 Purchase additional treatment capacity at RBWTP
 Purchase raw water for treatment at COBWTP
▬ ECCID
 Access alternate points of diversion for raw water
 Indian Slough to a new WTP

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-2
 Old River to a new WTP
▬ Reverse osmosis treatment of surface water
▬ Reverse osmosis treatment of groundwater
Table 6.1 summarizes the qualitative aspects of the supply options, with each option described in more detail in the subsections below. Options that make use of the City’s existing ECCID water supply allocation will not be able to meet the projected annual supply gap, as shown in Table 6.1, except for reverse osmosis of groundwater. Supply options will need an accompanying expansion of COBWTP and/or a new WTP to provide enough treatment capacity to meet projected maximum day demands by buildout. Options involving potable water entering the distribution system in an alternate location over the existing system configuration will provide increased redundancy for the system, which could mitigate adverse impacts in case of loss of supply from COBWTP and/or any of the existing conveyance infrastructure that provides Brentwood with potable water.

Table 6.1 Summary of Qualitative Aspects of Supply Options Supply Option
Uses Existing
ECCID Water
Rights
Will Meet
Projected
Annual
Supply Gap
Requires
Expansion of
COBWTP to Meet
Maximum Day
Demand
Requires
New
Treatment
Plant
Enters
Distribution
System in
Alternate
Location
Expansion of COBWTP  X  X X
ECCID - Indian Slough to new WTP  X X  
ECCID - Old River using CCWD
infrastructure to new WTP  X X  
ECCID - Old River using new intake
to new WTP  X X  
BBID - Raw water to new WTP X  X  
BBID - Raw water to COBWTP X   X X
Antioch Brackish Desalination -
Antioch water rights X    
Antioch Brackish Desalination -
ECCID water rights  X   
Antioch Wholesale X    
Reverse Osmosis - Groundwater     X
Reverse Osmosis - Surface Water  X   X
CCWD - Raw Water to COBWTP X   X X
CCWD - Additional Capacity at
RBWTP  X X X X

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-3

6.2 Expansion of City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant

6.2.1 Overview
As previously mentioned, the current strategy for the City’s water supply system is an expansion of the existing COBWTP from 16.5 mgd to 33 mgd of treatment capacity. The City would still use a minimum of

1.7 mgd (1,902 AFY) of treatment capacity from RBWTP to satisfy the existing agreement with CCWD.

This option provides no additional supply of raw water and would not address the projected supply gap at buildout but would provide enough treatment capacity to meet maximum day demands at buildout.

6.2.2 Components and Cost Summary
In July 2017, CDM Smith prepared an opinion of probable construction costs (OPCC) for expansion of COBWTP, estimated then at $45 million. That estimate has been escalated using engineering judgment and the Engineering News-Record (ENR) construction cost index (CCI) for San Francisco as of January 2023. Table 6.2 summarizes the main components and costs of this alternative.

Table 6.2 Cost Summary for Expansion of COBWTP Alternative Component Value Notes
Capital Cost
 Construction of new flocculation,
sedimentation, and ozone contactor
basins, additional housing for filters, an
additional clearwell, and upgrades to
process controls
 Contingencies
 Design
 Engineering Services During Construction
 Construction Management
 Environmental Documentation/Permitting
$98.9 million
Construction cost estimate escalated using the January
2023 ENR CCI
Contingencies assumed to be 25% of construction cost
Design, engineering services during construction, and
construction management each assumed to be 10% of
direct costs (construction plus contingencies)
Environmental documentation/permitting assumed to be
3% of direct costs
Annual O&M Costs
 Fixed costs
 Variable treatment costs
 CCWD conveyance charge $10.7 million
Average annual O&M costs over the next 30 years based
on projected demand from 2020 UWMP and assuming all
demand is supplied by COBWTP except for 1.7 mgd
(1,902 AFY) from RBWTP.

Conveyance charge from CCWD for conveyance of ECCID
water at $324.50 per AF ($/AF) with 70% from Rock
Slough and 30% from Old River. Assumed to include wear
and tear of CCWD infrastructure.

Additional Supply from Option
Total Supply Available
Additional Treatment Capacity from Option
Total Treatment Capacity Available
0 AFY
14,800 AFY

16.5 mgd
39 mgd
Current total ECCID supply allotment
Includes 6 mgd share of maximum day capacity at RBWTP

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-4
Component Value Notes
Annualized Capital Costs
Annualized Capital Cost per AF of Supply
Annual O&M Cost per AF of Supply
Purchase Price of Water
Total Unit Cost
$4.42 million
$298/AF
$723/AF
$36/AF
$1,057/AF
30-year financing at 2% interest rate
$4.42 million divided by 14,800 AFY
$10.7 million divided by 14,800 AFY
Current ECCID rate for raw water
Annualized capital cost plus annual O&M divided by yield, plus ECCID supplier charge
COBWTP could be expanded in phases, if desired, which would add half the additional treatment capacity (8.25 mgd) of the full expansion. The first phase would include one flocculation and sedimentation basin and two additional filters. This would also likely include upgrades to chemical systems, electrical, instrumentation and controls, and residuals handling for the entire 16.5 mgd expansion. The second phase would include one flocculation and sedimentation basin and one or two additional filters. Costs would be split approximately 60 percent for Phase 1 and 40 percent for Phase 2.

O&M costs for COBWTP were approximately $4.63 million in 2017 based on the City’s Water and Wastewater Cost of Service Study, used to estimate future O&M costs (City of Brentwood 2018). The Final Preliminary Design Report: Surface Water Treatment Facility Phase II Project for COBWTP indicates the estimated breakdown of fixed and variable costs for treatment (CDM Smith 2005). The Preliminary Design Report’s variable costs consist of energy costs for treatment and pumping, chemicals, and granular activated carbon (GAC) filter media replacement (based on a four-year replacement cycle).

Energy accounts for approximately 48 percent of variable costs, chemicals 43 percent, and GAC filter replacement approximately 9 percent.

Variable costs were escalated from 2017 to 2023 dollars using the following: (1) Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) data on annual average energy costs for Brentwood’s WWTP, (2) the Producer Price Index for water-treating chemicals and compounds based on data from the Economic Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED), and (3) Consumer Price Index data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the San Francisco area. Using the percent of each variable cost item and the escalated costs from various data sources, the variable costs increased 39 percent from 2017 to 2023.

Estimated O&M costs for 2021 are $5.81 million based on (1) total volume treated at COBWTP from data provided by the City and (2) escalated O&M costs, which equates to approximately $680/AF.

CCWD also charges for conveyance of ECCID water from Rock Slough and Old River. The CCWD budget data indicates that 70 percent of CCWD-delivered water comes from Rock Slough and 30 percent comes from Old River. CCWD charges $245/AF from Rock Slough and $510/AF from Old River, which results in a weighted conveyance cost of $325/AF in FY 2023. CCWD refers to this component as the “usage charge.” An additional “demand charge” of $3.57 per thousand gallons is also imposed. Brentwood is required to pay 43 percent of the demand charge, which equates to $1.54 per thousand gallons. This rate is multiplied by 188 MG, for a total demand charge of $288,623 in FY 2023. The information provided by CCWD does not indicate why the City is required to pay 43 percent of the demand charge or

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-5
why that rate gets multiplied by 188 MG, but the result is an additional $35/AF in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023.

Therefore, Brentwood paid $360/AF for conveyance of ECCID water, at a total cost of $2.99 million in FY 2023. This analysis assumes the demand charge covers wear and tear of CCWD infrastructure. In total, CCWD charges the City approximately $1,040/AF for conveyance and treatment of ECCID water at COBWTP.

6.2.3 Benefits
The expansion of COBWTP does not require any modifications to existing water supply agreements between the City and ECCID. CCWD already operates COBWTP on behalf of the City, so coordination with CCWD on operation of an expanded facility could likely be accomplished through modification of existing agreements. The supply for COBWTP is guaranteed under the terms of the agreement with ECCID, whereas supplies from CCWD via RBWTP can be curtailed during droughts and other times of water shortage. The current energy intensity for raw water conveyance, treatment, and distribution is 441 kWh/AF (City of Brentwood 2021), which is assumed to continue under this option.

6.2.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties Deteriorating water quality conditions could affect the availability of Delta water supplies. Climate change, seawater intrusion, and contamination from agricultural runoff, urban runoff, or wastewater treatment discharges could result in increased levels of total dissolved solids, chlorides, and/or nitrates.

