405-690-043-6 $238.04
405-690-044-4 $238.04
405-690-045-1 $238.04
405-690-046-9 $238.04
405-690-047-7 $238.04
405-690-048-5 $238.04
405-690-049-3 $238.04
405-690-050-1 $238.04
405-690-051-9 $238.04
405-690-052-7 $238.04
405-690-053-5 $238.04
405-690-054-3 $238.04
405-690-055-0 $238.04
405-690-056-8 $238.04
405-690-057-6 $238.04
405-690-058-4 $238.04
405-690-059-2 $238.04
405-690-060-0 $238.04
405-690-061-8 $238.04
405-690-062-6 $238.04
405-690-063-4 $238.04
405-690-064-2 $238.04
405-690-065-9 $238.04
405-690-066-7 $238.04
405-690-067-5 $238.04
405-690-068-3 $238.04
405-690-069-1 $238.04
405-690-070-9 $238.04
405-690-071-7 $238.04
405-690-072-5 $238.04
405-690-073-3 $238.04
405-690-074-1 $238.04
405-690-075-8 $238.04
405-690-076-6 $238.04
405-690-077-4 $238.04
405-690-078-2 $238.04
405-690-079-0 $238.04
405-690-080-8 $238.04
405-690-081-6 $238.04
405-690-082-4 $238.04
405-690-083-2 $238.04
405-690-084-0 $238.04
405-690-085-7 $238.04
405-690-086-5 $238.04
405-690-087-3 $238.04
405-690-088-1 $238.04
405-690-089-9 $238.04
405-690-090-7 $238.04
2911
City of Richmond
Hilltop LMD
Final Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
405-690-091-5 $238.04
405-690-092-3 $238.04
405-690-093-1 $238.04
405-690-094-9 $238.04
405-690-095-6 $238.04
405-690-096-4 $238.04
405-690-097-2 $238.04
405-690-098-0 $238.04
405-690-099-8 $238.04
405-690-100-4 $238.04
405-690-101-2 $238.04
405-690-102-0 $238.04
405-690-103-8 $238.04
405-690-104-6 $238.04
405-690-105-3 $238.04
405-690-106-1 $238.04
405-690-107-9 $238.04
405-690-108-7 $238.04
405-690-109-5 $238.04
405-690-110-3 $238.04
405-690-111-1 $238.04
405-690-112-9 $238.04
405-690-113-7 $238.04
405-690-114-5 $238.04
405-690-115-2 $238.04
405-690-116-0 $238.04
405-690-117-8 $238.04
405-690-118-6 $238.04
405-690-119-4 $238.04
405-690-120-2 $238.04
405-690-121-0 $238.04
405-690-122-8 $238.04
405-690-123-6 $238.04
405-690-124-4 $238.04
405-690-125-1 $238.04
405-690-126-9 $238.04
405-690-127-7 $238.04
405-690-128-5 $238.04
405-690-129-3 $238.04
405-690-130-1 $238.04
405-690-131-9 $238.04
405-690-132-7 $238.04
405-690-133-5 $238.04
405-690-134-3 $238.04
405-690-135-0 $238.04
405-690-136-8 $238.04
405-690-137-6 $238.04
405-690-138-4 $238.04
2912
City of Richmond
Hilltop LMD
Final Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
405-690-139-2 $238.04
405-690-140-0 $238.04
405-690-141-8 $238.04
405-690-142-6 $238.04
405-690-143-4 $238.04
405-690-144-2 $238.04
405-690-145-9 $238.04
405-690-146-7 $238.04
405-690-147-5 $238.04
405-690-148-3 $238.04
405-690-149-1 $238.04
405-690-150-9 $238.04
405-690-151-7 $238.04
405-690-152-5 $238.04
405-690-153-3 $238.04
405-690-154-1 $238.04
405-690-155-8 $238.04
405-690-156-6 $238.04
405-690-157-4 $238.04
405-690-158-2 $238.04
405-690-159-0 $238.04
405-690-160-8 $238.04
405-690-161-6 $238.04
405-690-162-4 $238.04
405-690-163-2 $238.04
405-690-164-0 $238.04
405-700-001-2 $504.25
405-700-002-0 $258.27
405-700-003-8 $393.56
405-700-004-6 $307.47
2913
July 11, 2023
HILLTOP LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached document is a true copy of that certain Engineer’s Report, including assessment and assessment diagram, for Hilltop Landscape Maintenance District, confirmed by the City Council of the City of Richmond on the 11th day of July 2023, by its Resolution No.
This document is certified, and is filed with you, pursuant to Section 22641 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Dated:
Pamela Christian, City Clerk
City of Richmond
Contra Costa County, California
2914
July 11, 2023
Public Works
DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Chavarria, Director of Public Works
Greg Hardesty, Parks & Landscaping Superintendent
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider the Levy of Annual
Assessments for the Marina Bay Landscaping and
Lighting Maintenance District
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total amount proposed to be assessed for the 2023- 2024 fiscal year (FY) for the operation of the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District is
$714,134. The City’s contribution to the District is
$476,309 based on the general benefit to the City
conferred by the public improvements requiring
landscaping and lighting maintenance work. This
contribution will be budgeted in the General Fund for FY 2023-2024. The combined total of the assessment and
the City’s contribution will be $1,190,443. This
assessment includes a collection of $56,381 for the
District’s reserve fund.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
March 7, 2023 and June 20, 2023
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Resolution approving the Marina Bay Landscaping and
Lighting Maintenance District Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and declaring the City Council’s
intention to increase the annual assessment and hold a
public hearing to consider the levy of annual
assessments for the Marina Bay Landscaping and
Lighting Maintenance District.
AGENDA
REPORT
2915
July 11, 2023
RECOMMENDED ACTION: HOLD a public hearing; and ADOPT a resolution approving the Engineer’s Report and ordering the levy
and collection of assessments in the Marina Bay
Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District for the
Fiscal Year 2023-2024 providing for a three percent
increase in annual assessments – Public Works
Department (Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478/Greg
Hardesty 510-620-6920).
DISCUSSION:
On July 28, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 83-09 approving the formation of the new district and the founding Engineer’s Report, establishing the rate of assessment, authorizing annual increases thereof, and ordering maintenance services within the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. The rate of assessment for this District must be confirmed annually by action of the City Council.
As directed by the City Council on March 7, 2023, the City Engineer has prepared an Annual Levy Report for the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 (“Engineer’s Report”). The Engineer’s Report generally describes existing and proposed improvements and substantial changes to be made to existing improvements within the District. The Engineer’s Report also estimates the costs of such improvements. In order to meet the costs, the City Engineer recommends that the City Council increase assessments from those levied in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 by an inflation rate of three percent (3%), as permitted under Resolution No. 83-09.
On June 20, 2023, the City Council approved the preliminary Engineer’s Report and adopted a resolution stating its intention to increase assessments and announcing that a public hearing on the proposed assessments would be held at the City Council’s regular meeting of July 11, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. The City Council’s Resolution of Intention was mailed to all property owners within the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District.
The attached resolution approves the Engineer’s Report and orders the levy and collection of assessments in the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Engineer’s Report
Attachment 3 - Certification Letter
2916
1 RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT AND ORDERING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
ASSESSMENTS IN THE MARINA BAY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
WHEREAS, the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District was established in 2009 to provide landscaping and lighting improvements and maintenance in an area of the City known as Marina Bay; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2009 by Resolution No. 83-09 the City Council of the City of Richmond approved a maximum amount of individual maintenance assessments that may be levied by the City Council in the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (the “MBLLMD” or “District”) in future fiscal years and approved the index by which the stated maximum amount of individual assessments may be increased; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2023 the City Council ordered preparation of an Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 regarding proposed improvements and costs of improvements and maintenance for the MBLLMD; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer has prepared the Engineer’s Final Annual Levy Report for the Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 (“Engineer’s Report”) which describes existing and proposed improvements and substantial changes to be made to existing improvements within the MBLLMD, and which estimates the costs of such improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Engineer’s Report on file with the City Clerk’s Office at Richmond City Hall at 450 Civic Center Plaza in the City of Richmond and determined that in order to pay the costs of proposed improvements for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 the City would have to increase District assessments from those levied in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 by an inflation rate of 3%, as permitted under Resolution No. 83-09.
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the City Council approved the preliminary Engineer’s Report on file with the City Clerk’s Office, declared its intention to levy and collect assessments in the Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, proposed to increase District assessments from those levied in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 under the maximum amount permissible under Resolution 83-09, and further resolved to conduct a hearing on the levy of the proposed assessments at a regular meeting of the Richmond City Council to be held at 6:30 p.m. on July 11, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 2023 on the proposal to increase District assessments from those levied in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 under the maximum amount permissible under Resolution 83-09.
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Richmond does hereby approve the Engineer’s Report and the increase in District assessments from those levied in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in accordance with the Engineer’s Report and under the maximum amount permissible under Resolution 83-09, and does hereby approve the levy and collection of assessments in the Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution, together with Exhibit A as may be amended, with the office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County, California.
2917
2 I certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on July 11, 2023:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
_____________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond
Approved:
_____________________
Mayor
Approved as to form:
_____________________
City Attorney
2918
City of Richmond
Marina Bay
Landscaping and Lighting
Maintenance District
2023/2024 Engineer’s Annual Levy Report
Intent Meeting: May 16, 2023
Public Hearing: July 11, 2023
27368 Via Industria
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
T 951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864
F 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com
2919
AGENCY DIRECTORY
CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF
City of Richmond, California
Mr. Eduardo Martinez
Mayor
Ms. Gayle McLaughlin Ms. Soheila Bana
Vice Mayor Councilmember
Ms. Claudia Jimenez Ms. Doria Robinson
Councilmember Councilmember
Mr. Melvin Willis Mr. Cesar Zepeda
Councilmember Councilmember
STAFF
Mr. Robert Armijo, PE
Deputy Public Works Director / City Engineer
ASSESSMENT ENGINEER
Mr. Tyrone Peter, PE
Willdan Financial Services
2920
2921
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer’s Report as directed by the Richmond City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution, and Section 12.60.240 of the Richmond Municipal Code. The undersigned certifies that he is a Professional Engineer, registered in the State of California.
Dated: , 2023
By:
Robert Armijo, PE, Deputy Public Works
Director / City Engineer
City of Richmond, California
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, including the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached was filed with me on the day of , 2023.
By:
Pamela Christian, City Clerk
City of Richmond, California
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached was approved and confirmed by the City Council, on the day of , 2023.
By:
Pamela Christian, City Clerk
City of Richmond, California
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, including the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Contra Costa on the day of , 2023.
By:
Pamela Christian, City Clerk
City of Richmond, California
2922
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I – INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 SECTION II - ENGINEER’S REPORT ............................................................................ 4 PART I — PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 4 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES ...................................................................... 5 PART II — METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT .................................................................................11 BENEFIT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................11 GENERAL BENEFIT .................................................................................................................12 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................15 ASSESSMENT RANGE FORMULA ..............................................................................................25 PART III — DISTRICT BUDGET .................................................................................................27 PART IV — DISTRICT DIAGRAMS .............................................................................................29 APPENDIX A — ASSESSMENT ROLL .........................................................................A 2923
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 1 SECTION I – INTRODUCTION
The Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (hereafter referred to as the “District”) was formed in 2009 under the provisions of Chapter 12.60 of the Richmond Municipal Code (“City of Richmond Maintenance District Procedure”) to provide a method of funding in whole or in part, the ongoing operation, maintenance and servicing of various public landscaping and lighting improvements within the area of the City of Richmond (the “City”) known as Marina Bay that have been determined to be of special benefit to properties therein. The City Council formed the District to levy and collect annual assessments on the County tax rolls to fund such improvements and appurtenant facilities authorized pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code commencing with §22500 (hereafter referred to as the “1972 Act”). In conjunction with the authority of the 1972 Act, the proposed assessments shall be established and made in compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of the California State Constitution Article XIIID (hereafter referred to as the “California Constitution”).
This Engineer’s Report (hereafter referred to as “Report”) has been prepared to establish the levy and collection of annual special benefit assessments related thereto commencing in Fiscal Year 2023/2024, pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 beginning with §22565 of the 1972 Act in compliance with the substantive and procedural provisions of the California Constitution. Said District shall include all lots and parcels of land within the area of the City known as Marina Bay that have been identified as receiving special benefits from the public improvements to be maintained by the City within the boundaries of the District which are described herein.
The word “parcel,” for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) by the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office. The Contra Costa County Auditor/Controller uses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and specific Fund Numbers to identify properties to be assessed on the tax roll for the special benefit assessments.
In accordance with the provisions of Government Code, Section 53753 and California Constitution, Article XIIID, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing to consider public testimonies, comments and written protests regarding the District levy of assessments. The City Council may by resolution, adopt this Report (as submitted or amended) including the assessment diagram; approve the levy and collection of the assessments including the assessment range formula as described herein; and order the improvements to be made. In such case, the assessments for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 (as provided herein or as amended) shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the property tax roll for Fiscal Year 2023/2024.
Each subsequent fiscal year, an Engineer’s Report shall be prepared and presented to the City Council that includes a description of any proposed changes to the District or improvements, the proposed budget and assessments for that fiscal year, and the City Council shall hold a public hearing regarding these matters prior to approving and adopting the annual levy of assessments for that fiscal year. 2924
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 2 To support the District, the City Council has directed the establishment of an advisory committee (“Committee”) for the District to be comprised of property owners within the District. The Committee will initially have nine members of which five members will be representatives of the Homeowner Associations within Marina Bay, one representative from the Marina Bay Neighborhood Council, two members representing the property owners of the non-residential properties within the District, and the final member being the Harbormaster. The Committee will work closely with the District Administrator to provide feedback, input and recommendations on annual budget priorities, service alternatives, and other matters of concern related to the maintenance of the District improvements, including recommendations for prioritization of repairs, replacements, or rehabilitations that may be funded from available assessment revenues. Any proposed changes to the number of Committee members or the proportional representation of the various property owner groups within the Committee must be approved by the City Council.
This Report consists of five (5) parts:
Part I
Plans and Specifications: Provides a description of the District and a summary of the various local public landscaping and lighting improvements and facilities within the Marina Bay area that will be supported by the District assessments. Although the District includes all properties determined to receive special benefits from the improvements to be provided, it has been determined that some properties do not receive special benefits from each of the various improvements and facilities to be funded by the District assessments. Therefore, to identify these differences in benefit, the District was initially formed with two (2) zones of benefit (hereafter referred to as “Zones”), which are described in more detail in this section of the Report as well as Part II (Method of Apportionment). A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District and the Zones established therein is attached and incorporated herein under Part IV (District Diagrams).
Part II
Method of Apportionment: This section of the Report provides a discussion of benefits to properties within the District, the apportionment of the improvement costs, the method of calculating each property’s proportional special benefit and calculation of annual assessments. This section also identifies and outlines an Assessment Range Formula that provides for an annual inflationary adjustment to the maximum assessment rates initially established by this Report. This Assessment Range Formula limits increases on future assessments, but also provides for reasonable cost adjustments due to inflation in subsequent fiscal years without the added expense of additional property owner protest ballot proceedings to approve such anticipated cost increases.
Part III
The District Budgets: An estimate of the annual funding required for the estimated annual maintenance, servicing and operation of the local parks, trails, streetscape 2925
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 3 landscaping, decorative and bollard lighting and related improvements within the District and specifically the costs associated with the improvements determined to be of special benefit to parcels within the District. The budget identifies an estimate of anticipated ongoing annual expenses to service, maintain and operate the improvements within the District and each respective Zone’s proportional special benefit costs and expenses authorized by the 1972 Act. This budget establishes the initial maximum assessment rate for each Zone of the District and the proposed budget and assessment rates applicable to properties within the District commencing in Fiscal Year 2023/2024. Because the annual cost of maintaining these improvements will clearly be affected by inflation over the years, an annual inflationary adjustment (Assessment Range Formula) will be applied in subsequent fiscal years to the assessment rates established herein.
Part IV
District Diagram: A Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District and the current Zones therein is provided in this section of the Report and includes all parcels of land that will receive special benefits from the improvements and for which an assessment may be imposed as part of this District. Reference is hereby made to the Contra Costa County Assessor’s maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of each lot and parcel of land within the District. This section of the Report also contains various improvement maps that show the extent and location of the various District improvements.
Appendix A
Assessment Roll: A listing of each parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number) within the District and its corresponding zone designation and the maximum assessment amount. The proposed maximum assessment amount for each parcel is based on the parcel’s proportional special benefit as calculated in accordance with the method of apportionment (Part II — Method of Apportionment) and the corresponding maximum assessment rate calculated from the net annual cost for the maintenance, operation and servicing of the improvements for that parcel’s Zone as established in the budget incorporated herein under Part III (District Budget).
2926
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 4 SECTION II - ENGINEER’S REPORT
PART I — PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Description of the District
The territory within the District consists of the lots, parcels and subdivisions of land in the southern section of the City of Richmond known as Marina Bay, and is generally located:
south and west of Interstate 580; north of the Pacific Ocean (Bay); and adjacent to and east of Harbour Way S.
The District generally includes all or a portion of the parcels identified on the following Contra Costa County Assessor's Parcel Maps:
Book 560, Pages 09 through 15;
Book 560, Pages 17 through 19;
Book 560, Pages 26 and 27;
Book 560, Page 37;
Book 560, Pages 45 through 47;
Book 560, Pages 53 through 56;
Book 560, Pages 59 through 63; and
Book 560, Pages 68 through 83
A boundary diagram incorporated herein under Part IV (District Diagram) of this Report outlines the boundaries of the District and the Zones therein. This diagram incorporates all lots, parcels and subdivisions of land within the District and Zones as the same existed at the time this Report was prepared, a complete listing of which is provided in Part V (Assessment Roll) of this Report and together the District Diagram and parcels within the Assessment Roll constitutes the Assessment Diagram for the District.
Within the boundaries of the District, two (2) Zones have been established to identify parcels and areas within the District that for reasons of variations in proximity and extent of the improvements, it has been determined that the parcels within these Zones receive differing degrees of special benefits from the improvements and services to be provided by the District.
Zone 01 incorporates parcels within the District that receive direct and particular special benefits from the various local District improvements including parks, trails, streetscape landscaping and associated lighting improvements based on factors that consider their proximity and nexus to these various improvements. Zone 02 incorporates parcels within the District that receive similar direct and particular special benefits from the District’s parks, trails and associated lighting improvements based on factors that consider their proximity and nexus to these various improvements (Similar to Zone 01 parcels), but it has been determined that 2927
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 5 parcels within Zone 02 do not receive a direct and particular special benefit nexus to the District’s current streetscape landscaping.
These two Zones within the District and the improvements and benefits associated with the properties therein are described in more detail in Part II (Method of Apportionment) section of this Report.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES
Improvements and Services Authorized by the 1972 Act
As generally defined by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and applicable to this District, landscaping and lighting improvements and associated special benefit assessments may include but are not limited to some or all of the following:
Improvements
Mean one or any combination of the following:
The installation or planting of landscaping.
The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities.
The installation or construction of public lighting facilities. The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.
The installation of park or recreational improvements, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
Land preparation, such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling, sod, landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks, and drainage. Lights, playground equipment, play courts, and public restrooms. The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing. The acquisition of land for park, recreational, or open-space purposes. The acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant to this section.
Maintain or Maintenance
Means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including:
Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. 2928
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 6 Providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of the landscaping including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury. The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.
Service or Servicing
Means the furnishing of:
Electric current or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements. Water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the maintenance of any other improvements.
Incidental Expenses
Include all of the following:
The costs of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment.
The costs of printing, advertising and the giving of published, posted, and mailed notices.
Compensation payable to the county for collection of assessments. Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services in proceedings pursuant to this part.
Any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements.
Any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5 of the 1972 Act.
Costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.
2929
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 7 District Improvements and Facilities
This District is a mechanism to provide a funding source to ensure that the properties within the District receive an appropriate and enhanced level of ongoing maintenance, operation and servicing of local landscaping and lighting improvements established or installed in connection with the development of those properties and for which such properties receive special benefits. These improvements include various amenities within the street right-of-ways and public places including, but not limited to, landscaped parkways, medians and entryways; weed abatement areas; park and recreational facilities and equipment; trails, paths and related facilities; and lighting facilities within the parks and trails that will be maintained by the City through the District.
The maintenance and servicing of the improvements generally include, but are not limited to, the materials, equipment, utilities, labor and incidental expenses including administrative expenses required for the annual operation of the District as well as the performance of periodic repairs, replacement and rehabilitation activities as needed to provide for the growth, health, and beauty of landscaping and the proper operation and function of related lighting, irrigation, drainage facilities, signage; and recreational facilities. The following provides a summary overview of the District improvements.
Detailed maps and descriptions of the location and extent of the improvements to be maintained by the District are on file at the City, and by reference are made part of this Report. Reference is also made to the “Marina Bay Neighborhood Landscape Management Plan” and its associated inventory database for applicable improvements and appurtenances. The following table is provided to outline the Baseline Maintenance received throughout the City and the Enhanced Maintenance received within the district:
Services/Improvements Baseline Maintenance Enhanced Maintenance Lawn Care Mowed alternate weeks throughout the season Mowed each week throughout season No set trimming schedule
Tree pruning as needed for safety
Shrubs trimmed only for growth control
Debris Management Once a week debris pick-up Twice a week debris pick-up Monthly Inspection services Regular weekly inspections ongoing throughout the year Repair of damaged equipment only Repairs as needed to improve function No set schedule Regular inspections ongoing throughout season Reseeding and replanting as needed to replace
bare plant life areas
Replenishment of plants as needed to maintain quantity and quality of plant life
Reduced inspection intervals Regular inspections ongoing throughout year Lights and facilities repaired as needed for safety Repairs as needed to ensure proper operation Service three (3) times a week for permanent
restrooms Service seven (7) times a week for permanent restrooms Service three (3) times a week for portable
restrooms Service seven (7) times a week for portable restrooms Reduced inspection intervals Regular inspection services ongoing throughout year Minor repairs of damaged equipment Repairs as needed for safety Removal of damage equipment as needed Replacement of facilities when funding is available Rehabilitation and Replacement
of Playground Equipment,
Benches, Guardrails, etc.
Tree and Plant Care Regular trimming schedule ongoing throughout the season
Irrigation Management
Replanting and Reseeding
Lighting and Facilities
Maintenance
Restroom Custodial Services
2930
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 8 Streetscape Landscaping
Landscape improvements along the street right of ways within the District (Streetscape) may include, but are not limited to: turf; shrubs and plants; trees; ground cover (both hardscape and vegetation); weed and vector control; irrigation and drainage systems; ornamental lighting structures; related curbs, sidewalks (including Bay Trail connections on sidewalks), masonry walls or other fencing within public areas or right-of-ways; entryway monuments or other ornamental structures and signs; and associated appurtenant facilities located within and associated with the District, including:
54,958 square feet of landscaping associated with Regatta Gateway; 23,110 square feet of landscaping associated with Regatta Blvd. Medians; 8,265 square feet of landscaping associated with Marina Bay Parkway Medians; 17,820 square feet of landscaping associated with Marina Way South Medians; 22,500 square feet of landscaping associated with Hall Avenue, Wright Avenue and Harbor Way South Frontages; and,
3,400 square feet of landscaping associated with Bayside Drive Medians.
Parks and Trails
The landscaping and related amenities associated with the five park areas within the District and the trail system that connects or provides access to those parks and/or the bay waters may include, but are not limited to, turf; shrubs, plants; trees; ground cover (both hardscape and vegetation); weed and vector control; irrigation and drainage systems; ornamental and safety lighting; various sidewalks, walking trails and bicyclepaths; masonry walls, retaining walls or other fencing; monuments; signs; water features; trash receptacles; benches; tables; picnic areas; drinking fountains; exercise stations or other passive recreational facilities; as well as active recreational facilities and equipment including tennis courts, restrooms, parking facilities; and appurtenant facilities located within and associated with:
Park landscaped areas including, but not limited to:
566,280 square feet associated with the contiguous Marina Bay Park, Rosie the Riveter Monument Park and Marina Green;
261,360 square feet associated with Barbara & Jay Vincent Park; 130,680 square feet associated with Shimada Friendship Park; 87,120 square feet associated with Lucretia Edwards Park; and, 43,560 square feet associated with Sheridan Point Park. Trail landscaped areas including, but not limited to:
45,671 square feet associated with the Bay Trail — Esplanade; 219,551 square feet associated with the Bay Trail — Bay Shoreline; 2931
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 9 162,987 square feet associated with the Bay Trail — Meeker Slough; and 8,500 square feet associated with Bayside/Meeker connector trail.
Park and Trail Lighting Improvements
Lighting improvements to be funded by the District assessments may include, but are not limited to: electric current or other illuminating agent; and all works or improvements used or useful for the lighting within public places, including ornamental standards, fixtures, luminaries, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments, and appurtenant facilities associated with approximately 606 identified decorative and bollard lights primarily found in the parks and trails, including but not limited to:
77 Type-A lights (shoebox single square lens lights). 6 Type-B lights (shoebox dual square lens lights).
13 Type-C lights (shoebox dual concrete pedestal lights). 50 Type-D (CL ornamental acorn fixture lights).
66 Type-E (FG ornamental acorn fixture lights).
55 Type-F (acorn fixture park lights).
45 Type-G (peaked top fixture park lights).
28 Type-H (peaked top fixture boathouse parking lot lights). 76 Type-I (Esplanade / Marina bollard lights).
9 Type-J (Bay Trail / Shimada Park fixture lights).
15 Type-K (wall / vent lights).
5 Type-L (Harbor Master fixture / HMB roundabout lights). 58 Type-M (Bay Trail / Vincent Park bollard lights).
102 Type-N (Bay Trail / East Trail bollard lights).
1 Type-O (HBM sign spotlight).
The maintenance, operation and servicing of the District improvements generally include:
Regularly scheduled maintenance and servicing of the various improvements within the public right-of-ways, easements and other public places as determined by the City and available funding, including the furnishing of the labor, materials, equipment and utilities.
Periodic repair and rehabilitation of the improvements, equipment and facilities as deemed necessary by the City and as funding allows, including replacement of damaged equipment with new or reconditioned equipment; rehabilitation of landscape materials; repair and/or renovation of irrigation or drainage facilities; and repair, 2932
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 10 removal and/or replacement of safety lights and ornamental lighting within maintained public places; and repair, removal and/or replacement of recreational equipment and related facilities.
Not included in the District’s annual budget is funding for Capital Improvement Projects that may include, but is not limited to the installation and construction of new buildings, lighting facilities, landscaped areas, park and trail facilities; or the reconstruction and major renovation of existing facilities. The need and extent of such projects as well as the cost of such projects is difficult to predict and while assessment revenues may be utilized to support such projects in the future, the proposed budget that establishes the maximum assessments herein, does not specifically include setaside funding for such projects. If such projects are required in the future, the funding cost of such projects would likely require funding from other sources above the regular District revenue stream identified in this Report including but not limited to a new or increased assessment on properties within the District and/or funds contributed by the City or available from grants, endowments and donations. Also not included in the District’s annual budget is funding for street lighting and traffic signals. While the maintenance of such improvements is certainly authorized by the 1972 Act, and is clearly a local improvement that exists throughout the District and could be incorporated into the District budget, because street lighting throughout the City is currently funded entirely by the City and not through any assessments, it has been determined that the cost of these improvements will not be incorporated into this District at this time. However, if at a later date it is determined that additional funding for local street light improvements is desired or required, those costs could be incorporated into the District budget to fund the costs associated with upgrades or expansion of the street lighting system and related maintenance and servicing costs.
Upgrades or expansion of the street lights may include, but are not limited to the installation and construction of new lighting facilities, replacement of standard street lights with decorative light standards, solar lighting or other energy efficient systems, and replacement or renovation of existing lights. The need and extent of such projects as well as the cost of such projects is difficult to predict and while assessment revenues may be utilized to support such projects in the future, the proposed budget that establishes the maximum assessments herein, does not specifically include funding for such projects. If such projects are required in the future, the additional funding would likely come from other sources including but not limited to a new or increased assessment on properties within the District and/or funds contributed by the City or available from grants, endowments and donations. All specific improvements and subsequent maintenance services to be performed are directed by the City of Richmond Parks & Landscaping Superintendent as the District Administrator.
2933
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 11 PART II — METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
Based on the provisions of the 1972 Act and the California Constitution, this section of the Report summarizes an analysis of the benefits associated with the maintenance, operation and servicing of the local landscaping, lighting, parks and trails to be provided within the District; the resulting District structure (zones of benefit); the formulas used to calculate each parcel’s proportional special benefit and assessment obligation (method of assessment); and the establishment of an inflationary formula for the assessments to address anticipated cost increases due to inflation (assessment range formula).
BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements, which includes the operation, maintenance, and servicing of landscaped areas, public lighting, parks, trails and appurtenant facilities.
The 1972 Act further requires that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:
“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the Improvements.”
In conjunction with the provisions of the 1972 Act, the California Constitution Article XIIID addresses several key criteria for the levy of assessments, notably:
Article XIIID Section 2d defines District as:
“District means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service”; Article XIIID Section 2i defines Special Benefit as:
“Special benefit” means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute “special benefit.” Article XIIID Section 4a defines proportional special benefit assessments as:
“An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.” 2934
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 12 This District was formed to establish and provide for the improvements that enhance the presentation of the surrounding properties and developments. These improvements will directly benefit the parcels to be assessed within the District. The assessments and method of apportionment is based on the premise that the assessments will be used to construct and install landscape and lighting improvements within the existing Marina Bay Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District as well as provide for the annual maintenance of those improvements, and the assessment revenues generated by District will be used solely for such purposes.
The costs of the proposed improvements have been identified and allocated to properties within the District based on special benefit. The improvements to be provided by this District and for which properties will be assessed have been identified as an essential component and local amenity that provides a direct reflection and extension of the properties within the District for which the property owners and residents have expressed a high level of support.
GENERAL BENEFIT
While it has been determined that each of the various District improvements are clearly local amenities directly associated with the development of the properties within the District and these improvements are more extensive and are provided at a level of service that is notably higher than typically provided by the City and are clearly a special benefit to those properties, it is also recognized that many of these improvements (specifically the parks and trails) are also accessible and utilized by other residents and property owners and therefore provide some measure of general benefit to the public at large and to properties within the District. Although there is no direct way to measure the specific use of these improvements by individuals from outside the District, an overall comparison of the park area and trails per parcel within the District compared with that of the City as a whole indicates that the Marina Bay area collectively has approximately 4.01 times the park and trail area per parcel than parcels in the City as a whole. The following table provides a summary of this statistical data:
Number of
Parcels
Square Feet of
Parks & Trails
Square Feet
per Parcel
Marina Bay Parks & Trails 2,562 2,127,470 830
Citywide Parks & Trails* 35,050 7,251,275 207
Ratio 4.01
Percentage of square feet per parcel (Citywide / Marina Bay) 25% * Square footage of Parks and Trails is based on facilities similar to those in Marina Bay. (Includes only Class1 Trails and excludes Community Parks) Based on the preceding evaluation it is reasonable to conclude that other properties in the City and the City as a whole has approximately one-quarter (1/4) or twenty-five percent (25%) of the park and trail improvement area of that associated with parcels in Marina Bay (207 Square Feet per parcel for the City/830 Square Feet per parcel for Marina Bay = 25%). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that approximately 25% of the District’s regular maintenance costs of the improvements could be considered general benefit.
2935
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 13 In support of this general benefit nexus, an independent cost evaluation for the annual maintenance of the Marina Bay improvements utilizing the service level and cost factors applied to the City’s other parks and trails (man hours, materials, utilities and service frequencies) resulted in a budget that was approximately 27% of the costs being proposed for the maintenance of the park and trail improvements within Marina Bay. In addition, although not directly related, a similar but independent general benefit percentage (25%), was previously established for the landscape improvements within the City’s existing Hilltop Landscape Maintenance District.
