January 18, 2022
7:00 PM – Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.
4:30 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:
ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK :
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.
STUDY SESSION :
A. Update on the KCAG RTP/SCS Presentation
B. Review and Discussion of proposed Renovations and Improvements to Civic Park C. General Overview of the Police Department Operations CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING :
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION (GC 54956.9 (d)(4)):
One potential case.
Council Members will meet in-person in the Council
Chambers. The meeting will also be lived streamed on the City’s website: http://livestream.hanford.city/
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8):
Property: 113 Court Street
APN: 010-265-001
Agency Negotiators: Mario Cifuentez and Ty Mizote
Negotiation Party: Jerry Irons and Greg Enloe
CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:
ROLL CALL:
INVOCATION:
Pastor Mark Curts
FLAG SALUTE:
CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:
COUNCIL REPORTS/GENERAL REPORTS:
Brief information-only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234).
PUBLIC COMMENT:
This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters within the jurisdiction of the Hanford City Council. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment on any item on the agenda. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exe rcising their public testimony rights (GC 54954.2). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consent Calendar items are considered rout ine and will be enacted in one mot ion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.
A. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading title the only.
B. Council: Approval of the Reappointment of Jacob Sanchez to the Planning Commission for a second term
C. Administration: Authorization to pay a n invoice from Ascent Aviation, in the amount of $35,254.12, for the purchase of 100LL Aviation Fuel for the Hanford Municipal Airport.
D. Administration: Ratification of the City Manager's actions to execute and submit all documents necessary for the City to participate in the National Opioid Settlements E. IT: Approval of the Purchase of five (5) Electronic Plan Tables from iProject Solutions, LLC, in the amount of $70,320.00, to be funded out of the SB2 Grant.
F. Public Works: Approval of a Notice of Com pletion for the FY 20/21 Survey Mo numentation / Benchmark Update Project and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder's Office.
G. Public Works: Approval of Annual Renewal of Zonar GPS, in the amount of $32,580.00, to allow for vehicle tracking on all City of Hanford vehicles.
H. Public Works: Approval of a sole source contract to IG Services (IGS) for the purpose of conducting a rate study for the City of Hanford Refuse division, at a not to exceed cost of $47,000.
I. Public Works: Authorize the purchase of property located on the north side of Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks from Paul Singh Family Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership, as shown on the attac hed map, in the amount of $69,510. 00 plus escrow fees, accept the attached Grant Deed and authorize the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said deeds with the Kings County Recorder's Office, and accept the attached Right of Way Agreement and authorize City staff to execute said agreement. (APN 007-360-016) J. Finance: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 21 -15, amending Chapters 2.48 of the City of Hanford Municipal Code to update the rules governing the purchase of goods and services for the City of Hanford.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
A. Public Works: Permission to Advertise the FY 21/22 Civic Auditorium Roof Replacement Project and Pre -Authorize the City Manager to award and execute the contract on behalf of the City to the lowest responsible bidder providing project bid is within current budget appropriation.
B. Review and approve changes to the City's Utility Fees in the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 (Resolution 22-02-R)
C. Finance/Community Development: Consider appropriation of $33,000 for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and $92,000 anticipated annually in the future from the General Fund for a Code Compliance Officer and add the position to the City's Position Allocation Schedule COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on their activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (GC 54954.2) Council Future Agenda Items
Upcoming Events and Important Dates:
January 31: Deadline for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps:
https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/government/city_council/redistricting/index.php February 1: Regular City Council Meeting
February 8: Publication of draft maps
February 15: Regular City Council Meeting, 3rd Redistricting Public Hearing (8:00 pm)
ADJOURNMENT:
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available to public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, during normal business hours. Such agendas are also available at the city’s website, www.cityofhanfordca.com subject to staff’s ability to post the agenda before the meeting.
If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office, 559-585-2515, 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, at least 2 days prior to the meeting {28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II}
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: B
SUBJECT:
Review and Discussion of proposed Renovations and Improvements to Civic Park
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Council receive the presentation by staff and provide direction to staff on proposed renovations and improvements to Civic Park.
BACKGROUND:
In many ways, Civic Park is the heart of the community. It is the iconic place where visitors and Hanford residents come together to be reminded of Hanford's rich heritage and celebrate its future. In addition to being a beautiful passive open space, Civic Park has increasingly become the premier special events venue and the home of many of Hanford's special gatherings and events.
These events include the Thursday Night Market, Winter Wonderland, Annual Renaissance Fair, various concerts, Food Truck Takeover, and a variety of car shows. Together, the special events total 115 event days annually. These events attract thousands of visitors, bringing the community together while also attracting regional visitors, thereby creating economic development for the downtown businesses.
During these events, the increase in foot traffic and demand for the park has created increased maintenance demands on the grass areas, restrooms, and utility infrastructure. To meet the changing needs of this cherished park, we are recommending a renovation and improvement project that would reduce maintenance, improve the user experience, enhance accessibility, improve the flexibility of the space, and enhance the historic nature of the park.
Proposed Scope of Work
4.B
Packet Pg. 5
Court Street Promenade
Staff is proposing to modify the existing hardscape and park amenities by creating the Court Street Promenade, which would provide a 42-foot esplanade connecting Irwin and Douty Streets (see attached concept drawing). Staff is recommending the Court Street Promenade be constructed with stamped concrete, mimicking the Courthouse Square surface, to retain the park's historical aesthetics and historical theme. The promenade area is approximately 17,430 square feet. This would also reimagine the original Court Street, a vibrant street until the late 1990s.
Center Grass Area in front of the Civic Auditorium
Staff recommends that the grass in front of the Civic Auditorium be replaced by stamped concrete, matching the Court Street Promenade. This area is the location of the ice rink during the Winter Wonderland event. Converting this area to a hardscape would increase the flexibility of this space, reduce maintenance and improve water efficiency through the elimination of irrigation. This area is approximately 10,000 square feet.
Additional Restroom
During regular public park hours, the existing restroom facility meets the demands of the public.
However, during special events, the demand exceeds the capacity. Therefore, the staff recommends an additional pre-fabricated restroom be placed in the Northeast corner of the park adjacent to the east wing of the Civic Auditorium. This restroom will serve the needs of the park and decrease the need for portable toilets during large community events (see attached schematics and floor plan). The restroom would be designed with clay tile and be surfaced with red brick to match the existing architectural nature of the park and surrounding historical buildings.
Electrical Infrastructure and lighting
During the Winter Wonderland event, a lesson learned was the need for increased electrical and natural gas infrastructure within the park. A chiller unit requires a 480 volt/Three-Phase power supply to freeze the ice-skating rink. The closest transformer connection is located on the west side of the Courthouse. A sizeable external power cable was placed, posing safety and accessibility issues for people entering the park from Irwin Street. In addition, as the popularity of food trucks and vendors increases, the need for additional electrical connections is needed to provide the power requirements. It reduces the need for excessive extension cords.
In addition to the work proposed above, staff also proposes the addition of fourteen (14) park lights to improve nighttime visibility and park safety, with the majority placed on the park's western side.
4.B
Packet Pg. 6
FISCAL IMPACT:
The financial impact from the proposed improvements will not be known until more direction is provided to staff on the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
Civic Park Renovation Concept
Civic Park Renovation Concept #2
4.B
Packet Pg. 7
Proposed Civic Park Renovation Project
Court Street: 42’ x 415’ = 17,430 Square Feet Center Square =10,000 square feet One 220/50 amp & Four-120/20 amp box Park/street lights (matching existing park lights) 480 Volt/3 phase
Court Street
4.B.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Civic Park Renovation Concept (Civic Park Renovation Concept Proposal) Civic Park Renovation
4.B.b
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Civic Park Renovation Concept #2 (Civic Park Renovation Concept Proposal)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: B
SUBJECT:
Council: Approval of the Reappointment of Jacob Sanchez to the Planning Commission for a second term
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Mayor, with the approval of the full City Council:
Reappoint Jacob Sanchez to the Planning Commission for a second term, expiring on 12/31/2025.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Sanchez has served on the Planning commission for a full term and was most recently the Chairman of the Planning Commission. His first term officially expired on 12/31/2021 and he is eligible for a second term.
Section 2.20.030 of the City of Hanford Municipal Code states that:
"At the first city council meeting in January of each year, the mayor shall endeavor to appoint members to commissions and committees, to fill vacancies caused by the regular expiration of terms of membership. All such appointments shall be approved by a majority of the members of the city council."
In addition to this expiring term, the Planning Commission also has another vacancy due to resignation. The Clerk's office has noticed and advertised the vacancy, but has only received one application. Staff will continue recruitment efforts, including a formal press release and social media posts, in an effort to secure enough applicants to be able to conduct interviews to fill the vacancy.
13.B
Packet Pg. 10
FISCAL IMPACT:
There will be some cost to the General Fund for Commissioner training but it is budgeted annually in the corresponding departmental budgets and totals less than $10,000 for all commissions.
ATTACHMENTS:
13.B
Packet Pg. 11
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: C
SUBJECT:
Administration: Authorization to pay an invoice from Ascent Aviation, in the amount of $35,254.12, for the purchase of 100LL Aviation Fuel for the Hanford Municipal Airport.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by motion, Authorize the payment of an invoice from Ascent Aviation, in the amount of $35,254.12, for the purchase of 100LL Aviation Fuel for the Hanford Municipal Airport.
BACKGROUND:
Section 2.48.060 of the Hanford Municipal Code governs how the City must process the purchase of any goods or services that exceed $20,000. As stated below, it requires that Council approve all purchases over that threshold. For the purpose of this invoice, it sets a different limit for Council's approval of fuels and other specific items:
Purchases exceeding twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) may be made either on an informal basis or on a formal competitive basis as identified below. In either case, however, the decision as to the acceptance or rejection of any bid shall be the responsibility of the council. The provisions of this section 2.48.060 shall not apply to the purchase of fuels, bituminous materials, and aggregate base for street purposes and related delivery costs provided that any such purchase shall not exceed the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00).
With the implementation of new and updated Purchasing policies for the City, it is necessary for Council to individually approve this outstanding invoice, until such time that the recent Municipal Code amendments take affect. Due to the increase in fuel costs, this purchase exceeds the maximum $30,000 threshold for fuel purchases referenced in the municipal code. Moving forward, staff will have Council approve annual contracts with vendors, based on negotiated prices, that will allow Council to approve "not to exceed" amounts for the Contract year.
13.C
Packet Pg. 12
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City has an existing Contract with Ascent Aviation for the purchase of all aviation fuel.