Inability to sufficiently remove these contaminants with conventional treatment processes used by the COBWTP could restrict the quantity of water that could be sourced from existing surface water rights while still meeting the NPDES limit for the WWTP. Historical water quality data for COBWTP, as shown in Table 6.3, indicates significant increases in average and maximum chloride concentrations during the 2015 drought and increases in maximum chloride concentrations in recent years because of drought.

These increases in maximum concentrations exceed the City’s planning threshold of 125 mg/L for chloride.

Table 6.3 Historical Average, Minimum, and Maximum Chloride Concentrations at COBWTP Year Average Chloride
Concentrations (mg/L)
Minimum Chloride
Concentrations (mg/L)
Maximum Chloride
Concentrations (mg/L)
2014 100 79 110
2015 165 83 215
2016 99 30 190
2017 23 15 32
2018 58 32 87
2019 23 13 34
2020 68 31 149
2021 106 64 150
Furthermore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) have established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for a variety of primary contaminants that pose a threat to human health and safety if exceeded, as well as MCLs for secondary

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-6
constituents that are based on aesthetic concerns. The recommended MCL for chloride, a secondary constituent, is 250 mg/L and the upper limit is 500 mg/L, with a short-term limit of 600 mg/L. However, what constitutes short term in the MCL is unclear. Future of water quality in the Delta could potentially deteriorate to a point where raw water sourced from Rock Slough is not a viable option to supply the City while still meeting drinking water quality goals and maintaining customer satisfaction.

Expansion of COBWTP does not improve system redundancy and would leave Brentwood vulnerable to supply interruptions if any issue were to occur that prevents conveyance through the Contra Costa Canal, COBWTP or associated infrastructure, and/or the treated water conveyance pipeline connecting COBWTP to Brentwood. This option provides no additional supply of raw water and would not address the projected supply gap at buildout but would provide enough treatment capacity to meet maximum day demands at buildout.

6.3 East Contra Costa Irrigation District – Indian Slough

6.3.1 Overview
This supply alternative would divert surface water from Indian Slough using the existing ECCID canal intake pump station. A new intake structure would pull raw water from the beginning of the ECCID canal to a new raw water conveyance pipeline which would run parallel to the existing ECCID canal. Raw water would be conveyed to a new 16.5 mgd WTP, as shown in Figure 6.1, then treated water would be pumped to a point within Zone 1 of sufficient pipe size and capacity, likely near Balfour Road and the existing 24-inch potable line. A new WTP could be located just south of the ECCID canal or along the eastern boundary of Brentwood, depending on availability of land. This alternative assumes half of the necessary raw water supplied to the City to meet average day demands by buildout will be conveyed through the ECCID canal (7.6 mgd [8,524 AFY], accounting for 1.7 mgd [1,902 AFY] from RBWTP), with flows up to 16.5 mgd to accommodate peak demands. This option provides no additional supply of raw water and would not address the projected supply gap at buildout but would provide enough treatment capacity to meet maximum day demands at buildout.

The existing water supply agreement between the City and ECCID specifies that Indian Slough can be used as a point of diversion; therefore, no modifications to the agreement would be required other than addressing O&M related to operation of the intake on Indian Slough and new intake for Brentwood’s raw water supply. The Indian Slough diversion and ECCID canal are currently used to divert and convey raw water for irrigation purposes to the City via the Roddy Ranch Pumping Station. ECCID confirmed that sufficient capacity exists at the point of diversion to serve both a new WTP and the Roddy Ranch Pumping Station. ECCID is also undertaking dredging of the Indian Slough channel to ensure sufficient conveyance capacity is available for the ECCID canal.

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-7
Figure 6.1 Conceptual Layout of ECCID Indian Slough Alternative

6.3.2 Components and Cost Summary
The main components for this alternative, summarized in Table 6.4, include capital costs for a new WTP, land acquisition, new intake on the ECCID canal, conveyance piping and pumps to convey raw water from the ECCID canal to the new WTP, and the necessary piping and pumping to connect the new WTP to the Brentwood system. There is an approximately 65-foot elevation increase between the point of diversion at Indian Slough and the potential location for a new WTP. This requires 1.71 kWh/AF per foot of elevation (including assumption of 60 percent pump efficiency) (Peacock 1996). The cost of electricity is based on data from PG&E rates for Brentwood’s WWTP in 2022.

Capital costs for a new WTP are based on costs for a similar WTP currently being constructed in the region, which uses the same treatment process and has comparable capacity. Costs were escalated to 2023 dollars using ENR CCI and 10 percent contingency costs to estimate total direct costs. Design, engineering services during construction, and construction management are assumed to each be 10 percent of total direct costs and environmental permitting at 5 percent of total direct costs. The amount of area required for a new WTP (including all necessary recovery basins, drying beds, and maintenance/storage buildings) is also based on the similar WTP being constructed in the region, which takes 18 acres of land. Therefore, land acquisition costs at $100,000 per acre were included for 18 acres,

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-8
which covers the cost of the land and legal/administrative costs related to the land acquisition.

Information from the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office indicates the agricultural parcels east and southeast of Brentwood limits are valued at less than $100,000 per acre. Any supply option that includes a new WTP uses the same cost assumptions.

Table 6.4 Cost Summary for ECCID Indian Slough Alternative Component Value Notes
Capital Cost
 New WTP
 New intake structure on ECCID
canal
 Raw water conveyance pipeline
 New pump station
 Pump and pipe to connect WTP to
existing potable distribution system
at suitable location
 Land acquisition $291.8 million
New WTP based on recent construction costs for a
similarly sized WTP, escalated using January 2023 ENR
CCI. Costs include contingencies, design, environmental permitting, engineering services during construction,
construction management
Pipeline installation based on $100 per inch-foot;
includes urban construction, some dewatering, and
contingencies
Pump costs based on cost curves from the Pumping
Station Design manual (Jones and Sanks 2008) and
adjusted to January 2023 ENR CCI; pump cost curves
based on contract prices for construction plus costs for extra work limited to pump station
Land acquisition cost assumption of $100,000 per acre.

Assumes 18 acres would be needed for new WTP based
on similar WTP site requirements. Easement costs not
included.

Annual O&M Costs
 Raw water pumping
 Maintenance for pumps and pipes
 New WTP O&M
$9.7 million
Energy cost assumed to be 23.3 cents/kWh based on
PG&E data for Brentwood WWTP in 2022; assumes 1.71
kWh per foot of vertical lift per AF
Assumed to be 0.5% of capital costs for pipes, 1.5% of
capital costs for pumps
O&M for new WTP calculated using the same method as
COBWTP with variable costs adjusted based on treatment
volume
Additional Supply from Option
Total Supply Available
Average Treatment Volume at New
WTP/Yield from Option
Additional Treatment Capacity from
Option
Total Treatment Capacity Available
0 AFY
14,800 AFY

7.6 mgd/8,524 AFY

16.5 mgd
39 mgd
Current ECCID supply allotment
Half of total projected demand at buildout, minus 1.7
mgd/1,902 AFY from RBWTP.

Maximum day treatment capacity of new WTP
Includes 6 mgd share of maximum day capacity at RBWTP
Annualized Capital Costs
Annualized Capital Cost per AF of
Yield from Option
$13.0 million
$1,528/AF
30-year financing at 2% interest rate
$13.03 million divided by 8,524 AFY

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-9
Component Value Notes
Annual O&M Cost per AF of Yield
from Option
Purchase Price of Water
Total Unit Cost
$1,139/AF
$36/AF
$2,703/AF
$9.71 million divided by 8,524 AFY
Current ECCID rate for raw water
Annualized capital cost plus annual O&M divided by yield, plus ECCID supplier charge

6.3.3 Benefits
Surface water diversions from Indian Slough and conveyed through a new raw water pipeline to the City would provide an alternate point of diversion that increases supply resiliency for the City. Likewise, a new WTP near the ECCID canal provides increased redundancy in treatment capacity and distribution of potable water. Should one WTP and/or the pipeline connecting the WTP to the distribution system suffer a shutdown or failure, the other WTP and infrastructure would still provide service to the City’s customers. Energy intensity under this alternative would be similar to current conditions because of comparable conveyance, treatment, and distribution.

As previously mentioned, this option would not require changes to key elements of the existing supply agreement between ECCID and the City. Details would have to be agreed upon regarding specific O&M obligations and potential capital costs for improvements to canal infrastructure. Therefore, institutional and legal constraints should be relatively straightforward to navigate, and system integration issues should be minimal.

6.3.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties Preliminary analysis identified several potentially suitable locations for a new WTP, but more detailed analysis would be required to account for site-specific factors, which is outside the scope of this Study.