Conservatively, based on these considerations, it has been determined that the City’s annual funding obligation for general benefit associated with the District’s improvements including streetscape landscaping shall not be less than 30% of the overall annual maintenance direct costs budgeted for the District each fiscal year (excludes budgeted costs for administration; funds collected for long term activities such as replacements and rehabilitation; funds collected for reserves or other incidental expenses).
While the preceding analysis identifies and quantifies the City’s general benefit support obligation for the maintenance of the District improvements and associated costs, the City also recognizes that because these parks and trails are located near or adjacent to the Bay and include the Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park, the Visitor’s Center, the National Park monument and various other informative points of interest, these facilities are a destination point for many residents and visitors to the City and generally have a higher visitation rate than typically associated with other City parks and trails. Recognizing the visual importance of these improvements, the City will contribute additional funds to support the improvements. This additional contribution represents an added contribution of approximately ten percent (10%) of the total park and trail maintenance costs; approximately thirty two (32%) percent of the overall utility costs (electricity and water); approximately forty percent (40%) of the budgeted administration expenses; and approximately thirty-nine (39%) percent of repairs and rehabilitation costs.
These additional funds being contributed are listed under the “Additional City Support” column of the budget presented in this Report. Collectively, the City’s overall annual contribution to the District improvements (general benefit and additional city support) shall be approximately forty-two percent (42%) of the “Total Annual Costs and Expenses” budget each fiscal year, with property owners being assessed for fifty-eight (58%) of those costs plus any funds collected for Reserves. Refer to Part III (District Budget) of this Report for a summary of cost allocations.
Special Benefit
The method of apportionment (method of assessment) established herein is based on the premise that each assessed property receives special benefits from the various local improvements and services that are funded by such assessments, and the assessment obligation for each parcel reflects that parcel’s proportional special benefits compared to other properties that receive special benefits as outlined in the preceding definitions contained in the 1972 Act and the California Constitution. To identify and determine the proportional special benefit to each parcel, it is necessary to consider the entire scope of the improvements provided as well as the properties that benefit directly from those improvements. The District’s improvements and the associated costs described in this 2936
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 14 Report, have been reviewed, identified and allocated based on a benefit rationale and calculations that proportionally allocate the net cost of those improvements determined to be of special benefit to properties within the District. The location and extent of the various public improvements within the District and the associated costs to provide such improvements have been identified as either “general benefit” (not assessed) or “special benefit”.
In reviewing the location and extent of the various improvements (parks, trails, and streetscape landscaping) and the relationship these improvements have to properties within the District, it has been determined that these improvements are clearly local amenities that were installed in connection with the development of nearby properties or are otherwise directly associated with or desired for the development of such properties to their full and best use. In addition, it has been determined that the overall extent of the improvements and the level of service associated with the improvements within Marina Bay is substantially greater than similar improvements and amenities typically found in other parts of the City. As such, these local improvements have a direct and particular special benefit to the properties within the District based on their close proximity to such improvements; the extent of the landscape and lighting amenities concentrated in the area, the immediate access to the various recreational areas and amenities; and the overall enhanced level of service provided for such improvements.
Parks and Trails:
The five designated park areas within the boundaries of the District (Marina Bay Park, Rosie the Riveter Monument Park and Marina Green cluster; Barbara & Jay Vincent Park; Shimada Friendship Park; Lucretia Edwards Park; and, Sheridan Point Park) are identified by the City as “Neighborhood Parks” and these parks were constructed either as a direct result of property development within the District and/or to encourage property development within the Marina Bay area. As with any neighborhood park, these parks have a direct and particular connection to the properties in the Marina Bay area, and with the trail system that connects these parks, each property has direct and/or easy access to multiple park sites unlike most other areas of the City.
Although the specific special benefits each property receives from these local parks may vary depending on the use of the property, each has a clear proximity to such improvements and the net annual cost of maintaining these neighborhood parks (excluding general benefit) should be shared proportionately by all properties in the District based on the method of apportionment established herein.
Streetscape Landscaping:
Typically, the installation and location of local streetscape landscaping (parkways and medians) is the result of property development or the specific needs of nearby properties.
Clearly these improvements have a direct and particular connection to those properties and are neither required nor necessarily desired by any other properties or the public at large. While the general public may certainly view and appreciate these landscaped areas as they drive through the District, the various landscaped areas were installed solely to enhance the Marina Bay area and the properties therein, and the need to maintain these 2937
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 15 improvements are entirely for the special benefit of the properties associated with those improvements and the developments that access the streets where the improvements are located.
Unlike the park and trail improvements that are considered local amenities servicing and shared by each property in the District, streetscape landscaping (parkway and/or median) improvements are not present in all parts of the District. In reviewing the location of the various streetscape improvements, it has been determined that certain properties and developments are not located on streets that have streetscape landscaping nor would the properties be typically accessed by the streets or the portions thereof where the improvement are located. Therefore, it has been determined that those properties and developments that are not in close proximity or have no direct local nexus to such improvements do not receive special benefits from those particular improvements. In recognition of these benefit differences, the District shall initially be established with two (2) non-contiguous Zones to reflect the benefit differences to properties from the District’s local streetscape landscaping and associated amenities. Those properties that do not receive direct and special benefits from the ongoing maintenance, operation and servicing of the existing streetscape improvements are identified in the District as Zone 02 properties. A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the Zones and the location of the improvements is provided in Part IV (District Diagrams).
The District Budget incorporated herein under Part III of this Report, provides a summary of the total estimated cost of providing the various District improvements and the allocation of those special benefit costs to properties within each of the District Zones.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
In order to calculate and identify the proportional special benefit received by each parcel and their proportionate share of the improvement costs, it is necessary to consider not only the improvements and services to be provided, but also the relationship each parcel has to those improvements as compared to other parcels in the District.
Article XIIID Section 4a reads in part:
“…The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement or the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement or for the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.”
Most public improvements including parks, trails, landscaping and lighting, provide varying degrees of benefit (whether they be general or special) based largely on the extent of such improvements, the location of the improvements in relationship to the properties, and the reason or need for such improvements as it relates to individual properties. In this District these issues are each considered in determining the proportional special benefit to each parcel by the use of benefit zones that reflect the extent and location of the improvements in relationship to the properties, as well as the specific characteristics (use and size) of each property which reflect each parcel’s need 2938
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 16 for such improvements and its reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit as compared to other properties that benefit from those improvements.
For the improvements and assessments outlined in this Report, it has been determined that the most appropriate proportional special benefit calculation for each parcel is reasonably determined by three basic property characteristics:
Location — As previously noted, each parcel in the District shall be identified and grouped into one of two Zones based on each parcel’s proximity and relationship to the District improvements;
Land use — Residential Uses (Single-family, multi-family, and condominiums); Non-Residential Uses (Privately owned commercial, industrial, and Institutional properties); Vacant Land (Undeveloped property), Public properties etc.; and, Property Size — Acreage for non-residential properties; Units for residential properties. Property size (acreage or units) provides a definable and comparative representation of each parcel’s proportional special benefit not only to similar types of properties but to other property types as well. The size of a property provides an appropriate and overall reflection of numerous considerations associated with each parcel’s special benefits including vehicular trip generation, average population and development densities.
Zones of Benefit
In an effort to ensure an appropriate allocation of the estimated annual cost to provide the District improvements based on proportional special benefits, this District will be established with benefit zones (“Zones”) as authorized pursuant to Chapter 1 Article 4, Section 22574 of the 1972 Act:
“The diagram and assessment may classify various areas within an assessment district into different zones where, by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive differing degrees of benefit from the improvements. A zone shall consist of all territory which will receive substantially the same degree of benefit from the improvements.”
While the California Constitution states that “The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement or the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement…”; it is reasonable to conclude that certain improvements (i.e. streetscape landscaping) are associated with and provide special benefits to specific areas of the District, but not necessarily to each property in the District. Unlike the parks and trails which serve and are clearly associated with each of the properties in the Marina Bay area, streetscape landscaping is most often installed and has a more direct connection to specific developments and properties or would otherwise be necessary for the development of such properties to their full and best use. While the installation of various segments of these types of improvements are usually the result of a specific development or developments, the collective results of these improvements are not mutually exclusive or isolated to a particular parcel, but are rather shared and directly affect entire 2939
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 17 neighborhoods or groups of parcels immediately adjacent or in close proximity to those improvements.
Based on a thorough review of the location and extent of the District’s improvements and the direct proximity and relationship to surrounding properties, it has been determined that there are clear and definable differences in benefit to the various improvements provided to properties in the District. In recognition of these differences, the District shall initially be established with two (2) non-contiguous Zones to reflect the proportional special benefits that properties receive from the parks and trail improvements as well as streetscape improvements. The following provides a description of the two Zones:
Zone 01
Zone 01 incorporates and includes those parcels within the District that receive direct special benefits from both local streetscape landscaped areas and the overall park and trail improvements within Marina Bay. This Zone represents approximately 98.80% of the parcels in the District and each parcel therein will proportionately share in the net annual District expenses for park and trail maintenance, streetscape maintenance, administrative expenses, repairs and rehabilitation expenses, as well as funding collected for related incidental expenses including but not limited to reserve funds that are authorized by the 1972 Act.
Zone 02
Zone 02 incorporates and includes those parcels within the District that receive direct special benefits from the overall park and trail improvements within Marina Bay, but are not directly associated with the existing streetscape landscape improvements to be maintained through the District. This Zone represents approximately 1.20% of the parcels in the District and currently includes 33 parcels located in three non-contiguous regions of the District for which the properties and developments are not located on streets that have streetscape landscaping nor would the properties be typically accessed by the streets or the portions thereof where these improvements are located. Therefore, it has been determined that these properties do not receive special benefits from those particular improvements. The three areas of the District that comprise the parcels within Zone 02 are generally located along Harbour Way South; along Meeker Avenue west of Marina Bay Parkway; and along Regatta Boulevard adjacent to S 34th Street and east of Marina Bay Parkway.
A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the Zones and the location of the improvements is provided in Part IV (District Diagrams).
Land Use Benefit Rationale
While properties within Marina Bay clearly receive special benefits from the District improvements and there are differences in those benefits based on their proximity to various improvements (zones of benefit), the special benefits associated with each parcel also varies with the use of that property (property type). Although some special benefits may be shared by most property types, there are special benefits associated with different 2940
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 18 land use types. The special benefits that the District improvements provide to various properties in the District include, but are not limited to the following:
Residential Property
Increased sense of pride in property ownership through association with wellmaintained neighborhood parks, streetscape landscaping and recreational amenities.
Improved aesthetic appeal of residential properties and developments that are directly adjacent to and associated with well-maintained streetscape landscaping and recreational amenities which provide a positive representation of the surrounding area and desirability to such properties.
Local environmental enhancements to the parcels through proper erosion control, dust and debris monitoring, graffiti abatement and proper maintenance of the various improvements.
Direct and immediate access to interconnecting parks and trails that increase health and social opportunities for residents of the properties, and encourage active involvement for families, youth and senior citizens. Enhanced local urban environment for residential properties established by adequately and properly maintained green spaces and landscaping and recreational amenities in close proximity to the property. Reduced property-related crimes (especially vandalism), resulting from wellmaintained streetscape landscaping, parks, trails and other public facilities that encourage community awareness and positive youth activities. Increased access and opportunities for the owners of residential property to enjoy the tranquility and beauty of the Bay that is an integral part of their local neighborhood, community and property appeal.
Developed Non-Residential Property
Enhanced local urban environment of the property established by adequately and properly maintained green spaces and landscaping and recreational amenities in close proximity to the property that attracts and helps retain both employees and patrons.
Increased sense of pride in property ownership through association with wellmaintained neighborhood parks, streetscape landscaping and recreational amenities.
Heightened local business opportunities resulting from the local recreational improvements and facilities that encourage an active community and demand for products and services in the immediate area.
2941
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 19 Local environmental enhancements to the parcels through proper erosion control, dust and debris monitoring, graffiti abatement and proper maintenance of the various improvements.
Increased opportunities and areas for staff and employees to relax and participate in health and social activities, stimulating the work environment and business growth which are created by the availability of nearby parks, trails and recreational facilities.
Reduced property-related crimes (especially vandalism), resulting from wellmaintained streetscape landscaping, parks, trails and other public facilities that encourage community awareness and positive youth activities.
Vacant Land
Increased access and opportunities to enjoy the tranquility and beauty of the Bay that is an integral part of this local community which in turn enhances development opportunities.
Provides established and well-maintained local public amenities that would otherwise be required for the development of property and provides a positive asset for the owners and investors toward development of the property as well as future sale opportunities.
Reduced property-related crimes (especially vandalism), resulting from wellmaintained streetscape landscaping, parks, trails and other public facilities that encourage community awareness.
Developed Public Property
Direct and immediate access to interconnecting parks and trails that enhance or expand the properties’ existing recreational facilities. Increased opportunities and areas for employees, staff and/or students to relax and participate in health and social activities, stimulating the work and educational environment, created by the availability of nearby parks, trails and recreational facilities.
Reduced property-related crimes (especially vandalism), resulting from wellmaintained streetscape landscaping, parks, trails and other public facilities that encourage community awareness and positive youth activities.
Special Benefit Proportionality
In addition to the use of Zones, the method of apportionment established for this District to reflect proportional special benefit, utilizes a weighted methodology of apportionment typically referred to as an Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU). This method of apportionment utilizes the single-family home site as the basic unit of assessment. A parcel identified by the County Assessor as a single-family residential property is assigned one Equivalent Benefit Unit and other property types (land uses) are proportionately weighted (weighted 2942
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 20 EBU) based on a formula that equates each property’s specific characteristics and special benefits to that of the single-family residential unit. This proportional weighting may be based on several considerations that may include, but are not limited to the type of development (land use), development-status (developed versus undeveloped), size of the property (acreage or units), densities or other property related factors including any development restrictions or limitations; as well as the property’s location and proximity to the improvements (which is addressed by its Zone designation).
The following outlines the equivalent benefit unit calculations to be applied to various land use classifications to establish each parcel’s proportional special benefit compared to other parcels within each respective Zone of the District. Not all classifications are currently found in the District, but may be applicable to future property development.
Single-Family Residential Property — is defined as a fully subdivided residential home site with a single residential unit developed on the property. For purposes of establishing the proportional special benefits and equivalent benefit units for other land uses in this District, the single-family residential land use is designated as the basic unit of assessment and shall be assigned 1.000 EBU per parcel (unit).
Multi-Family Residential Property — is defined as a fully subdivided residential parcel that has more than one residential unit associated with the parcel. (Includes apartments, duplexes, triplexes, etc., but does not include condominiums, town-homes). This designation may also include parcels identified by the County Assessor’s Office as mixed use properties for which there is more than one residential unit, but the parcel may also include a non-residential component or unit (however, the parcel’s primary use is considered residential).
Although multi-family residential properties receive similar special benefits to that of single-family residential property and a comparative calculation of proportional special benefits is reasonably reflected by the parcel’s total number of residential units, it would not be reasonable to conclude that on a per unit basis, the benefits are equal. Studies have consistently shown that multi-family residential developments impact public infrastructure at reduced levels compared to a single-family residence, which is reflective of their reduced structure size, people per unit, trip generations and need for many public improvements. Based on these considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that an appropriate weighting of proportional special benefit per unit (compared to a single-family residential) is best represented by the following sliding scale: 0.750 EBU per unit for the first 5 units; plus 0.625 EBU per unit for units 6 through 25; plus 0.500 EBU per unit for units 26 through 50; plus 0.375 EBU per unit for units 51 through 100; plus 0.250 EBU per unit for units 101 or above.
Condominium Property — is defined as a fully subdivided residential condominium or town-home parcel (not typically classified as a detached single-family residential unit).
These residential properties may include attached residential properties that have a shared (common) wall or driveway, but each residential unit is assigned a specific Assessor’s Parcel Number. These properties are generally part of a multi-unit 2943
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 21 development for which each condominium parcel shares or has common interest with one or more of the other residential parcels in that development (common areas).
The development attributes of condominiums tend to be a blend of the single-family residential and multi-family residential properties. Like single-family residential properties, condominiums are individual residential units that are privately owned, and tend to be owner occupied with relatively fewer vacancies per unit than multi-family residential properties. However, because this property type usually has a much higher development density (greater number of units per acre) and typically has a reduced population density per unit than single-family residential properties, it is reasonable to conclude that the parcel’s proportional special benefit is less than that of a single-family residential property.
Conversely, because condominiums are typically owner occupied with relatively fewer vacancies per unit than multi-family residential properties, they in turn have a greater overall need and use of local public improvements per unit than multi-family residential properties.
In consideration of the characteristics discussed above, it has been determined that an appropriate allocation of special benefit for condominiums and similar residential properties is best represented by an assignment of 0.750 EBU per unit and because each parcel typically represents a single residential unit or small group of units that are each privately owned, no adjustment for multiple units is applicable.
Developed Non-Residential Property — is defined as a developed property with identifiable property improvements (buildings, parking lots, etc.) for which the primary use of the property is not considered residential, whether the property is being utilized (occupied) or not. This land use classification includes:
All types of commercial enterprises including, but not limited to: retail, food services, banks, private recreational facilities, office and professional buildings, hotels or motels;
All types of industrial uses including, but not limited to, service centers, warehousing, storage facilities, transportation facilities, and manufacturing; and Private institutional facilities including, but not limited to, Places of Worship, Day Care Centers, Fraternal Organizations, Private Schools, Hospitals, Convalescent or Retirement Homes, or other similar public service or assembly type properties.
Utilizing trip generation data outlined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Informational Report, Seventh Edition, developed non-residential properties collectively generate on average approximately four times the daily vehicular trips per acre than the trips generated by a single-family residential property (approximately 9.6 trips per singlefamily residential unit compared to 42.3 trips per acre for non-residential properties).
While the actual trips generated by a property may be greater or less than these averages, it does provide a definable indicator of proportionality between these property types and need for overall public infrastructure. In support of this weighted comparison of benefit, residential developments typically yield approximately four residential units per acre on average, although this density is slightly higher in the Marina Bay area. Collectively this suggests that it is reasonable to assign a weighting factor of 4.000 EBU per acre to nonresidential properties to reflect their proportional special benefit compared to a single2944 2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 22 family residential property. However, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a limit to the proportional special benefit that any single parcel receives from the improvements. In a review of parcel acreages for developed non-residential properties within Marina Bay, it has been determined that only a small percentage of the parcels are greater than fifteen acres (15.0 acres) and therefore the maximum acreage applied to any one parcel for the calculation of proportional special benefit shall be fifteen acres, which sets the maximum EBU at 60.000 EBU for any one parcel in this land use classification.
Vacant Property — is defined as property that has been identified as undeveloped, but has reasonable development potential (few or no development restrictions).
In an evaluation of the special benefits associated with this land use as compared to that of developed properties it becomes evident that the proportional special benefits associated with vacant property is clearly less than that of developed properties. Although vacant properties certainly derive special benefits from local public improvements, these special benefits are limited to the land (lot) itself while the direct and immediate special benefits for developed properties is interrelated to the owners, residents, employees and others that occupy and utilize those properties. Therefore, it has been determined that the Equivalent Benefit Units applied to these properties should be half that of developed properties. Consequently, vacant lands (zoned either as residential or non-residential) shall be assigned an equivalent benefit unit based on 2.000 EBU per acre with the same maximum acreage limit that is applicable to developed non-residential properties (15.0 acres), which represents a maximum of 30.000 EBU for any one parcel in this land use classification. While the calculation of Equivalent Benefit Units for parcels in this land use classification has no minimum acreage limit, because the County does not typically indicate acreage information on the Assessor’s roll for fully subdivided residential lots, all fully subdivided residential parcels shall be assigned 0.500 EBU, which is half the amount assigned to a developed single-family residential parcel.
Developed Public Property — is defined as developed public or government owned property used for public related services or activities, including but not limited to city owned facilities such as community centers, fire and police stations or other city buildings (excluding District improvements such as parks and trails); federal, state or county offices and facilities including but not limited to public schools, state or county offices, US postal service facilities, public utility facilities, or other similar public properties. While many of these properties have the potential to be converted or utilized as commercial or other non-residential enterprises, their purpose and function is specifically for public related services and activities, and it has been determined that their proportional special benefit from other public improvements (the proposed District improvements) is no more than that of a single-family residential property and these properties shall be assigned 1.000 EBU per parcel.
2945
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 23 Exempt Parcels — include parcels of land that receive no measurable special benefits from the District improvements and are assigned 0.000 EBU. This land use classification may include, but is not limited to:
Lots or parcels identified as public streets and other roadways (typically not assigned an APN by the County);
Dedicated public easements including open space areas, utility right-of-ways, greenbelts, parkways, parks, trails or other publicly-owned or utility-owned land that are considered part of the District improvements or that serves the community or general public and are not considered or classified as developed public properties; Parcels of land that are privately owned, but cannot be developed independently from an adjacent property or is part of a shared interest with other properties, such as common areas, sliver parcels, bifurcated lots or properties with very restrictive development potential or use.
Special Case Property — In many districts where multiple land use classifications are involved, there may be one or more properties for which the standard land use classifications do not accurately identify the use and special benefits received from the improvements. The most common reason for identifying a parcel as a Special Case is usually related to property development. Examples of such special cases may include: A parcel that the County identifies as vacant land, but the property is either being developed or has already been developed; A property that would normally be identified as vacant land, but only a small percentage of the parcel’s total acreage can actually be developed.
In this case, an appropriate calculation would be based on the net acreage that can be utilized rather than the gross acreage of the parcel.
Therefore, the Equivalent Benefit Units assigned to Special Case Properties will vary depending on the circumstances and reasons for treating the property as a Special Case.
The Equivalent Benefit Unit(s) assigned to each such parcel may be based on adjusted acreage, units or a combination of those factors. The City and/or the assessment engineer tasked with the administration of the District shall annually review each parcel designated as a Special Case Property and based on that review shall make appropriate adjustments to that property’s land use and Equivalent Benefit Unit assignment as warranted.
For this Report, the following parcel (APN 560-181-111) has been identified as a Special Case Property and the property incorporates the entire Marina area. The Marina parcel is 159.39 acres with 850 berths. While the Marina parcel is largely a commercial enterprise property, it also has a residential use with approximately seventy-five of the berths currently used as live-aboard berths. In consideration of the live-aboard berths, this parcel has been assigned 75.000 EBU.
Live/Work Units— A Live/Work Unit is a unit consisting of both a commercial and a residential component that is occupied by the same resident. For this Report, the following parcels are identified as Special Case Properties designated for Live/Work areas (APN 560-260-055, APN 560-260-056, APN 560-260-057, APN 560-260-058).
These parcels make up the Artisan Cove Development which consists of 64 Live/Work Units and have been assigned EBUs based on the Multi-Family Residential Property 2946
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 24 Benefit Unit Calculation and the Developed Non-Residential Property Benefit Unit Calculation.
The following is a summary of property types and the Equivalent Benefit Unit assignments described on the previous page:
Allocation of Improvement Costs
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution, the proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel within the District and its corresponding assessment obligation shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement for the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement. The following formulas are used to calculate each parcel’s Levy Amount (proportional assessment obligation):
Step 1: Based collectively on the preceding discussion and findings, the estimated annual costs to provide the various District improvements have been identified as either general benefit or special benefit. Those improvement costs determined to be of general benefit shall not be assessed to properties within the District (as previously noted, 30% of the annual direct maintenance costs have been identified as General Benefit). In addition to the General Benefit costs, the City shall annually contribute funds representing approximately twelve percent (12%) of the total annual costs and expenses in support of the District improvements. Collectively, the City’s total annual contribution (general benefit and additional support) will be approximately forty-two percent (42%) of the annual budgeted amount (excluding funds collected for reserves). These general benefit and additional City support contributions from the City (referred to collectively in the budget as “Total City Allocation”), shall be deducted from the total annual costs budgeted to establish the improvement costs to be levied as special benefit costs each year.
Total Budget – Total City Allocation = Total Special Benefit Costs Land Use Benefit Unit Calculations Total Parcels Total EBU Single-Family Residential Property 1.000 per unit 459 459.00
0.750 per unit (units 1-5)
0.625 per unit (units 6-25)
0.500 per unit (units 26-50)
0.375 per unit (units 51-100)
0.250 per unit (units greater than 100)
Condominium Property 0.750 per unit 2,054 1,540.50
Developed Non-Residential Property 4.000 per acre (Maximum of 60 EBUs) 41 561.11 Vacant - Undevloped Property 2.000 per acre (Maximum of 30 EBUs) 36 43.80 Vacant - Subdivided Residential Lot 0.500 per parcel N/A N/A Developed Public Property 1.000 per parcel 1 1.00
Exempt Property 0.000 per parcel 165 0.00
Special Case Property Varied based on circumstances 5 140.74 Total 2,761 2,746.15
Multi-Family Residential Property N/A N/A
2947
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 25 Step 2: Those improvement costs allocated as special benefit costs (referred to in the budget as “Total Property Allocation”), are apportioned to each of the two Zones in proportion to the cost of providing the various improvements for that Zone. As previously noted, it has been determined that properties within Zone 02 do not receive special benefits from local streetscape landscaping and these costs are not allocated to that Zone.
Zone Specific Special Benefit Costs = Total Zone Budget Step 3: Each parcel’s proportional special benefit is calculated based on the Equivalent Benefit Unit rationale previously discussed:
Parcel’s Land Use Benefit x (Acreage or Units) = Parcel’s EBU Step 4: The total number of Equivalent Benefit Units for the District and each Zone therein is determined by the sum of all individual EBU(s) applied to parcels that receive a special benefit from the improvements. An assessment amount per EBU (Assessment Rate) for each Zone is established by taking the Balance to Levy in that Zone, and dividing that amount by the total number of EBU(s) for that Zone.
Total Balance to Levy/ Total EBU = Assessment Rate (Calculated for each Zone) Step 5: This Assessment Rate is then applied back to each parcel’s individual EBU to determine the parcel’s proportionate benefit and assessment obligation.
Rate per EBU x Parcel EBU = Parcel Levy Amount
The budget that establishes the proposed maximum assessment rate for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 in each Zone is outlined in Section III (District Budget) of this Report. While it is anticipated that the budgeted costs for various improvements and services will fluctuate from year to year, the percentage allocations between the City’s total contribution and the amount assessed to property owners within the District for the various improvements and activities shall remain substantially the same as those described in the preceding (approximately 42% of the “Total Annual Costs and Expenses” being funded by the City and approximately 58% of those costs being funded proportionately by the property owners within the District). Adjustments in the annual assessments to property owners within the District resulting from increases or decreases in expenses (excluding reserve funding) shall have like adjustments to the City’s contributions based on the percentages outlined in this Report.
ASSESSMENT RANGE FORMULA
Pursuant to the California Constitution Article XIIID, the imposition of any new or increased assessment requires certain noticing and meeting requirements. Prior to the passage of Proposition 218 (Now Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution), legislative changes in the Brown Act defined a “new or increased assessment” to exclude certain conditions. These conditions included “any assessment that does not exceed an assessment formula or range of assessments previously adopted by the agency or approved by the voters in the area where the assessment is imposed.” As part of this District establishment of annual assessments to fund the ongoing operation, maintenance and servicing of those improvements, the proposed assessments 2948
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 26 submitted to the property owners of record shall include an annual inflationary adjustment referred to as an Assessment Range Formula. The purpose of establishing an Assessment Range Formula is to provide for reasonable increases and inflationary adjustments that are inevitably associated with providing such improvements and activities, thereby reducing the need for additional noticing and mailing procedures simply because of inflationary factors. This Assessment Range Formula is defined by the following:
The “Proposed Maximum Rates” for this District as presented in the Report for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 shall be annually adjusted by three percent (3%) to establish the new Maximum Assessment Rates authorized for the District each fiscal year. (These new rates may be referred to as Adjusted Maximum Assessment Rates). This 3% adjustment is based on historical inflationary adjustments and is slightly less than the average annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) identified by the U.S. Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics for “All Urban Consumers” in the San FranciscoOakland-San Jose Area over the past twenty years.
For the District’s second fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2010/2011) and each fiscal year thereafter, the Maximum Assessment Rates will be recalculated and new Adjusted Maximum Assessment Rates will be established for the fiscal year utilizing the Assessment Range Formula described above. The Adjusted Maximum Assessment Rates shall be calculated independently of the District’s annual budget and proposed assessments. Any proposed annual assessment (Rate per EBU) less than or equal to the Adjusted Maximum Assessment Rate for each respective Zone shall not be considered an increased assessment.
To impose a new or increased assessment other than the annual inflationary adjustment provided by the preceding Assessment Range Formula, the City must comply with the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID Section 4c, that requires a public hearing and certain protest procedures including mailed notice of the public hearing and property owner protest balloting. Property owners, through the balloting process, must approve such a new or increased assessment before that new or increased assessment may be imposed.
2949
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 27 PART III — DISTRICT BUDGET
The District budget identifies an estimate of anticipated annual expenses associated with the ongoing operation, maintenance and servicing of the District improvements determined to be of special benefit as outlined in the previous sections of this Report.
The budget on the following page presents the overall estimated annual cost to provide the various District improvements, that portion of the costs that are considered to be general benefit, supported by additional City funding and the costs to be assessed against properties in the District as special benefit. The budget also identifies the proportional allocation of those special benefit costs to the two Zones in the District to establish the proposed initial maximum assessment rates to be applied to the various parcels within each Zone. (Initial Maximum Assessment per EBU (Rates) and Proposed Assessment Rates for Fiscal Year 2023/2024).
While it is anticipated that the budgeted costs for various improvements and services will fluctuate from year to year, the percentage allocations between the City’s total contribution and the amount assessed to property owners within the District for the various improvements and activities shall remain substantially the same as those described in the method of apportionment (42% of the “Total Annual Costs and Expenses” being funded by the City and 58% of those costs being funded proportionately by the property owners within the District). Adjustments in the annual assessments to property owners within the District resulting from increases or decreases in expenses (excluding reserve funding) shall have like adjustments to the City’s contributions based on the percentages outlined in this Report. At a minimum, (per the contribution shown in the following budget) the City shall contribute $476,308.90 towards the “Total Annual Costs and Expenses” budgeted for the current fiscal year. However, any surplus revenues from the previous fiscal year shall be credited to the Reserve Fund which is to be held by the City under a separate trust account.
2950
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 28 2951 2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 29 PART IV — DISTRICT DIAGRAMS
The parcels within the District generally consist of the lots, parcels and subdivisions of land within the area of the City known as Marina Bay. The following District Diagrams are based on the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Maps and the Contra Costa County Assessor’s information that existed at the time this Report was prepared. The combination of the Boundary Diagram and the Assessment Roll contained in Part V of this Report; collectively constitute the District’s Assessment Diagram.
The District Diagrams can be found in the Engineer’s Report posted online at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/71/Parks-and-Landscaping.
2952
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 30
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
2953
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 31
DECORATIVE AND BOLLARD LIGHTING DIAGRAM
2954
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 32
STREETSCAPE DIAGRAM
2955
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 33
PARKS AND TRAILS DIAGRAM
2956
2023/2024 Marina Bay Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District 34 APPENDIX A — ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel identification for each lot or parcel within the District is based on the District Diagrams presented herein and available parcel maps and property data from the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office at the time this Report was prepared. A listing of the parcels to be assessed within this District along with the assessment amounts are provided herein.
If any parcel submitted for collection is identified by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the fiscal year, a corrected parcel number and/or new parcel numbers will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel or parcels shall be based on the method of apportionment and assessment rates described in this Report as approved by the City Council rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment.
The following is a list of the parcels and proposed assessment amounts for each of the parcels within the District as determined by the assessment rates and method of apportionment previously described. The dollar amount for each parcel indicated as “Assessment” represents each parcel’s proportional assessment obligation and assessment for Fiscal Year 2023/2024.