There are sufficient funds available in the Airport Operating Fund to cover this purchase.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ascent_Invoice_803945
13.C
Packet Pg. 13
Quantity Units Description Price Extended
City of Hanford
900 S. 10th Ave.
Attn: Bob Loogman
Hanford, CA 93230
Ship to: Hanford, CA
City of Hanford
Hanford Airport
Hanford, CA 93230
I N V O I C EAscent Aviation Group, Inc.
Invoice #
Customer PO #
Invoice Date:
Delivered:
803945
22100701
Dec 14 2021
Dec 14 2021
Terms: net 30 days
BOL # 11250
a subsidiary of World Fuel Services, Inc.
3000 Bayport Drive Suite 470
Tampa, FL 33607
(800) 544-3835
Net Gal8024 100LL Aviation Gasoline 4.017445/gal 32,235.98 Net Gal8024 Federal Excise Tax 0.193000/gal 1,548.63
Net Gal8024 Federal LUST 0.001000/gal 8.02
Net Gal8024 Federal Oil Spill Tax 0.002140/gal 17.17
Net Gal8024 CA State Excise Tax 0.180000/gal 1,444.32
TOTAL BALANCE DUE BY JAN 13 2022 $35,254.12
~~$4.017445 is agreed to pricing, even if delivered over price change~~SAP~~ Please be advised your remit to address changed as shown on this invoice. If you wish to transition to EFT, please contact us by emailing [email protected] by CJG WE WILL ASSUME THIS INVOICE TO BE CORRECT UNLESS WE RECEIVE WRITTEN NOTICE FROM YOU WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE INVOICE DATE.
This transaction is subject to the terms and conditions set forth at www.wfscorp.com/wfscorp/docs/gtc-aviation.pdf REMIT TO:
Ascent Aviation Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 749893
Los Angeles, CA 90074-9893
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Ascent_Invoice_803945 (Admin: Approve Aviation Fuel Purchase)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: D
SUBJECT:
Administration: Ratification of the City Manager's actions to execute and submit all documents necessary for the City to participate in the National Opioid Settlements
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by motion, ratify the City Manager’s actions to execute and submit all documents necessary for the City to participate in the National Opioid Settlements
BACKGROUND:
Various state s, counties, and cities have been in litigation with opioids manufacturers and distributors for year over the effects of those narcotics on their respective jurisdictions. The litigation concerns the distribution and manufacture of opioids that have contributed to the opioid addiction epidemic in the United States. Two tentative settlements have been reached, with the distributors and manufacturers agreeing to pay a total of $26 billion.
Under the terms of those settlements, the City of Hanford is entitle d to receive an estimated $427,098 from the settlements. The terms of the settlements require the installments to be paid out over 18 years. Use of the funds is restricted to certain opioid remediation or related uses, and comes with annual reporting and potential auditing compliance costs described further below.
The City of Hanford was required to decide whether to participate in the settlements by January 2, 2022. Because much of the City’s homeless and drug related crimes are the result of opioid addiction, the City Manager opted in to the program consistent with Council’s goals of taking advantage of additional funding opportunities that may aris.
If the City had opted not to participate in the settlements, then the overall settlement amount to be paid by the corporations would have been reduced, and Hanford’s share would have gone to the State of California.
Moving forward, in any year that Hanford has a qualifying opioid -related use for the funds,
13.D
Packet Pg. 15
Hanford may elect to receive payment directly, and comply with annual reporting and auditing, in that year. In those years, Staff will evaluate potential eligible uses for the funds, and seek City Council direction to receive the funds directly in any year that the City may have a qualifying opioid-related use for the funds.
Use of the settlement funds is restricted to certain opioid abatement or related uses, including a range of intervention, treatment, education, and recovery services. Additionally, 50% of the funds each city or county receives must be used for any of the following “high impact abatement activities”:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; or (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (SUD) treatment infrastructure; or (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD; or (4) diversion of people with SUD f rom the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non -sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; or
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth.
There are also significant public reporting and tracking requirements on the expenditures of such funds. For example, receiving funds from the settlement with the Manufacturers would require the following reporting and tracking:
· Preparation of annual written reports regarding the use of the funds. This report must include a certification that all funds received have been used in compliance with the Manufacturer settlement agre ements. This report must be in a form that is approved by the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). · The City would be required to track all deposits and expenditures. · Funds not used for a permitted purpose must be identified and inclu ded in the annual report (including any attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs). This information must also be reported to the Manufacturers and the settlement fund administrator.
In order for the settlement to take effect, a “critical mass” of participation by states, cities and counties must be achieved. This critical mass is determined by the Distributors and Manufacturers in their sole discretion. The first step is to achieve a critical mass of states. The second step is to achieve a critical mass of cities and counties. If a critical mass is not achieved, then the National Opioids Settlements do not proceed and the litigation continues. At this stage, a critical mass of states has already occurred.
13.D
Packet Pg. 16
FISCAL IMPACT:
By participating in the National Opioid Settlements, the City may receive an estimated $427,098 the use of which is restricted to certain opioid abatement or related uses. The funds will go to the County to avoid annual reporting and auditing compliance costs unless, in any given year, the City has a qualifying use for the funds and elects to receive the funds directly in that year.
ATTACHMENTS:
Janssen California Intrastate Agreement
final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement Distributor California Intrastate Agreement
final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement
13.D
Packet Pg. 17
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Janssen Settlement 1. Introduction Pursuant to the Janssen Settlement Agreement, dated as of July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto (the “Janssen Settlement Agreement”), including Section VI and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Janssen Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections V and VI of the Janssen Settlement Agreement.1 For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections X or XI of the Janssen Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision. 2. Definitions a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Janssen Settlement Agreement. b) Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto. c) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin, and LA Care Health Plan. d) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. e) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., 1 A parallel but separate agreement (the “CA Distributor Allocation Agreement”) will govern the allocation, distribution, and use of settlement fund payments under the Distributor Settlement Agreement. An eligible Subdivision may elect to participate in either the Distributor Settlement or the Janssen Settlement, or in both.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4FAC6CF-528B-4133-B79F-51CC544E6377
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Janssen California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 2 AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020. 3. General Terms This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Janssen Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Janssen Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein. Pursuant to Section VI(D)(1) of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section VI(B)(2) of the Janssen Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation. 4. State Allocation The Settlement Fund payments to California,2 pursuant to the Janssen Settlement Agreement, shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”). A. State of California Allocation Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation. B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA 2 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4FAC6CF-528B-4133-B79F-51CC544E6377
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Janssen California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 3 Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds. b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Janssen Settlement Agreement. c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight). d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions. e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision. f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4FAC6CF-528B-4133-B79F-51CC544E6377
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Janssen California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 4 ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the Janssen Settlement Agreement. b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities: (1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure; (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD; (4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; and/or (5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth. c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list. d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Janssen Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4FAC6CF-528B-4133-B79F-51CC544E6377
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Janssen California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 5 iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Janssen Settlement Agreement or this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern. c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame. d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the Janssen Settlement Agreement or this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement. e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions. C. CA Subdivision Fund i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4FAC6CF-528B-4133-B79F-51CC544E6377
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Janssen California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 6 The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows: a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document; b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document. c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2, Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid Defendant. D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Janssen Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Distributor Settlement Agreement. A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(R), of the Janssen Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Janssen Settlement, and if applicable, the Distributor Settlement, inclusive of contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement. Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Janssen Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Distributor Settlement Agreement. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments. To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney DocuSign Envelope ID: A4FAC6CF-528B-4133-B79F-51CC544E6377
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Janssen California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 7 General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General. 5. State and Subdivision Reporting a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site. b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions. c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision. d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section VI(B)(2) of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Janssen. e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4FAC6CF-528B-4133-B79F-51CC544E6377
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Janssen California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 8 6. Miscellaneous a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa. b) Except as provided in the Janssen Settlement Agreement, this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party. c) Except as provided in the CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. d) Except as provided in the Janssen Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4FAC6CF-528B-4133-B79F-51CC544E6377
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Janssen California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Janssen Settlement
1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Janssen Settlement Agreement, dated as of July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto (the “Janssen Settlement Agreement”), including Section VI and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Janssen Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections V and VI of the Janssen Settlement Agreement.1 For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections X or XI of the Janssen Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.
2. Definitions
a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Janssen Settlement Agreement. b) Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
c) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin, and LA Care Health Plan.
d) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. e) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc.,
1 A parallel but separate agreement (the “CA Distributor Allocation Agreement”) will govern the allocation, distribution, and use of settlement fund payments under the Distributor Settlement Agreement. An eligible Subdivision may elect to participate in either the Distributor Settlement or the Janssen Settlement, or in both.
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
2 AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020.
3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Janssen Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Janssen Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
Pursuant to Section VI(D)(1) of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section VI(B)(2) of the Janssen Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.
4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California,
2 pursuant to the Janssen Settlement Agreement,
shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”).
A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.
B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA
2 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
3 Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Janssen Settlement Agreement.
c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight).
d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions.
e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
4 ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the Janssen Settlement Agreement.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program;
(2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure;
(3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; and/or
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth.
c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list.
d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Janssen Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
5 iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Janssen Settlement Agreement or this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern.
c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the Janssen Settlement Agreement or this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement.
e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions.
C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid- related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
6 The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows:
a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document;
b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document.
c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2, Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid Defendant.
D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Janssen Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Distributor Settlement Agreement.
A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(R), of the Janssen Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Janssen Settlement, and if applicable, the Distributor Settlement, inclusive of contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement. Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Janssen Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Distributor Settlement Agreement. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
7 General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.
For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision.
d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Janssen Settlement Agreement and this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section VI(B)(2) of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Janssen.
e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
8 6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa.
b) Except as provided in the Janssen Settlement Agreement, this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in the CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
d) Except as provided in the Janssen Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) APPENDIX 1
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—Janssen Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one- hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221%
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273%
1 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211%
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% 2 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986%
City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413%
County Kern County Kern 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145%
City Arvin Kern 0.006% 0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kern 0.212% 0.1747198%
City California City Kern 0.009% 0.0070820%
City Delano Kern 0.030% 0.0249316%
City McFarland Kern 0.003% 0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015% 0.0120938%
City Shafter Kern 0.013% 0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kern 0.009% 0.0073580%
City Wasco Kern 0.008% 0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% 3 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783%
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301%
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411%
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833%
4 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195%
City La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731%
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811%
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260%
5 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498%
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517%
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153%
6 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870%
County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805%
City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560%
7 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083%
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721%
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485%
8 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991%
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465%
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500%
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% 9 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431%
City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206%
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772%
10 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680%
11 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841%
County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891%
12 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723%
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841%
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507%
13 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966%
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337%
14 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
15 of 15
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid
1 APPENDIX 2
Cost Reimbursement Procedure
1. Additional defined terms:
a) Costs means the reasonable amounts paid for the attorney and other City Attorney and County Counsel staff time for individuals employed by a Plaintiff Subdivision at the contractual rate, inclusive of benefits and overhead, together with amounts paid for court reporters, experts, copying, electronic research, travel, vendors, and the like, which were paid or incurred (i) prior to July 21, 2021 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting this CA Janssen Allocation Agreement. Costs does not include attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred by private contingency fee counsel. No part of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be used to reimburse Costs.
b) First Claims Date means October 1, 2023 or when all applications for reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section X and Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement or Section XI and Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, have been finally determined under the provisions of those agreements, whichever comes first.
c) Special Master means a retired judicial officer or former public lawyer, not presently employed or retained by a Plaintiff Subdivision, who will aggregate, review, and determine the reasonable Costs to be awarded to each Plaintiff Subdivision that submits a claim for reimbursement of Costs. The Special Master will be selected by a majority vote of the votes cast by Plaintiff Subdivisions, with each such subdivision having one vote.
d) Plaintiff Subdivision Committee means the committee of Plaintiff Subdivisions that will review and approve the invoices submitted by the Special Master reflecting his or her reasonable time and expenses.
2. Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision
a) Purpose. Substantial resources have been expended to hold Opioid Defendants accountable for creating and profiting from the opioid crisis, and this effort has been a significant catalyst in creating a National Opioid Settlement with Distributors, Johnson & Johnson, and others.
b) Claims Procedure.
i. If a Plaintiff Subdivision is eligible to seek reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section X or Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement or Section XI or Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, it must first make a timely application for reimbursement from such funds. To allow sufficient time for determination of those applications, no claim for
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
2 Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date.
ii. A Plaintiff Subdivision that wishes to be reimbursed from the CA Subdivision Fund must submit a claim to the Special Master no later than forty-five (45) days after the First Claims Date. The Special Master will then compile and redistribute the aggregated claim totals for each Plaintiff Subdivision via email to representatives of all the Plaintiff Subdivisions. A claim for attorney and staff time must list, for each attorney or staff member included in the claim, the following information: name, title, total hours claimed, hourly rate (including, if sought, benefits and share of overhead), and narrative summarizing the general nature of the work performed by the attorney or staff member. For reimbursement of “hard” costs, the subdivision may aggregate across a category (e.g., total for travel costs). It is the intention of the Plaintiff Subdivisions that submission of documents related to reimbursement of Costs does not waive any attorney-client privilege or exemptions to the California Public Records Act.
iii. The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or details to assist in the final award of Costs.
iv. The Special Master will review claims for reasonableness and will notify each Plaintiff Subdivision of the final determination of its claim, and will provide a list of all final awards to all Plaintiff Subdivisions by email or, upon request, via First Class U.S. Mail. Any Plaintiff Subdivision may ask the Special Master to reconsider any final award within twenty-one (21) days. The Special Master will make a final determination on any such reconsideration request within thirty (30) days of receipt.
v. Any decision of the Special Master is final and binding, and will be considered under the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq. as a final arbitration award. Nothing in this agreement is intended to expand the scope of judicial review of the final award for errors of fact or law, and the Parties agree that they may only seek to vacate the award if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates one of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2, subdivision (a). Plaintiff Subdivisions will have fourteen (14) days after all final awards are made, together with any final determination of a request for reconsideration, to seek review in the Superior Court of California, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285, where the State has filed its Consent Judgment.
vi. The Special Master will prepare a report of Costs that includes his or her fees and expenses at least ninety (90) days before the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Special Master’s preparation of a report of Costs does not discharge a Plaintiff Subdivision’s reporting requirement under Section VI.B.2 of the Janssen Agreement.
vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Janssen a report
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
3 of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section VI.B.2 of the Janssen Agreement.
c) Claims Priority and Limitation.
i. The Special Master will submit invoices for compensation of reasonable fees and expenses to the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee no later than ninety (90) days prior to the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will promptly review and, if reasonable, approve the Special Master’s invoice for compensation. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will submit approved invoices to the Settlement Fund Administrator for payment. The Special Master’s approved invoices have priority and will be paid first from the CA Subdivision Fund before any award of Costs, subject to the limitation in Section 2.c.v below.
ii. Final Awards of Costs that do not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid next in priority after the Special Master’s approved invoices.
iii. Final Awards of Costs in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid proportionally from the funds remaining in that year’s Annual Payment.
iv. Any claim for Costs that is not paid in full will be allocated against the next year’s distribution from the CA Subdivision Fund, until all approved claims for Costs are paid in full.
v. In no event will more than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year be used to pay Costs or the Special Master’s approved invoices.
vi. In no event shall more than $28 million of the total CA Subdivision Funds paid pursuant to the Distributor Settlement Agreement and the Janssen Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.
d) Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement.
i. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision is awarded compensation, in whole or in part, by any source of funds created as a result of litigation against an Opioid Defendant for its reasonable Costs, it will reduce its claim for Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund by that amount. If a Plaintiff Subdivision has already received a final award of Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund, it will repay the fund up to the prior award of Costs via a payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator or notify the Settlement Fund Administrator that its allocation from the next and subsequent Annual Payments should be reduced accordingly. If the Plaintiff Subdivision is repaying any prior award of Costs, that repayment will occur as soon as is feasible after the Plaintiff Subdivision’s receipt of Cost funds from the collateral source, but no more than 90 days after its receipt from the collateral source. The Settlement Fund Administrator will add any repaid Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund.
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
4 ii. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision reaches a monetary settlement or compromise against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement, the monetary portion of such settlement, net of fees paid to outside contingency fee counsel and of funds earmarked strictly for abatement, will be credited against its Costs and the subdivision will be ineligible to recover those credited Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund. Plaintiff Subdivisions negotiating monetary settlements or compromises against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement will negotiate for funds to repay any Costs it previously received from the CA Subdivision Fund or for Costs it otherwise might be eligible to claim from the CA Subdivision Fund. If such a settlement is paid after all final approved claims for Costs by all Plaintiff Subdivisions are satisfied in full, the settling subdivision will reimburse the CA Subdivision Fund in that amount by making payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator to add to the CA Subdivision Fund in a manner consistent with the repayments described in section 2.d.i above.
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
1 APPENDIX 3
CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political subdivisions eligible to participate in the Janssen Settlement and their counsel.
In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel [COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement).
[SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State Back- Stop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Janssen Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Janssen Settlement Agreement and CA Janssen Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Janssen Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL], together with any contingency fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the national Attorney Fee Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from the Distributors Settlement.
[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Janssen Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State Back- Stop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-janssen-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Distributor Settlement 1. Introduction Pursuant to the Distributor Settlement Agreement, dated as of July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto (the “Distributor Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Distributor Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV and V of the Distributor Settlement Agreement.1 For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections IX or X of the Distributor Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision. 2. Definitions a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Distributor Settlement Agreement. b) Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto. c) Litigating Special District means a school district, fire protection district, health authority, health plan, or other special district that has filed a lawsuit against an Opioid Defendant. Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin, and LA Care Health Plan. d) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. 1 A parallel but separate agreement (the “CA Janssen Allocation Agreement”) will govern the allocation, distribution, and use of settlement fund payments under the Janssen Settlement Agreement. An eligible Subdivision may elect to participate in either the Distributor Settlement or the Janssen Settlement, or in both.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4534F49A-B783-441C-8FFB-6A34197B9FEE
13.D.c
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Distributor California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 2 e) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020. 3. General Terms This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Distributor Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Distributor Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein. Pursuant to Section V(D)(1) of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the Distributor Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation. 4. State Allocation The Settlement Fund payments to California,2 pursuant to the Distributor Settlement Agreement, shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”). A. State of California Allocation Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation. B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be 2 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4534F49A-B783-441C-8FFB-6A34197B9FEE
13.D.c
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Distributor California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 3 allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds. b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Distributor Settlement Agreement. c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight). d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions. e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision. f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4534F49A-B783-441C-8FFB-6A34197B9FEE
13.D.c
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Distributor California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 4 ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the Distributor Settlement Agreement. b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities: (1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure; (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD; (4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; and/or (5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth. c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list. d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Distributor Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4534F49A-B783-441C-8FFB-6A34197B9FEE
13.D.c
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Distributor California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 5 iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Distributor Settlement Agreement or this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern. c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame. d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the Distributor Settlement Agreement or this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement. e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions. C. CA Subdivision Fund i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4534F49A-B783-441C-8FFB-6A34197B9FEE
13.D.c
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Distributor California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 6 The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows: a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document; b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document. c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2, Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid Defendant. D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Distributor Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Janssen Settlement Agreement. A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(R), of the Distributor Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Distributor Settlement, and if applicable, the Janssen Settlement, inclusive of contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement. Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Distributor Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Janssen Settlement Agreement. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments. To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney DocuSign Envelope ID: 4534F49A-B783-441C-8FFB-6A34197B9FEE
13.D.c
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Distributor California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 7 General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General. 5. State and Subdivision Reporting a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site. b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions. c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision. d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section V(B)(2) of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and the Distributors. e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4534F49A-B783-441C-8FFB-6A34197B9FEE
13.D.c
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Distributor California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) 8 6. Miscellaneous a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa. b) Except as provided in the Distributor Settlement Agreement, this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party. c) Except as provided in the CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. d) Except as provided in the Distributor Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4534F49A-B783-441C-8FFB-6A34197B9FEE
13.D.c
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Distributor California Intrastate Agreement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Distributor Settlement
1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Distributor Settlement Agreement, dated as of July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto (the “Distributor Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Distributor Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV and V of the Distributor Settlement Agreement.1 For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Sections IX or X of the Distributor Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.
2. Definitions
a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Distributor Settlement Agreement. b) Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
c) Litigating Special District means a school district, fire protection district, health authority, health plan, or other special district that has filed a lawsuit against an Opioid Defendant. Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin, and LA Care Health Plan.
d) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020.
1 A parallel but separate agreement (the “CA Janssen Allocation Agreement”) will govern the allocation, distribution, and use of settlement fund payments under the Janssen Settlement Agreement. An eligible Subdivision may elect to participate in either the Distributor Settlement or the Janssen Settlement, or in both.
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
2 e) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020.
3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Distributor Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Distributor Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
Pursuant to Section V(D)(1) of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the Distributor Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.
4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California,
2 pursuant to the Distributor Settlement Agreement,
shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”).
A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.
