Loan Program Name Total Performing
Non-
Performing Total Performing
Non-
Performing
First Time Home Buyer Program 16 2 14 833,491$ 60,100$ 773,391$ Citywide Employee Incentive Homeownership Program 3 3 0 89,600 89,600 - Homeownership Retention and Loss Mitigation Program 5 1 4 1,823,416 366,321 1,457,095 Inclusionary Housing Homeownership Program 5 5 0 675,000 675,000 - Home Emergency Repair Program 0 0 0 - - - BEGIN Homeownership Program 6 6 0 180,000 180,000 - Revitalization and Beautification Program 7 3 4 147,567 60,486 87,081 Housing Program Subtotal 42 20 22 3,749,073$ 1,431,507$ 2,317,567$ Business Development Loan Program 5 1 4 408,400$ 130,322 278,078$ Total Outstanding Loans 47 21 26 4,157,473$ 1,561,829$ 2,595,644$ Number of Collectible Loans Total Outstanding Balance
Summary of Collectible Loan Performance
205
Edwin Gato, Finance Director
CITY OF HERCULES
June 27, 2024
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Administrative Plan for Non-Performing Loans. RSG will develop an Administrative Plan to restructure non-performing loans that includes the following:
a. Summary of all Loan Programs and recipient database with updated balances as of June 30, 2024
b. Loan Restructuring Hardship Terms and Process
c. Monthly Invoice Process
d. Reconveyance
e. Delinquency Resolution
f. Monitoring and Reporting
g. Compliance and Risk Management
The plan will consider best practices to administer and manage public agency loan programs. RSG will partner with City staff to present the Administrative Plan to City Council for their consideration. RSG will attend the City Council meeting and prepare a staff report and resolution. The fee proposal includes three meetings under Task 1: two staff meetings and one Council meeting.
2. Restructure Non-Performing Loans. Currently, there are 26 non-performing loans (22 housing and 4 business loans). RSG will undertake the following steps to address the non- performing loans to either recapture payments due or to restructure the loans and commence repayment:
a. RSG will identify loan terms and items that may be renegotiated based on the Administrative Plan.
b. RSG will coordinate with City staff to purchase Preliminary Title Reports and review them to understand the liens on the respective properties and to ascertain the City/Housing Successor lien position.
c. RSG will initiate dialog with borrowers informing them of amount past due (principal and interest) and requesting payment. The notification letter will incorporate the option to restructure loan based on documented hardship. d. City Attorney to prepare revised loan and ancillary document templates with RSG review. RSG will draft amended loan documents based on the City Attorney templates for individual borrowers after completing negotiations. City staff to record documents against title with County Recorder.
The fee proposal includes three meetings under Task 2: two staff meetings and one Council meeting. Restructured agreements may be presented to City Council for their consideration if required by the Administrative Plan . RSG will attend the meeting and 206
Edwin Gato, Finance Director
CITY OF HERCULES
June 27, 2024
prepare a staff report and resolution. The fee proposal assumes two hours of negotiations per borrower (26 non -performing borrowers) ; actual time may vary depending on the complexity of negotiations. The City will be responsible for any mailings and postage. RSG will provide monthly progress reports on borrower negotiations to the City.
3. Loan Administration
a. RSG will develop materials to implement the City/Housing Successor Loan Programs based on the Administrative Plan created in Task 1. This includes template invoicing letters for non -performing loans , a database to track loan balances, and monthly reports to track loan compliance in order to flag loans that become delinquent.
b. City staff will be responsible for administering monthly loan invoicing, processing payments, and updating the database with outstanding loan balances , and preparing monthly reports . RSG will review the monthly reports to identify delinquent loans.
c. If restructured loans become delinquent, RSG will strategize with City staff to determine collection actions determined by the Administrative Plan , such as issuing past-due letters and recording a notice of default against the property.
The fee proposal includes consulting on up to three loans that become delinquent after restructuring; the actual number may vary.
SCHEDULE
Task 1: Administrative Plan
RSG proposes to have the work completed for Task 1 in approximately 4 months. The Schedule would be as follows:
Month 1 : Schedule a Kick-off meeting within the 1 st month of the accepted proposal , finalization of scope and contract execution. Update loan database and identify best practices.
Month 2: Draft Administrative Plan for City Review.
Month 3: Finalize Administrative Plan.
Month 4: City Council Adoption
Task 2: Restructure Non-Performing Loans
RSG proposes to have the work completed for Task 2 in approximately 10 months subject to participant cooperation and responsiveness. The schedule would be as follows:
Month 1: Order Preliminary Title Reports and review applicable standard agreements for all programs.
207
Edwin Gato, Finance Director
CITY OF HERCULES
June 27, 2024
Month 2 : Review Preliminary Title Reports to determine City/Successor Agency lien positions, confirm amount due, and draft letters to non-performing loan clients.
Month 3: Review results with City . Subject to approval of the Administrative Plan , issue letters to property owners regarding the ir respective outstanding balance and requesting payment. Letter would include hardship restructure options. Work with City to develop new set of documents for loan programs.
Month 4: Commence restructuring of loans. Prioritize based on responses and amounts outstanding.
Months 5-12: Negotiate with borrowers, amend loan documents, complete restructuring.
Task 3 – Loan Administration
RSG would commence Loan Administration upon finalizing the Administrative Plan.
Months 1-2: Develop invoicing and compliance tracking program for non-performing loans.
Months 3-4: Commence invoicing and tracking of payments pursuant to approved Administrative Plan.
Months 5 and Onward: Consult with City staff on delinquent loans as needed to develop an action plan for each loan based on the Administrative Plan approved in Task 1.