2957
APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-090-020 Zone 2 27.35 60.00 $14,209.80
560-090-021 Zone 2 10.90 43.58 10,321.98
560-090-024 Zone 2 1.29 0.75 177.62
560-090-025 Zone 2 1.01 0.75 177.62
560-090-026 Zone 2 1.02 0.75 177.62
560-090-027 Zone 2 1.00 0.75 177.62
560-090-028 Zone 2 1.22 0.75 177.62
560-090-029 Zone 2 1.05 0.75 177.62
560-090-030 Zone 2 1.06 0.75 177.62
560-090-031 Zone 2 1.15 0.75 177.62
560-090-032 Zone 2 1.11 0.75 177.62
560-100-009 Zone 1 0.38 0.77 200.74
560-111-001 Zone 1 3.45 13.80 3,620.28
560-111-002 Zone 1 0.22 0.44 116.10
560-111-003 Zone 1 0.27 1.09 286.58
560-111-004 Zone 1 0.17 0.70 182.36
560-111-005 Zone 1 0.18 0.36 94.22
560-111-006 Zone 1 0.09 0.19 49.10
560-111-007 Zone 1 0.02 0.03 9.02
560-111-008 Zone 1 0.18 0.37 95.96
560-122-003 Zone 1 0.14 0.29 75.50
560-122-006 Zone 1 0.15 0.31 80.58
560-130-010 Zone 1 0.13 0.27 69.82
560-130-011 Zone 1 0.11 0.22 58.12
560-130-012 Zone 1 0.06 0.12 31.58
560-130-013 Zone 1 0.12 0.24 63.22
560-130-014 Zone 1 0.12 0.24 63.22
560-130-015 Zone 1 0.06 0.12 31.58
560-130-016 Zone 1 0.06 0.12 31.58
560-130-017 Zone 1 0.12 0.24 63.22
560-130-018 Zone 1 0.12 0.24 63.22
560-130-021 Zone 1 1.02 4.08 1,069.92
560-140-007 Zone 1 0.11 0.23 60.18
560-140-008 Zone 1 0.06 0.11 30.06
560-140-009 Zone 1 0.11 0.23 60.18
560-140-011 Zone 1 0.11 0.23 60.18
560-140-012 Zone 1 0.23 0.46 120.40
560-140-014 Zone 1 0.12 0.48 126.44
560-140-015 Zone 1 0.06 0.12 31.58
560-140-016 Zone 1 0.06 0.12 31.58
560-140-017 Zone 1 0.06 0.12 31.58
560-140-018 Zone 1 0.12 0.24 63.22
560-140-019 Zone 1 0.12 0.24 63.22
560-140-024 Zone 1 0.59 1.17 306.92
560-140-025 Zone 1 0.31 0.63 165.22
City of Richmond
Marina Bay LLMD
Fiscal Year 2023/24 Preliminary Assessment Roll
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2958 inary Assessment Roll Page 1 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-140-027 Zone 1 0.25 0.50 131.16
560-150-015 Zone 2 2.03 8.12 1,922.10
560-150-016 Zone 2 0.78 3.13 741.74
560-150-017 Zone 2 0.75 3.02 714.26
560-170-002 Zone 2 0.49 1.97 467.50
560-170-006 Zone 2 0.44 1.76 417.48
560-170-013 Zone 2 0.80 3.19 755.96
560-170-014 Zone 2 1.75 7.00 1,656.94
560-170-016 Zone 2 1.22 2.44 579.00
560-170-018 Zone 2 2.76 5.52 1,306.30
560-181-020 Zone 1 1.06 4.24 1,112.20
560-181-058 Zone 1 4.66 18.63 4,887.18
560-181-089 Zone 1 8.93 35.72 9,370.78
560-181-090 Zone 1 4.74 18.96 4,973.86
560-181-091 Zone 1 5.34 21.36 5,603.46
560-181-097 Zone 1 4.73 18.93 4,965.56
560-181-111 Zone 1 159.39 75.00 19,675.50
560-181-113 Zone 2 22.91 60.00 14,209.80
560-181-114 Zone 2 1.64 6.57 1,554.92
560-181-117 Zone 1 5.88 23.52 6,170.22
560-181-118 Zone 1 10.98 43.92 11,521.96
560-181-120 Zone 1 1.01 2.02 529.92
560-181-121 Zone 1 4.91 9.82 2,576.16
560-181-122 Zone 1 2.72 1.00 262.34
560-190-003 Zone 2 1.10 4.39 1,040.82
560-190-004 Zone 2 1.22 4.90 1,159.80
560-190-005 Zone 2 0.50 2.01 475.74
560-260-041 Zone 1 2.28 9.11 2,390.44
560-260-042 Zone 1 1.30 5.19 1,360.90
560-260-043 Zone 1 4.71 18.83 4,940.28
560-260-044 Zone 2 3.76 15.02 3,558.02
560-260-045 Zone 1 2.74 10.96 2,874.18
560-260-046 Zone 2 3.00 6.01 1,422.82
560-260-047 Zone 1 2.01 8.02 2,103.96
560-260-050 Zone 1 4.17 16.68 4,375.72
560-260-051 Zone 1 2.04 8.16 2,140.58
560-260-052 Zone 1 4.71 18.84 4,942.48
560-260-055 Zone 1 1.62 18.36 4,815.24
560-260-056 Zone 1 0.93 12.47 3,271.36
560-260-057 Zone 1 1.67 16.06 4,211.86
560-260-058 Zone 1 1.59 18.86 4,947.72
560-371-007 Zone 1 0.28 1.11 291.40
560-450-001 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-002 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-003 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-004 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-005 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-006 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2959 inary Assessment Roll Page 2 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-450-007 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-008 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-009 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-010 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-011 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-012 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-013 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-014 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-015 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-016 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-017 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-018 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-019 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-020 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-021 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-022 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-023 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-024 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-025 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-026 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-027 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-028 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-029 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-030 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-031 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-032 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-033 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-034 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-035 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-036 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-037 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-038 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-039 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-040 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-041 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-042 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-043 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-044 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-045 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-046 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-047 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-048 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-049 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-050 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-051 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-052 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-053 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-054 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2960 inary Assessment Roll Page 3 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-450-055 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-056 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-057 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-058 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-059 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-060 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-061 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-062 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-063 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-064 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-065 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-450-066 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-001 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-002 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-003 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-004 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-005 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-006 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-007 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-008 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-009 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-010 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-011 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-012 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-013 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-014 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-015 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-016 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-017 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-018 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-019 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-020 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-021 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-022 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-023 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-024 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-025 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-026 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-027 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-028 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-029 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-030 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-031 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-032 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-033 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-034 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-035 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-036 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2961 inary Assessment Roll Page 4 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-460-037 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-038 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-039 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-040 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-041 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-042 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-043 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-044 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-045 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-046 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-047 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-048 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-049 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-050 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-051 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-052 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-053 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-054 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-055 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-056 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-057 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-058 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-059 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-060 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-061 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-062 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-063 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-460-064 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-531-002 Zone 1 1.83 7.32 1,920.32
560-531-004 Zone 1 4.26 17.05 4,472.88
560-540-001 Zone 1 0.04 0.75 196.74
560-540-002 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-003 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-004 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-005 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-006 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-007 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-008 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-009 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-010 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-011 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-012 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-013 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-014 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-015 Zone 1 0.01 0.75 196.74
560-540-016 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-017 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-018 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2962 inary Assessment Roll Page 5 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-540-019 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-020 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-021 Zone 1 0.01 0.75 196.74
560-540-022 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-023 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-024 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-025 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-026 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-027 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-028 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-029 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-030 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-031 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-032 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-033 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-034 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-035 Zone 1 0.04 0.75 196.74
560-540-036 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-037 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-038 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-039 Zone 1 0.01 0.75 196.74
560-540-040 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-041 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-042 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-043 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-044 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-045 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-046 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-047 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-048 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-049 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-050 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-051 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-052 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-053 Zone 1 0.04 0.75 196.74
560-540-054 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-055 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-056 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-057 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-058 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-059 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-060 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-061 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-062 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-063 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-064 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-065 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-066 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2963 inary Assessment Roll Page 6 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-540-067 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-068 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-540-069 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-070 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-540-071 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-001 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-002 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-003 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-004 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-005 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-006 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-007 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-008 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-009 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-010 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-011 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-012 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-013 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-014 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-015 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-016 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-017 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-018 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-019 Zone 1 0.04 0.75 196.74
560-550-020 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-021 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-022 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-023 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-024 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-025 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-026 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-027 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-028 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-029 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-030 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-031 Zone 1 0.04 0.75 196.74
560-550-032 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-033 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-034 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-035 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-036 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-037 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-038 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-039 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-040 Zone 1 0.04 0.75 196.74
560-550-041 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-042 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-043 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2964 inary Assessment Roll Page 7 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-550-044 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-045 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-046 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-047 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-048 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-049 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-050 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-051 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-052 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-053 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-550-054 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-055 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-056 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-057 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-058 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-059 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-060 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-061 Zone 1 0.03 0.75 196.74
560-550-062 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-560-001 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-002 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-003 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-004 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-005 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-006 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-007 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-008 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-009 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-560-010 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-011 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-560-012 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-013 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-014 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-015 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-016 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-017 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-018 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-019 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-020 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-560-021 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-560-022 Zone 1 0.12 1.00 262.34
560-560-023 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-024 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-025 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-026 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-027 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-028 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-029 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2965 inary Assessment Roll Page 8 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-560-030 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-031 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-032 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-033 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-034 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-035 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-036 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-037 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-038 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-039 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-040 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-041 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-042 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-043 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-044 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-045 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-046 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-047 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-048 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-049 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-050 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-051 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-052 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-053 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-054 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-055 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-056 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-057 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-058 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-059 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-060 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-560-061 Zone 1 0.12 1.00 262.34
560-560-062 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-063 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-064 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-065 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-066 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-067 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-068 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-069 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-070 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-071 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-072 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-073 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-074 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-075 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-076 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-077 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2966 inary Assessment Roll Page 9 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-560-078 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-079 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-080 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-081 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-082 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-083 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-084 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-085 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-086 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-087 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-088 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-089 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-090 Zone 1 0.15 1.00 262.34
560-560-091 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-092 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-093 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-094 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-095 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-096 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-097 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-098 Zone 1 0.14 1.00 262.34
560-560-099 Zone 1 0.15 1.00 262.34
560-560-100 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-101 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-102 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-103 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-104 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-105 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-106 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-107 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-108 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-109 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-110 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-111 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-112 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-560-113 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-114 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-115 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-116 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-117 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-118 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-119 Zone 1 0.12 1.00 262.34
560-560-120 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-121 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-122 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-123 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-124 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-125 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2967 inary Assessment Roll Page 10 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-560-126 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-127 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-128 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-129 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-130 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-131 Zone 1 0.12 1.00 262.34
560-560-132 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-133 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-560-134 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-135 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-136 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-137 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-138 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-139 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-140 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-560-141 Zone 1 0.12 1.00 262.34
560-560-142 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-143 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-144 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-145 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-146 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-147 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-148 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-149 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-150 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-151 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-152 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-153 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-560-154 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-560-155 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-560-156 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-590-005 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-006 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-007 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-008 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-009 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-010 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-011 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-012 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-013 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-014 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-015 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-016 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-017 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-018 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-019 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-020 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-021 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2968 inary Assessment Roll Page 11 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-590-022 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-023 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-024 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-025 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-026 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-027 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-028 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-029 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-030 Zone 1 0.14 1.00 262.34
560-590-031 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-032 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-033 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-034 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-035 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-590-036 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-037 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-038 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-039 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-040 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-041 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-042 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-043 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-044 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-045 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-046 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-590-047 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-048 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-049 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-050 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-051 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-052 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-053 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-054 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-055 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-056 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-057 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-058 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-590-059 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-060 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-061 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-062 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-063 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-064 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-065 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-066 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-067 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-068 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-069 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2969 inary Assessment Roll Page 12 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-590-070 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-071 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-590-072 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-073 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-074 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-075 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-076 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-077 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-590-078 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-079 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-590-080 Zone 1 0.07 1.00 262.34
560-590-081 Zone 1 0.06 1.00 262.34
560-600-001 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-002 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-003 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-004 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-005 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-006 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-007 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-008 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-009 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-010 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-011 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-012 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-013 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-014 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-015 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-016 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-017 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-018 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-019 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-020 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-021 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-022 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-023 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-024 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-025 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-026 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-027 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-028 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-029 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-030 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-031 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-032 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-033 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-034 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-035 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-600-036 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2970 inary Assessment Roll Page 13 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-610-001 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-002 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-003 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-004 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-005 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-006 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-007 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-008 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-009 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-010 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-011 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-012 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-013 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-014 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-015 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-016 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-017 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-018 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-019 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-020 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-021 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-022 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-023 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-024 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-025 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-026 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-027 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-028 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-029 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-030 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-031 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-032 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-033 Zone 1 0.02 0.75 196.74
560-610-034 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-035 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-036 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-038 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-039 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-040 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-041 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-042 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-043 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-044 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-045 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-046 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-047 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-048 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-049 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2971 inary Assessment Roll Page 14 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-610-050 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-051 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-052 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-053 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-054 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-055 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-056 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-057 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-058 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-059 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-060 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-061 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-064 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-065 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-066 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-067 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-068 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-069 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-070 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-071 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-072 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-073 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-074 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-075 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-076 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-077 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-078 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-079 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-080 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-081 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-082 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-083 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-610-084 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-620-007 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-008 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-009 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-010 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-011 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-012 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-013 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-014 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-015 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-016 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-017 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-620-018 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-620-019 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-020 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-620-021 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2972 inary Assessment Roll Page 15 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-620-022 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-023 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-024 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-620-025 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-026 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-027 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-028 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-029 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-030 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-031 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-032 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-033 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-034 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-035 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-036 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-620-037 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-620-038 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-620-039 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-040 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-041 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-042 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-043 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-044 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-045 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-046 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-047 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-048 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-049 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-050 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-051 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-052 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-053 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-620-055 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-056 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-057 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-058 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-059 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-060 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-061 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-062 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-063 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-064 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-065 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-066 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-067 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-068 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-069 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-070 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2973 inary Assessment Roll Page 16 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-620-071 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-072 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-073 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-074 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-075 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-076 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-077 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-078 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-079 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-080 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-081 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-082 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-083 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-084 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-085 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-086 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-087 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-088 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-089 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-090 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-091 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-092 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-093 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-094 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-095 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-098 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-099 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-620-100 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-620-101 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-102 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-103 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-104 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-105 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-106 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-107 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-108 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-620-109 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-110 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-111 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-112 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-113 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-114 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-115 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-116 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-117 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-118 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-119 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-120 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2974 inary Assessment Roll Page 17 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-620-121 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-122 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-123 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-124 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-620-125 Zone 1 0.11 1.00 262.34
560-620-126 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-620-127 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-128 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-129 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-130 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-131 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-132 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-620-133 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-134 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-135 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-136 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-137 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-620-138 Zone 1 0.08 1.00 262.34
560-620-139 Zone 1 0.09 1.00 262.34
560-620-140 Zone 1 0.10 1.00 262.34
560-630-001 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-002 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-003 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-004 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-005 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-006 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-007 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-008 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-009 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-010 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-011 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-012 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-013 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-014 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-015 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-016 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-017 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-018 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-019 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-020 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-021 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-023 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-024 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-025 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-026 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-027 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-028 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-029 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2975 inary Assessment Roll Page 18 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-630-030 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-031 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-032 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-033 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-034 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-035 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-036 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-037 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-038 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-039 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-040 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-041 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-042 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-043 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-044 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-045 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-630-046 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-680-001 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-002 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-003 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-004 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-005 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-006 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-007 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-008 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-009 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-010 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-011 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-012 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-013 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-014 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-015 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-016 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-017 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-018 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-019 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-020 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-021 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-022 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-023 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-024 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-025 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-026 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-027 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-028 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-029 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-030 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-031 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2976 inary Assessment Roll Page 19 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-680-032 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-033 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-034 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-035 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-036 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-037 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-038 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-039 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-040 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-041 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-042 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-043 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-044 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-045 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-046 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-047 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-048 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-049 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-050 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-051 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-052 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-053 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-054 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-055 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-056 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-057 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-058 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-059 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-060 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-061 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-062 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-063 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-064 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-065 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-066 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-067 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-068 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-069 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-070 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-071 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-072 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-073 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-074 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-075 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-076 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-077 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-078 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-079 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2977 inary Assessment Roll Page 20 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-680-080 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-081 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-082 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-083 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-084 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-085 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-086 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-087 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-088 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-089 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-090 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-091 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-092 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-093 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-094 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-095 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-096 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-097 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-098 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-099 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-100 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-101 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-102 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-103 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-104 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-105 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-106 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-107 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-108 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-109 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-110 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-111 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-112 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-113 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-114 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-115 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-116 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-117 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-118 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-119 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-120 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-121 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-122 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-123 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-124 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-125 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-126 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-127 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2978 inary Assessment Roll Page 21 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-680-128 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-129 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-130 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-131 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-132 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-133 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-134 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-135 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-136 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-137 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-138 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-139 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-140 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-141 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-142 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-143 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-144 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-145 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-146 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-147 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-148 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-149 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-150 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-151 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-152 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-153 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-154 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-155 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-156 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-157 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-158 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-159 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-160 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-161 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-162 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-163 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-164 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-165 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-166 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-167 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-168 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-169 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-170 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-171 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-172 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-173 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-174 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-175 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2979 inary Assessment Roll Page 22 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-680-176 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-177 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-178 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-179 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-180 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-181 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-182 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-183 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-184 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-185 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-186 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-187 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-188 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-189 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-190 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-191 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-192 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-193 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-194 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-195 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-196 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-197 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-198 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-199 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-200 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-201 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-202 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-203 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-204 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-205 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-206 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-207 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-208 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-209 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-210 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-211 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-212 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-213 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-214 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-215 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-216 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-217 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-218 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-219 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-220 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-221 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-222 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-223 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2980 inary Assessment Roll Page 23 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-680-224 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-225 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-226 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-227 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-228 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-229 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-230 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-231 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-232 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-233 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-234 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-235 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-236 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-237 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-238 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-239 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-240 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-241 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-242 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-243 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-244 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-245 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-246 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-247 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-248 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-249 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-250 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-251 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-252 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-253 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-254 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-255 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-256 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-257 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-258 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-259 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-260 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-261 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-262 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-263 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-264 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-265 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-266 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-267 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-268 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-269 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-270 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-271 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2981 inary Assessment Roll Page 24 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-680-272 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-273 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-274 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-275 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-276 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-277 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-278 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-279 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-280 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-281 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-282 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-283 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-284 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-285 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-286 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-287 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-288 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-289 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-290 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-291 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-292 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-293 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-294 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-295 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-296 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-297 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-298 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-299 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-300 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-301 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-302 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-303 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-304 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-305 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-306 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-307 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-308 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-309 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-310 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-311 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-312 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-313 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-314 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-315 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-316 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-317 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-318 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-319 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2982 inary Assessment Roll Page 25 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-680-320 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-321 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-322 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-323 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-324 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-325 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-326 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-327 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-328 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-329 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-330 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-331 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-332 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-333 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-334 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-335 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-336 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-337 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-338 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-339 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-340 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-341 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-342 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-343 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-344 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-345 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-346 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-347 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-348 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-349 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-350 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-351 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-352 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-353 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-354 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-355 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-356 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-357 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-358 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-359 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-360 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-361 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-362 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-363 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-364 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-365 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-366 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-367 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2983 inary Assessment Roll Page 26 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-680-368 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-369 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-370 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-371 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-372 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-373 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-374 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-375 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-376 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-377 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-378 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-379 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-380 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-381 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-382 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-383 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-384 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-385 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-386 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-387 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-388 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-389 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-390 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-391 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-392 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-393 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-394 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-395 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-396 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-397 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-398 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-399 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-400 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-401 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-402 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-403 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-404 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-405 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-406 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-407 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-408 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-409 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-410 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-411 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-412 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-413 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-414 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-415 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2984 inary Assessment Roll Page 27 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-680-416 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-417 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-418 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-419 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-420 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-421 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-422 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-423 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-424 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-425 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-426 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-427 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-428 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-429 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-430 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-431 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-432 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-433 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-434 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-435 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-436 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-437 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-438 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-439 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-440 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-441 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-442 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-443 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-444 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-445 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-446 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-447 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-448 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-449 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-450 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-451 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-452 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-453 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-454 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-455 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-456 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-457 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-458 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-459 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-460 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-461 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-462 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-463 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2985 inary Assessment Roll Page 28 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-680-464 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-465 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-466 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-467 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-680-468 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-690-001 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-002 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-003 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-004 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-005 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-006 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-007 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-008 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-009 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-010 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-011 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-012 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-013 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-014 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-015 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-016 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-017 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-018 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-019 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-020 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-021 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-022 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-023 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-024 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-025 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-026 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-027 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-028 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-029 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-030 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-031 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-032 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-033 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-034 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-035 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-036 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-037 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-038 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-039 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-040 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-041 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-042 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-690-049 Zone 1 1.42 5.68 1,489.98
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2986 inary Assessment Roll Page 29 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-690-050 Zone 1 1.02 4.08 1,070.24
560-700-001 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-002 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-003 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-004 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-005 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-006 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-007 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-036 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-037 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-038 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-039 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-040 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-041 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-042 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-043 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-053 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-054 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-055 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-056 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-057 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-058 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-059 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-060 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-061 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-062 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-063 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-064 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-065 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-066 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-067 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-068 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-069 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-070 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-071 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-072 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-073 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-074 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-075 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-076 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-077 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-078 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-079 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-080 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-081 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-082 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-083 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-084 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2987 inary Assessment Roll Page 30 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-700-085 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-086 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-101 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-102 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-103 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-104 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-105 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-106 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-107 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-108 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-109 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-110 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-112 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-113 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-114 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-115 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-116 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-117 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-118 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-119 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-120 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-121 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-123 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-124 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-125 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-126 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-127 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-128 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-129 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-130 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-132 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-133 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-134 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-135 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-136 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-137 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-139 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-140 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-141 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-142 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-143 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-144 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-145 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-146 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-147 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-700-148 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-710-001 Zone 1 4.51 9.02 2,366.30
560-720-001 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2988 inary Assessment Roll Page 31 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-720-002 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-003 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-004 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-005 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-006 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-007 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-008 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-009 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-010 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-011 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-012 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-013 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-014 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-015 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-016 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-017 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-018 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-019 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-020 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-021 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-022 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-023 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-024 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-025 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-026 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-027 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-028 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-029 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-030 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-031 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-032 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-033 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-034 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-035 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-036 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-037 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-038 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-039 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-040 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-041 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-042 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-043 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-044 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-045 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-046 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-047 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-048 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-049 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2989 inary Assessment Roll Page 32 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-720-050 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-051 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-052 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-053 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-054 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-055 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-056 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-057 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-058 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-059 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-060 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-061 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-062 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-063 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-064 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-065 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-066 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-067 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-068 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-069 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-070 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-071 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-072 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-073 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-074 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-075 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-076 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-077 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-078 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-079 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-080 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-081 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-082 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-083 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-084 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-085 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-086 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-087 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-088 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-089 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-090 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-091 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-092 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-093 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-094 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-095 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-096 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-097 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2990 inary Assessment Roll Page 33 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-720-098 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-099 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-100 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-101 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-102 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-103 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-104 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-105 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-106 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-107 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-108 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-109 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-110 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-111 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-112 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-113 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-114 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-115 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-116 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-117 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-118 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-119 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-120 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-121 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-122 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-123 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-124 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-125 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-126 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-127 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-128 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-129 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-130 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-131 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-132 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-133 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-134 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-135 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-136 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-137 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-138 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-139 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-140 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-141 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-142 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-143 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-720-144 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-001 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2991 inary Assessment Roll Page 34 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-730-002 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-003 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-004 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-005 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-006 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-007 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-008 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-009 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-010 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-011 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-012 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-013 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-014 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-015 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-016 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-017 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-018 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-019 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-020 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-021 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-022 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-023 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-024 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-025 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-026 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-027 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-028 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-029 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-030 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-031 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-032 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-033 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-034 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-035 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-036 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-037 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-038 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-039 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-040 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-041 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-042 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-043 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-044 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-045 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-046 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-047 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-048 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-049 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2992 inary Assessment Roll Page 35 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-730-050 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-051 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-052 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-053 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-054 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-055 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-056 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-057 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-058 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-059 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-060 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-061 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-062 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-063 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-064 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-065 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-066 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-067 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-068 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-069 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-070 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-071 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-072 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-073 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-074 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-075 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-076 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-077 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-078 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-079 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-730-080 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-001 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-002 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-003 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-004 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-005 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-006 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-007 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-008 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-009 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-010 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-011 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-012 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-013 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-014 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-015 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-016 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-017 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2993 inary Assessment Roll Page 36 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-740-018 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-019 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-020 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-021 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-022 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-023 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-024 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-025 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-026 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-027 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-028 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-029 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-030 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-031 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-032 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-033 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-034 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-035 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-036 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-037 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-038 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-039 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-040 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-041 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-042 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-043 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-044 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-045 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-046 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-047 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-048 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-049 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-050 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-051 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-052 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-053 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-054 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-055 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-056 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-057 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-058 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-059 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-060 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-061 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-062 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-063 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-064 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-065 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2994 inary Assessment Roll Page 37 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-740-066 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-067 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-068 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-069 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-070 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-071 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-072 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-073 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-074 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-075 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-076 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-077 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-078 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-079 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-080 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-081 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-082 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-083 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-084 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-085 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-086 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-087 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-088 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-089 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-090 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-091 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-092 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-093 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-094 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-095 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-096 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-097 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-098 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-099 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-100 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-101 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-102 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-103 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-104 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-105 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-106 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-107 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-108 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-109 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-110 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-111 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-112 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-113 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2995 inary Assessment Roll Page 38 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-740-114 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-115 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-116 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-117 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-118 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-119 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-120 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-121 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-122 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-123 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-124 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-125 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-126 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-127 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-128 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-129 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-130 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-131 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-132 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-133 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-134 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-135 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-136 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-137 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-138 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-139 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-140 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-141 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-142 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-143 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-144 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-145 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-146 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-147 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-740-148 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-001 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-002 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-003 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-004 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-005 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-006 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-007 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-008 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-009 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-010 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-011 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-012 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-013 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2996 inary Assessment Roll Page 39 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-750-014 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-015 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-016 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-017 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-018 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-019 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-020 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-021 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-022 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-023 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-024 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-025 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-026 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-027 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-028 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-029 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-030 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-031 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-032 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-033 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-034 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-035 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-036 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-037 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-038 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-039 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-040 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-041 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-042 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-043 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-044 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-045 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-046 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-047 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-048 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-049 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-050 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-051 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-052 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-053 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-054 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-055 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-056 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-057 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-058 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-059 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-060 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-061 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2997 inary Assessment Roll Page 40 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-750-062 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-063 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-064 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-065 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-066 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-067 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-068 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-069 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-070 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-071 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-072 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-073 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-074 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-075 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-750-076 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-001 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-002 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-003 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-004 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-005 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-006 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-007 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-008 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-009 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-010 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-011 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-012 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-013 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-014 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-015 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-016 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-017 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-018 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-019 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-020 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-021 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-022 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-023 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-024 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-025 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-026 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-027 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-028 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-029 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-030 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-031 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-032 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-033 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2998 inary Assessment Roll Page 41 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-760-034 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-035 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-036 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-037 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-038 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-039 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-040 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-041 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-042 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-043 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-044 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-045 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-046 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-047 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-048 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-049 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-050 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-051 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-052 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-053 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-054 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-055 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-056 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-057 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-058 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-059 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-060 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-061 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-062 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-063 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-064 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-065 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-066 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-067 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-760-068 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-001 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-002 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-003 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-004 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-005 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-006 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-007 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-008 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-009 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-010 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-011 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-012 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-013 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim2999 inary Assessment Roll Page 42 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-770-014 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-015 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-016 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-017 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-018 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-019 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-020 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-021 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-022 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-023 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-024 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-025 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-026 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-027 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-028 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-029 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-030 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-031 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-032 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-033 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-034 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-035 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-036 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-037 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-038 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-039 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-040 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-041 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-042 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-043 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-044 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-045 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-046 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-047 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-048 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-049 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-050 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-051 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-052 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-053 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-054 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-055 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-056 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-057 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-058 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-059 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-060 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-061 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3000 inary Assessment Roll Page 43 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-770-062 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-063 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-064 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-065 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-066 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-067 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-068 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-069 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-070 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-071 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-072 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-073 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-074 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-075 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-076 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-077 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-078 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-079 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-080 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-081 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-082 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-083 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-084 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-085 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-086 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-087 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-088 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-089 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-090 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-091 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-092 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-093 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-094 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-095 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-096 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-097 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-098 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-099 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-100 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-101 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-102 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-103 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-104 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-105 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-106 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-107 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-108 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-109 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3001 inary Assessment Roll Page 44 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-770-110 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-111 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-112 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-113 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-114 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-115 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-116 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-117 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-118 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-119 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-120 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-121 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-122 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-123 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-124 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-125 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-126 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-127 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-128 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-129 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-130 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-131 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-132 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-133 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-134 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-135 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-136 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-137 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-138 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-139 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-140 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-141 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-142 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-143 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-144 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-145 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-146 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-147 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-148 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-149 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-150 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-151 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-152 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-153 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-154 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-155 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-770-156 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-001 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3002 inary Assessment Roll Page 45 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-780-002 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-003 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-004 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-005 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-006 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-007 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-008 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-009 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-010 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-011 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-012 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-013 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-014 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-015 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-016 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-017 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-018 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-019 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-020 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-021 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-022 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-023 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-024 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-025 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-026 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-027 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-028 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-029 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-030 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-031 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-032 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-033 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-034 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-035 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-036 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-037 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-038 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-039 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-780-040 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-790-018 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-019 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-020 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-021 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-022 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-024 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-025 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-026 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-027 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3003 inary Assessment Roll Page 46 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-790-028 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-030 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-031 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-032 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-033 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-034 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-036 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-037 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-038 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-039 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-040 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-042 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-043 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-044 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-045 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-046 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-048 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-049 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-050 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-051 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-052 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-054 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-055 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-056 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-057 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-058 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-059 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-060 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-061 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-062 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-063 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-064 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-065 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-067 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-068 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-069 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-070 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-071 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-072 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-073 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-790-074 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-018 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-019 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-020 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-021 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-022 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-023 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-024 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3004 inary Assessment Roll Page 47 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-800-025 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-026 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-027 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-028 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-029 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-030 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-032 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-033 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-034 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-035 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-036 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-037 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-038 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-039 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-040 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-041 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-042 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-043 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-045 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-046 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-800-047 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-800-048 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-049 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-050 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-051 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-800-052 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-053 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-800-054 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-800-055 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-800-056 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-057 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-058 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-800-059 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-060 Zone 1 0.06 0.75 196.74
560-800-061 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-062 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-063 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-065 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-066 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-067 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-068 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-069 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-070 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-071 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-072 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-073 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-074 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-075 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3005 inary Assessment Roll Page 48 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-800-076 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-077 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-078 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-079 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-800-080 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-082 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-083 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-084 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-085 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-086 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-087 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-088 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-089 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-090 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-091 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-092 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-093 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-094 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-095 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-097 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-098 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-099 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-100 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-101 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-102 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-103 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-104 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-105 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-106 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-107 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-800-108 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-019 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-020 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-021 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-022 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-023 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-024 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-025 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-026 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-027 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-028 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-029 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-030 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-031 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-033 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-034 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-035 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-036 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3006 inary Assessment Roll Page 49 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-810-037 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-038 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-039 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-040 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-041 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-042 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-043 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-044 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-046 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-047 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-048 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-049 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-050 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-051 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-052 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-053 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-054 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-055 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-056 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-057 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-059 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-060 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-061 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-062 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-063 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-064 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-065 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-066 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-067 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-068 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-069 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-070 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-072 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-073 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-074 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-075 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-076 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-077 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-078 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-080 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-081 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-082 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-083 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-084 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-085 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-086 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-088 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-089 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3007 inary Assessment Roll Page 50 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-810-090 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-091 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-093 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-094 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-095 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-810-096 Zone 1 0.05 0.75 196.74
560-830-011 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-012 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-013 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-014 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-015 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-016 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-017 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-018 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-019 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-020 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-021 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-022 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-023 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-024 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-025 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-026 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-027 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-028 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-029 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-030 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-031 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-032 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-033 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-034 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-035 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-036 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-037 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-038 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-039 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-040 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-041 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-042 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-043 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-044 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-045 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-046 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-047 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-048 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-049 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-050 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-051 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-052 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3008 inary Assessment Roll Page 51 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-830-053 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-054 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-055 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-056 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-057 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-058 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-059 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-060 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-061 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-062 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-063 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-064 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-065 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-066 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-067 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-068 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-069 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-070 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-071 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-072 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-073 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-074 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-075 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-076 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-077 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-078 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-079 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-080 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-081 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-082 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-083 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-084 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-085 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-086 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-087 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-088 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-089 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-090 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-091 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-092 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-093 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-094 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-095 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-096 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-097 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-098 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-099 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-100 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3009 inary Assessment Roll Page 52 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-830-101 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-102 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-103 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-104 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-105 Zone 1 0.00 1.00 262.34
560-830-107 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-108 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-109 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-110 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-112 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-113 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-114 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-115 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-116 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-117 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-119 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-120 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-121 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-122 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-123 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-124 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-125 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-126 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-127 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-128 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-129 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-130 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-131 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-132 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-134 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-135 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-136 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-137 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-138 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-139 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-140 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-141 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-142 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-143 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-144 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-145 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-146 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-147 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-148 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-149 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-150 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-152 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-153 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3010 inary Assessment Roll Page 53 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-830-154 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-155 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-156 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-157 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-158 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-159 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-160 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-161 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-162 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-163 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-165 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-166 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-167 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-168 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-169 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-170 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-171 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-172 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-173 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-174 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-175 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-176 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-177 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-178 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-179 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-180 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-181 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-182 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-184 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-185 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-186 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-187 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-188 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-189 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-190 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-191 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-193 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-194 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-195 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-196 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-197 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-198 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-199 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-200 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-201 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-203 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-204 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-205 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3011 inary Assessment Roll Page 54 of 55 APN Zone Acreage EBUs Charge
560-830-206 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-207 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-208 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-209 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-210 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-211 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
560-830-212 Zone 1 0.00 0.75 196.74
Totals 2,746.15 $714,133.74
Parcel Count 2,596
City of Richmond - Marina Bay LLMD FY 2023/24 Prelim3012 inary Assessment Roll Page 55 of 55 July 11, 2023
MARINA BAY LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached document is a true copy of that certain Engineer’s Report, including assessment and assessment diagram, for Marina Bay Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District, confirmed by the City Council of the City of Richmond on the 11th day of July 2023, by its Resolution No.