B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be
2 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
3 allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Distributor Settlement Agreement.
c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city has not advised the Settlement Fund Administrator that it requests direct payment at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight).
d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions.
e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
4 ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the Distributor Settlement Agreement.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program;
(2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure;
(3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; and/or
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth.
c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list.
d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Distributor Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
5 iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Distributor Settlement Agreement or this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern.
c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the Distributor Settlement Agreement or this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement.
e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions.
C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
6 The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows:
a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document;
b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document.
c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2, Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid Defendant.
D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Distributor Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Janssen Settlement Agreement.
A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(R), of the Distributor Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Distributor Settlement, and if applicable, the Janssen Settlement, inclusive of contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement. Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Distributor Settlement Agreement and, if applicable, the Janssen Settlement Agreement. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
7 General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.
For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision.
d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Distributor Settlement Agreement and this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section V(B)(2) of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and the Distributors.
e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
8 6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa.
b) Except as provided in the Distributor Settlement Agreement, this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in the CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
d) Except as provided in the Distributor Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) APPENDIX 1
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—Distributor Settle ment, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.
Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one- hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221%
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273%
1 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211%
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% 2 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986%
City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413%
County Kern County Kern 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145%
City Arvin Kern 0.006% 0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kern 0.212% 0.1747198%
City California City Kern 0.009% 0.0070820%
City Delano Kern 0.030% 0.0249316%
City McFarland Kern 0.003% 0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015% 0.0120938%
City Shafter Kern 0.013% 0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kern 0.009% 0.0073580%
City Wasco Kern 0.008% 0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% 3 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783%
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301%
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411%
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833%
4 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195%
City La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731%
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811%
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260%
5 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498%
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517%
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153%
6 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870%
County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805%
City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560%
7 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083%
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721%
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485%
8 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991%
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465%
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500%
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% 9 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431%
City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206%
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772%
10 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680%
11 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841%
County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891%
12 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723%
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841%
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507%
13 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966%
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337%
14 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National APPENDIX 1
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
15 of 15
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National
1 APPENDIX 2
Cost Reimbursement Procedure
1. Additional defined terms:
a) Costs means the reasonable amounts paid for the attorney and other City Attorney and County Counsel staff time for individuals employed by a Plaintiff Subdivision at the contractual rate, inclusive of benefits and overhead, together with amounts paid for court reporters, experts, copying, electronic research, travel, vendors, and the like, which were paid or incurred (i) prior to July 21, 2021 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting this CA Distributor Allocation Agreement. Costs does not include attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred by private contingency fee counsel. No part of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be used to reimburse Costs.
b) First Claims Date means October 1, 2023 or when all applications for reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section X and Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement or Section XI and Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, have been finally determined under the provisions of those agreements, whichever comes first.
c) Special Master means a retired judicial officer or former public lawyer, not presently employed or retained by a Plaintiff Subdivision, who will aggregate, review, and determine the reasonable Costs to be awarded to each Plaintiff Subdivision that submits a claim for reimbursement of Costs. The Special Master will be selected by a majority vote of the votes cast by Plaintiff Subdivisions, with each such subdivision having one vote.
d) Plaintiff Subdivision Committee means the committee of Plaintiff Subdivisions that will review and approve the invoices submitted by the Special Master reflecting his or her reasonable time and expenses.
2. Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision
a) Purpose. Substantial resources have been expended to hold Opioid Defendants accountable for creating and profiting from the opioid crisis, and this effort has been a significant catalyst in creating a National Opioid Settlement with Distributors, Johnson & Johnson, and others.
b) Claims Procedure.
i. If a Plaintiff Subdivision is eligible to seek reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section X or Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement or Section XI or Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, it must first make a timely application for reimbursement from such funds. To allow sufficient time for determination of those applications, no claim for
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
2 Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date.
ii. A Plaintiff Subdivision that wishes to be reimbursed from the CA Subdivision Fund must submit a claim to the Special Master no later than forty-five (45) days after the First Claims Date. The Special Master will then compile and redistribute the aggregated claim totals for each Plaintiff Subdivision via email to representatives of all the Plaintiff Subdivisions. A claim for attorney and staff time must list, for each attorney or staff member included in the claim, the following information: name, title, total hours claimed, hourly rate (including, if sought, benefits and share of overhead), and narrative summarizing the general nature of the work performed by the attorney or staff member. For reimbursement of “hard” costs, the subdivision may aggregate across a category (e.g., total for travel costs). It is the intention of the Plaintiff Subdivisions that submission of documents related to reimbursement of Costs does not waive any attorney-client privilege or exemptions to the California Public Records Act.
iii. The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or details to assist in the final award of Costs.
iv. The Special Master will review claims for reasonableness and will notify each Plaintiff Subdivision of the final determination of its claim, and will provide a list of all final awards to all Plaintiff Subdivisions by email or, upon request, via First Class U.S. Mail. Any Plaintiff Subdivision may ask the Special Master to reconsider any final award within twenty-one (21) days. The Special Master will make a final determination on any such reconsideration request within thirty (30) days of receipt.
v. Any decision of the Special Master is final and binding, and will be considered under the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq. as a final arbitration award. Nothing in this agreement is intended to expand the scope of judicial review of the final award for errors of fact or law, and the Parties agree that they may only seek to vacate the award if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates one of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2, subdivision (a). Plaintiff Subdivisions will have fourteen (14) days after all final awards are made, together with any final determination of a request for reconsideration, to seek review in the Superior Court of California, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285, where the State has filed its Consent Judgment.
vi. The Special Master will prepare a report of Costs that includes his or her fees and expenses at least ninety (90) days before the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Special Master’s preparation of a report of Costs does not discharge a Plaintiff Subdivision’s reporting requirement under Section V.B.2 of the Distributor Agreement.
vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and the Distributors a
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
3 report of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section V.B.2 of the Distributor Agreement.
c) Claims Priority and Limitation.
i. The Special Master will submit invoices for compensation of reasonable fees and expenses to the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee no later than ninety (90) days prior to the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will promptly review and, if reasonable, approve the Special Master’s invoice for compensation. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will submit approved invoices to the Settlement Fund Administrator for payment. The Special Master’s approved invoices have priority and will be paid first from the CA Subdivision Fund before any award of Costs, subject to the limitation in Section 2.c.v below.
ii. Final Awards of Costs that do not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid next in priority after the Special Master’s approved invoices.
iii. Final Awards of Costs in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid proportionally from the funds remaining in that year’s Annual Payment.
iv. Any claim for Costs that is not paid in full will be allocated against the next year’s distribution from the CA Subdivision Fund, until all approved claims for Costs are paid in full.
v. In no event will more than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year be used to pay Costs or the Special Master’s approved invoices.
vi. In no event shall more than $28 million of the total CA Subdivision Funds paid pursuant to the Distributor Settlement Agreement and the Janssen Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.
d) Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement.
i. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision is awarded compensation, in whole or in part, by any source of funds created as a result of litigation against an Opioid Defendant for its reasonable Costs, it will reduce its claim for Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund by that amount. If a Plaintiff Subdivision has already received a final award of Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund, it will repay the fund up to the prior award of Costs via a payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator or notify the Settlement Fund Administrator that its allocation from the next and subsequent Annual Payments should be reduced accordingly. If the Plaintiff Subdivision is repaying any prior award of Costs, that repayment will occur as soon as is feasible after the Plaintiff Subdivision’s receipt of Cost funds from the collateral source, but no more than 90 days after its receipt from the collateral source. The Settlement Fund Administrator will add any repaid Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund.
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
4 ii. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision reaches a monetary settlement or compromise against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement, the monetary portion of such settlement, net of fees paid to outside contingency fee counsel and of funds earmarked strictly for abatement, will be credited against its Costs and the subdivision will be ineligible to recover those credited Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund. Plaintiff Subdivisions negotiating monetary settlements or compromises against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement will negotiate for funds to repay any Costs it previously received from the CA Subdivision Fund or for Costs it otherwise might be eligible to claim from the CA Subdivision Fund. If such a settlement is paid after all final approved claims for Costs by all Plaintiff Subdivisions are satisfied in full, the settling subdivision will reimburse the CA Subdivision Fund in that amount by making payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator to add to the CA Subdivision Fund in a manner consistent with the repayments described in section 2.d.i above.
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement) APPENDIX 3
CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political subdivisions eligible to participate in the Distributors Settlement and their counsel.
In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel [COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement).
[SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State Back- Stop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Costs) of the Distributor Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Distributor Settlement Agreement and CA Distributor Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Distributor Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL], together with any contingency fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the national Attorney Fee Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from the Distributors Settlement.
[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Distributor Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.
The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State Back- Stop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
13.D.d
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: final-proposed-ca-state-subdivision-agreement-distributors-settlement (Admin: National Opioid Settlement)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: E
SUBJECT:
IT: Approval of the Purchase of five (5) Electronic Plan Tables from iProject Solutions, LLC, in the amount of $70,320.00, to be funded out of the SB2 Grant.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by motion, approve the purchase of five (5) electronic Plan Tables in the amount of $70,320.00 from iProjectSolutions LLC.
BACKGROUND:
In 2019 the City applied for and was awarded an SB2 grant from the State in the amount of $160,000. The grant was awarded to the City to help procure the necessary equipment for the streamlining of permitting and to increase efficiencies in the Community Development process for the City. With the implementation of EnerGov, all future plans for development will be sent to the City in electronic format. The purchase of the Plan Tables will allow staff to view, manipulate and add corrections to the submitted plans. Plan tables will be utilized in Community Development, Public Works as well as the Fire Department for their roles in inspecting the plans before a permit is issued.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for the purchase of the Plan Tables will be funded out of the computer replacement fund and then reimbursed through the SB2 Grant that was previously awarded to the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
Estimate_1721_from_iProjectSolutions_LLC
Plan Table
13.E
Packet Pg. 92
iProjectSolutions LLC
3831 Frederick Ave #122
Saint Joseph, MO 64506 US
888-836-2727
[email protected]
www.iprojectsolutions.com
ADDRESS SHIP TO
Eric Forcey
City of Hanford
315-321 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230 | Phone: 559-
585-2500
Hanford, CA 93230 USA
Eric Forcey
City of Hanford
315-321 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230 | Phone: 559-
585-2500
Hanford, CA 93230 USA
Quote 1721
DATE 12/20/2021
ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT
FM Workstations:FM-ELT554K
FM-ELT554k
Electric lift
Electric tilt
Articulating keyboard tray
55" 4k PCAP touchscreen monitor
1 - 24" rotating side monitor
i7 PC
16gb ram
1 tb hard drive
4gb video card
Wireless or wired Ethernet
Wireless keyboard and mouse
Web cam
Surge protector
Battery back-up
Stylus kit
5 13,700.00 68,500.00
SUBTOTAL 68,500.00
TAX 0.00
SHIPPING 1,820.00
TOTAL $70,320.00
Accepted By Accepted Date
13.E.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Estimate_1721_from_iProjectSolutions_LLC (IT: Purchase of Plan Tables) Wide Format Workstations 43” 49” 55” FM Electric Lift and Tilt FM-ELT554K
PC Included Webcam Included
2nd Monitor Included UPS Included
Full Size Keyboard and
Mouse Included
Electric Lift and Tilt
FM-ELT Series
Includes:
55’’ Touchscreen PCAP monitor
49’’ Touchscreen PCAP monitor
43’’ Touchscreen PCAP monitor
iPlanTables electric lift & tilt sit-
stand mobile cart
Dell i7 PC
16 gbs ram
512 SSID hard drive
4gb video card
1- 24” side monitor
Webcam
Wireless keyboard & mouse
UPS Battery Back-up
Surge protector
Apple TV
Options
Upgrade computer
i9 Xeon chip
Fanless Small Form Factor
Ram upgrade
32gb 64gb 128gb
SATA hard drive upgrade
2tb 5tb 10tb
SSID Hard drive upgrade
1tb
Other:
Backup hard drive
Logitech Conference Cam
Video Card Upgrade
6gb 8gb 16gb 32gb
Job site casters
Personalized PMS Color
Apple TV
Misc.