PROJECT TEAM
The project team will be led by Jim Simon, Principal. Mr. Simon will oversee the engagement and is the authorized contact. Rosa Romero, Senior Associate and Certified Specialist in blended compliance regulations, will serve as Project Manager on the engagement and will perform the tasks identified in the Scope of Services. Ms. Rom ero will be the day -to-day contact with client staff. Suzy Kim and Dena Fuentes, Director s; Jenny Benitez, Senior Analyst ; and Jennifer Hernandez, Analyst, will work in collaborati on with the team to perform the task identified in the Scope of Services as needed. Other staff may be assigned as needed. Resumes for all RSG staff can be viewed at www.rsgsolutions.com.
208
Edwin Gato, Finance Director
CITY OF HERCULES
June 27, 2024
FEE PROPOSAL
Our services would be charged on a time -and-materials basis. RSG proposes a total budget of $113,000 for the first year of administration as detailed on the following page. If actual costs are higher due to the complexity of negotiations RSG would notify staff to obtain advance authorization before proceeding. The cost of third-party Preliminary Title Reports and mailings is not included the budget.
Our fee would be billed monthly per the following rate schedule:
Principal $ 295
Director $ 275
Senior Associate $ 225
Associate $ 195
Senior Analyst $ 160
Analyst $ 145
Research Assistant
Technician
Clerical
$ 135
$ 100
$ 60
Reimbursable
Expenses Cost plus 10%
RSG does not charge clients for travel or mileage (except direct costs related to field work/surveys), parking, standard telephone/fax expenses, general postage, or incidental copies.
However, we do charge for messenger services, overnight shipping/express mail costs, and teleconferencing services. We also charge for copies of reports, documents, notices, and support material in excess of five copies. We bill reimbursable costs at the actual expense plus a 10% surcharge.
RSG issues monthly invoices payable upon receipt, unless otherwise agreed upon in advance.
Invoices identify tasks completed to date, hours expended, and the hourly rate.
209
Edwin Gato, Finance Director
CITY OF HERCULES
June 27, 2024
Scope of Services
Loan Program Administration
City of Hercules (June 2024)
Total
Principal Director Director Sr. Assoc Sr. Analyst Analyst Total Hrs Not to 295$ 275$ 275$ 225$ 160$ 145$ Exceed Task 1 Administrative Plan 3 14 12 24 6 - 59 14,395$ Meeting with client and project team, includes internal meeting and coordination at outset Task 1.1 Internal team coordination and preparation - 1 1 1 1 - 4 935 Task 1.2 Client kickoff meeting and preparation (via videoconference) - 2 3 - 5 1,225 Task 1.3 Draft Administrative Plan 2 3 10 15 5 - 35 8,340 Task 1.4 Client review and approval of Administrative Plan/ Client Meeting 2 1 2 - - 5 1,275 Task 1.5 Present to Council 1 6 3 - - 10 2,620 Task 2 Restructure Non-Performing Loans 6 17 74 154 72 64 338 82,245$ Review non-performing loans, develop documents and outreach to participants (26 loans) Task 2.1 Order Preliminary Title Reports and applicable review loan documents - - - 1 7 7 15 2,360 Task 2.2 Review PTR, determine lien positions, confirm amounts due - 2 2 26 26 26 82 14,880 Task 2.3 Draft letters to borrowers and develop loan documents / Client Meeting 1 2 5 15 13 13 - 9,560 Task 2.4 Borrower Negotiations / Client Meeting 2 7 15 29 26 13 92 19,210 Task 2.5 Draft Amended Loan Documents and Reconveyance 2 - 52 78 - 5 137 33,165 Task 2.6 Present to Council 1 6 - 5 - - 12 3,070 Task 3 Loan Administration 3 5 17 31 - 17 73 16,375$ Administer loan programs in compliance with Administrative Plan - 12 month program Task 3.1 Develop templates, database, invoicing mechanism and monthly reports - 2 2 10 - 5 19 4,075 Task 3.2 Monthly compliance monitoring (12 months) 6 - 12 18 3,090 Task 3.3 Strategize actions on loans that transition to non-performing (3 cases) 3 3 15 15 - - 36 9,210 GRAND TOTAL BUDGET 12 36 103 209 78 81 470 113,015$ Task Hours & Billing Rate
210
Edwin Gato, Finance Director
CITY OF HERCULES
June 27, 2024
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Suzy Kim at 714-316-2116 or [email protected]. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our proposal with you.
Sincerely,
RSG, Inc.
Jim Simon Suzy Kim
Principal Director
211
DI
SCUSSION AND/OR ACTION
AGENDA ITEM
2. 22-927
212
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of July 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Final Hercules Logo Design
RECOMMENED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the final version of the Hercules logo. Upon adoption, Tripepi Smith will generate a logo library of derivative versions, including horizontal, 1-color, and simplified versions for various uses.
BACKGROUND:
Hercules has evolved over the last few decades to become a more vibrant and inclusive community with many new developments. More families, professionals, and businesses are attracted to the City due to its growth into a transit-oriented community, convenient location to major job centers, and lifestyle opportunities. Therefore, staff believes the City of Hercules could benefit from building brand awareness by utilizing various public relations strategies and activities. A public relations firm could perform a range of duties that will familiarize residents, visitors, and the region with the distinctive qualities of the City and the opportunities that come with residing, visiting, and investing in the City.
In February 2024, the City of Hercules contracted with Tripepi Smith to provide branding services, including a new logo to use in conjunction with the Hercules seal, branding guidelines, and new branded templates.
ANALYSIS:
As part of the logo development process, Tripepi Smith interviewed the City staff, City Councilmembers, and circulated a brand survey to Hercules community members, and community-based organizations. All 180 survey responses received were incorporated in 22-927
213
the Brand Research Summary, driving the development of eight logo concepts that were reviewed and discussed by the City Council at the April 23rd Council meeting.