Additional analysis would be needed to refine assumptions on potential land acquisition costs and any legal or administrative barriers. Most of the undeveloped land south and west of Brentwood’s boundaries is agricultural land, which may present regulatory obstacles if prime farmland or farmland of statewide significance would be taken out of production for construction of a new WTP. Additionally, the City would need to either hire staff for the WTP or come to an agreement with CCWD to operate the facility on Brentwood’s behalf for a fee.

Water quality may be slightly better at Indian Slough over Rock Slough, but the difference is potentially marginal. Limited data availability prevented a more detailed analysis from being conducted on this parameter specifically for Indian Slough, but data for chloride concentrations from the Old River point of diversion show minimal improvement over treated water from COBWTP, as seen in Table 6.5, and indicate that water quality does not differ significantly between these locations. Indian Slough is located between Rock Slough and Old River, so the chloride concentrations at Indian Slough have likely been similar to the observed values at COBWTP and Old River.

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-10
Table 6.5 Historical Average and Maximum Chloride Concentrations at COBWTP and Old River Year
COBWTP
Average Chloride
Concentrations (mg/L)
COBWTP
Maximum Chloride
Concentrations (mg/L)
Old River
Average Chloride
Concentrations (mg/L)
Old River
Maximum Chloride
Concentrations (mg/L)
2014 100 110 127 182
2015 165 215 119 189
2016 99 190 92 184
2017 23 32 26 108
2018 58 87 75 172
2019 23 34 31 177
2020 68 149 61 179
2021 106 150 111 150
Sources: COBWTP data: (CCWD n.d.-a). Old River data: (California Data Exchange Center n.d.).

Issues with taste and odor would likely be similar to issues present in the Contra Costa Canal resulting from geosmin and methylisoborneol (MIB). Coordination with ECCID on monitoring water quality parameters in the ECCID canal may help in identifying when specific actions need to be taken to improve taste and odor. Certain types of algae and bacteria are responsible for producing geosmin and MIB.

Increases in those constituents typically happen in late summer or early fall when water levels are low and water temperatures are warm, but sources of geosmin/MIB and the events leading to increases in their concentrations in water are not well understood or easily monitored (Billica et al. 2010).

Changing water quality conditions could affect the availability of Delta water supplies if increased levels of total dissolved solids, chlorides, and/or nitrates that occur from changing climate or human contamination. Inability to remove these contaminants to a satisfactory level with conventional treatment processes used by the WTPs would restrict the quantity of water that could be sourced from existing surface water rights while still meeting the NPDES limit for the WWTP and meeting customer satisfaction standards.

Prolonged drought could affect water supplies under this option if it was severe enough to reduce flows available at Indian Slough. ECCID has senior appropriative water rights (pre-1914, established in 1912), which historically have not been subject to curtailments during previous water shortages. However, it is possible that extreme drought conditions in the future could result in pre-1914 water rights being curtailed as well. Curtailments of senior water rights would be implemented in reverse chronological order (i.e., water rights established in 1912 would be curtailed first before water rights established in 1911 were curtailed).

6.4 East Contra Costa Irrigation District – Buy-in to Contra Costa Water District Old River Intake

6.4.1 Overview
This supply alternative considers the City securing rights for use of the existing intake at Old River and using a combination of new and existing conveyance infrastructure to supply a new WTP with raw water

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-11
from this alternate point of diversion. The existing agreement between the City and ECCID specifies that the intake to the LVR project on Old River may be used as a point diversion. However, use of the existing intake at Old River requires the City to secure rights from CCWD to take delivery using that infrastructure. Raw water would still be supplied under ECCID water rights, but CCWD infrastructure would need to be used under this option.

Intakes at Old River and Middle River convey raw water to a transfer reservoir located near the intersection of Vasco Road and Walnut Boulevard. Water is then pumped to LVR or flows by gravity through the Los Vaqueros pipeline to the Neroly Blending Facility in Antioch just south of the Contra Costa Canal (CCWD 2021). The blending facility mixes water from Rock Slough with the Old River/Middle River water and conveys this water to RBWTP. The intake at Old River can divert a maximum of 250 cubic feet per second (cfs). The permitted rate of diversion between Old River and Middle River intakes is 320 cfs (over 200 mgd), which means sufficient capacity is available for CCWD and Brentwood under this alternative.

CCWD indicated that Brentwood can secure capacity from Old River under the existing agreement, but CCWD would impose additional costs related to use of Los Vaqueros pipeline for conveyance. Use of LVR project infrastructure would require approval and/or coordination with USBR, adding complexity to a supply arrangement. Using the LVR project infrastructure to convey raw water to COBWTP is not feasible currently, as raw water can only be conveyed to RBWTP under the existing infrastructure configuration (Section 6.11, Contra Cost Water District – Raw Water Conveyance to COBWTP, provides an alternative that addresses this issue).

This option is conceptualized to use part of the Los Vaqueros pipeline from the pump station at Old River until the conveyance pipeline intersects with State Highway 4 and potentially connects with a new raw water conveyance pipeline routing flow to a new WTP on Concord Avenue, as shown in Figure 6.2.

Raw water from the CCWD/Los Vaqueros pipeline could be conveyed east to a new WTP under gravity flow. The new WTP could be located along Concord Avenue and connect to the potable distribution system with a new 30-inch pipeline conveying treated water west along Concord Avenue until reaching the existing Zone 1 pipes and Pump Station 2.3 at Fairview Avenue. The exact location depends on availability of land but does not significantly affect the cost of this alternative unless it is constructed significantly further away from this area and requires additional pipeline for conveyance. The parcel selected for this analysis (2450 Concord Avenue) is undeveloped agricultural land approximately 20 acres in size with minimal crop production over the last decade based on aerial imagery.

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-12
Figure 6.2 Conceptualization of Buy-In to Old River Intake Alternative

6.4.2 Components and Cost Summary
The main cost components for this alternative, summarized in Table 6.6, include capital costs for the raw water conveyance pipeline, a new WTP, land acquisition, and treated water pipeline from the new WTP to a connection point with the existing potable distribution system, along with annual O&M costs for pipeline maintenance, the new WTP, and conveyance.

Table 6.6 Cost Summary for Buy-in to CCWD Old River Intake Alternative Component Value Notes
Capital Cost
 Raw water conveyance pipeline
 New WTP
 Treated water conveyance pipeline
 Land acquisition
 CCWD 12-inch wholesale meter
$235.6 million
Pipeline installation based on $100 per inch-foot; includes urban construction, some dewatering, and contingencies
New WTP based on recent construction costs for a WTP of similar capacity, escalated using the January 2023 ENR CCI Land acquisition cost assumption of $100,000 per acre.

Assumes 18 acres would be needed for new WTP based
on similar WTP site requirements

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-13
Component Value Notes
Annual O&M Costs
 Raw water pipeline maintenance
 New WTP O&M
 Treated water pipeline maintenance
 Conveyance costs
$9.1 million
Assumed to be 0.5% of capital costs for pipes, 1.5% of
capital costs for pumps
O&M for new WTP calculated using the same method as
COBWTP with variable costs adjusted based on treatment
volume
CCWD conveyance charge from Old River of $510/AF
Additional Supply from Option
Total Supply Available
Average Volume of Treatment at New
WTP/Yield from Option
Additional Treatment Capacity from
Option
Total Treatment Capacity Available
0 AFY
14,800 AFY

7.6 mgd/8,524
AFY

16.5 mgd
39 mgd
Current ECCID supply allotment
Half of total projected demand at buildout, minus the 1.7 mgd/1,902 AFY from RBWTP
Maximum day treatment capacity at new WTP
Includes 6 mgd share of maximum day capacity at RBWTP
Annualized Capital Costs
Annualized Capital Cost per AF of Yield
from Option
Annual O&M Cost per AF of Yield from
Option
Purchase Price of Water
Total Unit Cost
$10.5 million
$1,234/AF
$1,066/AF
$36/AF
$2,336/AF
30-year financing at 2% interest rate
$10.52 million divided by 8,524 AFY
$9.08 million divided by 8,524 AFY
Current ECCID rate for raw water
Annualized capital cost plus annual O&M divided by yield, plus ECCID supplier charge
The City would be required to pay for the right to use the intake at Old River. CCWD indicated this could be a rental type of arrangement with recurring fees instead of an upfront capital cost, but the exact cost could not be obtained from CCWD for this analysis. CCWD would also require additional compensation for O&M of the intake and pump station. Therefore, this analysis uses the cost of a 12-inch wholesale meter from CCWD, based on the volume of flow from this option, with an additional capital cost of $1.5 million and a conveyance charge of $510/AF. The demand charge from CCWD was included as well to represent wear and tear of CCWD infrastructure.