FM-ELT554K 55” $13,700
FM-ELT494k 49” $13,100
FM-ELT434k 43” $12,200
13.E.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Plan Table (IT: Purchase of Plan Tables)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: F
SUBJECT:
Public Works: Approval of a Notice of Completion for the FY 20/21 Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update Project and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder's Office.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by motion, approve of a Notice of Completion for the FY 20/21 Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update Project and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder's Office
BACKGROUND:
On July 6, 2021, the Council awarded the FY 20/21 Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update Project to Provost & Prichard of Clovis Ca.
Updating of our survey benchmark datum and mapping was necessary for proper installation of curbs, storm drainage facilities and sanitary sewer lines. The Benchmark system is typically updated every ten years.
The City's survey benchmark datum and mapping is used by city staff and private engineers in the design of various Public Works infrastructure projects. The benchmark datum needed to be updated to ensure proper vertical control for surveys. The last update was in 2004.
There was (1) contract change orders on this project for a net increase of $4,500.00 However, the total project cost remained under budget.
13.F
Packet Pg. 95
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 20/21 Transportation Capital Budget provides $87,208.00 for this project, split between the Storm Drainage, Wastewater, and Water Capital funds. The Final Project Construction and Finance History Report are attached for Council review.
ATTACHMENTS:
NOC - Recording Original WORD
NOC Recording Original with Maps PDF
Finance History Report
13.F
Packet Pg. 96
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF HANFORD
When recorded return to:
City Clerk
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230-3951
G.C. 27361.3 - Fee NIL
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The work of Improvement is located: Various locations within the City of Hanford (See Attached Map for all locations)
2. The Improvement is particularly described as: Benchmark Update
3. The date of completion of the work of Improvement: November 6, 2021
4. The Owner of the work of Improvement: City of Hanford.
5. The nature of the owner’s interest or estate: Fee Simple Title.
6. The name of the original contractor for the work of Improvement: Provost & Pirtchard
7. The surety for the work of Improvement: National Fire of Ins Co of Hartford.
8. All work for this project has been completed.
9. Accepted by minute action of the City Council of the City of Hanford on: January 18, 2022
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 6th day of January 18, 2022.
BY: ________________________________________
Diane Sharp, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
13.F.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: NOC - Recording Original WORD (PW: NOC Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update Project.) I, the undersigned, say:
I am the person who signed the foreg oing notice. I have read the above notice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Hanford, California, this __18th__ day of ____January_______, 2022.
BY: ________________________________________
Diane Sharp, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
Authority: Section 1181 Civil Code
13.F.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: NOC - Recording Original WORD (PW: NOC Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update Project.) RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF HANFORD
When recorded return to:
City Clerk
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230-3951
G.C. 27361.3 - Fee NIL
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The work of Improvement is located: Various locations within the City of Hanford (See Attached Map for all locations)
2. The Improvement is particularly described as: Benchmark Update
3. The date of completion of the work of Improvement: November 6, 2021
4. The Owner of the work of Improvement: City of Hanford.
5. The nature of the owner’s interest or estate: Fee Simple Title.
6. The name of the original contractor for the work of Improvement: Provost & Pirtchard
7. The surety for the work of Improvement: National Fire of Ins Co of Hartford.
8. All work for this project has been completed.
9. Accepted by minute action of the City Council of the City of Hanford on: January 18, 2022
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 6th day of January 18, 2022.
BY: ________________________________________
Diane Sharp, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
13.F.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: NOC Recording Original with Maps PDF (PW: NOC Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update Project.)
I, the undersigned, say:
I am the person who signed the foregoing notice. I have read the above notice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Hanford, California, this __18th__ day of ____January_______, 2022.
BY: ________________________________________
Diane Sharp, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
Authority: Section 1181 Civil Code
13.F.b
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: NOC Recording Original with Maps PDF (PW: NOC Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update Project.)
13.F.b
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: NOC Recording Original with Maps PDF (PW: NOC Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update Project.)
FINAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCE HISTORY
PROJECT: Benchmark Update Project
CONTRACTOR: Provost & Prichard
455 W. Fir Avenue
Clovis CA 93611
CONTRACT DATES: Bid Date June 14, 2021
Council Award July 6, 2021
Contractor Started Work August 9, 2021
Contract Time of Completion November 6, 2021
Contractor Completed Work November 19, 2021
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS:
1. Contract Change Order No. 1: Added (10) additional locations to establish benchmark(s).
For a net increase of $4,500.00
FINANCIAL HISTORY:
SOURCE OF BUDGET FUNDING AMOUNT
358 Storm Drainage Capital $ 21,802.00
363 Wastewater Capital $ 32,703.00
391 Water Capital $ 32,703.00
Total Budget Funding $ 87,208.00
CONSTRUCTION COST:
Original Contract – Total Bid Award $ 38,000.00 Contract Change Order No. 1 $ 4,500.00
Total Construction Cost $ 42,500.00
Balance (Credit) -$ 44,708.00
13.F.c
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Finance History Report (PW: NOC Survey Monumentation / Benchmark Update Project.)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: G
SUBJECT:
Public Works: Approval of Annual Renewal of Zonar GPS, in the amount of $32,580.00, to allow for vehicle tracking on all City of Hanford vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by motion, approve the renewal of Zonar GPS in the amount of $32,580.00 for time period December 1, 2021 to November 30, 2022.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Hanford has a 3-year contract with Zonar Systems that provides GPS tracking, referred to as Ignition Service, for one hundred thirty fleet vehicles. An additional service on thirty-five units, which is referred to as Turbo Service, is utilized on D.O.T. regulated vehicles for pre/post trip inspections and Electronic Vehicle Inspection Reports (EVIR).
This is an annual contract for maintenance of the devices and use of the computer software for tracking vehicles and vehicle service needs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This is a budgeted expense of the Fleet Operations Budget (20400000.745000)
ATTACHMENTS:
ZONAR INV-SI531710
13.G
Packet Pg. 103
Order Qty
Item
Description
This Invoice
Unit Price
Total
35 TRK003
Renewal
Turbo Service
35 312.00
10,920.00
Service From: 12/01/21 to 11/30/22
95 TRK001
Ignition Service
95 228.00
21,660.00
Service From: 12/01/21 to 11/30/22
32,580.00
USD
Total:
Subtotal
Total Sales Tax:
0.00 32,580.00
Interested in Receiving your Invoices and Statements via Email? Take the first step by visiting https://zonarsystems.com/ebill to update your contact information.
If you have a question about your bill you can email: [email protected] Bank Info For Electronic Payment
Bank Of America
Account #
Routing / ABA
100 North Tryon Street
Charlotte , NC 28255
4451331227
Wire - 026009593
ACH - 111000012
Swift - BOFAUS3N
Bank Of America Lockbox Services
1950 N. Stemmons Freeway
Lockbox 841580
Overnight Lockbox Address
Dallas , TX 75207
Suite 5010
12/02/21
SALES INVOICE
Sales Invoice Number:
1 SC003882
SI531710
Recurring Document:
Invoice Date:
Page:
Seattle, WA 98188
www.zonarsystems.com
18200 Cascade Ave S
Voice:
Fax:
206.878.2459
206.878.3082
Sold To:
City of Hanford
Attn: Accounts Payable
USA
900 S 10th Ave
Hanford, CA 93230-5234
City of Hanford
Attn: Will Smith
900 S 10th Ave
USA
Hanford, CA 93230-5234
Ship To:
Net 30 Days
Due Date
Customer ID
Customer P.O.
SalesPerson
Shipping Method
Payment Terms
UPS GROUND
Brian C Dodson
01/01/22
HAN2235
HAN2235
Ship Date
Zonar Systems Inc.
P.O. Box 841580
Dallas, TX 75284-1580
Remit To:
NEW
13.G.a
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: ZONAR INV-SI531710 (PW: Approval of Annual Renewal of Zonar GPS)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: H
SUBJECT:
Public Works: Approval of a sole source contract to IG Services (IGS) for the purpose of conducting a rate study for the City of Hanford Refuse division, at a not to exceed cost of $47,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Council, by motion, authorize a sole source contract to IGS to conduct a refuse rate study for the City of Hanford to ensure adequate funds for long term financial stability, proper staffing levels, and a capital program to adequately operate and maintain the City's Refuse collection operation..
BACKGROUND:
City of Hanford Refuse rates were last evaluated and adjusted in 2017 and 2018. Since then, several new Statewide regulations have been adopted (SB1383, AB827, SB619, and AB901) that have significantly affected the cost to collect, process, and report municipal solid waste, including commercial recycling, food waste collection, and green waste recycling requirements.
In order to ensure funding is available to implement these new regulations, and to provide service as the City grows, a rate study is necessary. The rate study will identify the costs associated with implementing each of the various functions of the refuse department and ensure that customers are charged at a rate that reflects the cost of providing the service.
IGS has recently conducted similar rate studies for the City of Lemoore, City of Corcoran, and the Kings Waste Recycling Authority (KWRA). As such, they are intimately familiar with Hanford's unique challenges and opportunities and the challenges of working with KWRA. Staff has reviewed IGS's rate studies with the adjacent agencies and have verified the quality of work performed by IGS and considers them the subject matter expert in this type of rate study for our area.
13.H
Packet Pg. 105
Once the rate study is complete, options will be presented to Council for direction and a public hearing will be scheduled to discuss any proposed rate changes.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The 2022 operating budget includes funding for this project. Funding is through the Refuse Enterprise Fund and does not utilize General Fund monies.