This document is certified, and is filed with you, pursuant to Section 22641 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Dated:
Pamela Christian, City Clerk
City of Richmond
Contra Costa County, California
3013
July 11, 2023
Police Department
DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bisa French, Chief of Police
John Lopez, Police Captain
Subject: City of Richmond Police Department Use-of-Force Report Presentation by Bob Scales of Police Strategies
LLC.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
n/a
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Police Strategies LLC was selected to provide use-offorce analysis reports to the general public. The presentation will be to present the report data collected for the years 2018-2023.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a presentation on the City of Richmond Police Department’s use-of-force reports from Bob Scales, CEO
of Police Strategies LLC, at the request of City
Councilmember Claudia Jimenez – Police Department
(Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
DISCUSSION:
Bob Scales will provide City Council with a presentation regarding use-of-force data collected from the City of Richmond Police Department through its Police Force Analysis System (PFAS). The PFAS collects use-of-force data, analyzes the incidents AGENDA
REPORT
3014
July 11, 2023
utilizing a wide range of factors, and assigns easy to interpret scores that characterize the extent to which each use of force was legally justifiable. The resulting information will assist the Police Department in developing operating policies and training programs to address any concerning use-of-force patterns or trends. The PFAS software will also assist the Police Department in building community trust by publishing an online interactive dashboard containing the Police Department’s use-of-force data from 2018 through 2023.
Police Strategies LLC will provide a live example of the dashboard that will be available for public use.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Presentation
3015
Police Force Analysis System℠
Richmond City Council
July 11, 2023
Bob Scales
Police Strategies LLC
3016
3017
150 Data Fields Extracted
Manual Coding
Machine Learning (NLP)
Legal Algorithms
Police Force Analysis System℠
Incident
Reports
Interactive Dashboards
3018
Use of Force Analysis
3019
Police Force Analysis System℠
•Agency Dashboards – Risk Management System
•Interagency Comparative Dashboards - Benchmarking
•Public Dashboards – Accountability & Transparency
•Annual Use of Force Reports
3020
3021
Questions?
[email protected]
(206) 915-8683
Bob Scales
Police Strategies LLC
3022
July 11, 2023
City Council
DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmembers Jimenez and Bana
Subject: Soccer Fields in Richmond
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff will be asked to provide the estimated cost once the City Council provides direction about the request.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
September 25, 2012 - SAFE Coalition
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The community has requested more fields for soccer
games and practice.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: DISCUSS AND PROVIDE direction to staff regarding additional soccer fields and the maintenance of current fields. Councilmember Jimenez (510-620-6565) and
Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743)
DISCUSSION:
Many Richmond residents enjoy playing soccer. The city has over 50 parks of which some are used for soccer games and practice. There is a need to develop a strategic AGENDA
REPORT
3023
July 11, 2023
plan for soccer fields and the sports complex. The city should also collaborate with the West Contra Costa School District to subsidize high costs of Richmond school field use and increase field use availability for Richmond youth soccer organizations. Lastly, collaboration is also needed with the Recreation and Parks Commission to consider entering into a Joint Use Agreement to sustain and develop policies for youth soccer.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Presentation Slide Deck
3024
July 11, 2023
City Council
DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Vice Mayor McLaughlin
Subject: Develop a Shoreline Resiliency Plan with Inclusion of an Inventory of Toxic Sites on the Richmond Shoreline
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approximately $250,000
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
2030 General Plan adopted in 2012; Climate Action Plan
adopted in 2016; Sea Level Rise presentations in 2021
and 2023 by UC Berkeley Dr. Kristina Hill; Resolution 43- 21 (to take action to mitigate the potential impacts of sea level rise in Richmond)
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Richmond has 32 miles of shoreline, more than any other city along the Bay. It is our responsibility to create a shoreline resiliency plan to guide us into the future in creating a sustainable shoreline with cleanup of toxins, recreation and education opportunities, and preparation for sea level rise and flood protection in these urgent times as the climate crisis continues to deepen.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: DIRECT staff to circulate an RFP to contract with a shoreline consultant for the creation of a Shoreline
Resiliency Plan with inclusion of an inventory of toxic sites along our shoreline and come back to the Council
by end of year with a recommended consultant to create
this plan over the course of 12 months. Vice Mayor
McLaughlin (510-620-6636)
AGENDA
REPORT
3025
July 11, 2023
DISCUSSION:
Over the past two decades, Richmond has shown itself to be a leader in the environmental and health arenas. Our Environmental and Health page of the City’s website shows the incredible amount of work and policy changes we have done thus far. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/1610/Environmental-and-Health-Initiatives.
Richmond completed its Climate Action Plan (CAP) 7 years ago in 2016. Objective 8 in our 2016 CAP is “Resiliency to Climate Change” and a shoreline protection plan is one of its recommended strategies. In addition, our 2030 General Plan approved in 2012 includes an “Energy and Climate Change Element” that references the need to protect our shoreline and natural resources as a policy recommendation.
Additionally, the City Council recently approved an overarching goal (through our recent goal-setting meetings) to address: Shoreline issues and Ecological sustainability. A subgoal was to “Consider a shoreline resiliency inventory plan (which includes preparation for sea level rise).”
The purpose of this item is to direct staff to circulate an RFP for a consultant to create a Shoreline Resiliency Plan with the inclusion of an inventory of toxic sites along our shoreline. A good definition of a resilient shoreline and why it is needed is stated on the Citizens for East Shore Parks (CESP) website as follows:
What is a Resilient Shoreline?
A Resilient Shoreline relies on preserving and strengthening the natural shoreline, including expanded marshes, systems to address rising sea levels due to climate change, storm surges and King Tides.
Why a Resilient Shoreline?
Climate change adds urgency to expanding the amount of shoreline protected from development. Open space along the shoreline provides expanded opportunities to implement mitigation and larger-scale restoration efforts compared to areas with development abutting the shoreline. Adding marshes and other recommended natural shorelines is a major step in mitigating sea rise.
Richmond has 32 miles of shoreline, more than any other city along the San Francisco Bay. Our extensive shoreline adds much beauty to our city, as well as offering opportunities for recreation and other healthy activities.
However, Richmond also has a history of heavy industry along our shorelines. Many of these industries have long since moved out of Richmond, and at the same time have left their toxic legacy behind. As the climate crisis continues to deepen, we, in Richmond, are faced with increased problems surrounding these toxic sites.
Sea level rise is rightly a major concern for our community. With increased weather events, we can only expect more flooding and other harmful impacts to humans, 3026
July 11, 2023
property and our natural resources. Given the number of toxic sites on our shoreline, both superfund sites and brownfields, not only is flooding an enormous concern, but the spread of toxins triggered by sea level rise and rising groundwater sets up a scenario of mobilizing the dangerous toxins along our shoreline into surrounding sites and the Bay.
The threat of earthquakes and liquefaction adds additional concerns about the spread of these toxins in ways that will heavily impact us as a community and our resources.
Over the course of recent years, new information and data has been generated, including enhanced scientific data on accelerated sea level rise, lowered thresholds for certain toxins in regard to their impact on human health, and new strategies to protect vulnerable populations.
Creating a Shoreline Resiliency Plan, with inclusion of a toxic site inventory, is in Richmond’s interest.
Some of the important components of this plan and inventory must start with the understanding that our shoreline is an integrated ecosystem. An impact to one part of the shoreline impacts other parts, so it is essential that we look at the shoreline as a whole. For example, correcting a flooding pattern for one area of the shoreline, can potentially only move the flood waters to another area of the shoreline. In addition, toxins along our shoreline know no boundaries and can travel off site (a situation that has already occurred in many cases) to nearby sites and into the Bay and other waterways creating further contamination and public health problems.
It is important to note that this shoreline plan has two major areas of focus (1) a toxic inventory, and 2) nature-based sea level rise protection and shoreline restoration/resiliency strategies). Undertaking these tasks will necessitate a strong public outreach component.
1. Toxic Inventory.
Many of us are well aware of the toxic Zeneca site on our southeast shoreline. This is a Superfund-qualified site made up of a slew of hazardous toxins. Currently an unlined cap covers 500,000 cubic yards of hazardous materials, making it an unlicensed Hazardous Waste Dump on our shoreline. At present, a project is underway to build 4,000 housing units at this toxic site. Simultaneously, there are lawsuits to DTSC (the Department of Toxic Substance Control) to stop this irresponsible development project.
While this is a private site, the City should be concerned about the threats to our community, our environment and the threat of liability for the City.
The Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area Community Advisory Group (known as the “CAG”) reviews the work of DTSC and has done so for the last nearly 20 years. The CAG not only reviews the toxic Zeneca site, but it reviews all the DTSC regulated sites along our southeast shoreline. The CAG’s study and analysis of thousands of DTSC documents continues to be a great source of information for us all. See Attachment 1 for 3027
July 11, 2023
a brochure created by the CAG. The map identifies the various toxic sites. Contra Costa County also has maps of toxic sites in Richmond.
Attachment 2 indicates the areas within the Marina Bay housing development where contamination exists. It will be important to have these sites identified within the inventory along with any comments from the CAG (some of whom live in Marina Bay housing) and Marina Bay residents.
In addition, there are toxic sites along other parts of our shoreline that should be included in this inventory.
While our City staff may have access to DTSC regulated sites, the CAG’s extensive knowledge needs to be shared with the City via a consultant who will be charged with creating this Toxic Inventory. This will allow the City to have a one-stop inventory for understanding the complexities of toxins along our shoreline, and the community’s concerns about these. Such an inventory should not only list the contaminated shoreline sites, but should list the specific regulatory agency assigned to each site (e.g. DTSC, US EPA, Water Board). It should also list the names of toxins, the level of toxic contamination on each site and their threat to human health and the environment. It should not be limited to our southeast shoreline, as our north shoreline has some serious problems of contamination as well. The inventory should indicate any clean up already done and further needed clean up along with proposed clean up strategies (Note: different clean up strategies may be proposed by the community and the regulatory agency, which should be noted in the inventory). In addition, the responsible parties for the cleanup should be listed. And finally, protective measures should be identified for the community while toxins remain on sites (signage, education, etc).
Having such a Toxic Inventory will guide us in our future efforts to create a sustainable shoreline. Although funding for cleanups will take considerable time, it will be useful for the Inventory to discuss funding possibilities which include: engaging the regulatory agency to require the responsible party to foot the bill, accessing climate grants, and pressuring the state and federal government to strengthen standards of clean up with the onus on the responsible party.
It will be important for the consultant to interview and review the work of Dr. Kristina Hill, PhD, UC Berkeley, who has provided presentations to the City Council and the public.
See Dr. Hill’s presentation “Sea Level Rise: Impacts on Richmond” here:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/64926/Hill-Richmond-CityCouncil-Feb-28-short-2023-PDF Dr. Hill adeptly explains how the toxins will be mobilized with sea level rise and ground water elevations and spread to neighboring sites and into the Bay and other waterways such as creeks, causing the ecosystem and public health to be compromised big-time.
2. Research and examine strategies for nature-based shoreline restoration and climate resiliency
3028
July 11, 2023
While most site restorations will need to wait until cleanup is funded and completed, there may be some areas of our shoreline that are not constrained by cleanup needs, where a couple pilot projects for a “living shoreline” can be envisioned for implementation in the near term. Ultimately, our goal should be to create a “living shoreline” with nature-based protections. The City of Hayward has created a great plan for Shoreline adaptation. See here: https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/210510_Hayward%20Shoreline%20Adapatation%20Master%2 0Plan_Document_Pages.pdf Starting on page 87 it talks about nature-based strategies.
A good set of goals for nature-based restorations and climate resiliency can be modeled after (or modified from) Hayward’s plan:
PROJECT GOALS
Create a Resilient Shoreline Environment for People and Ecology • Enhance the shoreline’s ecological value and adapt to sea level rise • Enhance recreational opportunities and adapt to climate change • Create a management framework for adapting to sea level rise over time • Provide refuge to help endangered shoreline species to adapt climate change Enhance the Shoreline Environment to Reduce Risk to Critical Infrastructure and Built Assets
• Align with and enhance existing management and capital improvement plans • Reduce risk to regional critical utilities from sea level rise, groundwater intrusion, and flood events
• Reduce risk to transportation infrastructure from sea level rise, groundwater intrusion, and flood events
• Reduce risk to agency assets such as the San Francisco Bay Trail and marsh restoration project(s)
Build Social Resilience in the Community
• Promote social equity, environmental justice, and public health • Preserve the local economy and increase resilience to climate change • Prevent the disruption of key community services
Build Capacity for Future Generations to Adapt to climate change • Build organizational and community capacity
• Provide a place for education, interpretation and understanding of the shoreline and climate change
• Foster stewardship of the shoreline’s cultural and ecological resources In addition, our Shoreline Plan should list the types of restoration jobs that can be created from soft engineering projects, which protect and restore natural habitats. (Note:
such jobs can be added to our Green-Blue New Deal).
Exemptions
3029
July 11, 2023
Exempted from this Shoreline Plan will be the Port of Richmond, as the Port is being examined via a Strategic Plan of its own, given its focus on economic development potential for revenue generation and job creation in the green and blue economy.
However, the Shoreline Plan and the Port Plan should complement each other in terms of their sustainability measures (greening the Port and greening the shoreline go hand in hand).
Additionally, there are some sites along our shoreline that have legal restrictions currently attached to them. The City and community will need to examine separately (apart from this shoreline plan) such sites.
Shoreline sites that have some legal restrictions based on current agreements or other legal requirements are listed below:
Pt. Molate
Campus Bay
Terminal One
Brickyard Cove Residential Project
Public Outreach process: Community and stakeholder interviews and citywide meetings
One of the key components of this plan and inventory is to seek input from community and stakeholders. Interviews and community meetings should be conducted.
Here is a list of various stakeholders, organizations and regulatory agencies that should be contacted:
1. Richmond City Council
2. Appropriate City staff
3. Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG
4. Richmond Shoreline Alliance
5. Pt. Molate Alliance
6. Blue Frontier
7. Citizens for a Sustainable East Bay.
8. Sierra Club of West County
9. Native Plants Society
10.Watershed Project
11.Dr. Kristina Hill, PhD UC Berkeley
12.Mothers against Toxic Housing
13.Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council
14.Department of Toxics Substance Control (DTSC) San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
15.US EPA
16.Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
17.East Bay Regional Park District
3030
July 11, 2023
18.West County Wastewater District
At least one citywide meeting should be conducted to inform and hear input from the community at large.
There are also a host of already completed shoreline adaptations plans by other agencies and organizations along with some recent articles that may lend some insight to this project. See attachment 3. Some of these plans are very comprehensive and were created with significant funding and an extended time frame, it would be beneficial for Richmond’s plan to be smaller in cost and scope, as it is essential to get this plan in place as soon as possible. This item proposes a 12-month timeline and $250k compensation for a consultant.
Implementing this plan will be a long-term endeavor, but getting the guidelines in place is essential with the knowledge that the plan could and should be amended, expanded and/or modified as we move into the future, given changing circumstances of the climate crisis and other factors.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – CAG Brochure identifying toxic sites on southeast shoreline Attachment 2 – Marina Bay map identifying toxic spots in the Marina Bay area Attachment 3 – List of links to other shoreline plans
3031
3032
3033
3034
ATTACHMENT 3
Reference materials, including relevant media articles and other agency shoreline plans https://www.kqed.org/science/1983106/map-more-than-5000-toxic-sites-along-sf-bayare-threatened-by-rising-groundwater-new-study-finds https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/groundwater-contamination-18161553.php https://www.kqed.org/science/1981687/the-bay-could-soon-have-its-first-region-widesea-level-rise-plan-but-no-one-to-enforce-it https://resilientca.org/case-studies/City-of-Hayward-Regional-Shoreline-Master-Plan/ http://www.sfestuary.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/N.-Richmond-Shoreline-Vision.pdf https://thewatershedproject.org/shoreline/
https://www.sfei.org/adaptationatlas
https://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/project/shoreline-adaptation-project-mappingprogram/ https://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/ARTBayArea_Short_Report_Final_March2020_ADA.pdf https://greenaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Shoreline-Contamination-and-SeaLevel-Rise-in-the-San-Francisco-Bay-Area.docx-2.pdf https://www.kqed.org/science/1982875/rising-seas-and-underground-perils-sanleandros-fight-for-climate-resilience 3035
July 11, 2023
Library and Community Services
DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager of Community
Services
Patrick Seals, Project Manager
Subject: Community Crisis Response Program Update
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City Council allocated $1 million to support the implementation of a Community Crisis Response
Program in Richmond (01204022 400201 RI200). A
contract with Urban Strategies Council was approved on
July 26, 2022, to conduct research and analysis of
various Community Crisis Response Program options, for
a total amount not to exceed $112,844, with a term
beginning August 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2024.
Depending on the final program model, the cost to
implement a CCRP program (if the program is to operate
24 hours per day and 7 days per week) could range from
approximately $1.87M to $2.37M annually. These costs
are estimates and do not include overhead charges for
non-profit organization or government agency. A model
with less operational hours or smaller team could result in a lower annual costs.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
July 26, 2022 and February 28, 2023
AGENDA
REPORT
3036
July 11, 2023
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
On July 26, 2022, the City Council approved a contract
with Urban Strategies Council (USC) to conduct research and analysis of various Community Crisis Response
Program (CCRP) options and set forth recommendations.
Consistent with the agreement with USC, City Staff and
the consultants would like to provide a program update
and present a draft report outlining potential program
components and options for CCRP implementation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a draft report and presentation from Urban Strategies Council regarding Community Crisis
Response Program model options; and PROVIDE
DIRECTION to City staff – Community Services
Department (LaShonda White 510-620-6828/ Patrick
Seals 510-307-8016).
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Community Crisis Program (CCRP) began taking root in November 2020 amidst conversations within the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force (Task Force). Following a host of Task Force Round Table and Sub-committee meetings, the City Council approved an allocation of $1 million as part of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget. Various City staff worked closely with Task Force members to research and discuss components of a CCRP program, as well as draft a Request for Proposal (RFP) to help guide the further development and implementation of an alternative crisis response program in Richmond. The RFP was released in April 2022, and in July 2022, City Council approved a contract with Urban Strategies Council (USC) to assist with this effort.
USC was contracted by the City of Richmond to assess program model options and develop a pilot initiative for a non-police response to low-level 911 calls serving Richmond residents. USC engaged Richmond residents and community stakeholders in a community survey, focus groups, community meetings, organization presentations, and direct interviews to better understand their experiences with the 911 system, crisis resources, and aspirations for new response strategies.
USC’s report is intended as a comprehensive presentation of the program options.
Based on research, promising practices, and community needs, the report is drafted to hopefully provide the information needed for the City Council to make an informed decision regarding how best to move forward with the implementation of the program.
Additional information regarding CCRP can be found at
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4451/Community-Crisis-Response-Program. 3037
July 11, 2023
Urban Strategies Council
Founded in 1987, the Urban Strategies Council (USC) is a regional research, collective action, program innovation and policy advocacy anchor organization dedicated to advancing economic, racial, and social equity in the Bay Area. USC’s most recent work includes: conducting community-based participatory research for the newly created Department of Violence Prevention (DVP); developing the MACRO pilot program in Oakland, CA and Antioch Care Team pilot program (alternative non-police responses for 911 non-violent calls); assisting a community coalition in Cambridge, MA working to design an 911-call nonpolice alternative response system; and convening/facilitating development of the Justice Reinvestment Coalition of Alameda County. USC works with public-sector jurisdictions in the United States and Canada developing alternative emergency response program models and policy recommendations.
USC participates in convenings, both formal and informal, of jurisdictions and practitioners sharing models and learning. As more communities have implemented models, USC engages in more discussions about the experiences, challenges, and needed modifications to programs. USC has deep familiarity with the various models and the initial experiences of jurisdictions with those models, the evaluation approaches, community oversight and engagement strategies and experiences.
Although USC brings those experiences to the discussion, USC remains focused on understanding the specific local needs, resources, and goals of a municipality.
What is Community or Alternative Crisis Response?
CCRP provides a diversion model to reduce reliance on police and criminal justice responses by offering a public health response. A proposed CCRP program would provide an opportunity to improve access to mental health and other community services in Richmond and would also navigate people to the right services at the right time by utilizing community responders with strong ties and connections to Richmond that can respond in a respectful and non-stigmatizing manner.
Some of the desired impacts of CCRP are to reduce the engagement of frequent utilizers of emergency services with Richmond Police Department (RPD) and Richmond Fire Department (RFD); reduce the number of behavioral health and lower acuity calls traditionally responded to by the RPD and RFD; and provide communities with a supportive response option that enables connection to services. CCRP is an opportunity to provide community-focused, trauma-informed, and healing-centered call responses by well-trained non-police personnel who can increase impacted individuals’ access and connection to timely, appropriate and safe community-based services and resources.
The specific types of calls will be developed by the key stakeholders (CCRP staff, RPD, RFD and 911 dispatchers). Situations that are commonly and successfully responded to by an alternative response program may include:
3038
July 11, 2023
Trespasser/unwanted person
Loitering
Public urination/indecent
exposure (without criminal
intent)
Wellness check
Subject down (often resident
asleep in public)
Found syringe
Person screaming
Person needing referral to
services
People in vehicles/camping in
public
Person drunk in public
Panhandling/Aggressive
Panhandling
Disorderly juveniles - group
Auto Disturbance - noise,
revving engine
Loud music - Noise complaint
Incorrigible juvenile
Confused/senile person
Family dispute
Neighbor disputes
Incomplete 911 call
Proposed Program Options
USC has identified five (5) potential structural options for the City to consider:
1. Non-profit - The City issues an RFP for an independent non-profit agency (vendor) to run the program. Lessons learned from Antioch’s non-profit program implementation can inform the pros and cons for Richmond’s decision-making.
2. Existing City Office – The City can choose to institute the CCRP within an existing municipal department. Potential candidates include the Richmond Fire Department, the Community Services Department, and the Office of Neighborhood Safety. Based on resident feedback, the CCRP should not be implemented under the Richmond Police Department.
3. New City Department – Another option, using the City’s infrastructure as a foundation for the program, is to create a new City department that includes the CCRP and potentially other current initiatives (e.g., social service needs).
4. Nonprofit Hybrid Model – This option combines starting the CCRP in a nonprofit (to implement the pilot) with the intention of the CCRP then being brought into the City.
5. Richmond Partnership with Contra Costa County - The City could negotiate with Contra Costa to provide the services the City of Richmond identifies.
Proposed Program Essential Components
Regardless of the option selected, USC has outlined a number of program components that are essential to developing and implementing a successful community or alternative crisis response program. The major components are listed below and described in more detail in the report.
Coverage
Accessibility
3039
July 11, 2023
Community Engagement/Presentations
Response and Communications
Staffing (recruitment, positions, etc.)
Training (Dispatch, staff, collaborative relationships) Team Safety
Support Networks & Referrals
Coordination & Collaboration
Evaluation & Reporting
Community Advisory Board
Criteria
Considering the above-mentioned program components, each of the program design options can be evaluated against the following selected criteria:
Speed of implementation
Cost
Sustainability
Community support
Proposed Pilot Timeline and Cost
Pilot program rollout timeline depends on the implementation decisions, as do the estimated pilot costs. The CCRP pilot should run for 18 months to two years. Depending on the final program model, the cost to implement a CCRP program (if the program is to operate 24 hours per day and 7 days per week) could range from approximately $1.87 million to $2.37 million annually. These costs are estimates and do not include overhead charges for a non-profit organization or government agency. A model with less operational hours or smaller team could result in a lower annual cost. A more detailed breakdown of the costs is included in the report.
Next Steps
Based on direction from City Council, City staff plan to work closely with USC, Contra Costa County (CCC), RPD, RFD, the Task Force, City staff, and other stakeholders, to refine the selected program model and/or engage in additional conversations and research before returning to City Council after Council returns from recess in September 2023. A partial list of the work City staff may begin after receiving direction on July 11, 2023, includes, but is not limited to the following:
Work with Human Resources to refine and release a job announcement for a program manager position to lead the CCRP work, and other job classifications, based on the selected program model
Work with USC on a RFP (if a decision is made to contract with a non-profit) Discuss dispatch and training with RPD
Discuss hiring and placement of EMTs with CCC EMS and RFD 3040
July 11, 2023
Continue coordination with CCC A3 program to discuss program integration, training, outreach, etc. is in place for A3 in Richmond Work with Richmond’s Fleet Division to purchase one or more vehicles (depending on program option)
Develop specially designed protocols for CCRP service call referrals and follow up
Begin to create a community outreach and engagement plan Establish and strengthen referral relationships with community-based service providers
Begin to discuss a strong data collection, monitoring, and evaluation system Engage with City legal staff and risk management regarding liability Prior to the implementation of the pilot, the planning team will create initial administrative and clinical methods, identify logistical needs and considerations, and begin to build resource and referral networks. Overall, there are extensive questions, protocols, procedural issues, and structural components that need to be addressed (e.g., program evaluation, oversight, training, department coordination, staffing requirements, inter-agency agreements, etc.) before the initiation of any program implementation within the community. It is the intent of City staff to be prudent and deliberative in its approach to ensure that any alternative program the City offers is well suited to serve the health and well-being of the community and cause no harm.
Under the contract with the City, USC will continue to provide support to City staff and is expected to participate in further discussions to provide support for deeper conversations for Councilmembers to make the necessary program decisions.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – DRAFT Implementation of the Community Crisis Response Program Report
3041
1 DRAFT
Implementation of the Community Crisis Response
Program in Richmond CA
JULY 2023
SOS Richmond Focus Group 5/17/23
3042
2 What Would Make Richmond’s Emergency
What Would Make Richmond’s Emergency Services Better?
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...............................................................................3 Executive Summary ..............................................................................5 Project Background/Community Need .....................................................8 CCRP Essential Components.................................................................12 Program Options ................................................................................22 Budget/Funding..................................................................................24 Pilot Program Implementation Planning .................................................30 Methodology ......................................................................................49 Community & Stakeholder ...................................................................53 Attachment 1: Taskforce Community Crisis Response Program Proposal Attachment 2: CCRP Staff Training Curriculum Topics List Attachment 3: Richmond Meetings & Outreach Events List
Attachment 4: USC Emergency Responder Survey
Attachment 5: Richmond Community Survey Responses
3043
3 Acknowledgements
First and foremost, thank you to Richmond’s residents, political leadership, city government staff, service providers, and community leaders. It is an honor to work on one aspect that reflects Richmond’s commitment to public safety innovation envisioning a caring and violence-free city that advances community wellness, high quality and trust in government services, and support for all residents in need. We thank all of these residents for their thoughtful insights and wisdom, and willingness to share their aspirations and ideas for a new response initiative. We appreciate the City of Richmond’s commitment to addressing equity, public input, transparency, and accountability.
Unfortunately, this report cannot provide full justice to the stories shared with us by residents narrating their lived experiences and impacts from a system/practice that too many times causes harm to individuals, places undue stress on police, and doesn’t solve the root causes of the situations requiring intervention.
Attached is a list of stakeholder interviews and meetings with individuals and organizations who generously gave their time to support the research and community outreach upon which this report is based. We are grateful to everyone.
This report would not have been possible without the thoughtful and extensive research and advocacy by the Richmond Taskforce on Reimagining Public Safety, Chief French and the RPD staff, Chief Angel Montoya and the RFD staff, Communications Center Manager Michael Schlemmer and all the dispatchers who patiently answered questions and permitted us to watch their complex and fast-paced work. Suzanne Tavano, PhD, Director, Behavioral Health Services, Dr. Chad Pierce, PsyD, A3/Crisis Intervention Chief, and Debbie Thomas, LMFT, MH Program Manager ensured that we understand the wonderful work of the Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3) Initiative and how to ensure integration and collaboration between the programs.
The focus groups provided a deeper understanding of the experiences and perspectives of Richmonders. We are deeply appreciative of the leaders who put the groups together: Manusiu Laulea (Greater Richmond Interfaith Program), Anupama Chapagai Parajuli (Nepali Health Advocates), Miriam Wong (Richmond Latina Center), Marisol Cantu (Richmond Progressive Alliance), Eddy Chacon and Chantille Tran (RYSE Youth Center), Daniel Barth (SOS Richmond), and Eren Samano (Shields Reid Community Center). 3044
4 City of Richmond staff were a pleasure to work with. We especially appreciate the guidance and feedback from LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager of Community Services, Patrick Seals, Project Manager in the City Manager’s Office, Guadalupe Morales, Assistant Administrative Analyst.
A special thanks to County Supervisor John Gioia for his valuable attention and support for the CCRP initiative in ensuring an effective collaboration between Richmond and Contra Costa County.
David A. Harris and Anne Janks are the authors of this report. Urban Strategies Council. The USC Research Department developed the community survey and conducted an analysis of the survey. Youth fellows Jocelyn Gama and Jacob Virges assisted with community outreach and focus groups. 3045
5 Executive Summary
Urban Strategies Council (USC) works with public-sector jurisdictions in the United States (US) and Canada developing alternative emergency response program models and policy recommendations. Alternative emergency response programs address situations that drain public safety resources and benefit from a well-trained de-escalation and problem-solving team.
Beginning on August 1, 2022, USC was contracted by the City of Richmond to assess program model options and develop a pilot initiative for a nonpolice response to low-level 911 calls serving Richmond residents. USC engaged Richmond residents and community stakeholders in a community survey, focus groups, community meetings, organization presentations, and direct interviews to better understand their experiences with the 911 system, crisis resources, and aspirations for new response strategies. This report is intended as a comprehensive presentation of the program options.
The working name of the proposed program is the Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP). The goal is for a CCRP response to:
1. Reduce non-warrant arrests that may result during a 911 response.
2. Reduce the number of residents transported to the emergency department when another solution is possible.
3. Reduce the number of residents who frequently interact with the Richmond Police Department (RPD) and Richmond Fire Department (RFD).