6.4.3 Benefits
This alternative would provide increased system redundancy by diverting raw water from a new location and conveying for treatment using different infrastructure than currently used by Brentwood. This alternative would provide redundancy during any loss of function in the Contra Costa Canal, COBWTP, and/or the pipeline connecting COBWTP to the City’s distribution system. Water quality related to taste and odor issues would likely be minimized because of less stagnant river water being sourced instead of water from the Contra Costa Canal, and water hardness would be improved over groundwater.

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-14
However, recent chloride concentrations have been only marginally lower than Rock Slough on occasion and have been higher at times in the past. Energy intensity under this alternative would be slightly higher than current conditions because of comparable treatment and distribution. Conveyance from Old River to the potential location for a new WTP requires more energy than pumping from the Contra Costa Canal.

6.4.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties Average chloride concentrations at the intake on Old River have historically been similar to the levels seen at COBWTP, as shown in Table 6.7, but the maximum concentrations have been higher at Old River, which indicates salinity from this point of diversion can also be an issue. Therefore, the water quality benefits from this alternative are minimal and water quality could worsen during times of drought when salinity in the Delta increases. As previously mentioned, geosmin and MIB occurrence is not well understood, and increases may be seen concurrently throughout the Delta that would negate any benefit for that taste and odor parameter under this alternative.

Table 6.7 Average and Maximum Chloride Concentrations at Old River and COBWTP Year
Old River Intake
Average Chloride
Concentrations (mg/L)
COBWTP
Average Chloride
Concentrations
(mg/L)
Old River Intake
Maximum Chloride
Concentrations (mg/L)
COBWTP
Maximum Chloride
Concentrations (mg/L)
2014 127 100 182 110
2015 119 165 189 215
2016 92 99 184 190
2017 26 23 108 32
2018 75 58 172 87
2019 31 23 177 34
2020 61 68 179 149
2021 111 106 150 150
This alternative would require coordination with CCWD to obtain rights to use the existing intake at Old River and the segment of raw water pipeline from Old River to Bixler Road. Costs for these components are currently unknown and may require significant administrative resources to negotiate details of an agreement. This alternative cannot avoid use of LVR project infrastructure, so it is possible that USBR would be included in negotiations between the City and CCWD. Therefore, this alternative has significant implementation challenges to overcome. Additionally, the City would need to either hire staff for the WTP or come to an agreement with CCWD to operate the facility on Brentwood’s behalf for a fee.

Curtailments during drought should not be as much of a concern for this option compared other water sources because ECCID has pre-1914 water rights. However, CCWD is still subject to curtailments during drought; therefore, this alternative may face constraints using CCWD and Los Vaqueros infrastructure during drought regardless of the ECCID water rights. System reliability would not be improved if infrastructure could not be used during mandatory curtailments, so this alternative is assumed to be less

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-15
reliable than construction of a new intake at Old River because of the uncertainty regarding potential restrictions on diversions from Old River using CCWD infrastructure.

6.5 East Contra Costa Irrigation District – New Intake at Old River Conveyed to New Water Treatment Plant

6.5.1 Overview
This alternative proposes construction of a new intake at Old River using ECCID water rights and new raw water pipeline to convey water to a new WTP. The existing agreement between the City and ECCID specifies that the intake to the LVR project on Old River may be used as a point diversion. However, use of the existing intake at Old River requires Brentwood to secure rights from CCWD to take delivery using that infrastructure, and that would require approval from USBR, which adds complexity to implementation. Therefore, this alternative examines construction of entirely new infrastructure, as shown in Figure 6.3, to circumvent CCWD and USBR involvement with supply from Old River. This alternative assumes that half of Brentwood’s supply would be sourced from Old River in an average year, minus the 1.7 mgd (1,902 AFY) from RBWTP.

Figure 6.3 Conceptualization of New Infrastructure for Old River Alternative

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-16

6.5.2 Components and Cost Summary
The main components for this alternative, summarized in Table 6.8, include the new intake at Old River, pump station, raw water conveyance pipeline, new WTP, and treated water conveyance pipeline. This alternative assumes the new WTP would be located along Byron Highway near Balfour Road. The treated water conveyance pipeline from the new WTP would connect to the potable distribution system through an existing 24-inch pipe at Balfour Road and Sellers Avenue. The exact location of the new WTP would not significantly alter the cost estimate, as the total length of new pipeline needed would remain unchanged, unless the new WTP was located significantly farther away from the location shown in Figure 6.3.

Table 6.8 Cost Summary for New Intake at Old River Alternative Component Value Notes
Capital Cost
 New intake at Old River
 Pump station
 Raw water conveyance pipeline
 New WTP
 Treated water conveyance pipeline
 Land acquisition
$357.6 million
Intake cost based on recent construction costs and
adjusted for capacity, escalated using the January 2023

ENR CCI
Pump costs based on cost curves from the Pumping
Station Design manual (Jones and Sanks 2008) and
adjusted to January 2023 ENR CCI; pump cost curves
based on contract prices for construction plus costs for extra work limited to pump station
Pipeline installation based on $100 per inch-foot;
includes urban construction, some dewatering, and
contingencies
New WTP based on recent construction costs for a WTP
of similar capacity, escalated using January 2023 ENR
CCI
Land acquisition cost assumption of $100,000 per acre.

Assumes 18 acres would be needed for new WTP based
on site requirements for a similar WTP. Easement costs
not included.

Annual O&M Costs
 Intake, pump, and pipe maintenance
 Energy used by pump station
 New WTP O&M $10.0 million
Assumed to be 0.5% of capital costs for pipes, 1.5% of
capital costs for pumps
Energy cost assumed to be 23.3 cents per kWh based on
PG&E data for Brentwood WWTP in 2022; assumes 1.71
kWh per foot of vertical lift per AF
Additional Supply from Option
Total Supply Available
Average Volume of Treatment at New
WTP/Yield from Option
Additional Treatment Capacity from
Option
0 AFY
14,800 AFY

7.6 mgd/8,524
AFY

16.5 mgd
Current ECCID supply allotment
Half of total projected demand at buildout, minus the

1.7 mgd /1,902 AFY from RBWTP
Maximum day treatment capacity at new WTP

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-17
Component Value Notes
Total Treatment Capacity Available 39 mgd Includes 6 mgd share of maximum day capacity at RBWTP
Annualized Capital Costs
Annualized Capital Cost per AF of Yield
from Option
Annual O&M Cost per AF of Yield from
Option
Purchase Price of Water
Total Unit Cost
$15.97 million
$1,873/AF
$1,178/AF
$36/AF
$3,088/AF
30-year financing at 2% interest rate
$15.97 million divided by 8,524 AFY
$10.04 million divided by 8,524 AFY
Current ECCID rate for raw water
Annualized capital cost plus annual O&M divided by
yield, plus ECCID supplier charge

6.5.3 Benefits
This alternative makes use of existing ECCID water rights and a point of diversion, which is already specified in the existing Brentwood/ECCID agreement, so implementation should be less challenging.

System integration should present few technical issues as well because this is a similar source of water already being used by Brentwood and the supply would connect to Zone 1 in a suitable location. Energy intensity under this alternative would be slightly higher than current conditions because of comparable treatment and distribution. Conveyance from Old River to the potential location for a new WTP requires more energy than pumping from the Contra Costa Canal.

ECCID has pre-1914 water rights, which should make the supply more reliable during droughts than other sources. New infrastructure that does not involve CCWD and/or USBR makes this alternative more reliable than buying rights to the CCWD intake at Old River. System redundancy would be improved with a new point of diversion, new WTP, and new connection to the potable distribution system. Taste and odor would likely be an improvement over water from Rock Slough, but again, geosmin and MIB management are not well understood. Water hardness would be an improvement over groundwater sources.

6.5.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties Chloride concentrations would not be significantly improved over existing supplies from Rock Slough, as mentioned under the previous alternative. Therefore, overall water quality improvement is minimal and could be threatened during times of drought when salinity in the Delta increases. Potential impacts from proposed regional water supply projects could have unforeseen impacts on water quality in Old River as well. Additionally, the City would need to either hire staff for the WTP or come to an agreement with CCWD to operate the facility on Brentwood’s behalf for a fee.