ATTACHMENTS:
IGS Rate study proposal
13.H
Packet Pg. 106
13.H.a
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: IGS Rate study proposal (PW - Refuse Rate Study)
13.H.a
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: IGS Rate study proposal (PW - Refuse Rate Study)
13.H.a
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: IGS Rate study proposal (PW - Refuse Rate Study)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: I
SUBJECT:
Public Works: Authorize the purchase of property located on the north side of Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks from Paul Singh Family Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership, as shown on the attached map, in the amount of $69,510.00 plus escrow fees, accept the attached Grant Deed and authorize the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said deeds with the Kings County Recorder's Office, and accept the attached Right of Way Agreement and authorize City staff to execute said agreement. (APN 007-360-016)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by motion:
1. Authorize the purchase of property located on the north side of Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks from Paul Singh Family Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership, as shown on the attached map, in the amount of $69,510.00 plus escrow fees. A Property appraisal is attached for council review.
2. Accept the attached Grant Deed and authorize the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said deeds with the Kings County Recorder's Office.
3. Accept the attached Right of Way Agreement and authorize City staff to execute said agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The City desires to acquire a portion of the Property for the expansion and Tank Site 6 to account for the growing needs of water of the City residents. Well No. 44 collapsed in 2020 and staff has identified a new location to drill the replacement well.
The purchase price is based upon the appraised value of the land.
FISCAL IMPACT:
13.I
Packet Pg. 110
The FY 21/22 Capital Improvement Program Budget provides $1,560,000 for construction of the well for this project. A copy of the budget page is attached for Council review.
ATTACHMENTS:
Budget Page
Purchase Agreement - 007-360-016
Grant Deed APN 007-360-016 (PACKET)
13.I
Packet Pg. 111
822633
823637
Project Background:
Existing Conditions:
Project Justification:
Fiscal Implications:
Project Budget Summary:
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Program or Project Construction Design Construction Design Construction Engineering 35,000 35,000
Consultant 95,000 95,000
Equipment 350,000 350,000 350,000
Construction 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000
Contingency 140,000 140,000 140,000
Department Overhead 99,500 5,030 10,000 10,000
Total Expenditure $1,989,500 $135,030 $1,900,000 $130,000 $1,900,000 Funding
0391 Water Capital 523,553 135,030 500,000 130,000 500,000 0185 Water Impact Fees 1,465,947 1,400,000 1,400,000
Total Funding $1,989,500 $135,030 $1,900,000 $130,000 $1,900,000 ExpenditureRevenue
New Water Supply Well
The City water system currently has 13 active water supply wells and one standby emergency well. The wells have a total production capacity of approximately 26 million gallons per day.
Funding for the new water supply well will be allocated from Water Capital Reserves. 5-Year Funding Allocation
As development occurs the need to provide additional water capacity and service reliability is necessary. This project would provide funding to install a new deep well as needed.
This project funds the installation of a new deep water well and associated pumping equipment to provide additional City water supply and service reliability.
13.I.a
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Budget Page (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks APN 007-360-01)
13.I.b
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Purchase Agreement - 007-360-016 (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks APN
13.I.b
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Purchase Agreement - 007-360-016 (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks APN
13.I.b
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Purchase Agreement - 007-360-016 (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks APN
13.I.b
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Purchase Agreement - 007-360-016 (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks APN
13.I.b
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Purchase Agreement - 007-360-016 (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks APN
13.I.b
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Purchase Agreement - 007-360-016 (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks APN
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
CITY OF HANFORD
900 S. 10th Ave.
Hanford, CA 93230
SEND TAX STATEMENTS TO:
CITY OF HANFORD
315 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
GRANT DEED
Exempt from Recording Fees P ursuant to Gov.
Code Section 27281 and Documentary Transfer
Tax Pursuant to Rev enue and Taxation Code
Section 11922
Assessor’s Parcel No. 007-360-016 X City of Hanford ___ County of Kings
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Paul Singh Family Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership , hereby GRANT(S) to the City of
Hanford, a municipal corporation, t he following described real property in the County of Kings , State of California:
SEE EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OF HEREOF
Dated: _____________
____________________________________
PAUL SINGH
☐ Computed on full value of property conveyed, or
☐ Computed on full value less liens & encumbrances
remaining thereon at time of sale.
________________________________________
Signature of declarant or agent determining tax, firm name
13.I.c
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Grant Deed APN 007-360-016 (PACKET) (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks
CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by this Grant Deed dated _____________ from _________________to the City of Hanford, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted by order of the Council of said City of Hanford on _______________, 20___ and the Grantee consents to the recordation thereof.
DATED: _______________
_________________________________
MARIO CIFUENTEZ, II, City Manager
13.I.c
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Grant Deed APN 007-360-016 (PACKET) (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks
13.I.c
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Grant Deed APN 007-360-016 (PACKET) (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks
13.I.c
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Grant Deed APN 007-360-016 (PACKET) (PW: Authorize purchase of RW located on Fargo Ave. 350 ft west of the BNSF RR Tracks
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: J
SUBJECT:
Finance: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 21-15, amending Chapters 2.48 of the City of Hanford Municipal Code to update the rules governing the purchase of goods and services for the City of Hanford.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by motion, approve the Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 21-15, amending Chapters 2.48 of the City of Hanford Municipal Code to update the rules governing the purchase of goods and services for the City of Hanford.
BACKGROUND:
Staff recommends an update to the ordinance to authorize the City Manager to award up to $50,000 for goods and services and provide for procedural updates through a Purchasing Policy in accordance with ordinance. Staff will adhere to City ordinance and select the vendor which can provide the best price and service. This update will provide more efficient purchasing processes for the City and encourage competitive procurement.
The City encourages active competition among bidders through its purchasing policy in the Hanford Municipal Code and abiding by the State Public Contracts Code to obtain the best and most qualified service for the least amount of cost. Also, where possible, the City strives to do business with local vendors. The City is required to follow the State Public Contracts Code when purchasing/contracting for public projects, in addition the City has opted to follow the Uniform Cost Accounting Act for Public Works Projects which adheres to City ordinance and outlines steps for when bids are required.
Three other areas of purchasing, professional services, goods/supplies and general services, are governed by the Hanford Municipal Code. A minimum of three bids will be required when possible and Council authorization will be required when over $50,000 with exception of emergencies the City Manager shall have authorization. The Municipal Code does not define a
13.J
Packet Pg. 123
formal procedure for selecting professional services consultants, such as design professionals, architects, environmental and planning consultants etc. These services are typically solicited through a Request for Proposal process where the cost is not the determining factor in selecting the best proposal. The selection is qualitative and is based upon experience in the particular area requested, qualifications and reputation of the company/firm.
After the update of the Purchasing Ordinance staff will work to adopt a formal Purchasing Policy that adheres to City ordinance and State and Federal laws applicable to city procurement and will be able to keep up with ever changing State and Federal laws.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance to adopt Purchasing Amendments
Purchasing Ordinance - Redline
13.J
Packet Pg. 124
ORDINANCE NO. 21-15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING HANFORD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 2.48
RELATING TO MATTERS GOVERNING THE PURCHASING OF GOODS AND
SERVICES BY THE CITY OF HANFORD
The City Council of the City of Hanford does ordain as follows:
Section 1: Hanford Municipal Code Chapter 2.48 contains regulations relating to the authority to purchase goods and services for the City of Hanford.
Section 2: The regulations contained in Chapter 2.48 were adopted many years ago, and the Council has determined that the chapters need updates for the effective oversight and approval of goods and services that are purchased for the City of Hanford.
Section 3: The City Council of the City of Hanford does ordain that Chapter 2.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4: This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and shall be published once in the Hanford Sentinel within fifteen (15) days after its passage or a summary of this ordinance shall be published in the Hanford Sentinel in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Government Code.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on , 2021, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED
ATTEST:
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
NATALIE CORRAL
CITY CLERK
13.J.a
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Ordinance to adopt Purchasing Amendments (Finance: Amendment to Purchasing Ordinance)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss
CITY OF HANFORD )
I NATALIE CORRAL, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford on the 21ST day of December, 2021, and it was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the day ___ of_______________ , 2022.
NATALIE CORRAL
CITY CLERK
13.J.a
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Ordinance to adopt Purchasing Amendments (Finance: Amendment to Purchasing Ordinance)
Exhibit
“A”
13.J.a
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Ordinance to adopt Purchasing Amendments (Finance: Amendment to Purchasing Ordinance) Chapter 2.48 PURCHASING SYSTEM
2.48.010 General.
Except as otherwise provided by state law and except as to public works projects, the Director of Finance shall be the officer in charge of the purchasing function and shall have the general responsibility for purchases of supplies and services for the use of all departments of the city. (Ord. 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.01)
2.48.020 Duties and responsibilities.
A. Upon the receipt of a properly prepared purchase order and, provided the total purchase price of the services or supplies identified in the purchase order is fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) or less, and so long as budgeted funds are available, the Director of Finance is authorized to order the services or supplies identified in the purchase order.
B. It shall be the duty of each department to use its best efforts to secure the lowest price for such services and supplies. The department may request bids from vendors, either verbally or in writing, or may give notice to vendors by one publication in a newspaper published in the city. In all cases, the city shall have the right to determine whether the bids from the vendors for the supplies or services requested actually meet announced specifications. The city shall have the right to waive any minor informality or minor irregularly in a bid. (Ord. 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.03) (06-11, Amended, 12/05/2006) C. The City Manager shall be the officer in charge to approve a Purchasing Policy for the City that outlines, in detail, processes of procurement for the City as prepared by the Director of Finance that adheres to thresholds and requirements as set by Council in Chapter 2.48.
2.48.030 Department requisitions.
Whenever any department requests the purchase of supplies or services, it shall file with the Director of Finance a department requisition on a form provided by the Director of Finance. All department requisitions shall bear the approving signature of the department head or his/her designated representative and shall specifically describe the services or supplies and the kind and quantity desired. A department requisition may also specify the brand or make of the supplies to be purchased. (Ord. 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.03)
2.48.040 City purchase orders.
A. When the City intends to make a purchase, a city purchase order shall be issued (in accordance with City Purchasing Policy), which shall be addressed to the supplier, dated and numbered, and which shall specify the supplies or services to be purchased, the price, and the place or to whom the delivery of the supplies shall be made or for whom the services shall be rendered.
B. A copy of the city purchase order shall be delivered to the supplier, and the receiving copy shall be delivered to the department making the purchase. Upon the receipt of the services or supplies specified, a representative of the department head making the purchase shall acknowledge the receipt of supplies or services.