4. Reduce the number of low-level calls that RPD and RFD currently respond to; and
5. Provide communities with a supportive response that helps connect residents to needed services.
CCRP is an opportunity to provide community-focused, trauma-informed, and healing-centered crisis responses by well-trained non-police staff and strengthen residents’ connection to timely, appropriate, and safe services and resources. Everyone in Richmond stands to benefit from the CCRP program. Residents get a safer response and policing that is better able to focus on major crimes, emergency response and investigation - their core public safety responsibilities.
The basic service of the CCRP pilot is the deployment of well-trained teams that respond to a broad range of behavioral health or low-acuity calls and situations without police, fire, or other Emergency Management Services (EMS) personnel. At the center of the team are CCRP responders consisting of a Community Response Specialist and Emergency Medical Technician. The 3046
6 CCRP staff also includes a Project Director and a small clinical and support staff. The pilot program projects a total of 14 full-time positions required for a 24/7 citywide pilot implementation.
For the pilot, RPD Dispatch will dispatch calls to 911 or the non-emergency number that are low-priority and meet identified criteria that make them appropriate for the CCRP response. The specific types of calls will be developed by the key stakeholders (CCRP staff, RPD, RFD and 911 dispatchers). Situations that are commonly and successfully responded to by an alternative response program include:
• Person drunk in public
• Panhandling/Aggressive
Panhandling
• Disorderly juveniles - group
• Auto Disturbance - noise,
revving engine
• Loud music - Noise complaint
• Incorrigible juvenile
• Confused/senile person
• Family dispute
• Neighbor disputes
• Incomplete 911 call
• Trespasser/unwanted person
• Loitering
• Public urination/indecent
exposure (without criminal
intent)
• Wellness check
• Subject down (often resident
asleep in public)
• Found syringe
• Person screaming
• Person needing referral to
services
• People in vehicles/camping in
public
CCRP’s operational requirements include: a small office space (staff will largely operate in a mobile unit); access to RPD’s radio dispatch system; specially designed protocols for CCRP service call referrals and follow up; necessary first-aid supplies; a strong data collection, monitoring, and evaluation system; referral relationships with community-based service providers; ongoing staff training and call reviews; and a pro-active and transparent community outreach and engagement effort. The report also identifies structures to ensure ongoing communication with and feedback from RPD officers and dispatchers, RFD staff, Richmond city staff, Contra Costa County staff, Richmond City Council, and residents.
Four phases are identified for program implementation, including an initial period for City Council decision-making about program implementation (phase 1) and startup planning (including staff hiring/training) (phase 2).
Five implementation options for City Council decision are discussed in this report: 1) selecting a non-profit program vendor from outside the City infrastructure; 2) CCRP implementation in an existing City department; 3) creation of a new City department; 4) a hybrid model involving starting up 3047
7 the program in a nonprofit, then moving it to the City; and 5) a hybrid program implemented in partnership with the County. Pilot program rollout timeline depends on the implementation decisions, as do the estimated pilot costs. The CCRP pilot should run for 18 months to two years.
USC participates in convenings, both formal and informal, of jurisdictions and practitioners sharing models and learning. As more communities have implemented models, USC engages in more discussions about the experiences, challenges, and needed modifications to programs. USC has deep familiarity with the various models and the initial experiences of jurisdictions with those models, the evaluation approaches, community oversight and engagement strategies and experiences. Although USC brings those experiences to the discussion, USC remains focused on understanding the specific local needs, resources, and goals of a municipality. Each city USC has assisted, either formally or informally, will report that USC shares the information and analysis USC have gained, while respecting the unique considerations and decision-making that each city must make for itself.
USC expects that once alternative emergency response programs are integrated into Richmond’s communities, having established themselves as well-known and trusted messengers, they will be used as an effective, accessible community response to a broader range of community needs, such as weather, air quality emergencies, public health, and other emergencies. Once CCRP is established, USC encourages Richmond to engage in future regional discussions to share resources and learning among crisis response programs.
3048
8 Project Background/Community Need
The May 2020 murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd highlighted the level of distrust and problems that develop when police interact with Black and Brown communities, even for the most innocuous of reasons. It also ignited the largest mass protest movement in U.S. history, opening policy windows across the country for reforms and reinventions of policing systems, policies, and practices. Many jurisdictions have developed programs to respond to non-violent, non-medical-emergent situations where a gun and badge is not needed or helpful and where both the residents involved, and the police are better served by alternative non-police responses. This deep and complex community discussion is ongoing in Richmond.
In October 2020, the Richmond City Council appointed 21 residents to a newly constituted Reimagining Public Safety Community Task Force (RPSCTF) to identify public safety policy reforms and program innovations for the city. Unlike in many other jurisdictions where similar taskforces have ended, the RPSCTF remains active and involved in the development of a new alternative response program. Between October 2020 and now, the RPSCTF has met 39 times and hosted eight community round tables and conversations on issues including Mental/Behavioral Health, Homelessness, Police Policies/Alternative Methods, Youth Works, Unhoused interventions, RPD budget and call data, Community Crisis Response Team, and the Office of Neighborhood Safety. The taskforce issued a CCRP Proposal which is attached and discussed in this report (Attachment #1).
The extensive participation of Richmond residents and the Taskforce on Reimagining Public Safety and City Council (including extensive research, alternative models, community discussions) has provided a deep level of understanding, support, and engagement.
The Richmond Police Department (RPD) Dispatch processes over 4000 calls each week. A 2020 report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP)1looked at 911 calls for service in eight cities and found that 23 to 39 percent of calls were low priority or nonurgent and 18 to 34 percent of calls were for life-threatening emergencies. Similar data has been replicated in other studies. Through indepth engagement with a broad range of stakeholders, USC has confirmed that there are numerous low-level calls and situations without a serious criminal or medical component that meet the criteria as benefiting from a well-trained community response in Richmond.
1 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/community-responder-model/ 3049
9 Richmond is a diverse community of approximately 115,000 residents in 33 square miles. Rising housing costs have deep and ongoing impacts - a doubling of unhoused residents in the past five years and an ongoing diaspora of Black and low-income residents. With the largest proportion of immigrant residents of any city in the Bay area region, Richmond’s cultural and linguistic diversity creates another challenge in providing services.
Immigrant communities have multiple concerns in interacting with police - history of policing in their countries of origin, immigration status, or that they will have trouble communicating with officers who will have a language barrier or incomplete understanding of their community and culture.
According to the latest Point-In-Time survey of homeless residents2, Richmond is home to 27 percent of all unhoused Contra Costa County residents.
Unhoused individuals have additional reasons to avoid encounters with police. Unhoused residents may have an outstanding warrant or be on probation or parole and could be violated for any law enforcement interaction. An arrest of an unhoused person has multiple negative effects – they are likely to lose their tent, possessions, spot in an encampment, eligibility paperwork for services, and identification. Even without an arrest, there is a broad perception that the level and quality of response and service is lower for Black, Brown, and immigrant residents. It has never been clearer that there is deep community distrust of law enforcement which affects public safety in communities across Richmond. Many institutions and residents feel overwhelmed with the numbers and needs of the unhoused residents and are unsure of how best to engage and what resources are available. There was a widely held perception that there are insufficient resources for the substantial increase in unhoused Richmonders.
There has been a national trend of police departments becoming the default response for a broadening range of societal challenges, requiring new and sometimes conflicting knowledge, skills, and abilities. This expansion of police functions has not been well-planned or conceived but defaulted to police because there were no other existing public services that were so universally available and accessible.
Arrests have long-term impact through exposure to the criminal justice system. Police responding to mental health emergencies is stigmatizing, suggesting a crime rather than a health emergency. In some situations, noncriminal/non-violent calls can be escalated by the mere presence of armed officers. Police are trained to dominate, even using physical force, to manage situations or ensure compliance with orders, that can result in 2 https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/reports.php#Annual
3050
10 trauma for residents and damaged community relations. Even if a situation is handled perfectly, the long-standing distrust of police in many heavily policed communities limits many residents’ willingness to call for police assistance or engage with police on scene. Data from national research of police departments from across the country shows that there is a greater likelihood that a police officer will use force on Black, Indigenous, disabled, unhoused and people of color. When residents distrust police, they are less likely to call for help and more likely to distrust policing efforts to investigate crimes or strengthen community policing.
These discussions are founded on an understanding that in non-violent situations without a medical emergency or serious crime both the individuals involved, and the police can be better served by a well-trained, non-police response. The greatest unintended consequences of armed police responses to low-level calls are trauma, injury and death to the individual(s) being responded to. Additionally, inefficient deployment of police resources results in other negative unintended consequences. Police are increasingly being requested to connect unhoused individuals to short- and long-term support services, respond to 911 calls for people experiencing mental health crises, respond to 911 calls from those during family or neighbor conflicts, and working with young people who may be in danger of getting swept up as trafficking victims or into the criminal justice system.
As is discussed in detail in the MATRIX report3, Richmond’s police staffing challenges reflect a national pattern. Recruiting and retaining police officers makes discussions of appropriate levels of staffing complex – many cities are unable to recruit to their identified needed staffing level. This contributes a practical reason to identify public safety functions that can be re-organized and performed outside of the system that has developed.
In many cases, officers do not have the time and training to address situations with underlying complex socio-economic problems, nor adequate access to community resources. This results in a delayed focus on serious criminal response, investigation, and priority safety issues; poor officer morale/increased officer stress; increased overtime expenses; and arrests of individuals where a non-carceral outcome is warranted.
This is a moment of rapid change and reimagining of public safety and services in many communities, with new and expanded outreach and response teams, many focused on mental health, substance use disorder, and unhoused residents. This is especially true in Contra Costa County 3https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/65094/Richmond-Police-DFR-3-6-23 https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4324/Richmond-Emergency-Services-Study 3051
11 where cities are developing new models to respond to expanding or unaddressed needs while facing understaffing in police departments. County voters approved a special levy, Measure X, to develop an alternative emergency response system for mental health emergencies. The County is implementing this wide ranging and ambitious effort to radically strengthen the response and support for residents with mental health challenges, A3 - Anywhere, Anyone, Anytime - coordinated through the Miles Hall Hub Crisis Call Hub. One of the challenges - and benefits - of addressing the options for Richmond’s response program is this rapidly changing landscape.
USC has found that developing a successful program with broad acceptance across diverse community interests is uniquely possible with alternative emergency response. There are several obvious but crucial elements - ensuring that the broadest possible range of stakeholders have meaningful input, deep, diverse, and culturally competent community participation, and transparent, respectful, principled engagement and reporting. In our experience, model and program development can often find common ground and support from across a spectrum of stakeholders and residents, if people believe that their concerns are meaningfully addressed. USC hopes that the residents of Richmond have found that our work and this report meets those objectives.
3052
12 CCRP Essential Components
The primary goal of the proposed Richmond Community Crisis Program (CCRP) pilot program is to provide a non-police alternative response to a broad range of low-level emergency situations with well-trained teams who are deeply familiar with Richmond communities. The CCRP response focuses on de-escalation, mitigation and prevention of escalation or repeated emergency situations, and connecting residents to appropriate services/supports. CCRP will utilize best practices for harm reduction, street outreach, trauma-informed and culturally competent care. The secondary goal of CCRP is to enable the Richmond Police Department (RPD) officers to focus on more serious calls, crimes, and investigations. CCRP is expected to be separate and independent of the RPD.
Why A Non-Police Response
There are alternative response programs (nationally) that co-respond with police. While there is no available data that measures levels of community support for co-response program models, the trust and relationship issues between law enforcement and many communities is well documented. Coresponse models may also reduce police time on a call if they leave after determining the situation is secure, but overall do little to save money or enable police to focus on more serious emergency situations. Models that respond without a police report no increase in safety concerns and infrequent requests for police backup. On those occasions when a team requests a police response, it is typically not because of concerns about the safety of the response team, but because of a situation that can only be addressed by police (such as a resident wishing to report a crime or a situation unsafe for residents). Non-police response programs also appear (anecdotally) to have high levels of community support.
The 34-year program community-based public health response in Eugene Oregon, Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets’ (CAHOOTS) foundational principles are a strong starting point for CCRP:
All services are free and voluntary.
• We rely on effective communication, trauma-informed care, harm reduction, and verbal de-escalation to maintain the safety of our staff and the community.
• We seek the most minimal intervention.
• It is our goal to remain client-centered, and to strive to provide all folks with unconditional positive regard, free of judgment or discrimination.
• We respect a client’s right to privacy, dignity & confidentiality. 3053
13 Program Components
Based on experience in the program development, implementation, and evaluation of alternative emergency response programs, reports from other programs, and the identified priorities in the city of Richmond, USC identifies the following essential components of a non-police alternative emergency response program:
Coverage
Ideally, the pilot will respond to calls 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, to ensure consistency, reliability, and scalability of response. Programs can fail to gain community and stakeholder awareness and confidence if the schedule is inconsistent or unavailable. If 24/7 service is not immediately possible, the goal should be the broadest possible schedule that can be consistently provided. There will be fewer resources available outside of business hours that enable warm handoffs but simultaneously make the need for a response greater; weekends and nights are repeatedly mentioned by stakeholders because no other resources are available.
Accessibility
Offering transportation to a safe location is often an essential factor in resolving or de-escalating a crisis or assisting a resident. Transportation is also essential to ensuring that a resident accesses a resource or referral to a warm and successful handoff. USC encourages Richmond to make a priority of creating a program that can transport people with disabilities. People with disabilities have an increased interaction with emergency services, greater likelihood of becoming homeless, and more negative outcomes in interactions with police. As Richmond creates an alternative response program, USC urges a program that can serve an inclusive population.
Community Presentation
CCRP cannot be used or viewed as an arm of enforcement. Building credibility and trust requires a non-authoritative, non-judgmental approach.
This is especially important for people who have negative perceptions or prior experiences with law enforcement, health care, or government programs and may be hesitant to engage with responders. CCRP responders will carry a police radio and RPD dispatch will refer calls for CCRP response.
It is important to clearly define CCRP roles and scopes of practice. It must be clear that CCRP has no enforcement function and its priority is the best interests of the resident so that the public understands that engaging with 3054
14 CCRP will not (except in extraordinary circumstances) result in police interaction.
Response & Communications
To get a CCRP response, Richmond residents will call 911 and the nonemergency line (510-233-1214) and appropriate situations will be dispatched to CCRP. CCRP is not solely a program that will be accessed by residents requesting the service for themselves. Some residents will call with a complaint or concern about someone who is unaware of the call. Some residents may want a police response. The selection of appropriate situations for a CCRP response rests with dispatch, following established protocols.
The program must have one access point and two-way communications, for the safety and efficiency of the team. Responders will carry a radio that enables them to receive dispatched calls and communicate their location and any other relevant information with RPD dispatch. Some programs have attempted to create multiple points to access their program. This creates a situation where the team is receiving multiple, uncoordinated communications. It also means that the team is expected to answer their phone or radio in the middle of a response, which is distracting and inappropriate. More than one access point also impedes collecting data and reporting. Teams can notify dispatch if they are responding to a situation not sent to them by RPD dispatch, such as “on-view,” follow-up to a previous situation, or a community contact.
There is significant community interest in having another mechanism to reach CCRP without calling 911. There are programs that use other approaches, including separate dispatch and a separate number, educating the community to use a new number or existing number such as 311 for the new program, or (in its infancy) app-based contact and dispatch. There is little data on these approaches at this point, but the experience of hotlines generally is that it is very difficult to educate a community to use a new number or existing number for a new purpose. USC recommends a dedicated CCRP number that is answered by RPD dispatch, using a different script. Ideally, this number would be in place at the beginning of the pilot so that it is integrated into initial community education about CCRP but if delayed, should not delay pilot implementation.
The Taskforce’s Community Crisis Response Program Proposal prefers that calls initially come through 311 and CCRP have a separate dispatcher.
Directing Richmond residents to use 311 for low-level crisis situations would make it much more difficult to garner community engagement with CCRP and use of the response team. USC heard repeatedly that residents want a 3055
15 response to the type of calls currently coming through the non-emergency number or 911 and responded to by RPD or RFD. USC suggests an ongoing effort to work with other referral networks (311, A3, 211) to identify and send to RPD dispatch situations that would benefit from CCRP support. There is a credible concern that if RPD dispatch is assessing and dispatching calls, it could have undue influence on CCRP, and the calls assigned to it. This has been an obstacle for some programs and should be evaluated over time by the CCRP Community Advisory Board and addressed in the program evaluation.
Establishing a new specialized number is straightforward operationally and has minimal additional cost if answered with a separate script by RPD dispatch. If the city determines that it wants to pursue a number that is not answered by RPD dispatch, it is possible to explore having 211 answer calls to a dedicated CCRP number, although with a higher cost and some additional technical issues, it would not be prohibitive. Calls through any system other than RPD dispatch would have to be patched back to RPD dispatch to send to the CCRP team.
Some initiatives narrowly target specific types of calls or communities to receive support, such as identified mental health calls or situations involving unhoused residents or people using drugs. This unnecessarily restricts addressing the types of situations that do not require police and undercounts the calls that should fall under the criteria. The initial types of calls and criteria will be developed in collaboration with CCRP, RPD, RPD dispatch, RFD, and stakeholders.
Examples of situations that CCRP may respond to include:
• Person drunk in public
• Panhandling/Aggressive Panhandling
• Disorderly juveniles - group
• Auto Disturbance - noise, revving engine
• Loud music - Noise complaint
• Incorrigible juvenile
• Confused/senile person
• Family dispute
• Neighbor dispute
• Incomplete 911 call
• Public urination/indecent exposure (without criminal intent) • Wellness check
• Subject down (typically a resident asleep in public)
• Trespasser/unwanted person
• Loitering
3056
16 • Found syringe
• Person screaming
• Person needing referral to services w/o access to phone • People sleeping in vehicles and/or camping in public
CCRP Staffing
The CCRP model has the team in the field for most of their shift, primarily responding to calls from RDP dispatch. The focus of the teams includes mediation, problem solving, crisis prevention and de-escalation, transportation, and connection to resources and referrals. If there is time between dispatched calls, responders will follow-up with residents from prior calls to encourage connection to services, check-in with residents who frequently call 911, visit areas of frequent calls for service, or make “onview” (the team sees a situation developing and they stop to help) stops.
Pilots and programs in other jurisdictions carry emergency medical supplies such as Narcan, EpiPen, Glucagon (diabetic emergency), O2 tank, Airway kit, wound care materials, and comfort and supportive items, like water, food, hand warmers, socks, etc.
CCRP responders must be well-trained and deeply familiar with the communities they serve. They do not perform clinical work and should not be clinicians or social workers. A model that does not use licensed mental health professionals or social workers as responders is less expensive and greatly expands and diversifies the pool of potential team members. Four years ago, subsequently, some Bay Area programs were already reporting that they could not expand services despite available funding because of challenges in recruiting and retaining clinical staff. Using well-trained nonclinicians removes the recruitment and retention problem faced by programs with licensed clinicians. Given the demographics of the US clinical workforce, non-licensed responders will better reflect the communities they work in.
CCRP will be able to emphasize seeking staff with a deep understanding of impacted communities and lived experience. A common concern is that unlicensed responders could increase a jurisdiction’s potential liability.
Richmond should seek legal counsel on this matter, however other jurisdictions have concluded that responders acting within their scope of practice do not increase liability and that the function of the team may include connecting a resident with a licensed clinician but is not clinical.
Most US programs use licensed mental health clinicians and social workers on responder teams, although they consistently report difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff due to a national shortage and that their experience suggests that staff with lived experience should be utilized more.
More programs are shifting to at least some teams without a clinical/social 3057
17 worker presence. This suggests that there has been an over-reliance on clinicians when responding to situations of lower acuity than identified serious mental health situations that require diagnosis, assessment, and long-term care planning.
Although the CCRP teams do not include a clinician responding to emergency calls, the model relies on a clinical position for developing and revising protocols, collaborating with the County and referral agencies, ensuring warm handoffs to services, appropriate clinical intervention, identifying training needs, case follow-up, when necessary, program oversight, analysis and evaluation of calls, and holding group team meetings to address clinical issues that arise. The other core function of the clinical position is to support the responder teams in their stressful work, including exposure to trauma and vicarious trauma. This is not a direct oversight role that is immediately available or on-call 24/7. Responders must have support for their field work and having a clinician or social worker as part of the program is an important component.
USC recommends a team of two, ideally a community responder with experience providing support to residents and an EMT. The Taskforce’s CCRP Proposal calls for a three-person team - two mental health/harm reduction specialists and one medic. There are many programs responding successfully with two-person teams. In discussions about team size, those programs state that they are very comfortable with their teams and do not believe their work would be strengthened with a third team member.
Programs with three-person teams tend to have very distinct job functions assigned to each team member. The CCRP model provides the teams members with the same training and expects them to function collaboratively.
A program that values a stable workforce must offer salaries that demonstrate commitment to the program and the value of the work. Paying equitable wages will be cost-effective in enabling CCRP responders to make the work their careers as they develop expertise and diminish the costs and program challenges associated with turnover.
CCRP Training
RFD dispatchers must have a deep understanding of the CCRP response, training, and capacity to have confidence in identifying appropriate situations to dispatch to the team. Dispatchers must also have confidence that they will be supported in making reasonable judgements, following their protocols and training. Initially, CCRP will respond to a smaller number of calls that are selected, working with dispatch, RPD, RFD, and utilizing the experiences 3058
18 of other programs. When dispatch has gained experience and comfort with CCRP, dispatchers will begin to identify appropriate situations without solely evaluating calls based on the categorization (call categories were designed for a system where only one type of response ever occurred). Ongoing and regular consultation between CCRP and dispatch is essential to maintaining communication and strengthening collaboration.
CCRP staff must receive comprehensive training, including field and driving safety. They must understand the scope of practice, policies, and procedures for RPD, CCFD, and the County response teams. USC recommends ridealongs with RPD and A3 and a “sit-along” with RPD dispatch. Ongoing training is essential and must be integrated into the program planning, budgeting, and scheduling considerations, and a topic for evaluation. The training curriculum is discussed in the implementation section of this report.
CCRP Team Safety
The following requirements will help to ensure the safety of CCRP teams and community:
• RPD dispatch assesses the risks of each call with a series of questions and by reviewing the history of the caller and location. • The CCRP responders must have extensive safety training in assessing and responding to a broad variety of situations.
• The teams will carry radios to communicate with RPD dispatch; in an emergency, they can request assistance. As programs across the country have begun implementation, initial data indicate that alternative response teams call for police to come to the scene very infrequently and typically for a non-emergency role (traffic control, relinquishing a gun, resident wants to report a crime, etc.). • Teams are trained to use intuition and have decision-making autonomy for safety decisions.
• All resident interactions are voluntary. A component of CCRP safety is that community members are not worried about bad outcomes because they understand that all interactions with the team are voluntary, and residents will help to formulate and agree to any outcome.
• Ongoing communication, coordination, and engagement with partners – police, fire, dispatch, referral network, and community (including integration with the County, advocacy, and service provider networks). • Ongoing community outreach to build trust, familiarity, and interchange so that residents understand CCRP, what to expect, and can offer feedback.
3059
19 CCRP Community Engagement
Community outreach, education, and engagement are essential to building a successful program and a strong, credible relationship with residents and stakeholders. CCRP must clearly communicate the parameters for a CCRP response. The goal is for all stakeholders and residents to understand when a CCRP response is appropriate and what to expect in the response. The pilot must prioritize engaging the community during the planning and implementation, demonstrate transparency in how CCRP engages with police and all stakeholders, and ensure ongoing community input and feedback.
This ensures that the planning, implementation, and ongoing assessment of the program reflects the unique needs and experiences of Richmond’s diverse communities. Ongoing community outreach and engagement are critical to the success of the program and to continuous improvement of the model to reflect the Richmond residents’ experiences with the pilot. The outreach and engagement strategies must pay special attention to communities less likely to be connected to traditional media and outreach strategies.
Although it is rare to find anyone who does not agree with the importance of robust community engagement, it requires ongoing diligence and attention.
Even the Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) program in Eugene, OR, with over 30 years of experience, has been making significant structural changes to address representation and community input and oversight. Several cities - Denver, San Francisco, and Oakland - are currently facing program hurdles that result from failing to maintain transparency and community engagement.
USC has been involved with program development that effectively sought out representative participation, including residents who are typically disconnected from city interactions, and meaningful and robust engagement from a broad range of perspectives. This report recommends several structural elements to create mechanisms for ongoing stakeholder and community outreach, engagement, and input into the program:
1. A community advisory board to provide oversight and support for the program.
2. Regular and structured meetings with service providers offering referrals and resources for CCRP.
3. A citywide outreach and public education campaign.
4. A regularly updated public facing CCRP website and a data dashboard.
5. A complaint and feedback mechanism and a process for the review of complaints.
3060
20 CCRP Support Networks
To facilitate connections to services, a robust network of referral resources and services that address community needs must exist. Building the network and identifying the parameters of each program should be in place before the pilot begins, although it will always be a work in progress. Regular meetings with service providers offering referrals and resources for CCRP should include reviews of referrals, answering both data and narrative questions (e.g., is the provider receiving appropriate referrals, are the warm handoffs supporting care, are there missing or overlapping elements to the CCRP support of the referral’s clients, what are outcomes from referrals).
Along with structured and ongoing engagement and assessment with RPD leadership, the city must ensure that RPD and RFD staff are well-briefed on the pilot prior to implementation, including the scope and function of CCRP, how to interact beneficially, protocols, and how CCRP is an asset to Richmond’s public safety mission. RPD leadership and officers must understand that CCRP has a separate and distinct scope of work and cannot be used as an arm or extension of law enforcement.
CCPHD Coordination/Collaboration
Contra Costa County’s Behavioral Health Department and especially the Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3) program and the Miles Hall Crisis Call Center are tremendous assets for Richmond and CCRP. The A3 call taking, and response teams provide a level of care for situations not appropriate for a CCRP response. A3’s specially trained clinicians can assist with involuntary hospitalization (often referred to as ‘5150’) for people who are a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage basic needs. It is essential that any city program work closely with the County programs to best design a program that maximizes the relationship, addresses gaps in service, and continually evaluate and jointly identify modifications to develop better strategies and opportunities for integration, collaboration, and mutual support.
CCRP Evaluation
Program evaluation is an essential component to the success and sustainability of CCRP. To evaluate the program meaningfully and accurately, there needs to be an evaluation plan in place at the beginning of the pilot that identifies clear metrics and goals, data to collect, and how and when evaluation will occur. All stages of evaluation should be transparently communicated with the community.
3061
21 A non-police responder program in Richmond, developed in collaboration with community stakeholders and responsive to the needs and experiences of residents, with appropriate representation of impacted residents, training, and access to resources and referrals will benefit everyone. A communitybased, resident-centered, trauma-informed response that promotes every resident’s dignity, autonomy, self-determination, and resiliency will result in:
• reduction of police interactions with vulnerable populations. • faster responses to lower priority calls, enabling mitigation and deescalation of situations. • lower-cost response to non-criminal, non-violent emergency calls. • RPD officers and RFD firefighters freed up to respond to higher priority calls.
• a more appropriate response which connects residents with services to address underlying or root causes of the emergency issue. • transport to services - removing a frequent barrier to services or crisis resolution.
• uncoupling health crises from unnecessary police contact. • decriminalization of mental illness, alcoholism, and addiction. • qualified and appropriate response for service providers, and families, and residents with mental health challenges.
• improved police/community relationships by reducing negative interactions.
• people impacted by the emergency response system gaining control of their social, emotional, and physical well-being through direct service, education, and increased access to community assets and resources. 3062
22 Program Options
There are five structural options for how and who implements the CCRP. The primary factors impacting the choice of alternatives include: the speed of implementation, cost, sustainability, and community support.
Implementation speed is the factor most valued by both the City’s leadership and residents. City Council and Task Force members have expressed a strong desire for the program to start before the end of 2023. Program cost considerations are also an important factor. The City has included $1 million for the CCRP in its Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget. While this is likely sufficient for initial pilot implementation, it will not cover the expenses for a full year 24/7 program (see Budget/Funding section). Sustainability refers to the fact that the CCRP needs to address systemic issues that cannot be resolved in a short-term time frame. Sustainability also requires that the program is insulated from changing City priorities and political influences.
CCRP’s sustainability will be insured by maintaining a strong level of community support. Different structural options for the CCRP may also have different levels of community support.
The five potential structural options for the City to consider are:
1. Non-profit - The City issues an RFP for an independent non-profit agency (vendor) to run the program. Lessons learned from Antioch’s non-profit program implementation can inform the pros and cons of Richmond’s decision-making.
2. Existing City Office – The City can choose to institute the CCRP within an existing municipal department. Potential candidates include the Richmond Fire Department, the Community Services Department, and the Office of Neighborhood Safety. Based on resident feedback, the CCRP should not be implemented under the Richmond Police Department.
3. New City Department – Another option, using the City’s infrastructure as a foundation for the program, is to create a new City department that includes the CCRP and potentially other current initiatives (e.g., social service needs).
4. Nonprofit Hybrid Model – This option combines starting the CCRP in a non-profit (to implement the pilot) with the intention of the CCRP then being brought into the City.
5. Richmond Partnership with Contra Costa County - The city could negotiate with Contra Costa to provide the services the City of Richmond identifies.
The following table ranks each primary factor influencing the City’s decisionmaking with the structural options proposed. The ranking is based on a 1-3 3063
23 scale, low to high ranking (with 1 being very low – more cons than pros, 2 being moderate – some pros and cons, and 3 being high – mainly pros).
Implementation
Speed Cost Sustainability Community Support TOTAL
Non-Profit 3 3 2 2 10
Existing
City
Department
2 1 3 3 9
New City
Department 1 1 3 3 8
Non-Profit
Hybrid 1 2 2 2 7
CCC
Partnership 1 2 2 1 6
Based on this ranking, the non-profit option received the highest total and the partnership with Contra Costa County received the lowest total. It is likely that a non-profit could be best positioned to implement a program quickly and it may be easier to maintain fidelity to model with a contract in place. Programs implemented within a government agency seem to be more susceptible to political implications and pressures, however they have higher sustainability and community support rankings. Regardless of the structure chosen, sustainability will depend on the program demonstrating efficacy through data and evaluation. The non-profit hybrid option has risks. The non-profits USC has spoken to are not eager to develop an entirely new program and model only to turn it over to the City. One non-profit mentioned that they would also be losing staff they recruited or transferred to the program. For most non-profits, this is a significant undertaking, and they would be ramping up only to ramp back down after. Finally, collaborating with Contra Costa County has advantages, including that the program would be fully integrated with the County’s Behavioral Health services and that the city would not have to create a new model, which the County already has in place. The County, however, has faced challenges recruiting and retaining responders, and feedback from residents indicates a strong preference for a Richmond-run program compared to a County-run program.
Another structural decision is how the Community Advisory Board will be constituted. This should be addressed quickly so that community voices are involved in the design and implementation and in developing and supporting community education and engagement (regardless of the implementation structure).
3064
24 Budget/Funding
Budget
The program budget cannot be finalized until many aspects of the pilot are determined, most significantly, where the program is housed, and operational decisions are made. Based on the structural options, the least costly is the non-profit option and implementing the CCRP within City government is, most likely, the costliest option.
Most of the program expenses will be allocated for program staff. The minimum total program staffing level envisioned, for a citywide 24 hours/day, 7 days/week program operation, is 14 FTEs. This includes: 1 Program Manager, .5 Program Data Analysts, 6 Community Crisis Responders, 6 Emergency Medical Technicians, and .5 Mental Health Clinician.