6.6 Byron-Bethany Irrigation District

6.6.1 Overview
This alternative considers obtaining a new surface water supply by purchasing raw water from BBID and conveying it to the City for treatment. Water could be sourced under BBID’s existing pre-1914 surface

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-18
water rights and diverted from the intake channel near the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant at the head of the California Aqueduct. Raw water could be conveyed north using the existing BBID Canal 45 and transferred to a new pipeline for conveyance to the City, as shown in Figure 6.4. The raw water can be sent to a new WTP (Alternative 1) or to COBWTP (Alternative 2). BBID staff indicated that (1) sufficient conveyance capacity should be available in the canal for this alternative, and (2) there could be a willingness to sell water to the City, assuming the parties could come to a suitable agreement in the future and potential legal issues can be resolved.

BBID’s water supply is a combination of USBR Central Valley Project (CVP) supplies and water sourced under BBID’s appropriative water rights established in May 1914, which are considered pre-1914 water rights. CVP water is supplied to specific segments of BBID’s service area and would not be a source for these alternatives. BBID and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) signed an agreement specifying that BBID may divert up to 50,000 AFY from the intake channel at the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant (part of the State Water Project) for beneficial use at a maximum rate of 300 cfs.

Information from BBID’s Agricultural Water Management Plan indicates surface water supplies from pre-1914 water rights reached a maximum of 30,325 AF in 2014 (BBID 2017), which means BBID should have supplies available to meet existing customer needs without exceeding the limit of diversions specified in the agreement between BBID and DWR. Projected water use from a recent cost of service study is approximately 25,000 AFY through 2026, which further corroborates this assumption (BBID 2016).

The Agricultural Water Management Plan provides estimates for losses due to seepage and evaporation, which are used as the basis for estimated losses during conveyance for this supply alternative. The quantity sourced under this alternative will need to account for the losses during conveyance through BBID Canal 45, as BBID would charge Brentwood for the quantity diverted at the intake to the canal. This analysis assumes six percent loss during conveyance.

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-19
Figure 6.4 Overview of BBID Alternative

6.6.2 Components and Cost Summary

6.6.2.1 Alternative 1
The components for BBID Alternative 1, shown in Table 6.9, include a new WTP with 16.5 mgd of treatment capacity, land acquisition, pump station at the BBID canal, raw water conveyance pipeline to a new WTP, and a pipeline connecting the new WTP to Brentwood’s potable distribution system. The water purchase price $111/AF is based on projected cost of service in 2026 (BBID 2016).

Table 6.9 Cost Summary for BBID Alternative 1
Component Value Notes
Capital Cost
 New WTP $286.6 million
New WTP based on recent construction costs for a WTP of similar capacity, escalated using the January 2023 ENR CCI

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-20
Component Value Notes
 Pump and pipeline for transfer and
conveyance of water from BBID canal
to Brentwood WTP
 Pipeline connecting WTP to potable
distribution system
 Land acquisition
 Brentwood’s share of upgrades to BBID
canal
Pipeline installation based on $100 per inch-foot; includes urban construction, some dewatering, and contingencies
Pump costs based on cost curves from the Pumping Station Design manual (Jones and Sanks 2008) and adjusted to
January 2023 ENR CCI; pump cost curves based on contract prices for construction plus costs for extra work limited to pump station
Land acquisition cost assumption of $100,000 per acre.

Assumes 18 acres would be needed for new WTP based on
similar WTP site requirements. Easement costs not
included
Annual O&M Costs
 Conveyance pipeline O&M
 Conveyance pumps O&M
 New WTP O&M $9.3 million
Assumed to be 0.5% of capital costs for pipes, 1.5% of
capital costs for pumps
O&M for new WTP calculated using the same method as
COBWTP with variable costs adjusted based on treatment
volume
Additional Supply from Option
Total Supply Available
Average Volume of Treatment at New
WTP
Additional Treatment Capacity from
Option
Total Treatment Capacity Available
8,520 AFY
23,320 AFY

7.6 mgd

16.5 mgd
39 mgd
Average daily flow of 7.6 mgd
Current ECCID supply allotment plus BBID supply
Half of total projected demand at buildout, minus the 1.7 mgd/1,902 AFY from RBWTP
Maximum day treatment capacity at new WTP
Includes 6 mgd share of maximum day capacity at RBWTP
Annualized Capital Costs
Annualized Capital Cost per AF of Yield
from Option
Annual O&M Cost per AF of Yield from
Option
Purchase Price of Water
Total Unit Cost
$12.8 million
$1,501/AF
$1,092/AF
$111/AF
$2,700/AF
30-year financing at 2% interest rate
$12.8 million divided by 8,524 AFY
$9.31 million divided by 8,524 AFY
Based on projected cost of service in 2026 (BBID 2016)
Annualized capital cost plus annual O&M divided by yield, plus ECCID supplier charge
The new raw water pipeline is assumed to begin near the BBID canal just south of Brentwood Boulevard before the canal narrows and conveyance capacity likely decreases, as shown in Figure 6.5. A new WTP could be located in this area or just north along Byron Highway before Balfour Road. The exact location depends on availability of land but does not impact cost of this alternative unless it is constructed significantly farther away from this area and requires additional pipeline for conveyance. The new WTP would connect to the potable distribution system with a new 30-inch pipeline conveying treated water

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-21
west along Balfour Road until it reaches the existing Zone 1 pipes at Balfour Road and Sellers Avenue (same assumption as the ECCID – Old River alternative).

Figure 6.5 Conceptual Location of New Water Treatment Plant and Conveyance Alignment for BBID Alternative 1

6.6.2.2 Alternative 2
The components for BBID Alternative 2, summarized in Table 6.10, include expansion of COBWTP, a pump station for transfer of water from the BBID canal, and a new raw water pipeline for conveyance to COBWTP, as shown in Figure 6.6.

Table 6.10 Cost Summary for BBID Alternative 2
Component Value Notes
Capital Cost
 Expansion of COBWTP
 Pump station
 Pipeline for raw water conveyance to
COBWTP
 Brentwood’s share of upgrades to
BBID canal
$275.0 million
Cost of expansion based on OPCC from 2017 and
escalated using the January 2023 ENR CCI
Pipeline installation based on $100 per inch-foot;
includes urban construction, some dewatering, and
contingencies

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-22
Component Value Notes
Pump costs based on cost curves from the Pumping
Station Design manual (Jones and Sanks 2008) and
adjusted to January 2023 ENR CCI; pump cost curves
based on contract prices for construction plus costs
for extra work limited to pump station
Annual O&M Costs
 Conveyance pump O&M
 Conveyance pipeline maintenance
 COBWTP O&M $11.7 million
Assumed to be 0.5% of capital costs for pipes, 1.5% of
capital costs for pumps
Average annual O&M cost over the next 30 years
based on projected demand from 2020 UWMP and
assuming all demand is supplied by COBWTP
Additional Supply from Option
Total Supply Available
Additional Treatment Capacity from
Option
Total Treatment Capacity Available
8,524 AFY
23,320 AFY

16.5 mgd
39 mgd
Average daily flow of 7.6 mgd
Current ECCID supply allotment plus BBID supply
Additional maximum day treatment capacity of
expansion of COBWTP
Includes 6 mgd share of maximum day capacity at
RBWTP
Annualized Capital Costs
Annualized Capital Cost per AF of
Yield from Option
Annual O&M Cost per AF of Yield
from Option
Purchase Price of Water
Total Unit Cost
$12.28 million
$1,441/AF
$1,367/AF
$111/AF
$2,913/AF
30-year financing at 2% interest rate
$12.28 million divided by 8,524 AFY
$11.65 million divided by 8,524 AFY
Based on projected cost of service in 2026 (BBID
2016) plus 6% for losses during conveyance
Annualized capital cost plus annual O&M divided by
yield, plus ECCID supplier charge

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-23
Figure 6.6 Conceptual Conveyance Alignment for BBID Alternative 2

6.6.3 Benefits
This option would provide significant increases in system reliability because BBID has pre-1914 water rights, and BBID has vigorously defended against SWRCB drought curtailments in recent years. While the nature of water scarcity, curtailments due to drought, and legal challenges pertaining to water rights are a constantly shifting landscape in California, BBID could be a relatively reliable source of water for Brentwood in the future.

System redundancy would be significantly improved under Alternative 1; any interruption of service at COBWTP and/or loss of conveyance through the existing treated water pipeline to Brentwood would not jeopardize the potable water supply under this alternative because a second WTP would be available.