C. Any city employee who signs an acknowledgement of receipt shall have personal knowledge of what was received by examining such supplies or observing the rendering of such services and shall not
13.J.a
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Ordinance to adopt Purchasing Amendments (Finance: Amendment to Purchasing Ordinance) accept supplies or services which do not meet the specifications identified in the city purchase order. (Ord. 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.04)
2.48.050 Purchase of fifty thousand dollars or less—Open market procedure.
A. The purchase of supplies or services of an estimated value in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) or less may be made in the open market without prior authorization from the Council.
B. Each purchase shall be based on at least three (3) quotations or bids, whenever possible, obtained by the department initiating the purchase. Purchases will be made from the lowest responsive qualified bidder. The purchase of some services may be selected from the highest qualified vendor with costs as a secondary factor or as required by state or federal law.
C. Each department may solicit bids in the manner described in subsection (B) of Section 2.48.020 of the chapter. The City shall keep a record of all quotations and bids submitted for a period of one year from the date of the bid. (Ord. 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.05) (06-11, Amended, 12/05/2006)
2.48.060 Purchases exceeding fifty thousand dollars.
Purchases exceeding fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) may be made either on an informal basis or on a formal competitive basis as identified below. In either case, however, the decision as to the acceptance or rejection of any bid shall be the responsibility of the Council.
A. Informal Basis. The procedure for purchases on an informal basis shall be in accordance with the provisions of subsections B. and C. of Section 2.48.050 of the chapter with subsequent acceptance or rejection by the Council of any bids received.
B. Formal Competitive Basis. To the extent consistent with state or federal law, if applicable, the procedure for purchases on a formal competitive basis shall be as follows:
1. A notice inviting bids shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the city by one or more insertions, the first of which shall be at least seven (7) days before the date for opening bids.
2. The notice inviting bids shall identify the amount of the bid security which must accompany the bid proposal. Bidders shall be entitled to the return of bid security provided, however, a successful bidder shall forfeit its bid security upon its refusal or failure to execute the city’s contract for the purchase of the services or supplies within ten (10) days after the award of the bid has been approved by the Council. The Council may, on refusal or failure of the successful bidder to execute the City’s contract, award the contract to the next lowest responsible bidder. If the Council awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder’s bid security shall be applied by the city to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder.
3. All bids shall be delivered in a sealed envelope to the Director of Finance, or his/her designated representative, no later than the designated time for the opening of bids as identified in the notice inviting bids. The Director of Finance shall be custodian of such bids, and shall keep the same confidential until they are opened and declared.
13.J.a
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Ordinance to adopt Purchasing Amendments (Finance: Amendment to Purchasing Ordinance)
4. All bids received shall be publicly opened and declared at the time and at the place identified in the notice inviting bids.
5. Thereafter, the bids shall be tabulated and analyzed by the city and presented to the City Council for award in accordance with this chapter. In some instances, City Council may preauthorize purchases and the City Manager may award if the contract is under the previously authorized City Council authorization.
6. The Council shall have the right to waive any minor informality or minor irregularity in a bid.
7. Contracts awarded by the Council shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
8. In its discretion, the Council may reject all bids presented. The Council may then readvertise for bids or authorize the department making the purchase to proceed with the purchase of the supplies or services on an informal basis pursuant to subsection A of this section, subject to final approval of the purchase by the Council.
9. The city may require that any person or entity who may provide services to the city post a performance bond with the city prior to the city’s execution of the city contract for the services, in such an amount as the Council may find reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the city. If the Council requires a performance bond, the form and amount of the bond shall be described in the notice inviting bids.
10. The provisions of this section shall not apply to work performed by the city with its own personnel and/or equipment or to materials, supplies or equipment obtained or purchased from any other governmental agency. (06-11, Amended, 12/05/2006; 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.06)
2.48.070 Preference for local vendors.
The use of vendors who have a fixed business location within the city limits provides certain benefits to the city and its citizens, including, without limitation, the following:
A. Receipt of sales tax revenue from sales made within the city limits; B. Cost savings resulting from local maintenance, repair, pick-up and delivery; C. Use of the local labor force.
Therefore, the city may allow the following preferences to vendors having a fixed business location within the city limits.
If the city receives two (2) or more bids, with all factors being equal except price, an adjustment of five percent (5%) of the quoted price may be afforded to the vendor having a fixed business location within the city limits. (Ord. 20-10 § 1, 2020; 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.07)
13.J.a
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Ordinance to adopt Purchasing Amendments (Finance: Amendment to Purchasing Ordinance) Chapter 2.48 PURCHASING SYSTEM
2.48.010 General.
Except as otherwise provided by state law and except as to public works projects, the dDirector of Ffinance shall be the officer in charge of the purchasing function and shall have the general responsibility for purchases of supplies and services for the use of all departments of the city. (Ord. 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.01)
2.48.020 Duties and responsibilities.
A. Upon the receipt of a properly prepared purchase order, andorder and, provided the total purchase price of the services or supplies identified in the purchase order is twenty fifty thousand dollars ($20,00050,000.00) or less, and so long as budgeted funds are available, the director of financeDirector of Finance is authorized to order the services or supplies identified in the purchase order. The provisions of this section shall not apply to purchases of fuels, bituminous materials, and aggregate base for street purposes and related delivery costs provided that any such purchase shall not exceed the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00).
B. It shall be the duty of each department to use its best efforts to secure the lowest price for such services and supplies. The department may request bids from vendors, either verbally or in writing, or may give notice to vendors by one publication in a newspaper published in the city. In all cases, the city shall have the right to determine whether the bids from the vendors for the supplies or services requested actually meet announced specifications. The city shall have the right to waive any minor informality or minor irregularly in a bid. (Ord. 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.03) (06-11, Amended, 12/05/2006) C. The City Manager shall be the officer in charge to approve a Purchasing Policy for the City that outlines, in detail, processes of procurement for the City as prepared by the Director of Finance that adheres to thresholds and requirements as set by Council in Chapter 2.48.
2.48.030 Department requisitions.
Whenever any department requests the purchase of supplies or services, it shall file with the director of financeDirector of Finance a department requisition on a form provided by the director of financeDirector of Finance. All department requisitions shall bear the approving signature of the department head or his/her designated representative and shall specifically describe the services or supplies and the kind and quantity desired. A department requisition may also specify the brand or make of the supplies to be purchased. (Ord. 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.03)
2.48.040 City purchase orders.
A. When the director of financeCity makes intends to make a purchase, he shall issue a city purchase order shall be issued (in accordance with City Purchasing Policy), which shall be addressed to the supplier, dated and numbered, and which shall specify the supplies or services to be purchased, the price, and the place or to whom the delivery of the supplies shall be made or for whom the services shall be rendered.
B. The originalA copy of the city purchase order shall be delivered to the supplier, and the receiving copy shall be delivered to the department making the purchase. Upon the receipt of the services
13.J.b
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Purchasing Ordinance - Redline (Finance: Amendment to Purchasing Ordinance) or supplies specified, the receiving copy shall be signed by a representative of the department head making the purchase to shall acknowledge the receipt of supplies or services.
C. Any city employee who signs an acknowledgement of receipt shall have personal knowledge of what was received by examining such supplies or observing the rendering of such services and shall not accept supplies or services which do not meet the specifications identified in the city purchase order. (Ord. 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.04)
2.48.050 Purchase of twenty fifty thousand dollars or less—Open market procedure.
A. The purchase of supplies or services of an estimated value in the amount of twenty fifty thousand dollars ($20,00050,000.00) or less may be made in the open market without prior authorization from the councilCouncil.
B. Each purchase shall be based on at least three (3) quotations or bids, whenever possible, obtained by the department initiating the purchase. Purchases will be made from the lowest responsible responsive qualified bidder. The purchase of some services may be selected from the highest qualified vendor with costs as a secondary factor or as required by state or federal law.
C. Each department may solicit bids in the manner described in subsection (B) of Section 2.48.020 of the chapter or by any other method common in the industry. Each departmentThe City shall keep a record of all quotations and bids submitted for a period of one year from the date of the bid. (Ord. 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.05) (06-11, Amended, 12/05/2006)
2.48.060 Purchases exceeding twenty fifty thousand dollars.
Purchases exceeding twenty fifty thousand dollars ($20,00050,000.00) may be made either on an informal basis or on a formal competitive basis as identified below. In either case, however, the decision as to the acceptance or rejection of any bid shall be the responsibility of the councilCouncil. The provisions of this section 2.48.060 shall not apply to the purchase of fuels, bituminous materials, and aggregate base for street purposes and related delivery costs provided that any such purchase shall not exceed the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00).
A. Informal Basis. The procedure for purchases on an informal basis shall be in accordance with the provisions of subsections (b)B. and (c)C. of Section 2.48.050 of the chapter with subsequent acceptance or rejection by the councilCouncil of any bids received.
B. Formal Competitive Basis. To the extent consistent with state or federal law, if applicable,Ttheapplicable, the procedure for purchases on a formal competitive basis shall be as follows:
1. A notice inviting bids shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the city by one or more insertions, the first of which shall be at least seven (7) days before the date for opening bids.
2. The notice inviting bids shall identify the amount of the bid security which must accompany the bid proposal. Bidders shall be entitled to the return of bid security provided, however, a successful bidder shall forfeit its bid security upon its refusal or failure to execute the city’s contract for the purchase of the services or supplies within ten (10) days after the award of the bid has been approved by the councilCouncil. The councilCouncil may, on refusal or failure of the successful bidder to execute the cCity’s contract, award the contract to the next lowest responsible bidder. If the councilCouncil awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder’s bid security shall be applied by
13.J.b
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Purchasing Ordinance - Redline (Finance: Amendment to Purchasing Ordinance) the city to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder.
3. All bids shall be delivered in a sealed envelope to the director of financeDirector of Finance, or his/her designated representative, no later than the designated time for the opening of bids as identified in the notice inviting bids. The director of financeDirector of Finance shall be custodian of such bids, and shall keep the same confidential until they are opened and declared.
4. All bids received shall be publicly opened and declared at the time and at the place identified in the notice inviting bids.
5. Thereafter, the bids shall be tabulated and analyzed by the director of financecity and presented to the City Council for award in accordance with this chapter. In some instances, City Council may preauthorize purchases and the City Manager may award if the contract is under the previously authorized City Council authorization.
6. The councilCouncil shall have the right to waive any minor informality or minor irregularity in a bid.
7. Contracts awarded by the councilCouncil shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
8. In its discretion, the councilCouncil may reject all bids presented. The councilCouncil may then readvertise for bids or authorize the department making the purchase to proceed with the purchase of the supplies or services on an informal basis pursuant to subsection A of this section, subject to final approval of the purchase by the councilCouncil.