Based on feedback from City Council, Tripepi Smith created a refined set focusing on four logo design concepts for consideration. Tripepi Smith then distributed a "Focus Round " Survey via email asking participants to identify which concept and overall logo design they preferred.
At the May 28th Council meeting, the City Council deliberated on the four logo options and identified a narrower set of options to consider and discuss further. Following Council direction, Tripepi Smith then conducted focused meetings with Councilmembers and the City Manager, using a weighted star system to rank the four concepts. Concept 1 was selected by City Council members as the preferred option, with minor variations to approve or eliminate.
Based on Council feedback, Tripepi Smith created four variations of logo Co ncept 1.
These variations removed the phrase "Since 1900," used different fonts, and included options both with and without the quail. The City Council discussed these four options at the June 25 Council meeting and voted in favor of option 1C (attached), which features the quail and uses Serif Font. Tripepi Smith has prepared a finalized version of logo concept 1C for adoption consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommended action has no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Proposed Hercules Logo Design 1C
214
HERCULES CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX –
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES ADOPTING
AN OFFICIAL CITY LOGO
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hercules desires to officially adopt a City logo that would identify officially sanctioned items including documents, correspondence, awards, commendations, as well as miscellaneous articles utilized to publicize City events; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hercules desires to publicize the City’s logo such that the citizens may rely on this emblem to signify an item that has official City approval and support; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the official adoption of a City logo will create civic spirit and serve to unify the City in working toward the goals and objectives desired by the citizens who reside in the City of Hercules.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hercules adopts the following graphic as the official City logo.
The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 23rd day of July 2024, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
215
ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Dan Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
216
ATTACHMENT 2
PROPOSED HERCULES LOGO DESIGN
217
DI
SCUSSION AND/OR ACTION
AGENDA ITEM
3. 22-928
218
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of July 23, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval Of East Bay Wildfire Prevention Coordinating Group Memorandum of Understanding
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City of Hercules to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with other jurisdictions in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties to form a Wildfire Prevention Coordinating Group (WPCG) to improve region-wide collaboration to reduce wildfire risk.
2. Appoint a member of the City Council to serve on the Wildfire Prevention Coordinating Group (WCPG) as the elected official representing the City of Hercules
BACKGROUND:
The risk of catastrophic wildfire is growing due to changing conditions driven by climate change. The Camp Fire, which swept through the town of Paradise in 2018 causing 85 deaths and destroying more than 18,000 buildings, was the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California’s history. The wildfire that swept across parts of Maui, destroying much of Lahaina on August 8, 2023, killed at least 97 people, making it one of the deadliest in the nation.
A wildfire that gains enough momentum during these extreme conditions is virtually unstoppable until winds change. Embers flying ahead of a firestorm can easily ignite homes in suburban and urban areas outside of the hills. This occurred during the 2017 Tubbs Fire which raced through the Coffey Park neighborhood in Santa Rosa. 22-928
219
Additionally, t he California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) has determined that the East Bay Hills along the Alameda and Contra Costa Counties border, extending north to Hercules and south to Fremont, is a high wildfire risk zone. Given the growing danger of wildfire, a regional approach to mitigating risk is practical. Wildfire does not respect geographic boundaries, so coordination and collaboration between jurisdictions are essential.
The East Bay Wildfire Prevention Coordinating Group is a grassroots coal ition of community organizations working with county staff and elected officials who desire to address threats from wildfire.
ANALYSIS:
Coordination among the many jurisdictions, fire districts, and other regional agencies in the East Bay wildfire zone is a challenge without a clear framework for coordination. The East Bay Wildfire Prevention Coordinating Group initiated an effort to facilitate the coordination of wildfire prevention efforts in the East Bay Hills in 2019. Attached to this report is an overview of the needs to be addressed by the group (Attachment 3). Initially, the group secured endorsements for a potential Joint Powers Agency (JPA) and made preliminary presentations to elected bodies and commissions to obtain support for a joint resolution that will allow local jurisdictions to explore the formation of the JPA. From December 2021 through June 2022, more than 20 jurisdictions and agencies participated in several workshops for jurisdiction and agency representatives to consider a governing structure, goals, funding strategies, and implementation approach.
These workshops resulted in the nomination of a smaller working group composed of both fire professionals and elected officials from Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, and the Cities of Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, and Pinole, and the Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District. In the summer of 2022, the working group made the recommendation to pursue the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in lieu of forming a new JPA. In June 2023, public officials representing 28 jurisdictions agreed on the final draft of the MOU.
The final MOU establishes the Wildfire Prevention Coordinating Group’s primary purpose, which is to provide regional coordination among elected officials and policy support to fire chiefs and their staff for the following:
1. The development of model fire codes; and
2. The development of joint plans to reduce flammable vegetation and replace it with wildfire-resistant vegetation where appropriate; and
3. To identify and apply for state, federal, or other funds to assist with wildfire risk mitigation activities; and
220
4. To support planning for wildfire evacuations and response, especially where efforts cross jurisdictional boundaries between one or more of the Participating Agencies; and
5. To work cooperatively to influence legislation at the State level to mitigate wildfire risk and to make wildfire safety a priority.