The raw water supply is conveyed through different infrastructure as well, which means a loss of function of the Contra Costa Canal, the intake to COBWTP, or the raw water pump station at COBWTP would not jeopardize the potable supply under this alternative.

6.6.4 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties Conveyance through the BBID canal will result in some quantity of water loss due to evaporation and seepage in the canal. For this analysis, a factor of 6 percent was assumed for transmission losses, which

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-24
results in 8.0 mgd (8,950 AFY) needing to be purchased from BBID to get an effective yield of 7.6 mgd (8,524 AFY) at the end of the BBID canal. A more detailed analysis of water loss during conveyance would be needed to determine the actual quantity lost during conveyance.

BBID’s existing agreement with DWR specifies that the 50,000 AFY entitlement is for use within the BBID service area. Therefore, this alternative would face a “place-of-use” issue that would need to be resolved to allow BBID water to be transferred for sale to Brentwood. Preliminary discussion with BBID legal representatives indicated this could be a relatively minimal legal hurdle to overcome, and they did not believe it would prevent this alternative from moving forward. However, further investigation would be required and likely be an expense to Brentwood for a portion of legal expenses incurred to resolve the place-of-use issue.

SWRCB has issued drought curtailments in the past and ordered BBID to curtail water diversions in 2015.

However, BBID challenged the curtailment order in court for issues related to water rights and SWRCB authority to curtail pre-1914 water rights. Legal proceedings were still ongoing at the time of this analysis, but BBID believes they have solid legal standing to be exempt from SWRCB curtailment orders under BBID’s pre-1914 water rights and existing agreement with DWR. Therefore, this alternative could have issues in the future related to supply during drought that make it a less reliable alternative than ECCID supplies.

Water quality would only have a marginal improvement over existing COBWTP water quality for chloride concentrations. Historical water quality data was acquired for the Banks Pumping Plant and compared to the data for COBWTP, as shown in Table 6.11. This reveals that maximum chloride concentrations were lower at Banks Pumping Plant in 2020 and 2021, but the averages were similar. Additionally, the maximum chloride concentrations were higher at Banks Pumping Plant than at COBWTP in some years.

Conversely, notable differences occurred during the 2015 drought where Banks Pumping Plant had significantly lower average and maximum day chloride concentrations compared to COBWTP. Geosmin and MIB occurrence from this source is unknown and assumed to be the same as other alternatives.

Furthermore, it is unknown what impact future large-scale projects in the region may have on water quality at the BBID intake at the intake channel to the Banks Pumping Plant. Therefore, water quality is not likely a significant benefit of this alternative.

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-25
Table 6.11 Comparison of Water Quality Data for Banks Pumping Plant and COBWTP Year
Banks Pumping Plant
Average Chloride
Concentrations
(mg/L)
COBWTP Average
Chloride
Concentrations
(mg/L)
Banks Pumping Plant
Maximum Chloride
Concentrations
(mg/L)
COBWTP
Maximum Chloride
Concentrations
(mg/L)
2014 106 100 158 110
2015 105 165 157 215
2016 74 99 149 190
2017 21 23 89 32
2018 67 58 144 87
2019 33 23 144 34
2020 68 68 107 149
2021 104 106 138 150
Sources: BBID data: (California Data Exchange Center n.d.); COBWTP data: (CCWD n.d.-a) BBID is planning upgrades to sections of Canal 45, which include potentially installing new pipeline to replace segments of canal. However, the exact details and costs of the future upgrades are unknown at this time and could not be included in this analysis. Therefore, an estimate was generated based on the size of a pipeline needed to convey the quantity needed by the City and replacing approximately 2 miles worth of canal conveyance, which results in an additional cost of approximately $21.6 million. However, further discussion with BBID would be required to ascertain a more detailed cost estimate. Installation of new pipeline would reduce losses from seepage and evaporation and potentially improve water quality, both of which would be a benefit to the City under this alternative despite the increase in costs.

6.7 City of Antioch – Partnership in Expansion of Brackish Desalination Facility

6.7.1 Overview
This alternative proposes the City of Brentwood becoming a partner in an expansion of the City of Antioch’s new brackish desalination project. The City of Antioch is currently constructing a brackish desalination facility that will provide reverse osmosis (RO) membrane filtration to remove virtually all contaminants and produce high-quality finished water. Construction of the facility will be substantially complete in March 2025. The facility will treat 8 mgd of surface water with 75 percent recovery, producing 6 mgd of permeate and 2 mgd of concentrated brine as a waste product. Brine is conveyed to the Delta Diablo WWTP in Pittsburg, where it is blended with the WWTP effluent before discharge into the San Joaquin River using the Delta Diablo existing outfall. The facility was designed to allow for expansion in the future if needed. This alternative assumes the future expansion would double the capacity of the facility to 16 mgd with 12 mgd of permeate.

The City of Antioch is replacing its existing river intake structure and pump station as part of the brackish desalination facility project. The new pump station will consist of three 8 mgd pumps that extract water from the San Joaquin River as allowed under the City of Antioch’s existing, pre-1914 appropriative water rights. The new pumps will provide enough pumping capacity to meet the City of Antioch’s projected

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-26
demands of 13.5 mgd by 2045 based on its 2020 UWMP (City of Antioch 2021). The new intakes and pump station could provide an additional 8 mgd for an expansion without requiring further upgrades to conveyance infrastructure beyond what the City of Antioch is currently undertaking.

Additionally, the City of Antioch purchases raw water from CCWD conveyed through the Contra Costa Canal. The purchased quantity varies depending on its ability to pump water from the San Joaquin River while maintaining water quality goals and drought conditions, which may force CCWD to limit deliveries.

However, CCWD has agreed to supply 100 percent of the City of Antioch’s demands through 2045 unless constrained by drought conditions. Therefore, the City of Antioch has enough supplies between CCWD and their water rights to the San Joaquin River to meet projected future needs.

6.7.2 Conceptualization
This alternative could face legal barriers related to water rights of the raw water source for the brackish desalination facility (see Section 6.7.5). Therefore, three subalternatives were created to account for potential implementation barriers:
▬ Alternative 1: Using the City of Antioch’s existing pre-1914 water rights. Surface water is pumped from the San Joaquin River and pretreated at Antioch WTP Plant A, receives RO treatment at the expanded brackish desalination facility, blends with treated water from Antioch WTP Plant A, and is then conveyed to Brentwood through a new pipeline. ▬ Alternative 2: Using ECCID water rights. Surface water is pumped from the San Joaquin River using the existing Antioch infrastructure and pretreated at Antioch WTP Plant A, receives RO treatment at the expanded brackish desalination facility, blends with treated water from Antioch WTP Plant A, and is then conveyed to Brentwood through a new pipeline. ▬ Alternative 3: Using ECCID water rights. Surface water is diverted from the Contra Costa Canal in Antioch and pretreated at Antioch WTP Plant A, receives RO treatment at the expanded brackish desalination facility, blends with treated water from Antioch WTP A, and is then conveyed to Brentwood through a new pipeline.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would use the same infrastructure, but the water rights being used to source the raw water would vary. Alternative 1 would assume that Antioch has no place-of-use restrictions in transferring water outside their service area and therefore water could be sourced under Antioch’s existing pre-1914 appropriative water rights from the San Joaquin River. Antioch’s intake, pump station, and raw water pipes would be used to convey raw water for pretreatment at Plant A, then RO treatment at the expanded facility. RO permeate is blended with conventionally treated water in the Plant A clearwell before entering the distribution system. A new pipeline would convey treated water to Brentwood.

Alternative 2 assumes the City of Antioch cannot transfer water outside their service area and therefore water would need to be sourced under the City of Brentwood’s allocation from ECCID’s pre-1914 water rights. However, the ECCID water rights are for diversions from Indian Slough, not the San Joaquin River, so a modification to the existing agreement would be needed. This alternative would use the same infrastructure as Alternative 1.

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-27
Alternative 3 uses different infrastructure from Alternatives 1 and 2, along with a different approach to potential water rights issues. Raw water from the Contra Costa Canal would be sourced under the City of Brentwood’s existing agreement with ECCID to avoid place-of-use restrictions with the City of Antioch’s water rights and extensive modifications to the existing ECCID supply agreement to allow withdrawals from the San Joaquin River. Water would be diverted from the Contra Costa Canal using the City of Antioch’s existing West Pumping Station and conveyed to the brackish desalination facility. Treatment process and final conveyance are the same as Alternatives 1 and 2. Raw water would need to be diverted from the City of Antioch’s West Pumping Station, as the East Pumping Station only has 7.2 mgd of pumping capacity. This capacity is insufficient to meet the needs of the brackish desalination facility expansion (City of Antioch 2018). The City of Antioch has sufficient pumping capacity between both canal intakes and the San Joaquin River intake to meet their maximum day demands and still provide pumping for Brentwood’s portion of the brackish desalination facility.

