HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Green Pkg Program'~ ~
~~
~~' ~~
'~ ~~
~/11
CITY CLERK
File # ^~~~-~~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 7, 2009
SUBJECT: Consideration of entering into Cost-Sharing Agreement with
StopWaste.Org for the Proposed Green Packages Program
Report Prepared by Roger Bradley, Administrative Analyst
ATTACHMENTS: 1) April 8, 2009 StopWaste.org proposal to the Alameda County
Mayor's Conference
2) StopWaste.Org Proposal to the Bay Area Council Economic
Institute
3) Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into acost-
sharing agreement with StopWaste.Org for the proposed Green
Packages program
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the City
Manager to enter into acost-sharing agreement with StopWaste.org
~~ ' for the proposed Green Packages program
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: There is no impact to the City's General Fund -there are funds
available in Fund 224 (Recycling) to pay this $14,300 expense.
DESCRIPTION: As a result of measures being taken at the state level and a local
interest in taking action against climate change, Stopwaste.org is proposing to develop a "Green
Packages" program that will establish standardized countywide building retrofit measures and
specifications for energy efficiency, water and resource conservation and indoor air quality/health. The
program also intends to provide a standardized countywide approach that identifies specific improvements
to conduct green retrofits of existing buildings.
O~n April 8, 2009, StopWaste.org made a presentation to the Alameda County Mayor's Conference
outlining their proposal for the development of a "Green Packages" program (Attachment 1). The
proposal called for the development of amulti-component "Green Packages" program. Currently, Green
packages for single-family residential buildings are being developed and additional packages for
commercial, multifamily and others will be developed based on funding availability. If successful, the
COPY TO:
Page 1 of 2
ITEM NO. g .
C:\Documents and Settings\jordanflMy Documents\Green Practices\StopWaste\Green Packages\061609 meeting\FORM-agenda statement Stop Waste.doc ~ f
~l9
County-Wide Resource Efficiency Project for Greening Existing Buildings &
Landscapes (The StopWaste.Org "Green Packages" Project)
DRAFT FOR MAYOR'S CONFERENCE (APRIL 8, 2009}
OBJECTIVE:
Create acounty-wide program for improving existing buildings and landscapes that maximizes the long-
term benefits from Federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) `formula'
distributions to Alameda County jurisdictions, and increases our competitiveness for additional funding
BENEFITS:
• Implementing green retrofit projects will be easier and more convenient for property owners
• Career-track green jobs will be created in the currently depressed construction industry
• Multiple funding sources will be leveraged and possibly pooled (e.g. federal stimulus, private, etc.}
• Proven green technologies and practices, including recycled content and non-hazardous materials,
will be purchased more often, stimulating local supply and manufacturing when feasible
• Economies of scale in procurement, installation, financing, and marketing
• Economies of scope between energy, solid waste, water, household hazardous waste, etc.
• Climate action and diversion goals will be easier to reach and document
• Our local economy will be less vulnerable to resource supply disruptions
PROJECT COMPONENTS:
A. Green Packages (specifications suitable for use in contracts}
B. Technical Advisory Group (help make specifications widely accepted and useful)
C. Outreach (helps property owners know their retrofit options)
D. Training, Verification and Tracking (help property owners and funders maintain quality)
E. Leverage Funding for Implementation (multiple sources may be available -see list on last page)
KEY DELIVERABLES (Two-Year Project):
StopWaste.Ora Only Scenario ($130,000 -- $65,000 in each of FY09-10 and FY10-11)
Deliverables are: Project Components A, B, and C for Single Family Residential
• Project Component A (Green Packages):
o Create product and installation specifications for three single-family residential green
packages: entry level, advanced, and renewable, in construction specification institute or
other appropriate format. Installation of these packages may be funded through various
mechanisms, such as AB811 special districts, Mello-Roos districts, federal formula or
competitive stimulus funds, private funds, etc. Many of these funders will require standard
specifications to be developed that do not yet exist, in order to ensure quality control over
their investments.
Project Component B (Technical Advisory Group):
o Form a coalition of regional agencies representing water, air, utilities, city/county staff and
other technical stakeholders to review and help integrate the green packages into existing
programs. The Group will also coordinate al}tasks, and avoid d,~P~W1~' O~ 3 ~ ~~~~
"(e.g. ABAG, Alameda County, cities, utilities . ~D
. ATTAC~111
~ ~~
Project Component C (Outreach):
o Develop collateral materials for consumers: What green package is best for you? What
funding options are available?
o Link packages to existing programs (Alameda County Community Development Agency,
utilities rebates, tax credits, etc.)
o Encourage and facilitate supply chain_bulk purchasing
o Perform community-specific audit and targeting, which will include analysis of existing
building stock to target highest impact areas
County-Wide Participation Scenario (additional $517.700 from jurisdictions)
The likelihood of success of Project Component E, Leveraging Funding for Implementation, is increased
substantially 'rf all jurisdictions participate. Deliverables are: Project Components D and E for Single
Family Residential, and Project Components A-E for up to six additional green packages, listed below.