Following is an example of the work schedules for the CCRP core filed staff (Community Crisis Responders & Emergency Medical Technicians):
CCRP Team Schedule Example
Day of the Week Schedule (Teams 1-
3)
Schedule (Teams 4-
6)
Sunday Off In the Field
Monday Off In the Field
Tuesday In the Field Off
Wednesday In the Field Off
Thursday In the Field, Office
Work, or Training
In the Field, Office
Work, or Training
Friday In the Field, Office
Work, or Training
In the Field, Office
Work, or Training
Saturday In the Field, Office
Work, or
Training
In the Field, Office
Work, or
Training
Shift Name Shift Time
Start
Shift Time
End
Day Shift (Teams
1 & 4)
7:00am 3:00pm
Swing Shift
(Teams 2 & 5)
3:00pm 11:00pm
Night Shift
(Teams 3 & 6)
11:00pm 7:00am
3065
25 Projected (average) annual salaries for each position (based on salary ranges for similar Richmond job classifications) are as follows:
Program Manager – $120,000
Administrative/Data Analyst – $80,000 ($40,000 for .5 FTE) Community Crisis Responder – $70,000
Emergency Medical Technician – $80,000
Mental Health Clinician – $130,000 ($65,000 for .5 FTE) The following table estimates CCRP personnel costs for a six-month (pilot) and full year (12 month) program implementation. Benefits projections vary based on nonprofit implementation (35%) versus City implementation (80%).
Position Salary #
FTE
Salary
Subtotal
Benefits
(35%)
Total
Comp. (12
Months)
Total
Comp. (6
Months)
Program
Manager $120,000 1.0 $120,000 $42,000 $162,000 $81,000
Data/Admin
Analyst $80,000 .5 $40,000 $14,000 $54,000 $27,000
Community
Crisis
Responder
$70,000 6.0 $420,000 $147,000 $567,000 $283,500
EMT $80,000 6.0 $480,000 $168,000 $648,000 $324,000
Mental Health
Clinician $130,000 .5 $65,000 $22,750 $87,750 $43,875
TOTAL 14 $1,125,000 $393,750 $1,518,750 $759,375
Position Salary #
FTE
Salary
Subtotal
Benefits
(80%)
Total
Comp. (12
Months)
Total
Comp. (6
Months)
Program
Manager $120,000 1.0 $120,000 $96,000 $216,000 $108,000 Data/Admin
Analyst $80,000 .5 $40,000 $32,000 $72,000 $36,000
Community
Crisis
Responder
$70,000 6.0 $420,000 $336,000 $756,000 $378,000
EMT $80,000 6.0 $480,000 $384,000 $864,000 $432,000
Mental Health
Clinician $130,000 .5 $65,000 $52,000 $117,000 $58,500
TOTAL 14 $1,125,000 $900,000 $2,025,000 $1,012,500
Estimates for CCRP personnel expenses range from approximately $759,000 (nonprofit implementation) to $1.013 million (City implementation) for the 6-month pilot startup, and $1.519 million (nonprofit implementation) to $2.025 million (City implementation) for the full-year program operation. 3066
26 In addition to personnel, the key program startup expenses include equipment purchases (including radio communications), staff training, transportation (vans), and office furniture. Additional expenses that need to be determined and incorporated include but are not limited to updated salary ranges based on the classification and compensation study and differential pay for night shifts and any other items subject to meet and confer with Richmond’s unions. Additional analysis and conversations with Human Resources and Finance is needed to determine more refined budget numbers. This analysis can be done after City Council direction is provided.
The following is a sample 12-month program operating expense budget (including some narrative notes).
PROGRAM OPERATING COSTS COST NOTES
Equipment
(Computers/Communications) $55,000 Laptops & 6 Motorola police radios Professional Services $25,000 Technical assistance, program innovation, data services
Office Supplies/Furniture $5,000
Training/Staff Development $25,000 Pre-startup and ongoing Insurance $15,000 To be researched.
Rent & Utilities $5,000 1000 sq. ft. x $5 ft.
Repairs & Maintenance $2,500
Janitorial $3,000
First Aid Supplies $10,000
Non-First Aid Supplies $10,000 PPE and comfort items such as warm clothes, snacks, water, etc.
Van Expenses (including
maintenance & gas) $100,000 2 Vans, ADA accessible
Travel $1,000
Emergency Housing $5,000
3067
27 Translation/Interpretation $5,000
Postage & Shipping $1,000
Telephone $21,000
Licenses $2,500
Electronic Health Records &
Billing $15,000 Medicare reimbursement processing
Community Outreach &
Engagement $20,000 Community meetings, social/print media Program Evaluation $25,000
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $351,000
Indirect expenses are not included in the total. Additional funds for indirect may need to be added if the program is contracted to a non-profit partner.
The pilot program implementation (1/2/24-6/30/24) is estimated to cost approximately $1.11 million (nonprofit implementation without indirect costs) to $1.36 million (City implementation). These expenses are estimated based on the program being able to be operational by the beginning of 2024.
Given these projections, it is estimated that a full year implementation for the program will cost approximately $1.82 million (nonprofit implementation without indirect costs) to $2.32 million (City implementation). (Please note – all these projections are subject to value-based budgeting analysis and team deployment scenarios based on emergency call data peak times/days.) Funding
The City has budgeted initial pilot program funding ($1 million) from American Rescue Program Act (ARPA) reserves. Many response programs, across the country, in the past two years were able to use ARPA funds to support their new response programs. When these funds are exhausted, the City will need to identify additional resources for program operations.
There is an expanded focus of federal and state funding to support response programs, mental health and homeless programs, and “peer” or non-clinical programs. For example, the City of Oakland received $10 million from the CA Budget Act of 2021 to supplement local funding for the MACRO (Mobile 3068
28 Assistance Community Responders of Oakland) program. This is rapidly developing but is worth monitoring for future opportunities. Richmond should examine advocating for similar funding during the State’s next legislative session.
At the federal level, localities have identified different ways to leverage federal funding for local response programs. For example, some jurisdictions have billed Medicaid for reimbursable services such as mobile crisis outreach, which can be offered by many community responder programs.
Because Medicaid is a state-federal partnership program, localities must work within the restrictions specified by their state Medicaid agency and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to use these funds. Despite these restrictions, jurisdictions can access Medicaid funding to support community responder programs in multiple ways. For one, states considering this funding source can apply for a waiver of Medicaid program requirements, known as a Section 1115 waiver. This waiver provides jurisdictions with flexibility to direct Medicaid dollars toward innovative service delivery models like community responders.
One of the program decisions is whether to structure data and client information collection from the outset to enable MediCal billing. There are new billing modalities being developed that address billing based on the degree of the person providing services. Obviously, this is a complex issue, varying by County, but it should be researched to the extent possible, given the ongoing changes, in advance of the pilot. Many programs are relieved not to be required to collect billing information. California’s new Peer Support Specialist Certification enables MediCal billing for support from responders without college degrees or licenses. Additionally, the structural program options could impact whether it is an option. For example, California laws address whether fire departments can bill insurance and government health programs.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has several flexible funding sources that can also be used to support these programs. The Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment or the Community Mental Health Services Block Grants are non-competitive federal formula grants distributed to all states. State Opioid Response grants are another funding source that have been used by states to develop substance use crisis response strategies that could include community responder programs.
Every year, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs (OJP) also distributes roughly $5 billion in grants, much of which is awarded to state and local governments.
3069
29 Three grants Richmond may consider applying to are:
1. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program: A formula grant that provides highly flexible funds that can support a wide range of safety and justice activities.
2. Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP): Competitive COSSAP grants can support first-responder models that divert people with substance use needs and co-occurring mental health disorders from the criminal justice system.
3. Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP): JMHCP grants can be used to support a range of cross-system approaches for helping people with mental illnesses and co-occurring substance use disorders. It may not be a good fit for all community responder programs, however, as it requires a partnership with a criminal justice agency, which excludes programs that operate fully outside of the justice system. Under JMHCP a new grant opportunity called Connect and Protect launched in FY2021.
While federal funding, in many cases, is short-term, City and County funding may provide longer-term sustainable resources for ongoing program implementation. For example, although CCRP is not solely a program responding to unhoused residents, there will be a significant portion of the calls addressing issues arising from homelessness. With 72 percent of unhoused residents in all West Contra Costa County, Richmond could explore County funding to support a response team that will respond to a substantial number of situations that involve unhoused Richmonders and will connect residents with County services.
The County’s A3 program is developing three tiers of response: clinicians coresponding with police for the most serious and potentially hazardous situations; a clinician-led team; and a team of “peers” - non-clinicians with training but no license or advanced education. Although A3 plans to remain focused on situations arising from mental health challenges, the third tier, a peer response, bears the strongest similarity to the CCRP team. Once CCRP and A3 are more developed, it may be possible to explore CCRP responding to calls appropriate for the A3 peer response or providing support if A3 responders are delayed in responding.
Philanthropic support should also be examined, specifically for program startup expenses (including ongoing program data collection/evaluation).
There are some grants specifically for equipment and appropriate for response teams. Such a grant could enable the purchase of a wheelchair - accessible vehicle.
3070
30 Finally, the MATRIX report suggests “to increase utilization and potentially share costs, the department should examine opportunities to utilize the team regionally with other nearby municipalities.” After the pilot, Richmond can assess, based on the data, if this is worth considering.
Pilot Program Implementation Planning
The pilot’s goals are for rapid implementation, flexibility to tweak processes and learn during the pilot, and collaboration with RPD, RPD dispatch, referral agencies, the County’s A3 program, and other stakeholders.
To be successful, the program must be able to take advantage of ongoing assessment and evaluation and expect changes based on what is learned during and after implementation. Many programs are hindered because they are unable to make changes. USC participates in meetings where alternative response program managers explain that they wish they could make a change but are hindered by a rigid organizational structure or immutable parameters.
The initial effort should provide the space to build relationships with the community, police, County, and a referral network and opportunities for program innovation and nimbleness in testing, knowledge-building, and continuous improvement.
Collaborations
CCRP will rely on building strong relationships and networks to connect residents with appropriate services and resources. The program will need to develop and maintain a comprehensive, continuously updated list of resources and referral programs based on availability, intake coordination, hours, rules, acceptance statistics, barriers to care, range of disposition options, ADA accessibility, and languages spoken. CCRP will need to track services based on some of the common obstacles to receiving services including how and whether programs accept pets, keep family units together, require sober living, require attendance of religious services, accept participants who are on court supervision, or permit people to store possessions. The success of the CCRP program will depend on the ability to transport residents to a safe location and have a “warm handoff” of clients to referral partners. The program manager and clinician will develop mechanisms, such as check-ins and meetings, for building and maintaining essential relationships with service providers in the city and County. 3071
31 The County is implementing a wide-ranging and ambitious effort to radically strengthen the response and support for residents with mental health challenges, Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3). A3 is designed to receive calls at the Miles Hall Crisis Call Hub and, if necessary, dispatch a tiered response depending on the safety and acuity of each situation: a co-response with licensed clinician and police; a clinician-led team; and a team of well trained, unlicensed staff. One of the challenges of addressing the options for Richmond’s response program is that the landscape is rapidly changing.
What USC knows is that A3 will continue to focus on situations involving county residents with mental health challenges and that A3 does not transport residents. Even when A3 is fully implemented, they will not respond to situations that do not involve a person with a mental health challenge and there will continue to be more than enough situations to keep CCRP fully engaged. Discussions with RPD dispatch, RPD leaders, and Richmond stakeholders and residents indicate that, similar to the experiences of other cities that have implemented alternative response programs, there are a large number of low-level calls that do not involve a mental health situation, such as listed on page 14.
Contra Costa Health Services’ Coordinated Outreach Referral, Engagement (C.O.R.E.) program provides unhoused residents with connection to health, basic needs, and housing. C.O.R.E. is an entry point for the County coordinated entry system. C.O.R.E. is accessed through 211. C.O.R.E. is not a response program for crises. Not every call to Richmond dispatch is for an emergency or crisis. Some situations will be appropriate to either C.O.R.E. or CCRP, whichever team is available.
Consistent and responsive collaboration are vital to fully engage County resources, maintain excellent communication between programs, and ensure clarity of the scope and responsibility of each program.
Community Education & Engagement
Transparent and accessible community education, engagement, and oversight strengthens the program, permits program management to focus on implementation and management of the program, provides residents with a clear and useful mechanism for engagement and feedback, and results in continuous improvement of the model to reflect the Richmond residents’ experiences with the program. USC has been following various approaches to ongoing community engagement. Although many jurisdictions have some form of a community advisory or oversight board, the forms vary. Selection, representation, authority, and transparency all vary. USC is prepared to share with the City models and examples, including best practices for advisory boards, transparency, and engagement of impacted communities, residents, and people with direct experience with the program. 3072
32 Community Advisory Board (CAB)
An independent and committed community advisory board (CAB) is an essential factor in precluding unnecessary complications, maintaining community confidence, and early opportunities to address challenges. The CAB should provide oversight and support for the program, with access to program information and data (anonymized). Meetings, reports, complaints, and data should be public facing (except when it includes identifying information); transparency will help build confidence in the board and diminish any concerns about representation or the selection process for the board. It has proven important to create the board in advance of implementation so that there is a structured mechanism for community engagement in the decision-making leading up to the implementation.
As is emphasized in best practices for community engagement in-service programs, USC recommends that communities who will have extensive interaction with CCRP are represented on the CAB, for example, unhoused Richmonders and voices that might have a unique experience that should be reflected, such as young people, residents living with disabilities, and immigrant communities.
Transparency and Community Education and Engagement
Richmond is well-positioned on public reporting and transparency to provide accessible and useful public information both on the program, development, and planning. Effective community education on the program must include online and in-person outreach, social media, and traditional media to increase community knowledge and confidence, participation, and the formal and informal sharing of materials. All program information should include contact information for any member of the public wishing to provide feedback on reports and program development or make suggestions. USC recommends developing a plan for robust and ongoing community education and outreach including:
This report recommends several structural elements to create mechanisms for ongoing stakeholder and community outreach, engagement, and input into the program with special attention to communities less likely to connect through traditional media and outreach strategies.
1. Accessible educational and outreach materials, including social media posts, flyers, and FAQs.
3073
33 2. Translation of basic materials into languages, identified with input from community members. The city can consider which languages to translate more comprehensive materials and meetings.
3. Distribution and outreach plan -
● Identify mechanisms for distribution of city materials such as existing city communications with residents and organizations’ newsletters.
● Media list
● CCRP Updates/Newsletter distribution list - beginning with participants and attendees to the Taskforce events, if possible ● Develop an outreach list of organizations for presentations and to share materials and announcements, starting with existing City lists.
4. A regularly updated public-facing reporting CCRP webpage including:
● Data Dashboard - A dashboard on the CCRP web page or
Transparent Richmond could provide aggregate data reporting (without identifying information) on types and numbers of calls, outcomes, response time, length of call, length of response, and data analysis. Including demographic breakdowns.
● Regularly published newsletter
● Community Advisory Board meetings and documents
● Timeline
● Reports
● Educational material
● Social media announcements
● How to engage with CCRP
● Sign-up for updates
● Sign-up for hiring announcements
● Upcoming meetings/events
● CCRP History
5. A clear and independent complaint and feedback mechanism with several access points, including training response teams to facilitate the complaint process. A process for the review of complaints, providing the results of the process to the complainant, nonidentifiable public reporting.
Program Functions
Primary goals of CCRP include addressing low-level situations as an opportunity to find a resolution before further escalation - whether through mediating a dispute, helping a resident with safety planning, or connecting residents with appropriate services. Through both proactive and self-initiated 3074
34 interactions, CCRP will follow-up on previous situations or with residents who have repeated interactions with emergency services. The team will have more opportunity for follow-up during periods with lower call volume.
All program staff, including both direct service and those in support roles, will follow all of California’s mandated reporter requirements regarding known and suspected instances of child/elder abuse and neglect. Unique standards of care apply to responding to and treating children and adolescents under the age of 18. Additionally, all legal requirements and best practice standards for confidentiality and consent for treatment regarding children and their parents will apply to all program staff. Some Richmond residents have raised concerns about mandatory reporting and the history of government protective services’ invasive and harmful interventions with residents of color and families in poverty. The city should obtain additional counsel on its options in addressing this concern, but USC has not seen a program that does not follow mandated reporting requirements. If necessary, CCRP can consult with CAHOOTS which follows reporting requirements while maintaining the trust and confidence of the community they serve.
It is important not to be overly prescriptive with the details of pilot implementation. The team developing the pilot will consider many factors in deciding whether, for example, to implement immediately with a 24/7 schedule or build to it or whether to initially limit their response to a smaller geographic area, typically with a sizable population of people at risk for negative police interaction and/or a sizable underserved mental health and unhoused populations. Considerations include those discussed in this section. Typically, pilots begin with a smaller set of call types and parameters that expands over time.
Some areas of the city (e.g., libraries, sections of the business district) have been resource-challenged with the substantial increase in the number of unhoused Richmonders and the dearth of resources and referrals. CCRP may decide to develop early relationships to provide additional attention in these areas.
Length of Pilot
This report recommends that the pilot last for at least 18 months and no longer than 2 years. This gives enough time for delays in some aspects of implementation (as have occurred in other programs) and enabling evaluation of a year of full implementation. It is sufficient time to establish the pilot, including responding to feedback, changing elements, and 3075
35 assessing the impact. If the city decides to issue an RFP/Q, two years is long enough for nonprofits to consider making the organizational commitment.
Scheduling of coverage and shifts should consider how to support RPD in high-volume periods and whether to create schedules that do not coincide with RPD shifts to support coverage during shift changes. Many services and referrals are less accessible outside of office hours. Shelter referrals are sometimes not available on weekend days. With fewer referrals available, the need for an alternative response is imperative during nights and weekends. One of the challenges that programs face is when residents and stakeholders find the services unavailable when needed. A 24/7 response helps ensure that all stakeholders and residents have confidence in the program and the ability to access its support.
Crisis Prevention
Another key prevention strategy is identifying cases that are likely to need or benefit from follow-up, including informal welfare checks and encouraging residents to connect to services and clinical interventions. This can be reviewed over time as additional data will provide valuable information in the types of situations that result in escalation, repeated interactions with emergency services, etc. The program team will adjust the balance responding to crisis calls and the time and resources available for follow-up on prior situations.
Residents who have repeated interactions with emergency response programs are not receiving the services they need to break the cycle of intervention and are a significant cost driver for emergency services.
Olympia, Washington’s specific clinical program for high utilizers of services, Familiar Faces, provides strategies and practices for engaging this population. Dispatchers and OFD will be able to help identify frequent callers. Calls dispatched to CCRP can include a focus on frequent callers to 911 that require frequent police officer response. An alternative response team is well-positioned to address the challenges. CCRP responders can displace police in the immediate call with a goal of building a relationship to divert future emergency calls and determine if other solutions or services could be implemented. Success is a significant decrease in the number of calls by the frequent users and receiving a more appropriate and less costly response. It is unlikely that the calls will be eliminated completely.
Prevention of crisis escalation would be greatly strengthened by a resource location available to residents who need a safe place to recover during a crisis and access to support and services, sometimes called a “warming” or “drop-in” center, “sobering center” (although this suggests a much more 3076
36 limited scope of services), or “living room” model. Typically, these programs offer support for up to 23 hours. The closest such facility is being opened by the County in Concord, although the referral and situation specifics are not yet available.
Facilities, Equipment, Supplies
CCRP teams will be in the field for most of their shift, primarily relying on the pilot facility at the beginning and end of the shift to manage paperwork, restock supplies, share information with the incoming shift, etc. Facility needs for the pilot program are: 24-hour access, secure parking, a place to complete and submit paperwork, supplies storage, meeting space, and restrooms. Minimally, the office size should be prepared to accommodate 3- 4 people at one time with a plan for where to hold meetings and training courses.
The most challenging piece of equipment to identify and obtain will be the van(s). Some programs start without their permanent vehicle and use temporary equipment in the interim. USC recommends finalizing vehicle needs as early as possible because of backlogs in specialized vehicles, especially when requiring a wheelchair accessible vehicle.
Ideally, the vehicle will be able to transport several passengers with additional space for belongings or for CCRP responders to assist a resident in a warm, sanitary, and confidential location and will have a separate area to secure supplies.
USC has developed a comprehensive supply list, based on several programs, that can be a starting point for the CCRP team to curate their own list. The list will have seasonal differences and will change over time based on the experiences of the team.
Call Identification & Dispatch
It is important to recognize the centrality of dispatch in identifying calls that could benefit from an alternative response and determining the level of risk for the responder and residents. They use the address and caller history and a series of standard safety screening questions, following up to clarify and gain additional information. An example of dispatcher judgment and discretion would be in calls complaining about loud music. Dispatch might decide that an address with repeated noise complaints, other interactions with RPD, or reports of weapons might be less likely to be responsive to a non-enforcement intervention. Another noise complaint might suggest a situation where the complaining neighbor might be assuaged with 3077
37 information about when the child’s birthday party is expected to end, and the party-throwers are likely to abide by an agreement of the ending time.
Protocol Development
CCRP and RPD Dispatch will need to work together to develop protocols to provide guidance to dispatchers on identifying, assessing, and documenting calls that are appropriate for CCRP dispatch response. CCRP will develop protocols for responding to situations, as well as outlining internal procedures. USC can provide samples used by other programs and facilitate conversations to learn from other programs about their experiences the protocols. After the development of the initial protocols, RPD, CCRP, and RPD dispatch will continue to collaborate to assess the outcomes and further review and refine protocols.
Training
RPD Dispatch
Training for dispatchers and the CCRP team on dispatch process and protocols, including scenario-based, must begin prior to implementation.
Ideally, training would be integrated or coordinated among all resources and programs, including A3, C.O.R.E. and CCRP, so dispatchers understand the criteria and protocols, how the programs work together and how to assess calls for each program. Dispatching calls to CCRP will be most successful with the training and engagement of dispatchers and CCRP field staff, not solely at the management or supervisory level. Initial training should be followed with regular meetings to review calls, data analysis, and continuous dispatch and team assessments. Ongoing engagement of dispatchers, primarily during staff meetings will further their understanding of CCRP, receive their input, and identify and develop additional training as new scenarios, issues, and protocols arise.
Training the entire RPD dispatch staff will require two-hour sessions with morning and evening times, so that dispatchers can attend at the beginning or end of a shift, rather than being required to come in on a day off.
The MATRIX report recommends dispatch training for new Community Service Officer (CSO) methodology into call taking and dispatching protocols. (pg. 72) If this is implemented, the city should coordinate training, so dispatchers better understand the distinctions between the programs.
Collaborative Relationships
3078
38 Education and training must be developed for other emergency services to understand CCRP and how and when to engage them. This information sharing is only one aspect of developing the broader collaboration with these institutions including RFD, A3, CORE, 211, 311, and the Sheriff’s Department.
CCRP staff can attend RPD roll call to briefly explain when CCRP can assist in a situation. Some programs receive up to 30 percent of their calls from officers who arrive in the field and conclude that the situation would be better handled by the alternative response team.
CCRP Staff Training
USC has gathered training curricula and outcomes and feedback from both program leadership and non-licensed responders in other alternative response programs. USC expects to share information on training as CCRP begins planning, including helping identify and select from the many resources available in the County and region, on top of trainers and materials that can be used on-line.
Most of the elements for the California Peer Support Specialist Certification will already be addressed in the CCRP training. CCRP should consider preparing for the Certification exam concurrently with training, if CCRP is considering pursuing MediCal reimbursement.
USC recommends training for de-escalation, trauma-informed care, responding to people in mental health crisis, addressing suicide and drug use. Additionally, self-care, maintaining boundaries, and vicarious trauma are important in supporting team members. Safety for teams and communities should include driving safety. Staff Development is an ongoing priority and should include reviewing calls as well as formal training of additional topics as they are identified. A list of potential topics to cover in training responders is included as Attachment #2.
The Taskforce proposal suggests training like Mental Health First, a hotline run by volunteers, and CAT911, a southern California program that trains residents to respond to community crisis and provide support without involving police. These curricula have much value as community education but are not based on the experience of responding to emergency calls and are not as extensive or comprehensive as recommended here. The Taskforce proposal also mentions the SPIRIT program which is a very impressive and valuable resource. It is important to note that SPIRIT only accepts people with lived experience with mental health, which is a much narrower span of lived experience than this report suggests for recruiting CCRP responders. 3079
39 Staffing
Given the diversity and access challenges faced by community members (which was also identified by police and fire), program success depends on program staff that reflect and deeply understand the communities they serve.
Program/Implementation Manager - USC recommends the city consider a position who can be dedicated to the substantial work of developing a new program. USC has provided the City with some suggestions and the job descriptions of program and implementation managers that have been used in other programs. Richmond city staff have been supportive and responsive throughout this process, but it is very clear that they are stretched thin, often managing multiple assignments. It is not clear that there is anyone within the city with the capacity and bandwidth to dedicate their attention and time to shepherd the development and implementation of the program without delays.
Engagement of Immigrant Communities - Given the demographics of Richmond and the size and range of immigrant communities, USC recommends CCRP build staff capacity to engage with Richmond’s immigrant communities to ensure engagement with CCRP and assisting to overcome differences in language and culture. This responsibility could be filled by the Program Manager or Community Crisis Responders.
Recruitment
Recruiting and prioritizing the hiring of committed and qualified people with lived experience and a deep understanding and knowledge of Richmond communities requires diligence and attention. CCRP can recruit from community resources and programs, with the help of advocacy groups and service providers connected to local networks of qualified people.
Additionally, the Office of Neighborhood Safety has experience in recruiting and hiring using non-traditional priorities.
There are obstacles which must be overcome or avoided, such as giving undue weight to educational advancement. USC recommends ensuring that job requirements do not narrow the pool of applicants unnecessarily. CCRP can expand the pool of experienced applicants by addressing potential barriers to employing otherwise qualified people. Although there is a federal requirement that anyone using a police radio undergoes a lower-level, caseby-case background check, it typically does not need to preclude hiring 3080
40 formerly incarcerated residents who are otherwise qualified if managed thoughtfully.
Successful recruiting also requires ensuring that potential applicants are aware that they should consider a position that they have not typically been eligible for. USC recommends:
● Developing a recruitment list of people (both individual applicants and organizations who would share postings) who would like to be notified when team member jobs are posted.
● Creating an outreach and recruitment plan that engages community groups that could help identify a robust group of potential candidates that reflect the community they will serve.
● Ensuring that job requirements do not create barriers for otherwise qualified applicants.
● Promotional opportunities emphasize knowledge, skills, and abilities that are integral to the job, requiring advanced degrees only if necessary (such as for the licensed clinician/social worker).
CCRP Response Staff
USC had originally expected to recommend a 2-person response team of a Community Response Specialist and an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). This staffing is like the CAHOOTS model in Eugene OR. CAHOOTS has demonstrated 34 years of success in responding to emergency situations with non-clinical field staff, hiring people with experience delivering service in non-traditional environments, ability to engage diplomatically with partner agencies, and resiliency. Many programs find that basic emergency medical training on teams that respond to lower acuity situations than are responded to by Fire, EMS, or clinical mental health responders is helpful in supporting residents with less access to health care. While serving as integral team members, EMTs provide a valuable additional skill set to assist with noninvasive procedures such as wound care, swamp foot (also known as trench foot), assisting with instances of low blood sugar, and Basic Life Support.
Before making final decisions on the composition of the CCRP team, there is additional clarity needed in understanding the parameters and regulations as interpreted by the County Division of Emergency Medical Services. It is too soon to understand the options, but some considerations include CCRP EMTs hired and supervised by RFD while assigned to CCRP teams or contracting with an ambulance company to provide the EMTs who are assigned to the CCRP teams. Even if it is not possible to have EMTs in the CCRP response, the core mission of CCRP can be met, if less optimally. 3081
41 There is sometimes an inclination to add requirements to the responder positions. USC encourages Richmond to keep the barriers to employment as minimal as possible to enable the largest pool of potential applicants for CCRP’s consideration.
Both the EMT and a crisis worker with several years of experience with the required skills of serving the needs of a diverse community, de-escalation, and resident-centered problem-solving can staff ACT mobile units. These skills and experiences are increasingly sought-after in a tight job market, both because of the expansion of new efforts to address mental health and crisis response and because existing programs are recognizing the value and expanding jobs with these skills and backgrounds. For years, the people with these skills and experience were offered low salaries and turnover was high.
CCRP responders represent a new type of emergency response. Although one position may include an EMT license, it would not be a standard EMT job. A CCRP EMT would be a fully integrated team member with an additional license. EMT jobs in the Bay Area average a starting salary between $50,000 - $55,000 are undervalued and have high turnover.
Recruiters often emphasize that the job is a stepping-stone to other health care jobs. A program that values a stable workforce must offer competitive salaries that demonstrate that it values the work and enables responders to become proficient and view CCRP as a career. USC recommends viewing the CCRP jobs as new emergency responder jobs, providing 24-hour field response in emergency situations. CCRP responders work alone in the field, responding to complex situations and relying heavily on independent judgment.
Oakland’s wage scale is $65,700 - $80,000 for their alternative response team with comparable knowledge, skills, and abilities to what USC is recommending for CCRP. Antioch’s new Angelo Quinto Community Response Team has a comparable wage. Antioch was able to fully staff the team on schedule; by comparison, Contra Costa’s A3 recruiting, with substandard wages, has stalled. As more Bay Area jurisdictions create similar programs, recruiting and retaining responders will be essential to a stable program with excellent candidates. Well-paid staff will be cost-effective with low turnover, recruitment of highly qualified candidates, and a stable, dedicated, excellent workforce.
The program manager is a combined role who would be responsible for the day-to-day logistics, inter-departmental communication, data collection, recruiting and hiring, scheduling and supervising responder teams, record keeping, and coordinating training. This person should be familiar with the primary components of the program and effective and diplomatic in 3082
42 facilitating stakeholder communication and resident feedback. They could have additional duties in identifying and securing programmatic resources.
Core staffing levels based on providing Richmond services for 24 hours/day, 7 days/week during the pilot program implementation would require Program Manager (1 FTE) and Crisis Responders/EMTs (12 FTE) for teams of either 1 Crisis Responder and 1 EMT or 2 Crisis Responders.
This staffing meets industry standards for a position with appropriate time off and additional time to cover occasional training, meetings, community outreach, and consultation on clinical situations. Understaffing could undermine the ability to maintain consistent responses.
CCRP Support Staff (Clinical Coordination, Data Analyst, Administrative Support)
CCRP team must have adequate and ongoing support for the program to succeed. These positions enable adequate coordination for training, clinical support, and supervision. Both the Data/Administrative Assistant and Mental Health Clinician positions are part time. Whether the program resides in the city or in a nonprofit, there may be existing or shared positions that can manage these needs.
Coordinating Mental Health Clinician/Social Worker (.5 FTE) Clinical coordination is integral to the CCRP model. The clinical role will develop, monitor, and evaluate protocols for calls and referrals. There are complex but manageable, multi-tiered considerations in determining appropriate referrals and resources - from health care coverage, if the resident is already receiving County services, obstacles to service access, and managing different constituencies with unique needs, requirements, and referral options (such as elderly, children and youth, intellectual disabilities, etc.). CCRP responders will meet regularly with the clinician to review issues, patient advocacy, and calls, as well as for their own counseling. The Coordinating Clinician will also manage case management, coordination with the County, and developing the referral and resource network.
Data/Administrative Analyst
Collecting baseline and subsequent data is key to measuring progress and improving the program. This includes review of types of calls, outcomes, response time, call characteristics, call origination, and follow-up. The analyst will also build the program’s data capacity and expand data collection. Data must be presented on the public-facing dashboard. The 3083
43 analyst must respond to data requests and present data in accessible, easily understood formats. Although most programs have responder teams filling out paperwork on tablets, some recordkeeping can be done by this position (it reduces the administrative burden on field staff, but by no means eliminates it). This position may also support reporting related to grant reporting requirements or health reimbursements.
Integration with RPD (Program introduction, Roll call engagement, Officer feedback)
RPD leadership has been very supportive of the research and development of an alternative response pilot. Interviews have consistently begun with RPD leaders and officers immediately identifying calls that they would like to see responded to by CCRP. CCRP responders will receive training on the scope of practice, policies, and procedures for RPD, RFD, EMS, and the County response teams.