The City of Pinole, the City of Berkeley, the City of Oakland, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Fire, Alameda County, Alameda County Fire, the City of Richmond , the City of El Cerrito, and the Kensington Fire Protection District, have all approved the MOU.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action does not have any direct fiscal impact. WPCG members may implement dues to fund activities if agreed to by 100% of WPCG members.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. MOU for Coordination of Wildfire Prevention Activities to Protect the East Bay Hills in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
3. WPCG - Overview of Needs to Be Addressed and Related Efforts
4. East Bay Hills Wildfire Prevention & Coordination Presentation 221
HERCULES CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX –
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES APPROVING
THE EAST BAY HILLS REGIONAL WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND COORDINATION MOU
WHEREAS, the risk of catastrophic wildfire is growing due to changing conditions driven by climate change; and
WHEREAS, wildfire does not respect geographic boundaries, so coordination and collaboration between jurisdictions are essential; and
WHEREAS, wildfire’s frequency and intensity demand regional wildfire prevention strategies and actions to keep residents safe; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) has determined that the East Bay Hills along the Alameda and Contra Costa Counties border, extending north to Hercules and south to Fremont, is a high wildfire risk zone; and WHEREAS, Coordination among the many jurisdictions, fire districts, and other regional agencies in the East Bay wildfire zone is a challenge without a clear framework for coordination; and
WHEREAS, the East Bay Wildfire Prevention Coordinating Group has established a coalition of community organizations working with county staff and elected officials who desire to address threats from wildfire; and
WHEREAS, the East Bay Wildfire Prevention Coordinating Group has presented an MOU for participation in the planning and associated wildfire prevention activities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the City Council of the City of Hercules approves the Memorandum of Understanding for Coordination of Wildfire Prevention Activities to Protect the East Bay Hills in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 23rd day of July 2024, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Dan Romero, Mayor
222
ATTEST:
______________________________
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
223
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR COORDINATION OF WILDFIRE
PREVENTION ACTIVITIES TO PROTECT THE EAST BAY HILLS IN ALAMEDA AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into as of , 2024, (the "Effective Date") by and between the following agencies (referred to herein individually as a “Participating Agency” and collectively as the “Participating Agencies"):
[[List of agencies]]; and any other New Participating Agency in accordance with Section 4 of this MOU.
Recitals
A. The East Bay Hills along the border of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, and extending north to Hercules and south to Fremont, is a high wildfire risk zone. As wildfires do not respect political boundaries, fire prevention and vegetation management are regional efforts that require coordination among the many jurisdictions, fire districts, and other regional agencies in the East Bay wildfire zone.
B. While there are strong regional coordinating efforts that have been long established, the pace of climate change and its impacts to wildfire in the region call for more coordination at the governing body level. With support from community organizations concerned with wildfire prevention, a group of public officials representing the counties, municipalities and fire districts in the East Bay Hills has come together to form a structure for elected officials to meet their common goals regarding regional wildfire prevention, including providing governance and policy support towards regional efforts to lobby for legislation and funding, improve grant funding and wildfire hazard reduction, resulting in the development, execution and implementation of this MOU. This group desires for the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, together with all municipalities and fire districts in the East Bay Hills that include areas in high wildfire risk zones, as determined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), to sign this MOU.
C. Each of the Participating Agencies performs wildfire prevention activities, including but not limited to adopting and implementing fire codes; enforcing weed/overgrown vegetation hazard abatement standards; planning, coordinating and applying for local and regional grants, implementing wildfire hazard identification and mitigation programs; and engaging in separate and joint wildfire emergency response planning.
D. Staff members of certain Participating Agencies currently work together on common endeavors, particularly within Contra Costa County and within Alameda County. These efforts are expected to continue. The Participating Agencies desire to better coordinate these activities at both the governing body and staff levels to improve their efficacy and efficiency, with the shared goal of increasing each Participating Agency’s respective level of service to the residents and property owners in the region.
E. In furtherance of this goal, the Participating Agencies desire to create and benefit from opportunities for cross-agency governing body communication and cooperation related to wildfire prevention in the East Bay Hills, without altering any of the Participating Agencies’ jurisdictional boundaries, existing cooperative efforts at the staff or Board/Council levels, or create new legal authorities.
F. The Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa are subdivisions of the State of California with responsibility for adopting and enforcing Fire Codes within all unincorporated 224
areas of the County, though separate fire protection districts and municipalities provide fire prevention and suppression services throughout the entire County.
G. The municipalities of [list of municipalities] are municipal corporations located in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties with responsibility for providing fire prevention and fire and emergency response services within their respective jurisdictions, whether directly or by contract with a local fire protection district.
H. The municipalities of [list of municipalities] are municipal corporations located in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in which fire prevention and fire and emergency response services are provided by local fire protection districts.
I. Each of the counties listed in Recital F, above, is responsible for ratifying a Fire Code, and enforcing portions thereof, within the unincorporated portions of its respective jurisdiction.
J. Each of the municipalities listed in Recitals G and H, above, is responsible for ratifying a Fire Code, and enforcing portions thereof, within its respective jurisdiction.
K. The [list of fire protection districts] Districts are organized under the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (Health & Safety Code § 13800 et seq.) to provide fire prevention and suppression services within their jurisdictions within portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Participating Agencies agree as follows:
1. Shared Intent. The Participating Agencies desire to collaborate on strategies and activities to minimize wildfire hazards in the East Bay Hills by:
A. Providing regional coordination among elected officials and policy support to fire chiefs and their staff in developing model fire codes.
B. Providing regional coordination among elected officials and policy support to fire chiefs and their staff in developing and implementing joint plans to reduce flammable wildland vegetation and replace it with wildfire resistant vegetation where appropriate.
C. Working with regional partners including the Hills Emergency Forum and local fire chiefs to identify and apply for state, federal or other funds to assist with wildfire risk mitigation activities including (but not limited to) risk identification, planning, and vegetation removal from public and private lands, protecting sensitive wildlife habitats and native plant landscapes, and supporting private property owners to implement home hardening activities.
D. Supporting the planning and coordination efforts of fire chiefs and their staff to plan wildfire evacuations and response, especially where these efforts cross jurisdictional boundaries between one or more of the Participating Agencies.