9. The city may require that any person or entity who may provide services to the city post a performance bond with the city prior to the city’s execution of the city contract for the services, in such an amount as the councilCouncil may find reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the city. If the councilCouncil requires a performance bond, the form and amount of the bond shall be described in the notice inviting bids.
10. The provisions of this section shall not apply to work performed by the city with its own personnel and/or equipment or to materials, supplies or equipment obtained or purchased from any other governmental agency. (06-11, Amended, 12/05/2006; 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.06)
2.48.070 Preference for local vendors.
The use of vendors who have a fixed business location within the city limits provides certain benefits to the city and its citizens, including, without limitation, the following:
A. Receipt of sales tax revenue from sales made within the city limits; B. Cost savings resulting from local maintenance, repair, pick-up and delivery; C. Use of the local labor force.
Therefore, the city may allow the following preferences to vendors having a fixed business location within the city limits.
If the city receives two (2) or more bids, with all factors being equal except price, an adjustment of five percent (5%) of the quoted price may be afforded to the vendor having a fixed business location within the city limits. (Ord. 20-10 § 1, 2020; 95-29 § 1, 1995; prior code § 2-5.07)
13.J.b
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Purchasing Ordinance - Redline (Finance: Amendment to Purchasing Ordinance)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: A
SUBJECT:
Public Works: Permission to Advertise the FY 21/22 Civic Auditorium Roof Replacement Project and Pre-Authorize the City Manager to award and execute the contract on behalf of the City to the lowest responsible bidder providing project bid is within current budget appropriation.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by motion,
1. Authorize staff to advertise for bids for the FY 21/22 Civic Auditorium Roof Replacement Project.
2. Pre-Authorize the City Manager to award and execute the contract on behalf of the City to the lowest responsible bidder providing project bid is within current budget appropriation.
BACKGROUND:
The Civic Auditorium has been a focal point in the downtown ever since it was built in 1924.
Repainting of the lobby and exterior was completed three years ago. The existing roof was last replaced in 1993.
The main auditorium roof was spot patched two years ago to extend its life; however, surface tears and loss of granules are quickly degrading the membrane. Various leaks have been patched over the last ten years and the roof drains are particularly susceptible to leaks. The roof has surpassed its useful life and needs replacement.
The existing roof is over 28 years old. The roof is continuing to deteriorate and when annually inspected, has new leaks to repair by City staff. Replacement of the roof will last for 20 years which will reduce maintenance costs and staff time at the facility.
After bid opening, Staff will examine the bids, validate the lowest bidder's contractor's license status, and verify the contractor is in good standing. Staff is requesting the pre-authorization to award and execute the contract in order to expedite the process of delivery of projects. With
14.A
Packet Pg. 134
Council approval, staff will solicit bids for this project. If awarded, construction is anticipated to begin in April 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 21/22 Accumulated Capital Outlay and Building Capital Replacement Budget provides $660,000.00 for construction of this project including contingency. A copy of the budget page is attached for Council review.
ATTACHMENTS:
Budget Page
14.A
Packet Pg. 135
822605
Project Background:
Existing Conditions:
Project Justification:
Fiscal Implications:
Project Budget Summary:
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Program or Project Construction
Engineering / Inspection 6,000
Construction 600,000
Contingency 60,000
Department Overhead 35,060
Total Expenditure $701,060 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funding
0004 Accumulated Capital Outlay 549,874
0417 Building Capital Replacement 151,186
Total Funding $701,060 $0 $0 $0 $0
ExpenditureRevenue
Civic Auditorium Roof Replacement Project
The existing roof is over 28 years old. The roof is continuing to deteriorate and when annually inspected, has new leaks to repair by City staff. Replacement of the roof will last for 20 years which will reduce maintenance costs and staff time at the facility.
Funds for this project will be allocated from Building Capital Reserves and the Accumulated Capital Outlay (ACO) Reserves.
5-Year Funding Allocation
The main auditorium roof was spot patched two years ago to extend its life; however, surface tears and loss of granules is quickly degrading the membrane. Various leaks have been patched over the last ten years and the roof drains are particularly susceptible to leaks. The roof has surpassed its useful life and is in need of replacement.
The Civic Auditorium has been a focal point in the downtown ever since it was built in 1924. It is nearing its' 100th anniversary and the City has prided itself on maintaining this important community structure. Repainting of the lobby and exterior was completed three years ago. In preparation of the building's commemoration some other maintenance issues need to be addressed. The existing roof was last replaced in 1993.
14.A.a
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Budget Page (PW: PTA & Pre-Authorize Award for Civic Auditorium Roof Replacement Project)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: B
SUBJECT:
Review and approve changes to the City's Utility Fees in the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 (Resolution 22-02-R)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council review and approve desired changes to the City's Utility Fees in the Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2021/2022. (Resolution 22-02-R)
BACKGROUND:
On July 20, 2021 City Council reviewed and approved the City's Master Fee Schedule. At City Council's meeting December 21, 2021, it was requested that Utility Fees be brought to Council for review and a potential reduction be considered for late fees. As a result of the Council request, staff took a deeper look at the fee schedule for Utility Fees.
There are several recommend amendments to the Utility Fees:
1. Eliminate new customer application fee (not yet implemented)
2. Reduce $50 Fine/penalty for delinquent account to $25
3. Eliminate 1.5% per month interest on delinquent accounts (this has not been activated due to billing system limitations)
Staff has reviewed the Utility Fees and recommends changes as highlighted below:
14.B
Packet Pg. 137
14.B
Packet Pg. 138
Upon approval by City Council staff will work to make these changes into the next available billing cycle, most likely for February 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed changes to the Utility Fees will decrease the revenue to the Water, Sewer, Storm Drain and Solid Waste Funds which is currently approximately $200,000 annually in fees. By cutting the fine/penalty by half, staff would anticipate a signficant reduction in that revenue for the City. However, customers that become delinquent on bills will see a benefit and some of those customers might otherwise be sent to collections for high outstanding bills. Customers that are sent to collections are a Bad Debt Expense, this change could decrease the amount outstanding and potentially sent to collections.
14.B
Packet Pg. 139
ATTACHMENTS:
Master Fee Schedule Utility Fee Reso
14.B
Packet Pg. 140
RESOLUTION No. 22-02-R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD AMENDING THE UTILITIES SECTION OF THE CITY OF HANFORD MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR FY 2021-22
WHEREAS, the City Council of Hanford is empowered to impose reasonable fees, rates, and charges for municipal services, and thereby has adopted rates, charges and fees set forth in a Master Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted fee schedules and established fees and charges for FY 2021-22 in a single Master Fee Schedule, effective July 20, 2021.
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby amends the 2021-22 Fee Schedule Utilities Section as approved by motion on January 18, 2022,
WHEREAS, all requirement of California Government Code Sections 66016, 66017, and 66018 are hereby found to have been complied with;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Amends the Utility Fee section of the Master Fee Schedule as approved by motion.
2. Effective Date. The Utility Fees shall be amended as of the next available utility billing cycle potentially February 2022.
PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hanford at a Council meeting duly held on this 18th day of January, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
DIANE SHARP
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
Attest:
__________________________________
NATALIE CORRAL
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS ) ss
CITY OF HANFORD )
14.B.a
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Master Fee Schedule Utility Fee Reso (Finance: Review and approve changes to Utility Fees (Resolution 22-02--R)) I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 18th day of January, 2022.
Date: ____________________
_________________________________
City Clerk
14.B.a
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Master Fee Schedule Utility Fee Reso (Finance: Review and approve changes to Utility Fees (Resolution 22-02--R))
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION: C
SUBJECT:
Finance/Community Development: Consider appropriation of $33,000 for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and $92,000 anticipated annually in the future from the General Fund for a Code Compliance Officer and add the position to the City's Position Allocation Schedule
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council consider an appropriation of $33,000 for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and $92,000 anticipated annually in the future from the General Fund for a Code Compliance Officer to enhance the City's Code Enforcement activities and add the position to the City's Position Allocation Schedule.
BACKGROUND:
The City has historically been reactive to code compliance in the City. A goal discussed by Council in the recent past has been to move towards a proactive approach to code compliance. In response to this, staff recommends that Council consider approval of a Code Compliance Officer in the Community Development Department to enhance the Code Compliance Division which will enable the City to move towards a proactive posture.
Only City Council has the authority to add new positions and appropriate new funding for this position. Although the annual cost is projected at $92,000, for the remainder of fiscal year 2021/2022 only $31,000 for salary and benefits and $2,000 for one time equipment costs would be needed for an anticipated start date in March 2022. Future year budgets will be adjusted to reflect this additional position, as well as take into consideration additional revenue and any CDBG funding that may be secured in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total costs with salary and benefits of a Code Compliance Officer is approximtely $92,000 annually. This would be appropriated out of the General Fund in the Community Development Department. It is anticipated this position will work to improve Business Licsense compliance
14.C
Packet Pg. 143
and work in CDBG Low/Mod Zones which will both bring in potential increased revenues or reimbursements for this position's costs. It is anticipated in the future that approximately half of this position's costs ($46,000) could be covered by CDBG reimbursement ($40,000) and/or business license revenue increases ($6,000). Full reimbursement of this poistion by CDBG would not be possible due to existing requirements for Public Services that are required to be spent by CDBG. If approved, staff will work to develop an activity in the City's next CDBG Action Plan for 2022 that includes potential reimbursement of code compliance costs.
ATTACHMENTS:
14.C
Packet Pg. 144
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/18/2022
AGENDA SECTION:
SUBJECT:
Council Future Agenda Items
FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Council Future Agenda Items
Packet Pg. 145
Council Future Agenda Items
Originated
Date Item Originator Staff Lead Date Estimate
4/7/20 Discussion of Pay for Parking Options
in the Downtown Area
Council
Consensus John Doyel After presentation of
Downtown Plan
9/9/20 Revised Refuse Ordinance Public
Works Jim Ross 12/21/2021
6/18/20
Discussion of Courthouse
improvements and financing options
Council
Consensus
Brad Albert
Delayed pending
additional building
review
11/16/21
Consideration of feasibility of adding
staffing to the City’s Code
Enforcement Division
Council
Consensus
Tom Webb
2/1/2022
12/21/21
Review of late fees for the City’s
Utilities Division and Consideration of
modifications to the rate structure
Council
Consensus
Chris Tavarez
2/1/2022
12/21/21
Review of City Ordinance related to
property line setbacks for Patio
structures
Council
Consensus
Mary Beatie
4/5/2022
15.a
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Council Future Agenda Items (Council: Future Agenda Items)