RPD and RPD dispatch must be involved throughout the development and implementation of the pilot. To ensure that officers are well-briefed on the pilot prior to implementation, there should be presentations during daily rollcalls, including an opportunity to ask questions, and providing community education materials for officers to share with community members. The presentations will cover: the function of the CCRP, how to interact beneficially, protocols, and how CCRP is an asset to RPD’s mission.
USC recommends structured and ongoing engagement and assessment with RPD leadership and looking for opportunities to receive input from line officers, including the survey that is discussed elsewhere.
Data and Evaluation Planning
Collecting baseline and subsequent data is key to measuring progress and improving the program. Data will help to understand the program, frequency of various types of calls, outcomes, response time, call characteristics, call origination, and follow-up. The data analyst should identify the best way to identify and track frequent users and the impact of CCRP response. Data collection and analysis can help target situations, locations, and residents for additional engagement and can inform refinement to call identification, prioritization, and dispatch.
USC can share the models used in other jurisdictions, including public dashboards of call data and regular reports with call data “snapshots.” 3084
44 The pilot design supports innovation and testing of new practices and the structure includes continuous assessment of types of calls, areas of success and failure, relationships with stakeholders, and impact on community.
Specific goals of the CCRP pilot are:
1. Reduce the number of lower acuity behavioral health and community crises traditionally responded to by Police and Fire.
2. Reduce the number of non‐warrant arrests that result during a 911 response.
3. Reduce the number of individuals transported to the emergency department for non-life-threatening medical-related issues because emergency services have limited options for response.
4. Reduce the number of RPD and RFD responses to residents who are frequent callers.
CCRP should be measured for success and evaluated on progress towards meeting these and any additional program goals, including:
● Identification of data to collect should be identified before the pilot is implemented (although during the pilot other data may be added or adjusted).
● Evaluation metrics should be identified before the pilot is implemented, including identifying data needs and gaps.
● An external consultant should be identified to conduct both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the pilot program. ● When possible, data should be disaggregated by race, gender, age, and language spoken.
● Use social math and data storytelling to transform data into userfriendly visuals and dashboards. ● Track findings, issues, requests, and actions requested by policymakers, stakeholders, and residents.
● The evaluation should include evaluation of the referral and resource network and stakeholder input.
● How to develop a better understanding of populations served. Despite the challenges in collecting this data, this will ensure that the program is culturally relevant and responsive and identifies potential gaps in service.
● The economic impact of the program. Exploring the cost-benefit analysis to the city and County will provide a clearer picture of the return on investment for the city, County, and community partners. ● Is the regular engagement, including case reviews, between CCRP and stakeholders functioning as the foundation for ongoing continuous improvement activities key to using expanded knowledge to refine the program.
3085
45 USC strongly suggests surveying police officers and dispatchers in advance of implementation and at regular intervals. First done in Olympia WA (only police), these surveys could provide actionable information on additional calls, call selection protocols, and how to support a mutually beneficial relationship between the existing emergency services and the new program.
The USC Emergency Services Survey is Attachment #4.
Reporting
The pilot should collect and track adequate data on interactions with residents, outcomes, call responses, types of calls, and outcomes to ensure that analysis, including cost, is comprehensive. Determining what data to collect and what tools to use for input has been considered by multiple jurisdictions. Although Richmond may have specific considerations, looking at the process and results from other programs will be valuable. Some jurisdictions are creating public dashboards to display anonymized call response data, presenting data in comprehensible and accessible language.
USC recommends a comprehensive annual report, a report at the end of the pilot, and in between three-month snapshot status reports during the pilot that include data, brief updates, and changes to parameters of calls dispatched to CCRP.
There is significant interest in alternative crisis response programs from academic researchers. Richmond can consider collaborating with researchers who are interested in a study that works with residents to assess impact through analysis of calls, outcomes, and data. Researchers would be especially helpful in finding ways to disaggregate RPD and CCRP data and find ways of quantifying call and outcome data that is not readily accessible.
USC Implementation Support
Under the contract with the city, USC will continue to provide support with the following areas:
1. After delivering the report to the City Council, USC expects to participate in further discussions to provide support for deeper conversations for Councilmembers to make the necessary program decisions.
2. Training - Identifying topics, developing curricula, finding trainers and programs. Having assisted in several training courses, USC is able to share our experiences in finding training programs, doing direct training, and the feedback of the team members of what was most useful in the field. It is important to identify training that is based on 3086
46 programs that have a depth of experience with a non-police field response and specific training to strengthen appropriate responses for specific communities and residents. Fortunately, Contra Costa and the broader Bay Area have some great resources and organizations with deep experience. The depth of experience of CAHOOTS cannot be overstated, and although they currently have capacity issues, there are some limited ways to bring in that experience in planning and training. Team members consistently rate it as the most impactful training. USC can also assist identifying as part of the training appropriate ride-alongs with other programs that serve Richmond or are similar in the Bay Area.
3. Dispatch - how to design training that is responsive to the needs of Richmond. Dispatch training and protocol resources are available.
4. Collaborating with the County’s A3 program to ensure that CCRP enhances County resources. Explore documentation and integration with social service databases.
5. After the pilot is established, exploring integration of referrals from 211 and other hotlines including the NAMI Warm Line, domestic violence, sexual assault hotlines.
6. Identifying facility needs and potential program facilities.
7. Recruitment - people who have lived experience, eliminating barriers to employment, need to aggressively outreach, unaware of postings or assuming that they are not eligible for jobs. Enable the broadest pool of applicants to enable selecting the best team members.
8. Protocol development, including dispatch protocols. (Even if the program is contracted, the CBO may benefit from guidance on the elements of the protocols and job descriptions that reflect the city’s model. USC can provide other jurisdictions approaches, feedback, and advise on drafting.)
Protocol: The development of program protocols, including dispatch protocols, as well as clinical oversight, analysis and evaluation of calls, training, group team meetings, and support for responders are key components of any program.
9. Equipment and supplies. This is an area where the experience of other programs is very helpful. USC will provide information on supply lists and equipment considerations.
10. Assist in developing job descriptions/staff requirements, providing templates from other programs, advising on how to meet goals of removing employment barriers and other considerations.
11. Depending on which option the city selects, drafting RFP, publicizing RFP to ensure broad response, and vendor selection. (USC has participated in and observed multiple RFQ processes for new response models, can provide drafts, including suggestions around elements that created barriers to some CBOs applying.)
3087
47 12. Pre-implementation community awareness campaign - social media, meeting announcements, Community Advisory Board
recruitment. Community education - outreach and engagement plan, timeline, and materials. Contest for program name & logo.
13. Developing the documentation system prior to rollout.
TIMELINE
Prior to the implementation of the pilot, the planning team will create initial administrative and clinical methods, identify logistical needs and considerations, and begin to build resource and referral networks. The Taskforce proposal timeline requires a longer time to build community awareness and use of the CCRP team because it is based on using 311 as the initial entry point to receive calls about crises from residents. This report assumes the diversion of appropriate calls to CCRP from 911 and the nonemergency number that residents already call.
The pilot program design can occur in four phases. How much time it takes depends on some of the decisions which have been outlined, including the length of pilot.
Phase 1 - The first decision, which informs almost all others, is where to house CCRP. If contracting the program to a non-profit, fast-tracking an RFP/Q and completing a competitive selection process will take at least three months. When placing the program within the city there are several decision points and steps depending on placing it in an existing department and how much it requires the development of new structures within the city. ● Program naming/branding (engage community, focus on youth participation)
● Identifying and convening an internal city planning/support team ● Identifying initial legal/insurance/compliance issues ● Funding research - opportunities and considerations
● Selecting a Program/Implementation Manager
● Staffing
● Identifying facility needs and potential program facilities. ● Identifying and ordering equipment
● Structure of Community Advisory Board (CAB)
● Recruiting/appointing CAB members
● Draft job descriptions (including approval by Civil Service, if within city)
● Create webpage - populate with initial materials
3088
48 Phase 2 - This will be a sprint to start up the pilot. City support external to the program will be needed for: RPD dispatch training, coordination with the County, and community outreach and engagement.
● Recruiting and hiring
● Opening an office
● Referral and resource network development
● Initial training - responders and dispatch
● Obtain equipment and supplies
● Identify initial parameters of situations to dispatch to CCRP ● Develop protocols
● Evaluation outline - metrics, selection process for evaluator ● Determine what data to collect and what tools to use for input; focusing on impact, outcomes, and efficacy.
● Develop documentation and process
● A citywide outreach and public education campaign, beginning several weeks before the pilot startup, including meetings with residents in neighborhoods most impacted by the emergency service system. ● Collaboration with County - how to share information/data/patient files; establish ongoing communication, explore developing datasharing agreements, and MOUs to streamline information sharing.
Phase 3 - Initial implementation.
● Official roll-out - may wish to have several weeks of a soft launch ● Baseline Survey of RPD
Phase 4 - Pilot through competition
• Continuous assessment for expansion of parameters
• Selection of independent evaluator
• Evaluation during pilot
Sustainability
City leaders and residents appropriately focused on ensuring the long-term sustainability of the program. Data collection, assessment, and evaluation will demonstrate the impact and value of the program. Ongoing community engagement and oversight will not only ensure the support and confidence of Richmonders but the program will also be strengthened by integrating the information and feedback from residents who have received or observed the program. Mechanisms for ongoing analysis of partnerships will maintain and deepen collaborations. Once integrated into the community, CCRP should be used as an effective, accessible community response to a broader range of 3089
49 community needs. COVID, weather emergencies, etc. Eventually, Richmond will benefit from participation in regional and national discussions among alternative response programs.
Methodology
The level of community involvement in discussions, support, and research design options for a new community response program in Richmond has been remarkable, extensive, and continuing. Alternative response programs always have sweeping support across diverse communities. Richmond residents have demonstrated an even greater level of support.
Specific methods informing the pilot program development included:
1) reviewing documentation related to existing and newly developed alternative response program models and alternative-response model best practices and evaluations.
2) reviewing documents and recorded meetings for a comprehensive understanding of the issues and resources affecting the Richmond landscape as it relates to emergency response and community crises. 2) conducting interviews with key Richmond community
leaders/stakeholders; outreach to Richmond residents, focusing on communities most impacted by 911 calls and those communities with unique barriers to engaging with official city and County resources. 3) convening focus groups of Richmond residents and presenting at community meetings.
4) surveying Richmond residents digitally and on paper.
USC’s initial proposal was to recruit fellows who would be trained to do community engagement and survey distribution and collection. Through discussions with city representatives, given some delays in beginning the research, the plan was changed to use those resources directly with Richmond community organizations that assisted with recruiting and organizing outreach in communities with unique perspectives and lived experiences.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement Approach
USC’s community outreach and engagement methodology focused on engaging Richmond residents about their interaction with the 911 emergency call system; assessing support for the City’s leadership objectives and expectations for a pilot program; engaging stakeholders to identify objectives in the development of a pilot that addresses the concerns of the public; and, collecting residents’ experiences with Richmond’s 911 3090
50 system and local/Contra Costa County law enforcement, emergency response systems, and Contra Costa County services that assist residents in crisis. There was a special focus on gathering input and data from neighborhoods with the highest level of 911 calls and engaging specific constituent groups that have been historically disconnected from planning processes.
USC conducted in-depth virtual and in-person interviews with leaders from Richmond and Contra Costa’s municipal and County governments, community-based and civic organizations, service providers, local businesses, and individuals directly impacted by an experience with the emergency call system. All interviews and meetings sought to learn about experiences with the 911 response system, community needs, crisis resources, and to receive feedback on what alternative response models and options would best serve Richmond. These interviews were essential to understanding the landscape, receiving valuable input that helped co-create these findings and recommendations, and identifying program opportunities, potential challenges, and resources for implementation. The list of interviews and meetings is Attachment 3.
Review of Documents and Existing Information
USC reviewed existing data, research, plans, and other relevant documents and recordings regarding community crisis response program development conducted by internal and external entities including:
• Youth Community Needs Assessment and Strategic Investment Plan 2020
• Community Needs Assessment for ARPA
• Health in All Policies 2020 progress report
• North Richmond Quality of Life Plan 2019, Healthy Richmond • Community Engagement and Crime Prevention: RPD Strategic Planning Focus Group Results (February 2019)
• Richmond General Plan
• Taskforce research and planning
• 911 call data analysis by the MATRIX Consulting Group • Contra Costa A3 program planning and meetings
• Recordings of community roundtables, meetings on public safety, and Taskforce Community Conversations between Oct 2021 - Jan 2022 on the subjects of Youthworks, Unhoused Interventions, Community Crisis Response Team, and the Office of Neighborhood were informative avenues for learning about community opinions and perspectives. 3091
51 USC analyzed the status of current and proposed models from Eugene and Portland, OR; Olympia, WA; Cambridge, MA; Albuquerque, NM; Denver, CO; Houston, TX, and Antioch, Oakland, and San Francisco, CA that provided insight into planning issues, proposed models, outcomes, and challenges faced by the different cities working to implement alternative response programs. USC also reviewed analysis and proposals of best practices for alternative response and crisis call management which continues to develop and emerge.
This information informed the development of the survey, questions, and topics pursued with stakeholder and resident interviews and focus groups.
Call Data and Analysis
Both the MATRIX Consulting Group and the Social Movement Support Lab, contracted by the Richmond Progressive Alliance, analyzed Richmond 911 call data. USC met with both groups which assisted in our understanding of the data and their analyses. Because the MATRIX analysis was part of a larger emergency services review, there is a gap between the call data analysis and information about calls needed to inform the planning for CCRP.
This report relies on integrating the MATRIX analysis with the data analysis and experiences of other cities in developing and implementing alternative response programs.
This report reflects the findings from the MATRIX report, including summaries of a series of community meetings. The key issues identified were concerns about:
• the impacts of homelessness and persons in mental health crises on crime and
• the current approaches to policing marginalized populations.
MATRIX identified the following solutions which overlap the focus of this report. The solutions identified include:
• Provide resources inside and/or outside of police to support marginalized communities (e.g., homeless and persons in need of mental health services).
• Implement multi-lingual support throughout the Department. • A recommendation for an emergency response team.
The report offers specific recommendations for a two-person emergency response team to respond to calls related to mental health and homelessness, with a field clinician and an EMT. 2 shifts. There is no information on FTEs or other details. Because MATRIX limited the analysis to a narrow number of mental health situations, it is important to consider the 3092
52 continued implementation of the County’s A3 program. MATRIX suggests that it is likely that five calls per day, or around 3.9 percent of calls handled by RPD could be dispatched to a mental health response team. Although call data analysis is valuable, in practice, each call is dispatched depending on specific parameters, not the call classification.
At least several of these calls likely fall under the scope of A3, if available.
Their analysis of appropriate shifts very likely reflects the highest call volume for a broader range of low-level calls. With a broader range of calls for CCRP and the greater need for support in situations when other resources are unavailable, USC believes that CCRP will receive sufficient dispatches during an overnight shift.
MATRIX also recommended diverting some “non-emergency” calls to newly created Community Service Officers (CSOs). The calls recommended for CSOs are a mix of more bureaucratic types (such as filing crime reports) and some types of calls discussed in this report as potentially being responded to by the CCRP team, including Juvenile Out of Control/Runaway, Juvenile Out of Control, and Runaway Juvenile Return. The recommendation for CSOs to respond to “non-emergency” calls leaves for CCRP those situations that are both an emergency or requiring an immediate response AND not appropriate for a police response. This is not a concerning overlap since the actual number of calls is too small to affect the overall analysis or the planning of either program. If Richmond implements both CCRP and the CSO proposal, we recommend attention to aligning the protocols so there is broad understanding among stakeholders (especially dispatch) on the work that is assigned to each program.
It is noteworthy that the core findings and recommendations of the MATRIX and USC research are similar. USC found similar concerns of residents, agree on the three recommendations that address similar issues, and reflect the experiences of other jurisdictions. The MATRIX report parallels this report in finding that most of the situations proposed do not require a police backup.
3093
53 Community & Stakeholder
USC has found that conducting surveys can be effective in understanding residents’ unique experiences and perspectives with emergency services, service providers, informal support, and barriers to care. 513 people were surveyed between February and May 2023 using on-line and paper surveys. Paper surveys were filled out at meetings, tabling events, and distributed - approaching people and asking them to fill it out with the interviewer. 340 were completed on-line and 115 were filled out on paper. 455 respondents were Richmond residents and 58 were non-residents who work or go to school in Richmond (a majority of whom either used to live in Richmond or have family in Richmond). Gift card incentives were offered in communities that are less likely to engage with a city survey or focus group. Demographic questions were optional. USC monitored the anonymized demographic data of participants in the survey and focus groups to ensure that representation of voices of Richmond residents whose input could be overlooked.
Areas explored in the survey and focus groups included:
• Interactions with emergency services
• Accessing emergency and non-emergency services
• Barriers to access
• Outcomes
• Community Assets
• Unrecognized, under-developed, under-funded community resources • Informal and community support during crisis
• Where residents receive information about resources and services The survey was designed to collect qualitative and quantitative data. The opportunities for comment (qualitative) in the survey were very helpful in discovering issues and ideas that were not previously identified.
The survey was issued in English (396), Spanish (25), Mandarin (2), Hindi (28), and Portuguese (5). These languages were identified during interviews with city staff, stakeholders, and residents. Use of a particular survey language does not correlate with the demographic groups represented, since participants may be English speakers or bilingual.
Alternative crisis teams are always wildly popular. One notable outcome of the Richmond survey was a significantly higher level of support for creating an alternative response program than in similar surveys of other cities’ residents. Although it’s not possible to adjust for the many variables to draw a direct correlation, the ongoing discussions and the work of the Taskforce 3094
54 for the past two years appear to have increased awareness and knowledge about alternative response and appears likely to explain the significant increase.
The data for each question is in Attachment #4. The answers that were individually written in by respondents are not included, due to length, but are available and were integrated into the findings presented in this report.
Who Took the Survey?
3095
55 3096
56 Interacting with Richmond Emergency Services
218 respondents said that they had not called or interacted with Richmond emergency services (police, firefighters, paramedics, etc.) in the past three years.
278 respondents said that they had called or interacted with Richmond emergency services (police, firefighters, paramedics, etc.) in the past three years.
3097
57 Emergency is defined as fire, crime in progress, threat to safety, medical crisis. Quality of life is a parking problem, noise complaint, dumping, etc. Wellness check is when a responder is asked to check on someone.
3098
58 3099
59 Why Don’t They Call?
3100
ATTACHMENTS
3101
City of Richmond Community Crisis Response Program
Proposal
Program Description
The Community Crisis Response Program is a community-led program to address crises that are not appropriate for police response. To start, the program will address mental health crises and substance use issues, eventually expanding to support additional community based issues such as domestic conflict, street based conflict, and noise complaints. The program will respond to crises by dispatching a team of community responders (2 mental health/harm reduction specialists and 1 medic) to the scene, where the responders will engage with the participant empathetically and supportively, with a focus on de-escalation. The team will be dispatched by an in-house dispatcher, and calls will be directed to the number 311. All program staff will receive extensive training in de-escalation, mental health first aid, harm reduction, the biological impacts of substance use, and conflict resolution.
Dispatch
● The program will use the number 311 to receive calls
● Plan includes a public outreach campaign to educate public about the existence of the program, how to call, and what kinds of situations the program can support ● Over time, 911 dispatchers will be trained to refer calls to this program. To start, they will simply let callers know about the existence of the program. Eventually, they will be able to directly transfer calls to the 311 line, so community members will be able to access the line through 911. This program must always remain independent from the police, and residents must be able to access the program without involving police dispatch, even if police dispatch is fully trained. At no point will the 311 line disappear.
Staffing (total: 18.8 FTE)
● Office staff (total: 6.2 FTE)
○ Program Director (1 FTE, $85K/year)
■ Duties: manage staff, evaluate program, make program design decisions ○ 1 Dispatcher available 24/7 (4.2 FTE, $75K/year)
■ Duties: receive calls, conduct intake, assess appropriateness for the program, determine response (In person? Phone support?), send response team to the site
■ As call volume increases, more dispatchers may be added ○ 1 Community Liaison (1 FTE, $75K/year)
■ Duties: execute outreach campaign, connect with other service providers, community based organizations, potential participants, follow up on participants who interfaced with response team, provide connections to ongoing care. NOT case management - follow up does not continue beyond referral call(s).
○ At the beginning of the program, there will be few calls and the community will need to be given information about the program. Office staff will conduct outreach campaigns, then transition to full time service delivery as call volume increases.
Attachment 1
3102
● Response team (total: 12.6 FTE)
○ 2 community responders available 24/7 (8.4 FTE, $80K/year) ■ Duties: engage thoughtfully with program participants, focusing on de-escalation, mental health first aid, harm reduction, and supportive care. Provide care for any dependents of person in crisis at the scene, as necessary.
■ Community responders will not need to have specific credentials, education, or work experience; instead, they will need to demonstrate success in community engagement and specific core competencies.
Some local programs (such as SPIRIT at Contra Costa College) will qualify graduates for the position, but any community member may have their application considered.
● Based on Mental Health First model (Oakland and Sacramento):
community based responders are best equipped to handle crises in their own community. Focus should be on preventing further harm and preventing coerced entry into the pre-existing system.
Community responders have greater flexibility in their range of responses.
○ 1 Medic available 24/7 (4.2 FTE, $85K/year)
■ Duties: provide basic first aid to participants, focused on harm reduction and supportive care
○ As call volume increases, more response teams may be added Training topics (to be given by a successful community based organization such as SPIRIT, MH First, CAT-911, etc):
● De-escalation, including creating plans for how the team will respond to violent behavior from person in crisis
● Self-defense training (that does not harm the other person) ● PPE and how to protect oneself from COVID and other airborne illness ● Non-stigmatizing mental health information
● Mental health first aid
● Conflict resolution
● Impacts of common controlled substances on the human body ● Harm reduction principles and techniques
● Trauma informed approach to assessment and care
● Existing relevant services in the community
● Historical context: why do we need a program like this? What needs is this program meeting that have not been met before? What is the danger of police response to people in mental health crisis.
● Child development/working with youth?
● Impact of secondary trauma/self-care/how to prevent burnout ● Know your rights re: police interactions, immigration enforcement ● Common crisis situations in Richmond
3103
● Public Safety personnel training: First aid and basic lifesaving measures (CPR etc).
Additional training for medic.
Phasing/Scaling
● Year 1
○ Community Oversight Committee forms, develops protocols around police contact with program
○ Training development
○ Staff hiring and training
○ 311 line setup
○ Call types: mental health and substance use
○ 1 Program Director, 1 dispatcher, 1 linkage to care specialist, 1 response team ○ Begin providing service to all of Richmond
○ Outreach (ongoing)
● Year 2
○ Ongoing service provision
○ Call types: mental health and substance use
○ Opportunity to add additional response team(s) based on call volume (as assessed by program staff and frequency of overlapping response needs) ○ Training of 911 dispatchers to refer community members to the program ● Year 3
○ Ongoing service provision
○ Call types: mental health and substance use, with the possibility to add call types based on community need (as assessed by program staff)
○ Opportunity to add additional response team(s) based on call volume (as assessed by program staff and frequency of overlapping response needs) ○ Ongoing training of and connection with 911 dispatch for increased call diversion Call flow
● Community member calls 311
● Dispatch staff answers phone, listens to participant concerns, asks relevant questions, and determines best response.
● Dispatch staff communicates response plan to response team ● Response team executes response plan
● If in-person response: response team drives to scene in city vehicle. Community responders engage with person in crisis, de-escalates the situation, assess needs, and provide compassionate care and problem solving support. If necessary, medic performs basic first aid. If necessary, provide care for dependents at the scene. ● If phone response: Community responder engages with person in crisis over the phone, potentially transferring to linkage to care specialist for referral ● Response team completes response, returns to office, and submits reports about the response
● Community liaison reviews reports, identifies potential ongoing supports, and follows up with person in crisis.
3104
Community Oversight Committee
● Composition of the committee: the committee will include representatives of Office of Neighborhood Safety and CBO mental health, harm reduction, and youth service providers, and will include a majority of members who are residents who have experience with receiving the services.
● Nomination and selection of committee members: each city council member will nominate two members and the city council will select committee members with overall composition that meets the criteria above.
● Members will serve two year terms, and will be able to serve additional terms upon approval by city council.
● The Community Oversight Committee will be responsible for:
○ Approving annual program budget
○ Reviewing quarterly reports on programs and monitoring program implementation and expenditures
○ Input on and approval of training goals and requirements ○ Participate in hiring decisions, development of job descriptions, and program implementation plans
○ Work with Community Outreach staff to receive and respond to resident feedback on the program
Engagement with Law Enforcement
● The program should call on law enforcement only in specific situations:
○ If the person in crisis requests it
○ If someone is actively brandishing a weapon towards program staff ○ If program staff have exhausted all available de-escalation methods and still fear for their safety
3105
USC Training Outline for Alternative Response
I. SUPPORTING COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN MARGINALIZED
How gender, race, class, and ablism have impacted communities’ health and interaction with health care and carceral systems.
Cultural competency - Cultural Humility and Anti-Racism Stigma & Discrimination
Intersectionality, Culture, Diversity, and Worldview
Social Determinants of Health and Advocacy
Self-Determination and Stages of Change
Barriers to access in traditional health care, mental health care, and emergency response.
Specific training and tools for communities:
LGBTQI & trans, veteran, immigrant, BIPOC, Asian Pacific Islander, Latino/Latinx, houseless, Native, elders, children and youth, sex workers, residents who are disabled and/or face serious mental health challenges, residents who are in the crisis of poverty, people who use substances or are in recovery.
Areas of focus:
Impact of poverty, specific needs and experiences of children and youth and transition-aged youth; religious customs and beliefs, gender identity and inclusivity.
II. COMMUNITY-CENTERED RESPONSE
Concepts and methods for crisis and community response
Crisis prevention, intervention, and de-escalation;
Principles of wellness & recovery model;
Principles of trauma-informed care, response, and practices - understanding the impact of trauma on the individual & community;
Building supportive relationships;
The process of recovery and change;
Fostering self-determination and resilience; self-care and wellness plans; Peer support - values, ethics, and principles of practice and effectiveness; Diversion - from carceral systems, mental health systems; Restorative justice;
Advocating for residents in institutional and enforcement settings.
Language used to describe residents - negative descriptors, appropriate langauge Crisis situations and strategies
Communication, de-escalation, intervention, and mediation De-escalation, disengagement, and conflict mediation;
Attachment 2
3106
Communication principles and methods; connecting through our experiences; Motivational interviewing; resilience; active listening, problem-solving, decision-making; Physical and verbal responder presentation;
Consent and agency of residents - centering their decision-making, supporting their planning; Identifying behavior impacted by trauma and support mechanisms; Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) & crisis safety planning tools; Questions to understand the situation: physical needs, problem-solving questions, care.
Barriers to Communication
Language
Processing, including stress
Hearing
Cultural interpretations
Identifying and overcoming communication barriers
Specific situations and types of trauma -
Issue awareness and screening
Protocols for rapid response
Considerations and response: PTSD; suicide identification, risk screening, and intervention skills; sexual assault; child abuse; self-harm; intimate partner violence; grief; intellectual disability; autism; dementia, brain injury and stroke; panic attack; substance use and overdose; dual diagnosis; wellness checks.
Community health education & support
Healing practices
Coping strategies
Relaxation techniques
Resiliency skills
Practical and emotional support for residents & families during crisis and death Follow-up and community resources
Case Management & Community Mental Health Work
Connecting with community resources
Case management and advocacy
Wrap-around care, follow-up support, wellness planning
Restorative Justice - circles, etc
III. MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID -
Common mental illnesses
Psychiatric medications, withdrawal, and side effects
Dual diagnosis
Supporting residents experiencing symptoms
1 3107
Considerations and tools when supporting youth, elders, and other vulnerable communities Safety planning and advanced directives for mental health episodes Risk management and crisis planning (including WRAP and crisis safety planning tools) IV. SUBSTANCE USE & HARM REDUCTION
Substance use, symptoms, and withdrawal; principles of harm reduction and approach to care; safer use strategies; managing possible overdose situations, naloxone; medical detox; people who may be experiencing diverse mental states caused by substance use; relapse prevention; psychopharmacology 10; common medications & drugs; how to support people who are using substances; specific issues for people who use crystal meth; harm reduction resources within communities, building engagement and relationships through harm reduction.
V. RESOURCES & REFERRALS
What services exist, what they do, who is eligible, and how they are accessed. Referral process.
City and county emergency response programs
City and county resources
Community-based and mutual aid services
Identifying peer, family, and community support
Referral considerations:
Culturally and linguistically appropriate services and providers Empowerment includes a menu of options - including doing nothing.
Warm handoffs are especially important for people who have previously experienced poor treatment and denial of appropriate care from established systems.
Inventorying and utilizing a person's own coping strategies and individual support network prior to engaging outside resources.
City geography
Database training - accessing and utilizing the resource database, submitting additions and changes.
VI. TEAM & COMMUNITY SAFETY
Planning and positioning for safety; scene assessment and situational awareness; intuition; verbal, nonverbal, and defensive interventions; working with agitation, violence, and violence/risk assessments; animal control; preventing slips, trips, and falls; defensive driving; infection control & prevention; standard precautions and bloodborne pathogens, incl. HIV & HepC. EMS, police, and fire training, scope of practice, and protocols; how to collaborate and manage situations w/ other first responders, ensuring that residents feel safe during an 2 3108
interaction with police, how to advocate for residents. Communicating w/ team member during call.
VII. FIELD & SCENARIO-BASED TRAINING
Scenario and role-play-based learning will be used both within specific modules and to review and incorporate multiple areas of learning;
Presentations and discussions with residents w/ lived experience of health care and carceral systems, using drugs, being unhoused, being undocumented and immigrants; Ride-alongs with experienced responders;
Shadowing service provider-partners;
Participate at events to build relationships with community members & leaders; Participate with mutual aid events;
Sit-along at Cambridge dispatch
VIII. OPERATIONS & LOGISTICS
Defensive driving, vehicle maintenance; transport of residents; parking considerations.
Instruction and practice with dispatch radio.
Use of data management systems, record keeping, report writing.
Documentation policies.
Dispatch process and protocols.
IX. PRIVACY, RESIDENTS’ RIGHTS, & RELATED ISSUES
Residents’ privacy, rights to confidentiality and respect, including Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance.
Mandated reporting - community issues and obstacles.
Scope of practice and care.
Laws and issues on public records, advocacy, and mental health/substance use, and schools.
Rights of residents regarding involuntary hospitalization and accessing health care.
Filing a complaint - medical center, referral agency, providers, police, complaints about the response team.
Becoming a witness - avoiding gathering information that makes a responders a witness in an investigation.
Speaking to the media.
Public recording of the teams while engaging w/ residents X. TEAM ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES
3 3109
Structure, roles, and responsibilities
Principles of accountability, ethics, consent;
Staff standards & expectations (and what staff should expect); Clinical oversight and review;
Personnel policies;
Sexual harassment and discrimination;
Team building and the science of team dynamics.
Staff Wellness
Compassion fatigue, vicarious trauma, triggering past trauma; Addressing trauma for staff;
Counseling and mental health support for staff;
Self-care and building responder resilience;
Limits and Boundaries.
4 3110
Stakeholder Interviews, Organizational Meetings, and Focus Groups Below is a list of the meetings and presentations to ensure broad and deep community engagement in the development of the CCRP report. USC was also invited to do a “sit-along” to observe RPD dispatch and to visit the Contra Costa County Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3) Miles Hall Crisis Hub.