E. Working cooperatively to influence legislation at the State level to support resources and policies to mitigate wildfire risk and to make wildfire safety a priority.
2. Term of Agreement. The term of this MOU will commence on , 20 and continue unless terminated pursuant to Section 7, below.
225
3. Co-operative Structure: East Bay Hills Regional Wildfire Prevention Coordinating Group. The Participating Agencies agree to form an East Bay Hills Regional Wildfire Prevention Coordinating Group (WPCG) as described below. The WPCG's responsibilities will be executed in a manner consistent with the Participating Agencies' individual fire prevention responsibilities.
A. WPCG Members.
Each Participating Agency will appoint one member and one alternate from its governing body to serve on the WPCG. More specifically, all WPCG members and alternates shall be elected or appointed members of Boards of Supervisors, City or Town Councils, Boards of Directors, or a functional equivalent. Upon authorizing execution of this MOU, each Participating Agency will endeavor to identify its member and alternate within two months. A quorum of the WPCG will consist of representatives of 50% plus one of the Participating Agencies
B. Principles. The WPCG will adhere to the following principles:
i. Each member of the WPCG commits to actively advance the Shared Intent described in Section 1 of this MOU.
ii. The WPCG will provide a means of coordination, information sharing and peer review concerning means of accomplishing the Shared Intent described in Section 1 of this MOU.
iii. Signing this MOU and appointing a member to the WPCG does not obligate any Participating Agency to include other Participating Agencies in their individual wildfire prevention and risk mitigation activities.
C. Duties. The WPCG will undertake the following duties:
i. Hold open and public meetings in accordance with a regular meeting schedule established by the WPCG, not less than quarterly. ii. Establish goals, procedures and programs, as necessary, for accomplishing the Shared Intent outlined in Section 1 of this MOU. iii. Designate a Fiscal Agent, as further described in Section 3.F, and provide policy oversight, advice and direction to the Fiscal Agent. iv. Develop and implement a plan for staff support of WPCG activities and objectives, whether provided by members from one or more Participating Agency, or one or more other consulting entities hired the WPCG (such as private companies, other public entities, community-based organizations, or other non-profit organizations). v. Propose a dues structure to fund WPCG activities, and implement if so agreed by 100% of WPCG members.
vi. Apply for grants or other funds that may become available for joint use by the Participating Agencies, if so agreed by the WPCG members. vii. In the event that either (i) a dues structure is instituted, or (ii) grants or other funds are received: Adopt, monitor and revise a budget for expenditure or 226
distribution of such funds on an annual basis (or other timeframe established by the WPCG, taking into account the life cycle of various grants and Participating Agency contributions).
The budget will generally outline the staffing assignments and resources needed to accomplish the funded projects.
D. Chair. At the first meeting of each calendar year, the WPCG will elect a Chair for purposes of facilitating meetings of the WPCG and overseeing development of the agenda, with whatever assistance the Chair requires.
The Chair also may create a stakeholder advisory group consisting of individuals such as representatives of other public agencies, Firesafe Councils, neighborhood or other community- based organizations, and other organizations owning land and/or serving communities of residences and businesses in the East Bay Hills wildfire zone.
E. Decision Making. Except where otherwise noted in this MOU, the WPCG shall make decisions only with an affirmative vote of a majority of the WPCG members (or their alternates, in the members' absence). Additional decision-making procedures may be established by the WPCG as needed.
F. Designation of a Fiscal Agent. The WPCG will designate one of the Participating Agencies to serve as the WPCG's "Fiscal Agent," in which role that entity will (i) serve as the WPCG treasurer and (ii) enter into contracts on behalf of the WPCG. The WPCG will review the designation of the Fiscal Agent not more often than once every three years and with at least six months of time for the then-current and newly-selected agencies to prepare for the transition. The selection is subject to approval by the governing body of the newly-selected entity. In the event of a new designation and approval of the governing body of the newly- selected Fiscal Agent, the then-current and newly-selected Fiscal Agents will seek approval from their governing bodies to (i) transfer funds or access to WPCG accounts to the new Fiscal Agent, (ii) assign all outstanding WPCG-required contracts to the new Fiscal Agent, and (iii) take such other actions as may be necessary or convenient to effect the transition of the Fiscal Agent role. The WPCG will establish a process for reimbursing the Fiscal Agent for its actual costs and expenses accrued in performing its duties under this MOU, including for staff time based on then-current hourly rates of compensation.
4. Addition of Participating Agencies. Additional municipalities, special districts, and other public agencies may become Participating Agencies after obtaining approval of (a) their governing bodies, and (b) the WPCG. Any additional Participating Agency must evidence its agreement to the terms of this MOU, or a subsequent restatement of this MOU, by executing a signature page in the same form used by the original Participating Agencies and accepting the then-current terms of this MOU. Counter-signature by only the Fiscal Agent is required for the additional Participating Agency to be bound by the terms of this MOU with all other signatories to this MOU.
5. Employment of Personnel. The employees of each Participating Agency coordinating services pursuant to this MOU are not, and shall not be deemed, employees of any of the other Participating Agencies for any purpose. Each Participating Agency shall be solely responsible for all salary, benefits, workers’ compensation, and insurance for its personnel providing services pursuant to this MOU, and said personnel shall be considered solely employees of the Participating Agencies for all supervisory, disciplinary and other employment related purposes.
6. Litigation Support. The Participating Agencies will make their employees available to testify in any litigation brought regarding work performed under this MOU. Should a 227
Participating Agency request that another Participating Agency’s employees testify in litigation following the termination of this MOU, the requesting Participating Agency shall compensate the Participating Agency that is fulfilling the request for employees’ costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at the employee’s then current hourly rate of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by the requesting Participating Agency or is based solely on allegations of the Participating Agency’s negligent performance or wrongdoing.