Information from analysis of the under-construction facility indicates that the City of Antioch anticipates production of 5,450 AFY of permeate from the brackish desalination facility during a dry year and 2,560 AFY of permeate in a wet year. Information was not provided for average conditions, but it is assumed that average year production of permeate will be 4,630 AFY based on the ratio of wet and dry periods over the past 20 years based on DWR river index data for the San Joaquin Valley. The facility would operate from March through December in dry years and in August through December in wet years. The facility would operate at 100 percent capacity when in use to maximize process equipment efficiency and maintain useful life of the equipment to the greatest extent possible. This analysis assumes these same conditions would apply to the expansion of the facility.

6.7.3 Components and Cost Summary
All three alternatives make use of existing infrastructure to divert, pump, and convey raw water, plus making use of the existing conventional treatment from Plant A for pretreatment. New infrastructure is limited to the brackish desalination facility expansion and a pipeline to convey treated water from Antioch to Brentwood. The existing brine disposal pipeline is sufficient size to convey an additional 2 mgd of brine that would be produced from an expansion of the facility. Therefore, capital costs would be the same for all three subalternatives. These costs are summarized in Table 6.12.

The City of Brentwood’s share of the additional capacity from an expansion would be proportional to its share of the project cost for the facility expansion. This analysis assumes that 100 percent of the additional capacity, and thus all the capital costs, would be allocated to the City of Brentwood. Capital costs for a treated water pipeline would be solely the responsibility of the City of Brentwood regardless of the share of the project cost for the facility expansion.

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-28
Table 6.12 Cost Summary for City of Antioch Brackish Desalination Facility Expansion Component Value Notes
Capital Cost
 Expansion of Brackish Desalination
Facility
 Conveyance pipeline to Brentwood
 Expansion of COBWTP – Phase 1
$211.4 million
Expansion cost based on 75% of December 2020 bid for the City of Antioch’s brackish desalination facility and escalated to January 2023 costs using ENR CCI
Pipeline installation based on $100 per inch-foot; includes urban construction, some dewatering, and contingencies
Annual O&M Costs
 Raw water conveyance pumping
 Conventional treatment
 RO process pumping
 Pre- and posttreatment chemicals
 Brine disposal fee
 Treated water conveyance pumping
 CCWD conveyance charge (Alternative
3 only)
$7.25 million
(Alt 1 and 2)
$8.77 million
(Alt 3)
O&M costs for raw water conveyance, treatment, RO
process pumping, and chemicals from the City of Antioch’s analysis of brackish desalination facility and escalated using relevant cost indices to January 2023 dollars.

Brine disposal assumed to be $60/AF based on the
assumption used in analysis for the City of Antioch’s
brackish desalination facility
Treated water conveyance pumping cost based on the
energy intensity from the City of Antioch’s 2020 UWMP and the 2022 cost of electricity for Brentwood’s WWTP from
PG&E data
Additional Supply from Option
Total Supply Available
Additional Treatment Capacity from
Option
Total Treatment Capacity Available
4,630 AFY
19,430 AFY

14.25 mgd

36.75 mgd
Based on projection of supply in wet and dry years and the distribution of wet and dry periods over past 20 years from DWR river index data for the San Joaquin Valley.

Current ECCID supply allotment plus the City of Antioch supply
6 mgd from the City of Antioch and 8.25 mgd from Phase 1 expansion of COBWTP
Includes 6 mgd share of maximum day capacity at RBWTP
and 8.25 mgd from Phase 1 expansion of COBWTP
Annualized Capital Costs
Annualized Capital Cost per AF of Yield
from Option
Annual O&M Cost per AF of Yield from
Option
Purchase Price of Water
Total Unit Cost
$9.44 million
$2,039/AF
$1,566/AF
$1,893/AF
$0/AF
$36/AF
$3,605/AF
$3,641/AF
$3,968/AF
30-year financing at 2% interest rate
All alternatives – $9.44 million divided by 4,630 AFY
Alternatives 1 and 2 – $7.25 million divided by 4,630 AFY Alternative 3 – $8.77 million divided by 4,630 AFY
Alt 1 – Assumes no charge from the City of Antioch
Alt 2 & 3 – Current ECCID rate for raw water
Alt 1 – Annualized capital cost plus annual O&M divided by yield
Alt 2 - Annualized capital cost plus annual O&M divided by yield, plus ECCID supplier charge
Alt 3 - Annualized capital cost plus annual O&M divided by yield, plus ECCID supplier charge
Capital costs for the facility expansion were based on information provided by the City of Antioch. The cost of an expansion is based on the actual December 2020 bid of $87 million to construct the brackish

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-29
desalination facility. An expansion is assumed to cost 75 percent of the original construction cost, which equates to $65.25 million. Costs were escalated to January 2023 dollars using ENR CCI, which brings the estimate construction cost to $76.8 million. Including 10 percent for contingencies brings the total direct cost of construction to $84.5 million. Indirect costs for design, environmental permitting, engineering services during construction, and construction management are estimated to total $29.6 million, bringing the total capital cost for expansion of the facility to $114 million. Capital cost for the treated water conveyance pipeline to Brentwood is $38 million based on estimated pipeline length of 21,100 feet. An expansion of COBWTP would still be required under this alternative to meet projected maximum day demands; 16.5 mgd from COBWTP, plus 6 mgd from RBWTP, plus 6 mgd from the City of Antioch equals 28.5 mgd, which is 1.9 mgd short of projected maximum day demands by buildout.

However, only Phase 1 of the expansion would be needed.

Annual O&M costs were also based on information from the City of Antioch. Operating costs for the brackish desalination facility were estimated at $1.11 per 1,000 gallons ($362.78/AF) of RO permeate, and conventional treatment needed for pretreatment costs $2.33 per 1,000 gallons ($760/AF).

Therefore, the total unit cost of production for the brackish desalination facility was estimated at $3.44 per 1,000 gallons ($1,123/AF) in 2018, as shown in Table 6.13 The brine disposal fee is currently being negotiated with Delta Diablo, but the prior analysis assumed $0.08 per 1,000 gallons ($60/AF) of brine, so the same assumption was used in this analysis.

Table 6.13 Operating Costs for Associated with RO Production Item Cost per 1,000
Gallons (2018)
Cost per AF
(2018)
Cost per 1,000 Gal
(2023)
Cost per AF
(2023)
Cost of Conventional Treatment $2.33 $760 $2.80 $912
Cost of RO Lift Station Pumping $0.08 $26 $0.12 $38
Cost of RO Feed Pumping $0.28 $91 $0.41 $134
Cost of RO Booster Pump Pumping $0.05 $17 $0.07 $26
Pretreatment chemicals $0.12 $39 $0.18 $58
Posttreatment chemicals $0.58 $189 $0.86 $280
Total $3.44 $1,123 $4.44 $1,448
Information for O&M costs was broken down by component, which allowed inflation to be applied based on the nature of the cost. Pumping costs were increased 47.4 percent based on PG&E data for price of electricity for Brentwood’s WWTP from 2018 to 2022. Sufficient information was provided to separate chemical costs by type, so the costs were adjusted using FRED data for different categories of water treatment chemicals. The chemical costs for the brackish desalination facility are estimated to have increased 48 percent since 2018 based on the estimated volume of treatment chemicals needed.

Conventional treatment was assumed to have an increase of 50 percent in variable costs because of increases in cost of energy and chemicals. Variable treatment costs are assumed to compose 40 percent of total conventional treatment costs, so the total cost of conventional treatment is assumed to have increased 20 percent since 2018. Therefore, total unit cost of production for the brackish desalination facility in current dollars is estimated at $4.44 per 1,000 gallons ($1,448/AF), as shown in Table 6.13.

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-30
Additionally, the RO membranes have a 5-year replacement cycle at an estimated cost of $750,000, which must be considered in the O&M calculation over the useful life of the facility. Costs were escalated to current price using the January 2023 ENR CCI. The useful life of process equipment is estimated at 15 years, but the cost of replacement was not included in the economic analysis conducted by the City of Antioch for the current brackish desalination facility project, so no basis for costs was available to include in this analysis.