Focus Groups & Survey Distribution
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP)
Nepali Health Advocates
Richmond Latina Center (2 focus groups)
Richmond Progressive Alliance
Ryse Youth Center (2 focus groups)
Shields Reid Community Center
SOS Richmond
Meetings
Richmond Police Department
Police Chief Bisa French
Assistant Chief Tim Simmons
Captain M. Stonebraker, Patrol Operations Commander
Lt. Ernest Loucas, patrol division, Homeless Outreach manager Officer J. Sousa, Mental Health Evaluation Officer
Michelle Milam, Crime Prevention Manager and Homeless Resource Coordinator Richmond Fire Department
Fire Chief Angel Montoya
Fire Marshall Eric Govan
Fire Battalion Chief Victor Bontempo
RPD Dispatch, Michael Schlemmer, Communications Center Manager Richmond City Council, CM Robinson, CM Soheila Bana, CM Claudia Jimenez, CM Gayle McLaughlin
Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council
Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety, Sam Vaughn
Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety, violence interrupters Richmond Commission on Aging
Richmond Taskforce CCRP Working Group, Steve Bischoff and Laura Mangeles, Richmond Library Services - Diana Lopez, Library Director Richmond Taskforce on Reimagining Public Safety
Attachment 3
3111
Richmond Community Services Dept, Eren Samano
Richmond Multi-Dept Unhoused Working Group
Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia
Contra Costa County Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3) Initiative - Suzanne Tavano, PhD, Director, Behavioral Health Services, Dr. Chad Pierce, PsyD, A3/Crisis Intervention Chief, and Debbie Thomas, LMFT, MH Program Manager
Contra Costa County CORE team - Robert Preston, Michael Callanan Contra Costa Office of The Public Defender, Social Workers, Angelene Musawwir, LCSW Brighter Beginnings, Dr. Barbara McCullogh
Contra Costa Asian American Pacific Islander Coalition, Vy Vo Easter Hill United Methodist Church, Rev. Dr. Dale Weatherspoon, Pastor Family Justice Center
Felton Institute (implementing the crisis response in Antioch) Health Care for the Homeless
HEPPAC, Braunz Courtney
Just Cities Institute - Margareta Lin and Xavier Johnson (background on Richmond outreach) Latina Center, Miriam Wong
MATRIX Consulting Group - Richard Brady
Nepali Health Advocates, Anupama Chapagai Parajuli
Reimagine Richmond, Emily Ross and Eli Moore
Richmond Latina Center, Miriam Wong
Richmond Progressive Alliance, Marisol Cantu - survey distribuiton Richmond Promise, Anjanine Bonet, Miguel Molina, Christopher Whitmore Richmond Rotary Club, Darlene Rios Drapkin
Ryse Youth Center
Rich Minds & NAMI West County, Eddie Morris
Safe Return Project, Tamisha Torres-Walker
Social Movement Support Lab, Jim Freeman (data analysis) SOS, Daniel Barth
Sara Cantor
Haruka Kelley, NP
Kristin Killian Lobos
Deborah Small
BK Williams
3112
USC Richmond Emergency Responder Survey
We want to make sure that the experiences and knowledge from other emergency responders are reflected in the implementation of the new alternative crisis response program. Your responses will be confidential. Please answer according to your best estimate, based on your experiences. The survey will take 5-10 minutes. Thank you for participating!
1. I work for:
Dispatch
Police
Fire
2. I am:
Civilian
Sworn/commissioned
3. What shifts do you typically work? (check all that apply) Day shift
Swing shift
Graveyard shift
4. In a typical week, how often do you encounter residents in some sort of crisis without a criminal or public safety element that requires police, fire, or EMS? None
1-5
6-10
11-15
More than 16
5. What are the most common causes of crises that you encounter? (check all that apply)
Mental health
Substance use disorder
Poverty
Homelessness
Community/family/tenant conflict
Other: ______________
6. Of the residents in crisis who you encounter, what percentage are currently homeless?
None
Up to 25%
Up to 50%
Up to 75%
Attachment 4
3113
100%
7. What resource is the greatest IMMEDIATE needs of individuals that you encounter in crisis? (check all that apply)
Immediate shelter
Detox bed
De-escalation
Mental health counseling
Food
Non-emergency, low-level medical care
Transportation
A safe, supportive place to go during the day
Other: ________________________________________________
8. Of the residents in crisis, how many have a non-emergency, low-level medical issue (needing wound or foot care, low blood sugar, etc)? None
Up to 25%
Up to 50%
Up to 75%
100%
9. What calls often involve someone in crisis? (check all that apply) People walking into traffic
Pedestrian interference
Welfare check
Sleeper/Person Down
Suspicious person or circumstance
Unwanted person/Criminal trespass
Disturbance/disorderly conduct
Suicidal checks
Public Service calls in the front lobby of RPD
Mentally ill/mental disturbance
Confused/elderly person
Loitering
Intoxicated subject
Indecent exposure
Keep the peace
Noise complaint
Runaway
Other: ________________________________________
3114
10. In a typical week, how often do you encounter residents who are “high utilizers” of services - people who frequently interact with emergency responders or other providers?
None
1-5/week
6-10/week
11-15/week
16or more times/week
11. How should the crisis team be requested? (check all that apply) Separate, dedicated number for the crisis team
Hotlines (211, 988, etc)
Richmond dispatch of 911/non-emergency calls
Request from Richmond officers/firefighters in the field County mental health
Comments: _____________________________________
12. If they can be dispatched safely, should there be a list of calls that the crisis team automatically responds to (for example, disorderly conduct or welfare check)? Yes
No
13. Do you agree or disagree with these statements?
1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree
I am confident that I know about resources for residents in crisis 1-2-3-4-5 Low-level crisis situations take too much time to resolve 1-2-3-4-5 Low-level crisis situations could be better handled by other responders 1-2-3-4-5 It is not safe to send unarmed teams because calls can be unpredictable 1-2-3-4-5 A sworn/commissioned officer should embedded in the crisis team 1-2-3-4-5 A mental health professional should be embedded in the crisis team 1-2-3-4-5 The new crisis team is taking jobs away from us 1-2-3-4-5
14. What will make a low-level crisis team successful? (check all that apply) Quick response time
Reliable response to calls
Hours of operation
Able to transport residents
Safety training for crisis team
Connection to immediate services
Connection to long-term care
Crisis team follows up with residents after initial call Crisis team understands police, fire, and EMS scope of work Crisis team speaks Spanish and other languages of Richmonders Police/fire/EMS/dispatch understand when and how to ask for the crisis team Police/fire/EMS/dispatch understand what situations the crisis responds to Police/fire/EMS/dispatch understand what the crisis team can do to address a situation
Police/fire/EMS/dispatch understand the safety considerations and protocols for the crisis team
3115
Police/fire/EMS/dispatch understand how the team will handle criminal situations or investigations
A liaison or easy way for officers to get answers or address concerns with the crisis team
Other: _________________________________________________________
15. What else should be considered in the development of a crisis response team? ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
16. Are there any specific dispatch/firefighter/EMS/police considerations we should know about?
___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIAL STATISTICAL INFORMATION (Demographics)
This information is confidential and you can decide not to answer. It helps us understand if personal experiences affect emergency responders’ answers.
17. How long have you worked for the city of Richmond?
1-3 years
4-6 years
7-10 years
11-16 years
17 or more years
decline to answer
18. How old are you?
18 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 or older
3116
18. What is your race/ethnicity? (check all that apply) White or Caucasian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Asian or Asian American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Arab or Middle-Eastern
Another race (please specify) _________________________________
19. What is your gender identity and orientation? (check as many as apply) Female
Male
Transgender
Gender fluid/non-binary
LGBQIA+
Your chosen term: ___________________
20. What zip code do you live in?
____________ zip code (5 digit input)
This survey is anonymous and confidential. If you would like to talk to us, please tell us how to get in touch with you.
Name _________________________________________
Email Address _________________________________________ Phone Number _________________________________________
Comment _________________________________________
Any other comments you may have: _________________________________________________ Your voice is heard. Thank you!
3117
Q4. In what kinds of situations have you interacted with emergency services? (select all that apply) Response Percent Responses
Quality of life (parking problem, noise complaint, dumping, etc) 37.08% 99 Homeless related situation 25.84% 69
Emergency - fire 17.98% 48
Emergency - crime in progress 15.36% 41
Emergency - threat to safety 20.97% 56
Emergency - medical crisis 32.96% 88
Vehicle accident or problem 23.6% 63
Report a crime/accident for a police report 27.72% 74
Mental health crisis 20.97% 56
Drug/alcohol-related situation 10.86% 29
Community dispute 10.86% 29
Domestic violence/family conflict 16.1% 43
Wellness check (asking a responder to check on someone) 13.11% 35 Other (please specify) 10.86% 29
Answered 267
Q33. ¿En qué tipo de situaciones ha interactuado con los servicios de emergencia? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Calidad de vida (problema de estacionamiento, queja de ruido, basurero, etc.) 38.46% 5 Situación relacionada con personas sin hogar 15.38% 2
Emergencia - incendio 0.0% 0
Emergencia - delito en progreso 15.38% 2
Emergencia - amenaza a la seguridad 15.38% 2
Emergencia - crisis medica 15.38% 2
Accidente o problema de un vehículo 15.38% 2
Informar un delito/accidente para un informe policial 15.38% 2 Crisis de salud mental 7.69% 1
Situación relacionada con las drogas/alcohol 7.69% 1
Disputa comunitaria 0.0% 0
Violencia doméstica/conflictos familiares 30.77% 4
Control de bienestar (pedir al personal de auxilio que controle a alguien) 0.0% 0 Otra opción( especifique) 15.38% 2
Answered 13
Q62. Em quais tipos de situações você interagiu com serviços de emergência? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Emergência - crise médica 100.0% 1
Answered 1
1 Attachment 5
3118
Q6. What number(s) have you called for help with a crisis? (select all that apply) Response Percent Responses
I haven’t called for emergency responders or resources 10.49% 28 911 (Firefighters, Paramedics, Police) 66.67% 178
211 (Essential Community Services) 14.98% 40
510-233-1214 (Richmond non-emergency) 50.94% 136
County Mental/Behavioral Health Services 9.36% 25
Suicide or other hotline 1.87% 5
Community organization or service provider [non-profit] 9.74% 26 Other resource you’ve used or called: 7.87% 21
Answered 267
Q35. ¿A qué números ha llamado para recibir ayuda con una crisis? (marque todas las opciones pertinentes) No he llamado a los servicios o recursos de emergencia 0.0% 0 911 (bomberos, paramédicos, policía) 84.62% 11
211 (servicios comunitarios esenciales) 30.77% 4
510-233-1214 (para no emergencias) 30.77% 4
Servicios de salud mental/conductual del condado 7.69% 1 Suicidio u otra línea directa 7.69% 1
Organización comunitaria o proveedor de servicios [sin fines de lucro] 7.69% 1 Otro recurso que haya usado o llamado: 0.0% 0
Answered 13
Q63. Qual número(s) você ligou para pedir ajuda? (selecione todas que se aplicam) 911 (Bombeiros, paramédicos, polícia) 100.0% 1
Answered 1
1 3119
Q7. Do you or a family member have a disability? (check all that apply) Response Percent Responses
No 61.65% 164
I/a family member have mental health challenges 21.05% 56 I/a family member have a physical disability 20.3% 54
I/a family member have a disability that affects my ability to communicate 4.14% 11 I/a family member have behavioral or autism spectrum challenges 9.02% 24 Answered 266
Q36. ¿Usted o un miembro de su familia tiene una discapacidad? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) No 53.85% 7
Yo/un familiar tengo/tiene problemas de salud mental 23.08% 3 Yo/un familiar tengo/tiene una discapacidad física 15.38% 2 Yo/un familiar tengo/tiene una discapacidad que afecta mi/su habilidad de comunicación7.69% 1 Yo/un miembro de mi familia tengo/tiene problemas de comportamiento o del espectro autista 7.69% 1 Answered 13
Q64. Você ou algum membro da família tem alguma deficiência? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Não 100.0% 1
Answered 1
1 3120
Q8. Has the disability affected your interaction with emergency services? Response Percent Responses
Yes 17.87% 32
No 82.12% 147
Answered 179
Q37. ¿La discapacidad ha afectado su interacción con los servicios de emergencia? Sí 50% 4
No 50% 4
Answered 8
Q65. A deficiência afetou a sua interação com serviços de emergência? Answered 0
1 3121
Q10. The situation was for:
Response Percent Responses
Myself 31.25% 80
A family member/relative 22.66% 58
A friend/neighbor 16.8% 43
A stranger 18.75% 48
Other (please specify) 10.55% 27
Answered 256
Q39. La situación era para:
Mí 30.77% 4
Un familiar/pariente 53.85% 7
Un amigo/vecino 15.38% 2
Un extraño 0.0% 0
Otra opción( especifique) 15.38% 2
Answered 13
Q67. A situação era para:
Um membro da família/parente 100.0% 1
Answered 1
1 3122
Q11. Who responded? (select all that apply)
Response Percent Responses
Police 61.72% 158
Fire Department 35.16% 90
Paramedics/EMS 31.64% 81
Contra Costa County homeless services 6.25% 16
Contra Costa County behavioral health services 3.13% 8
Community-based responder 1.95% 5
No one showed up 13.67% 35
Other (please specify) 6.64% 17
Answered 256
Q40. ¿Quién respondió? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Policía 84.62% 11
Cuerpo de bomberos 7.69% 1
Paramédicos/EMS 7.69% 1
Servicios para personas sin hogar del condado de Contra Costa 15.38% 2 Servicios de salud conductual del condado de Contra Costa15.38% 2 Personal de auxilio basado en la comunidad 0.0% 0
Nadie apareció 30.77% 4
Otro (especifique) 0.0% 0
Answered 13
Q68. Quem respondeu? (selecione todas que se aplicam)
Paramédicos/EMS 100.0% 1
Answered 1
1 3123
Q12. How long did it take first responders to arrive?
Response Percent Responses
1-5 minutes 16.02% 41
6-10 minutes 24.61% 63
11-15 minutes 19.53% 50
16-60 minutes 19.92% 51
Over 60 minutes 9.77% 25
They never showed up 10.16% 26
Answered 256
Q41. ¿Cuánto tardaron en llegar los primeros en responder? 1-5 minutos 7.69% 1
6-10 minutos 30.77% 4
11-15 minutos 23.08% 3
16-60 minutos 15.38% 2
Más de 60 minutos 15.38% 2
Nunca aparecieron 7.69% 1
Answered 13
Q69. Quanto tempo demorou para a emergência / socorrista chegar? Answer Choices Response Percent Responses
1-5 minutos 0.0% 0
6-10 minutos 100.0% 1
11-15 minutos 0.0% 0
16-60 minutos 0.0% 0
Mais de 60 minutos 0.0% 0
Eles nunca vieram 0.0% 0
Answered 1
1 3124
Q13. How do you feel about the response to the situation? Q13. How do you feel about the response to the situation? Response Percent Responses
I’m glad I called - satisfied 50.39% 129
I shouldn’t have called - disappointed 0.39% 1
It didn’t help or hurt - neutral 29.69% 76
It didn’t help or hurt - neutral 0.39% 1
I shouldn’t have called - disappointed 19.14% 49
Answered 256
Q42. ¿Cómo se siente acerca de la respuesta a la situación? Answer Choices Response Percent Responses
No debí haber llamado - decepcionado/a 0.0% 0
No ayudó ni perjudicó - neutral 0.0% 0
Me alegro de haber llamado - satisfecho/a 46.15% 6
No ayudó ni perjudicó - neutral 46.15% 6
No debí haber llamado - decepcionado/a 7.69% 1
Answered 13
Q70. Como você se sente sobre a resposta à situação?
Estou feliz por ter chamado - satisfeito 100.0% 1
Não ajudou nem atrapalhou - neutro 0.0% 0
Não deveria ter chamado - desapontado 0.0% 0
Answered 1
1 3125
Richmond Resident Survey-- Q14, Q43, Q71
Q14. What did go well interacting with emergency services? (select all that apply) Response Percent Responses
Responders arrived in a reasonable amount of time 49.17% 119 Responders provided helpful information or resources 30.58% 74 Responders were well trained 32.23% 78
Responders kept things calm or calmed things down 34.71% 84 Responders were culturally sensitive (understanding people of different backgrounds) 19.42% 47 Responders were compassionate 27.69% 67
Responders explained things and answered questions clearly 27.27% 66 I felt safe 31.4% 76
The situation was resolved 34.71% 84
Nothing went well 14.46% 35
Other (please specify) 11.16% 27
Answered 242
Q43. ¿Qué salió bien cuando interactuó con el personal de servicios de emergencia? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Llegaron en un tiempo razonable 53.85% 7
Proporcionaron información o recursos útiles 15.38% 2
Estaban bien capacitados 15.38% 2
Fueron culturalmente sensibles 15.38% 2
Fueron compasivos 15.38% 2
Explicaron las cosas y respondieron preguntas con claridad 23.08% 3 Me sentí seguro/a 15.38% 2
La situación se resolvió 7.69% 1
Nada salió bien 15.38% 2
Otra opción: 23.08% 3
Answered 13
Q71. O que foi bem ao interagir com os serviços de emergência? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Response Percent Responses A emergência chegou em um tempo razoável 100.0% 1
A emergência forneceu informações ou recursos úteis 0.0% 0 A emergência / os socorristas eram bem treinados 0.0% 0 Os socorristas mantiveram as coisas calmas ou acalmaram as coisas 0.0% 0 Os socorristas foram atenciosos (entenderam pessoas de diferentes backgrounds) 0.0% 0 Os socorristas foram compassivos / altruístas 0.0% 0
Os respondentes explicaram coisas e responderam a perguntas de forma clara 0.0% 0 Eu me senti seguro 100.0% 1
A situação foi resolvida 100.0% 1
1 3126
Richmond Resident Survey Q15, Q44, Q72
Q15. What did not go well interacting with emergency services? (select all that apply) Answer Choices Response Percent Responses
Responders arrived too late or never arrived 27.27% 66
Responders did not provide any information or resources 13.22% 32 Responders were poorly trained 9.09% 22
Responders were not culturally sensitive (understanding people of different backgrounds) 13.64% 33 Responders did not keep things calm or calm things down 6.61% 16 Responders overused their power 8.26% 20
Responders didn’t listen or were not compassionate 18.18% 44 Responders didn’t explain things or answer questions clearly 7.44% 18 I felt unsafe 9.5% 23
The response made the situation worse 11.16% 27
Nothing went badly 38.84% 94
Other (please specify) 16.53% 40
Answered 242
Q44. ¿Qué no salió bien cuando interactuó con el personal de servicios de emergencia? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Llegaron demasiado tarde o nunca llegaron 46.15% 6
No escucharon 0.0% 0
No explicaron las cosas ni respondieron preguntas con claridad 15.38% 2 No proporcionaron ninguna información ni recursos 0.0% 0 Estaban mal capacitados 0.0% 0
No fueron culturalmente sensibles 0.0% 0
Abusaron de su poder 0.0% 0
La respuesta empeoró la situación 0.0% 0
Me sentí inseguro/a 15.38% 2
Nada salió mal 30.77% 4
Otra opción: 7.69% 1
Answered 13
Q72. O que não correu bem ao interagir com os serviços de emergência? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Os socorristas chegaram tarde demais ou nunca chegaram. 0.0% 0 Os socorristas não forneceram nenhuma informação ou recursos. 0.0% 0 Os socorristas foram mal treinados. 0.0% 0
Os socorristas não eram culturalmente sensíveis (entendendo pessoas de diferentes origens). 100.0% 1 Os socorristas não mantiveram a calma ou acalmaram as coisas. 0.0% 0 Os socorristas usaram em demasia seu poder. 0.0% 0
Os socorristas não ouviram ou não foram compassivos. 0.0% 0 Os socorristas não explicaram as coisas nem responderam claramente às perguntas. 0.0% 0 1 3127
Richmond Resident Survey Q16, Q45, Q73
Richmond Resident Survey Q16, Q45, Q73
Q16. What was the result of your call or interaction? (select all that apply) Answer Choices Response Percent Responses
Hospitalization 29.34% 71
Arrest 9.92% 24
Referred to services 15.29% 37
Made things more complicated 8.68% 21
Nothing changed 20.25% 49
Officers did not offer any help 10.33% 25
Provided referrals to an aftercare service or facility 7.02% 17 Gave additional resources that could help the situation 15.29% 37 I do not know 21.49% 52
Other (please specify) 13.22% 32
Answered 242
Q45. ¿Cuál fue el resultado de su llamada o interacción? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Hospitalización 23.08% 3
Arresto 23.08% 3
Derivaron a servicios 7.69% 1
Se complicaron las cosas 0.0% 0
Nada cambió 15.38% 2
No sé 7.69% 1
Los oficiales no ofrecieron ninguna ayuda 0.0% 0
Hicieron derivación a un servicio o instalación de cuidado posterior 0.0% 0 Dieron recursos adicionales que podrían ayudar con la situación 7.69% 1 Otra opción (explique) 23.08% 3
Answered 13
Q73. Qual foi o resultado da chamada ou interação? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Answer Choices Response Percent Responses
Hospitalização 100.0% 1
Prisão 0.0% 0
Referido a serviços 0.0% 0
Tornou as coisas mais complicadas 0.0% 0
Nada mudou 0.0% 0
Os oficiais não ajudaram 0.0% 0
1 3128
Richmond Resident Survey Q18, Q47, Q75
Richmond Resident Survey Q18, Q47, Q75
Q18. Does anything stop you from calling 911 or interacting with responders? (check all that apply) Response Percent Responses I haven’t had a reason to call or interact with emergency responders 36.25% 149 I have had bad experiences with the police 12.9% 53
I am on parole/probation 2.19% 9
I might have an outstanding warrant 2.19% 9
I’m worried about my immigration status 3.16% 13
I don’t trust police / they might make it worse 23.6% 97 I have trouble communicating in English or because of a disability 2.19% 9 Emergency services won’t come or takes too long 14.6% 60 Emergency services won’t help with the situation 9.49% 39 There is no reason that stops me from calling or interacting with emergency services 36.98% 152 Other (please specify) 7.54% 31
Answered 411
Q47. ¿Algo le impide llamar al 911 o interactuar con el personal de emergencias? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) No he tenido una razón para llamar o interactuar con ellos 52.0% 13 He tenido malas experiencias con la policía 8.0% 2
Estoy en libertad condicional/libertad condicional 0.0% 0 Podría tener una orden pendiente 0.0% 0
Me preocupa mi estatus migratorio 4.0% 1
No confío en la policía / podrían empeorarlo 4.0% 1
Tengo problemas para comunicarme en inglés o debido a una discapacidad 12.0% 3 Los servicios de emergencia no llegan o tardan demasiado 28.0% 7 Los servicios de emergencia no ayudarán con la situación 4.0% 1 No hay motivo que me impida llamar o interactuar con los servicios de emergencia 12.0% 3 Otra opción (especifique) 4.0% 1
Answered 25
Q75. Algo te impede de ligar para 911 ou interagir com os responsáveis? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Eu não tive motivo para ligar ou interagir com os serviços de emergência 66.67% 2 Eu tive experiências ruins com a polícia 0.0% 0
Eu estou em liberdade condicional/probatório 0.0% 0
Eu poderia ter uma ordem de prisão pendente 33.33% 1
Estou preocupado com o meu estatuto de imigração 0.0% 0 Eu não confio na polícia / isso poderia piorar 0.0% 0
Tenho dificuldade em comunicar em inglês ou devido a uma deficiência 0.0% 0 Os serviços de emergência não vêm ou demoram muito 0.0% 0 Os serviços de emergência não ajudam na situação 0.0% 0 Não há motivo que me impeça de ligar ou interagir com os serviços de emergência 0.0% 0 Outro (por favor explique) 0.0% 0
Answered 3
1 3129
Richmond Resident Survey Q19, Q48, Q76
Q19. What would make Richmond’s current emergency responses better? (select all that apply) Response Percent Responses
Improve response/arrival time 48.66% 200
More focus on keeping residents safe 38.44% 158
Improve de-escalation (calming down a situation) 45.74% 188 Improve cultural sensitivity (understanding people of different cultures or backgrounds) 41.61% 171 Offer more resources to support residents in crisis situations 45.26% 186 Offer alternative mobile crisis assistance without police 47.69% 196 Other (please specify) 14.36% 59
Answered 411
Q48. ¿Qué mejoraría las respuestas a emergencias actuales de Richmond? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Mejorar el tiempo de respuesta/llegada 60.0% 15
Más enfoque en mantener seguros a los residentes 48.0% 12 Mejorar la desescalada (calmar una situación) 28.0% 7
Mejorar la sensibilidad cultural (comprender a las personas de diferentes culturas u orígenes) 20.0% 5 Ofrecer más recursos para apoyar a los residentes en situaciones de crisis 52.0% 13 Ofrecer asistencia de crisis móvil alternativa sin policía 20.0% 5 Otra opción (especifique) 8.0% 2
Answered 25
Q76. O que tornaria as respostas de emergência atuais de Richmond melhores? Melhore o tempo de resposta/chegada 100.0% 3
Mais foco em manter os residentes seguros 33.33% 1
Melhore o desescalação (acalmar uma situação) 0.0% 0
Melhore a sensibilidade cultural (entendendo pessoas de diferentes culturas ou origens) 33.33% 1 Ofereça mais recursos para apoiar os residentes em crises 0.0% 0 Ofereça assistência móvel de crise alternativa sem a polícia 0.0% 0 Outro (por favor, explique) 0.0% 0
Answered 3
1 3130
Richmond Resident Survey Q20, Q49, Q77
Q20. What stops you from getting help with crisis situations - other than 911? (select all that apply) Response Percent Responses
I don’t know how to find help or resources 28.47% 117
Help isn’t available on nights or weekends 17.03% 70
There are rules or restrictions on who can get help 13.38% 55 There are too many rules about getting help 16.06% 66
Calling for help might involve the police 22.38% 92
The right kind of help is not available 21.65% 89
I have never had trouble getting help during a crisis 25.79% 106 There are people in my community who help out (mutual aid) 11.19% 46 Other (please specify) 11.19% 46
Answered 411
Q49. ¿Qué le impide obtener ayuda en situaciones de crisis, aparte del 911? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) No sé cómo encontrar ayuda o recursos 32.0% 8
La ayuda no está disponible en las noches o los fines de semana 8.0% 2 Hay reglas o restricciones sobre quién puede obtener ayuda 8.0% 2 Hay demasiadas reglas para obtener ayuda 16.0% 4
Pedir ayuda puede involucrar a la policía 8.0% 2
El tipo correcto de ayuda no está disponible 4.0% 1
Nunca he tenido problemas para obtener ayuda durante una crisis 8.0% 2 Hay personas en mi comunidad que ayudan (ayuda mutua) 28.0% 7 Otra opción (especifique) 8.0% 2
Answered 25
Q77. Qual é que te impede de obter ajuda em crises - além do 911? Não sei como encontrar ajuda ou recursos 100.0% 3
A ajuda não está disponível à noite ou aos fins de semana 33.33% 1 Há regras ou restrições sobre quem pode obter ajuda 0.0% 0 Há muitas regras sobre como obter ajuda 0.0% 0
Chamar por ajuda pode envolver a polícia 0.0% 0
O tipo certo de ajuda não está disponível 0.0% 0
Nunca tive problemas para obter ajuda durante uma crise 0.0% 0 Há pessoas na minha comunidade que ajudam (ajuda mútua) 0.0% 0 Quais são os números ou organizações que você liga para encontrar ajuda? 0.0% 0 Answered 3
1 3131
Richmond Resident Survey Q22, Q51, Q78
Q22. The City of Richmond is developing a Community Crisis Response Program to respond to certain low-level emergency calls.
Do you support a program where well-trained community members respond to some appropriate situations instead of police? Response Percent Responses
Yes 86.62% 356
No 13.38% 55
Answered 411
Q51. La Ciudad de Richmond está desarrollando un Programa de respuesta a crisis de la comunidad para responder a ciertas llamadas de emergencia de bajo nivel. ¿Usted apoya que haya un programa en el que miembros de la comunidad bien capacitados respondan a algunas situaciones adecuadas en lugar de la policía? Sí 96.0% 24
No 4.0% 1
Answered 25
Q78. A cidade de Richmond está desenvolvendo o Programa de Resposta a Crise na Comunidade (Community Crisis Response Program) para responder a certas chamadas de emergência de baixo nível. Você apoia um programa onde membros da comunidade bem treinados respondem a algumas situações apropriadas ao invés da polícia? Sim 100.0% 3
Não 0.0% 0
Answered 3
1 3132
Richmond Resident Survey Q24, Q53, Q80
Q24. How old are you?
Response Percent Responses
Under 18 2.72% 11
18-24 5.2% 21
25-34 16.58% 67
35-44 22.52% 91
45-54 13.61% 55
55-64 11.14% 45
65-74 14.85% 60
75 or older 8.66% 35
Decline to state 4.7% 19
Answered 404
Q53. ¿Cuántos años tiene?
menores de 18 años 8.33% 2
18-24 0.0% 0
25 - 34 4.17% 1
35 - 44 25.0% 6
45 - 54 41.67% 10
55 - 64 12.5% 3
65 - 74 4.17% 1
75 años o más 0.0% 0
No quiero contestar 4.17% 1
Answered 24
Q80. Quantos anos você tem?
18 - 24 0.0% 0
25 - 34 0.0% 0
35 - 44 0.0% 0
45 - 54 33.33% 1
1 3133
Richmond Resident Survey Q25, Q54, Q81
Q25. What is your race/ethnicity? (select all that apply) Response Percent Responses
White/Caucasian 38.62% 151
Black/African American 23.53% 92
Hispanic/Latino 26.09% 102
Asian/Asian American 10.74% 42
American Indian or Alaska Native 2.81% 11
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1.28% 5
Decline to state 0.0% 0
Arab/Middle Eastern 0.51% 2
Other (please specify) 7.16% 28
Answered 391
Q54. ¿Cuál es su raza/etnicidad? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Blanco o caucásico 0.0% 0
Negro o afroamericano 0.0% 0
Hispano o latino 95.65% 22
Asiático o asiático americano 0.0% 0
Indio americano o nativo de Alaska 4.35% 1
Nativo de Hawái u otra isla del Pacífico 0.0% 0
No quiero contestar 0.0% 0
Árabe o persona del medio oriente 0.0% 0
Otra raza (Especifique) 0.0% 0
Answered 23
Q81. Qual sua raça/etnia? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Branco ou caucasiano 0.0% 0
Preto ou afro-americano 100.0% 3
Hispânico ou latino 33.33% 1
Asiático ou ásio-americano 0.0% 0
1 3134
Richmond Resident Survey Q26, Q55, Q82
Q26. What is your gender identity and orientation? (select all that apply) Response Percent Responses
Female 62.92% 246
Male 30.43% 119
Transgender 0.77% 3
Gender fluid/non-binary 3.32% 13
LGBQIA+ 8.18% 32
Decline to state 0.0% 0
Other (your chosen term) 2.56% 10
Answered 391
Q55. ¿Cuál es su identidad y orientación de género? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Mujer 86.96% 20
Hombre 13.04% 3
Transgénero 0.0% 0
Género fluido / no binario 0.0% 0
LGBQIA+ 0.0% 0
No quiero contestar 0.0% 0
Su término elegido: 0.0% 0
Answered 23
Q82. Qual sua identidade de gênero e orientação? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Answer Choices Response Percent Responses
Mulher 66.67% 2
Homem 33.33% 1
Transgênero 0.0% 0
Gênero fluído/não binário 0.0% 0
LGBQI+ 0.0% 0
Seu termo de escolha: 0.0% 0
Answered 3
1 3135
Richmond Resident Survey Q27, Q56, Q83
Q27. How do you describe your housing situation?
Response Percent Responses
Unhoused 5.9% 23
At risk of being unhoused 1.03% 4
In transitional housing 1.79% 7
Renter/Tenant 28.97% 113
Home owner 56.67% 221
Decline to state 0.0% 0
Other (please specify) 5.64% 22
Answered 390
Q56. ¿Cómo describe su situación de vivienda?
Sin casa 0.0% 0
En riesgo de quedarse sin casa 5.0% 1
En vivienda transitoria 0.0% 0
Inquilino 40.0% 8
Propietario de casa 45.0% 9
No quiero contestar 0.0% 0
Otra: 10.0% 2
Answered 20
Q83. Como você descreve sua atual situação de domicílio? Pessoa em situação de rua 0.0% 0
Em risco de se tornar uma pessoa em situação de rua 66.67% 2 De mudança 0.0% 0
Inquilino 33.33% 1
Proprietário de casa 0.0% 0
Outro: 0.0% 0
Answered 3
1 3136