7. Termination or Withdrawal. At any time and without cause, a Participating Agency may terminate its participation in this MOU by giving sixty (60) days’ prior written notice to the other Participating Agencies.
8. Indemnification. Each of the other Participating Agencies will jointly indemnify, and hold harmless the Fiscal Agent and its directors/councilmembers/supervisors, officers, employees and agents (collectively, “Indemnitees”) against all liability, claims, suits, actions, costs or expenses arising from loss of or damage to property, and injuries to or death of any person (including but not limited to the property or employees of each Participating Agency) when arising out of performance of this MOU.
The indemnifying Participating Agencies’ obligation to defend includes the payment of all reasonable attorneys’ fees and all other costs and expenses of suit, and if any judgment is rendered, or settlement entered, against any Indemnitee, the indemnifying Participating Agencies must, at their expense, satisfy and discharge the same.
This Section 8, Indemnification, will survive termination or expiration of this MOU.
9. General Provisions.
A. Not a Joint Venture or Joint Powers Authority. The Participating Agencies intend by this MOU to establish only a coordinating arrangement with regard to their respective individual and joint fire prevention activities, and do not intend to create a joint powers agency, partnership, joint venture, or joint enterprise at this time.
B. No Third-Party Beneficiary. This MOU is only for the benefit of the Participating Agencies as corporate entities and shall not be construed as or deemed to operate as an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties. This MOU does not entitle any third party or parties to any right, benefit, position, or right of action of any kind for any reason whatsoever.
C. Notices. All written notices required or permitted to be given under this MOU will be deemed made when received by the other party or parties at its/their respective address(es) as indicated on its/their Signature Page(s), attached at the end of this MOU.
D. Waiver. No failure on the part of any Participating Agency party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that any Participating Agency may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this MOU constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
E. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original and all of which constitute a single instrument. 228
F. Severability. If any provision of this MOU or the application thereof to any person, entity or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this MOU, or the application of such provision to persons, entities or circumstances, other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this MOU shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
G. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this MOU is effective unless made in writing and signed by all of the Participating Agencies.
H. Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this MOU, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
I. Governing Law. This MOU, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of Alameda or Contra Costa County.
J. Existing Agreements. This MOU supplements, and does not replace, any prior or future agreements between any two or more Participating Agencies, including for contracted, shared or cooperative fire prevention and/or emergency medical services .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this MOU to be executed effective as of the day and year first above written.
[[SIGNATURE PAGES FOR EACH SIGNATORY AGENCY]
229
1 East Bay Hills Wildfire Prevention Coordination
Overview of Needs to Be Addressed and Related Efforts
Updated November 2022 .
This memo describes the unmet needs for wildfire prevention planning and implementation that exist in the East Bay Hills. It also considers existing efforts related to wildfire prevention and emergency services, and explains how additional coordination is needed.
Wildfire Prevention Needs
There is increasing evidence that the best means of protection against the loss of lives, homes and infrastructure from wildfire in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) are to reduce fuel through comprehensive vegetation management, to encourage homeowners to ‘harden’ their homes, and to ensure adequate evacuation routes and planning.
The multiple cities and agencies in the East Bay Hills have very different standards and practices in regard to these wildfire prevention strategies, creating gaps and hazards. Given the nature of wildfire, the lack of consistent prevention strategies in the East Bay Hills threatens all the communities in the region. An Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding wildfire prevention among jurisdictions and agencies in the East Bay Hills would create a consistent approach that would reduce the risk of wildfire in the entire area.
A portion of the information in this section comes from a White Paper prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments / Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG / MTC) in 2018 entitled Bay Area Wildland Urban Interface: Review of Risks, Plans, and Strategies and available at https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/fire-study-final.pdf.
Following are some specific examples of the needs that could be addressed:
1. Coordinated Regional Vegetation Management and Firebreaks. Managing vegetation in undeveloped portions of the East Bay Hills WUI and construction of firebreaks and other vegetation management techniques throughout the area will require coordination among various jurisdictions, public agencies, and private land holders. Without a clear and shared strategy, it may be difficult to build consensus on how to implement vegetation management and fire breaks across political boundaries. A strong regional vegetation management and firebreak strategy supported by high-quality data and scientific and professional expertise would enable effectiveness, efficiency, and consistency. An effective program must be based on current scientific understanding of wildfire behavior in the wildland-urban interface.
2. Grant Procurement. Many of the needs presented here point to the need for additional funding for fire prevention projects. Local jurisdictions often lack the resources to compete for grants for fire safety projects, and they may not be as competitive in grant processes when they act as individuals as they would be if they applied together.
3. Coordination of Planning Processes and Documents. The ABAG/MTC White Paper highlights the large number of overlapping and non-comprehensive planning documents that address fire safety planning in the Bay Area. Nowhere is there a comprehensive, accepted plan for 230
2 vegetation management throughout the East Bay Hills. For example, there are 37 different strategies across the Bay Area’s various fire prevention planning documents that address vegetation management projects.
4. Consistent Regional Data Collection and Analysis. While the quality of available data and technology to inform wildfire prevention efforts varies significantly among Bay Area jurisdictions, several new data sources are currently being developed (for example by the RPP and EBRPD processes, both of which are described below). However, local jurisdictions may not have the means to evaluate this data for its implications for local planning. A coalition of jurisdictions would have the resources to collect any needed additional data and to analyze data as a foundation for fire safety planning.
5. Comprehensive and Regionally-Targeted Education and Information for Private Property Owners. According to the ABAG/MTC White Paper, there are 94 different strategies related to wildfire prevention education identified in the Bay Area’s multiple wildfire prevention planning documents. Additionally, there are dozens of educational resources that aim to provide advice to homeowners and other property owners on topics such as vegetation management and home hardening. A coordinated effort could develop a single set of materials specific to the East Bay Hills, for distribution throughout the region, thereby providing a single, trusted resource for homeowners.