6.7.4 Benefits
This alternative would provide Brentwood with a higher quality of water than existing surface water or groundwater supplies. The City of Antioch has a delivered water quality goal of 75 mg/L for chlorides (City of Antioch 2021), which is lower than the City of Brentwood’s goal of 100 mg/L for chlorides. The RO permeate would need to be blended with conventionally treated water before distribution, and the current design of the facility would require significant upgrades beyond the intended plans for expansion of the facility if the City of Brentwood desired the pure RO permeate to be conveyed to COBWTP. Nonetheless, water with 75 mg/L of chloride would be a significant improvement over Brentwood’s groundwater supplies and a moderate improvement from recent water quality from Rock Slough. RO treatment should also be able to handle geosmin and MIB in drinking water.

Average day demands of 16.9 mgd could be met with the 6 mgd of treated water from the City of Antioch, 9.2 mgd of treated water from COBWTP, and 1.7 mgd from RBWTP. Chloride concentrations in the distribution system would be approximately 115 mg/L, which is below the 125 mg/L threshold for chlorides but above the target of 100 mg/L, assuming that COBWTP was at 150 mg/L of chloride (the maximum in 2020 and 2021). Water quality would be consistent across the service area, taste and odor issues would likely be minimized, and water hardness would be lower than groundwater, which would result in less use of existing water softeners in the Brentwood service area. WWTP effluent discharges to Marsh Creek would be improved as well.

Maximum day demands of 30.4 mgd would consist of 6 mgd of treated water from the City of Antioch,

18.4 mgd of treated water from COBWTP, and 6 mgd of water from RBWTP (assuming the City of Brentwood’s current share of maximum day treatment capacity). Resulting water quality would be approximately 125 mg/L, which is just below the acceptable threshold for the City of Brentwood’s distribution system. However, future increases in chloride concentrations in the raw water from Rock Slough would increase the aggregated source water quality for Brentwood above 125 mg/L. The calculation of water quality assumes that the 6 mgd from the City of Antioch is at 75 mg/L of chlorides, the 6 mgd from RBWTP is at 100 mg/L, and the 18.4 mgd from COBWTP is at 150 mg/L.

6.7.5 Implementation Challenges, Risks, and Uncertainties A partnership in a future expansion of the brackish desalination facility would require significant coordination and cooperation with the City of Antioch. While the City of Brentwood would be a partner in the project, ultimate control of facility operations would still be the responsibility of the City of Antioch and would limit the City of Brentwood’s ability to independently determine the operation of its own system. Approval from both city governments would be required, contract details would need to be negotiated by legal representatives, and a new agreement would need to be drafted and approved.

These “soft” costs have not been included in the analysis, as they represent an unknown number of staff

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-31
work hours and costs for outside legal consultation. Additionally, it is unknown if the City of Antioch would charge an upfront fee as a buy-in to the conventional treatment capacity required for this option.

The existing agreement between the City of Antioch and Delta Diablo limits maximum brine discharges to 2 mgd (Delta Diablo 2020). A revised agreement with Delta Diablo would be required for disposal of the brine from an expansion of the brackish desalination facility. This analysis assumes that 2 mgd of additional brine for disposal would be allowed by Delta Diablo and the applicable regulatory agencies.

Additional costs for supplemental environmental analyses, permitting, and any other necessary reviews to accommodate an additional 2 mgd of brine for disposal is a possibility, which is not included in this analysis.

Energy intensity for RO treatment is significantly higher than conventional treatment. This alternative also requires a significant amount of conveyance, which requires additional energy for pumping.

Therefore, the three subalternatives score poorly for energy intensity relative to other options.

Implementation challenges, administrative/legal disputes, and water rights issues would also vary between the subalternatives:
▬ Alternative 1 – May have a place-of-use issue related to the City of Antioch’s water rights that prohibits it from conveying water for sale outside the City of Antioch service area. May require approval from DWR and/or SWRCB. However, the recent settlement between the City of Antioch and DWR was a buyout of the 1968 settlement agreement, so DWR should not have a claim to the City of Antioch’s water under their existing water rights. Additionally, the Water Rights Division of the SWRCB has identified no limit to the quantity of the City of Antioch’s diversion from the San Joaquin River so long as the water is used beneficially (City of Antioch 2021), but it is not clear if that benefit must be exclusively realized within the City of Antioch’s service area or if it can extend to the City of Brentwood as well. Additional research would be required to definitively resolve this issue, which is outside the scope of this analysis. ▬ Alternative 2 – Would require a modification to the language of the existing agreement with ECCID, as diversions from the San Joaquin River are not included in the existing agreement. May require approval from DWR and/or SWRCB. However, this would not represent a request for additional quantity of water, just a modification to the point of diversion. The total consumption of the brackish desalination facility does not include the 2 mgd of brine because that flow is returned to the river.
▬ Alternative 3 – Should not require a modification to the existing ECCID agreement because water is still being diverted from Rock Slough and conveyed through the Contra Costa Canal; the water is just being extracted from the canal at a different location. A modification to the agreement with CCWD would likely be needed to permit raw water flow farther down the canal but it would not require any additional pumping to convey in the canal past what is already needed to get the raw water from Rock Slough to the point of diversion for RBWTP. This is because the rest of the canal is at a lower elevation. The annual O&M costs for this option would be lower because pumping from the Contra Costa Canal is a smaller elevation increase to overcome than pumping from the San Joaquin River, but the exact difference in cost could not be accurately calculated with the available information, as pumping costs are included with

6.0 │ SUPPLY PROJECT OPTIONS
WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS STUDY │ PAGE 6-32
conventional treatment costs and could not be separated. This subalternative is likely the most practical of the three and would face fewer administrative and legal barriers to overcome.

Under all subalternatives, increasing chloride levels in raw water sourced from Rock Slough for treatment at COBWTP could result in water quality that exceeds Brentwood’s planning threshold of 125 mg/L even with the brackish desalination facility providing treated water. Redundancy in the potable distribution system would increase; treated water could be sourced from up to three WTPs and enter the distribution system in two separate places. However, this option could not provide enough water independently if COBWTP were inoperable or the conveyance pipeline to Brentwood suffered a catastrophic line break. Groundwater could help make up the supply gap in the short-term, but water quality would suffer, the WWTP effluent would exceed NPDES limits, and water rationing would likely need to occur.

6.8 City of Antioch – Wholesale

6.8.1 Overview
This alternative would pursue an agreement with the City of Antioch to purchase treated water wholesale for distribution in Brentwood. The City of Antioch has sufficient supplies and treatment capacity to meet their projected demands. Therefore, Antioch may have excess capacity to sell additional water wholesale to the City of Brentwood. A new conveyance pipeline would be needed to provide sufficient conveyance capacity, as the pipes in the eastern portion of Antioch’s service area are only sized to meet the residential demands in the area. This alternative assumes Antioch has no placeof-use issue preventing wholesale arrangements and the transfer of water outside the City of Antioch’s service area, Antioch would be willing to sell water to Brentwood, and that a suitable agreement could be reached between the two cities.

The available quantity of water under this alternative is dependent on the City of Antioch’s maximum day demands and available treatment capacity. The City of Antioch’s 2020 UWMP provides projected demands through 2045 but does not include information on max day demands or peaking factors (City of Antioch 2021). The City of Antioch’s 2014 Water System Master Plan Update contains historical annual peaking factors from 1975 to 2012, which shows peak day ratio has not exceed 1.9 since 1978 (City of Antioch 2014). Therefore, this analysis assumes the peaking factor of 1.9 for Antioch’s max day demand to determine available treatment capacity. Antioch is projecting average demand of 13.5 mgd in 2045 (4,926 MG), which equates to 25.65 mgd max day demands using the 1.9 peaking factor assumption. Antioch has 17 mgd of treatment capacity at Plant A and 20 mgd of capacity at Plant B, for a total of 37 mgd of treatment capacity. The brackish desalination facility requirement of 8 mgd of conventional pretreatment to produce 6 mgd of potable water leaves 29 mgd of treatment capacity available to meet the remaining 19.65 mgd of projected max day demands at Antioch’s buildout.

Therefore, the City of Antioch has 9.35 mgd of treatment capacity available remaining. This analysis assumes a maximum of 9 mgd could be available from the City of Antioch.

Average day purchase quantity for this alternative was derived using mass balance calculations of water quality to determine the volume needed by Brentwood to meet water quality targets. Annual water quality reports from CCWD indicate that the average chloride concentration in water from COBWTP was 106 mg/L, which was the highest since 2015 (CCWD n.d.-a). This analysis rounded up to 110 mg/L and