6. Regionally-Consistent Ordinances for Local Adoption. According to the ABAG / MTC White Paper, many urbanized areas within the Bay Area that are susceptible to wildfire risk are not currently covered by appropriate fire ordinances. While the State has recently revised and strengthened its code, it is not specific to the needs of the East Bay Hills, which require stronger provisions. Jurisdictions in the region are already working together to develop a model for consistent, strengthened fire codes and ordinances for adoption throughout the region.
Working under the MOU, they could continue this work more effectively both in the current round of 2022 fire code updates and in the future.
7. Enforcement. The ABAG / MTC White Paper also notes a lack of consistency in enforcement of fire safety regulations. A coalition of jurisdictions could work together to secure funds to allow for increased local enforcement and could also develop a coordinated approach to enforcement to ensure that all jurisdictions are enforcing relevant codes in similar ways. If desired, it could also help form a regional enforcement agency in jurisdictions that opt for regional rather than local enforcement.
8. Subsidies and Grants for Activities on Private Land. Jurisdictions in the region have varied capacity to provide subsidies and grants for homeowners who are unable to cover the costs of improvements to their properties such as vegetation management and structural hardening. A regional body could gather and distribute resources for this purpose based on both need and locational importance in regard to prevention of potential wildfires.
9. Sharing of Technology and Assets. There are a number of fire prevention and emergency management technologies and assets already in place in individual jurisdictions covering the East Bay Hills, but these technologies and assets are not necessarily available from one jurisdiction to the next, and not all jurisdictions have the resources to acquire these technologies and assets on their own. A coordinated approach could facilitate sharing of existing 231
3 assets and technologies, and could also acquire and develop new assets and technologies that could be available to all member agencies.
10. Negotiation of Reduced-Price Services. Some fire prevention services, such as vegetation removal, are currently procured by individual agencies from private entities, and each agency must negotiate its own pricing. Smaller agencies in particular may pay a premium for such services since they may have less purchasing power than they would as part of a regional consortium. Others have not been in a position to fund vegetation management programs to any extent. Coordinated negotiation for services on behalf of all participating jurisdiction could result in cost savings to the individual jurisdictions.
Other Efforts
There are several ongoing efforts aimed at wildfire prevention and emergency response in the East East Bay Hills. An MOU would complement (and not be redundant with) these efforts. While enlarging the scope of an existing agency may seem preferable to forming a new one, we have explored existing agencies, including those noted below, and concluded that an additional mechanism for regional coordination is needed. This section provides an overview of these other efforts, and explains how they may be augmented by a more comprehensive regional coordination approach:
1. Hills Emergency Forum (HEF): The Hills Emergency Forum is a consortium of nine jurisdictions and agencies formed after the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire that exists to coordinate the collection, assessment and sharing of information on the East Bay Hills fire hazards and to provide a forum for building interagency consensus on the development of fire safety standards and codes, incident response and management protocols, public education programs, multi-jurisdictional training, and fuel reduction strategies.
The HEF has proven itself to be an effective vehicle for information sharing, but it has little independent funding, it is composed of staff only (without direct oversight by elected officials), it has no policy-making ability, and it has focused predominantly on fire suppression. It also does not include all agencies that could be involved in an MOU, and the HEF rejected a proposal to increase items membership to include additional agencies. A coalition of jurisdictions formed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would include additional agencies and amplify the efforts of the HEF by potentially increasing funding and staffing, engaging in additional programs, and providing a more effective vehicle for policy coordination with a distinct focus on fire prevention.
2. Regional Priority Plan (RPP): The Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD) and the Contra Costa County Resource Conservation District (CCRCD) have received a grant from the Coastal Conservancy to develop a Regional Priority Plan (RPP) that is intended to address wildfire issues (primarily in wildlands areas) of both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
According to the RPP website, the RPP will describe the existing conditions of the wildlands in the two counties and recommend a set of priority projects aimed at reducing risk and damage to sensitive resources and communities.
The RPP is focused on wildland areas, rather than areas in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) and it also does not aim to create a coordinating body among jurisdictions. It appears that the 232
4 RPP may provide a vehicle for further planning and financing of projects in the eastern wildland and agricultural portions of the two counties, and these provisions could be augmented by an effort focusing on urbanized areas and the WUI.
3. Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP): A CWPP is a plan developed through a collaborative framework established by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council and agreed to by state and local governments and other stakeholders in the vicinity of the planning area. A CWPP identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments and recommends measures to reduce structural ignitability in areas at risk of wildfire. There are separate CWPPs for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, both prepared by the Diablo Firesafe Council.
The C
WPPs provide valuable background information about wildfire planning in the two counties, and they list a compendium of projects that might be undertaken to lessen wildfire r
isk. However, they do not provide funding, staffing or an interjurisdictional organizational framework to make these projects a reality.
4. EBRPD Wildfire Risk and Fine Scale Vegetation Mapping. The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) is leading an effort to create two separate sets of maps regarding wildfire in both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The Wildfire Risk Assessment Mapping process is alread y
f
ully funded and underway, and EBRPD and its partners are also engaged in fundraising to complete Fine Scale Vegetation Mapping of both counties.
Thes
e mapping projects will provide valuable information about fire risks and fuel loads, and they will be important tools for future vegetation management efforts and fire risk assessments.
However, they will not provide funding, staffing or an interjurisdictional organizational framework to complete fire prevention projects.
5. East Bay Regional Communications System Authority (EBRCSA): The EBRCSA is a Joint Powers Authority created in 2007 and dedicated to building, owning and operating a state-of-the art emer
gency communications system for the public agencies within Alameda and Contra Costa Co
unties. The EBRCSA includes 43 member agencies consisting of both counties, 30 cities, 6 special districts, 3 colleges, the Dublin-San Ramon Services District, and the California Department of Transportation, with a Board of Directors made up of 23 representatives consisting of elected officials, police chiefs, fire chiefs, and city managers.
The
EBRCSA provides a useful model for a bi-county effort addressing emergency management issues. The organizational structure and the steps undertaken to form the EBRCSA may prove i
nstructive in looking at the formation of a wildfire prevention coalition in the East Bay Hills.
Ho
wever, the EBRCSA is focused solely on emergency communications, and would not be a v
ehicle for wildfire prevention activities.
233
East Bay Hills Wildfire Prevention & Coordination
A grassroots advocacy effort to create a formalized agreement to reduce wildfire threat throughout the East Bay
Photo credit: Julia Sumangil Photography
234
Increasing Threats
In the face of increasing threats from wildfire, it is time for a new, more effective, regional approach to keep residents safe.
Regional Issue
Wildfires do not respect political boundaries so fire
prevention and vegetation management should be
regional efforts .
Difficult to Coordinate
Coordinating among the many jurisdictions is a
challenge without a specialized mechanism
Guiding Principles for a
Regional Approach to
Wildfire Prevention
235
Opportunities for Wildfire Prevention
Coordination
» Established coordination exists amongst fire officials » East Bay WUI areas with highly local needs and requirements (non- native species, high density)
» No dedicated staff for regional wildfire prevention coordination » No interjurisdictional framework for policy making
» Uneven enforcement of vegetation management regulations and state fire code
» Regional coordination increasingly prioritized in State and Federal programs
236
Existing Wildfire Prevention
Coordination Efforts
» Chiefs’ Associations (Alameda & Contra Costa Counties) » Hills Emergency Forum (HEF)
» East Bay Regional Communication System Authority
(EBRCSA)
» Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP)
» Regional Priority Plan (RPP)
» EBRPD Wildfire Risk and Fine Scale Vegetation Mapping 237
Our Work to Date
» 2019-2021: Oakland Firesafe Council (OFSC) members began fundraising and speaking with local jurisdictions about wildfire prevention coordination; engaged Placeworks Consulting
» Dec 2021-Jun 2022: OFSC facilitated five meetings amongst 25+ local agency and elected officials to explore collaboration options--from existing mechanisms to a JPA » Summer 2022: Stakeholders agreed to work towards an MOU structure and delegated drafting to subset of stakeholders (working group)
» Dec 2022: Hanson-Bridgett law firm presents draft MOU to working group » Spring 2023: MOU finalized with input from working group » June 2023: Stakeholders meet, agree to present MOU to jurisdictions 238
Photo credit: Julia Sumangil Photography
Alameda County
Office of Supervisor Keith Carson, Fire Chief William McDonald Contra Costa County
Office of Supervisor John Gioia, Fire Chief Lewis Broschard City of Berkeley
Councilmember Susan Wengraf, Assistant Fire Chief Dan Green City of Oakland
Deputy City Administrator Joe DeVries,
Deputy Fire Chief Damon Covington/Fire Chief Reginald Freeman City of Pinole
Mayor Pro Tem Maureen Toms
City of Richmond
Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin, Fire Chief Angel Montoya Moraga -Orinda Fire Protection District
Fire Chief Dave Winnacker
Working Group
Members
Photo credit: Julia Sumangil Photography
239
Funding Partners Supporting MOU
Development *
» Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
» Donner Family Fund
» California Coastal Conservancy
grant via Bay Area Council
» CSAA Insurance Group
» PG&E
» Numerous community members
and neighborhood groups in the
East Bay Hills
» Alameda County
» Contra Costa County
» City of Berkeley
» City of Oakland
» City of Pinole
» City of Richmond
» Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection
District
* Through donations to 501(c)(3) sponsor Oakland Firesafe Council (OFSC) 240
Photo credit: Julia Sumangil Photography
Memorandum of Understanding
for coordination of wildfire prevention activities to protect the East Bay Hills in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
241
MOU: A Simple Platform
» Explanation of wildfire risks in East Bay Hills
» Description of wi ldfire prevention activities performed by Participating Agencies and current collaboration efforts within counties
» Desire to improve coordination, enhance efficacy & efficiency » Goal of increasing each Participating Agency's level of service to residents and property owners
» No alteration of jurisdictional boundaries, cooperative efforts, or individual jurisdiction authority
242
Shared Intent / Potential Activities
Once formed, Participating Agencies will jointly decide on activities. The following have been discussed:
» Collaboration on strategies and policies to minimize wildfire hazards in the East Bay Hills including vegetation management » Assist in adoption of consistent codes for fire prevention » Partner to apply for state, federal, and other grant funds » Plan for wildfire response including evacuations across jurisdictions 243
East Bay Hills Regional Wildfire Prevention
Coordinating Group -- Structure
» Each Participating Agency appoints :
Member and alternate from governing
body (council, board)
» Fire Officials to advise on strategies and
policies
244
Principles and Duties
» Hold open and public meetings
» Establish goals, procedures and programs
» Designate a fiscal agent; develop plan for staff support » Institute a dues structure and/or apply for grants as needed
» Adopt annual budget
245
NEXT STEPS
» Presentations to potential Participating
Agencies’ governing bodies
» Adjust MOU to incorporate feedback
» Ratification/approval by City Councils,
Boards of Supervisors, Fire District Boards
» GOAL: Initial meeting in 2023
246
JON KAUFMAN [email protected]
LISA JACOBS [email protected]
DAVID EARLY [email protected]
EastBayWildfire.org
Contact
247