Project Component D (Training, Verification and Tracking):
o Train local installers and building inspectors to promote quality assurance
o Provide assistance in tracking and reporting
o Develop verification procedures when not duplicative with those developed by funders
Project Component E (Leverage Funding for Implementation):
o Work in Components A-D will reduce administrative costs and increase the long-term
effectiveness of Municipal spending of EECBG formula funds
o Stopwaste.org will apply for competitive funding from state, federal and other sources, for
the purpose of implementing green packages in participating jurisdictions
Provide Components A-E for each additional package, based on the following priority (all six
packages may not be feasible):
o Small Commercial (wood-frame buildings, low-rise, 10,000 square-feet and under)
o Medium Size Commercial Landscapes
o Multi Family Residential
o Commercial -masonry walls with wood roofs and floors (mixed use, offices)
o Commercial - masonry or concrete walls with interior building elements of solid or laminated
wood without concealed spaces (historic structures, churches, less than 2 stories)
o Commercial -concrete frame buildings with concrete floors, walls and roof (large offices,
institutional)
3~~9
FUNDING FOR THE TWO-YEAR PROJECT:
JURISDICTIONS StopWaste.Org
Only Scenario County-Wide
Scenario Total Estimated
EECBG `Formula'
Funds'
ALAMEDA 0 24,70 640,60
ALBANY 0 10,00 66,60
BERKELEY 0 34,80 1,013,50
DUBLIN 0 14,30 186,70
EMERYVILLE 0 10,00 36,10
FREMONT 0 69,30 1,891,20
HAYWARD 0 48,40 1,361,90
LIVERMORE 0 27,10 750,80
NEWARK 0 14,30 173,20
OAKLAND 0 136,10 3,919,20
PIEDMONT 0 10,00 43,60
PLEASANTON 0 22,50 692,70
SAN LEANDRO 0 26,70 732,40
UNION CITY 0 23,70 638,20
UNINCORPORATED COUNTY 0 45,80 551,20
OTAL CONTRIBUTION OR EECBG
FORMULA FUNDS
0 517,700 12,697,90
STOPWASTE.ORG CONTRIBUTION 130,00 130,00 N
OTAL PROJECT BUDGET 130,000 647,70 N
1 Represents final numbers for cities with a population over 35,000. For Albany, Emeryville, Piedmont and
Unincorporated County: the amount indicated are estimates, pending California Energy Commission's Guidelines.
Z Represents approximately 4% of the most current estimate of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
formula distribution from the federal stimulus package to Alameda County jurisdictions.
ue~~~
Attachment 1
Two-Year Work Plan: 2009-2011
Budget Scenarios
Program Components
StopWaste.Org
County-Wide
Only
A. GREEN PACKAGES
Develop green packages. Packages will promote a comprehensive green approach
1 ' (energy, water, waste, IAQ/health, resources) even if only a portion can currently be $50,000 $117,700 (atldtl.
financed. Promote these packages as a regional and statewide standard. Develop (sf res.) packages)
recycled content product specifications.
B. TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
Establish partnerships with key technical stakeholders. Convene coalition of
1. regional agencies representing water, air, utilities, and other technical stakeholders. $15,000 $40,000
Participating jurisdictions will be asked to send a representative to join the group.
Analysis of existing housing stock to target highest impact areas Analysis and
aggregation of available data associated with Alameda Counts existing building
2. stock may include viritage/age, building type, location, climate zone, size (sq. ft), $40,000
energy usage, and utility rates. Develop prioritized recommendations on market
targeting strategy.
Establish supply chain relationships for bulk purchasing discounts. Secure
3' discounted pricing for select products, materials, and technologies by negotiating $20
000
bulk discounts with manufacturers, distributors, and contractors. Develop and ,
distribute discount marketing and pricing guidelines for contractors.
C. OUTREACH
1' Policy assistance to member agencies. Technical assistance in coordinating $10
000 $30
000
retrofit policies, financing mechanisms, and countywide messaging. , ,
Develop marketing collateral to drive consumer participation and demand in
recycled content products. Produce consistent consumer messaging and collateral
2. countywide. Provide consumers with information about the benefits and availability of $55,000 $80,000
green packages, recycled-content products for building and landscape
improvements, and available funding sources.
D. TRAINING, VERIFICATION AND TRACKING
Provide workforce development & training within County. Develop workforce
1. education and training plan and schedule contractor trainings in Alameda County in $70,000
2009-2010.
s~ 19
Develop verification procedures for quality assurance. Develop contractor
2 procedures for field sampling, verification, and corrective measures. Develop $40,000
verification mechanism for green packages that meet A6811 and other program
requirements.
Tracking of participation and reporting of resource benefits. Track, measure,
3 and report number of audits and retrofits completed and associated resource $40,000
benefits. Link to the Climate Calculator and provide participating jurisdictions with
greenhouse gas reductions for climate action planning.
E. LEVERAGE FUNDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Leverage other funding sources and bundle incentives locally: Identify, secure
.and coordinate with all relevant funding sources to streamline program
implementation and maximize program funding. Bundle green existing incentives
1. including financing via A6811 assessment districts; utility rebates; tax credits; $40,000
revolving loan funds; FHA 203K mortgage funds and grants for low, moderate, and
upper income households. Identify and apply for foundation, state and federal grants
to support program.
2 Pursue legislation to expand special districts to include water and resource 0
conservation measures (as necessary and appropriate)
Green Building project funding $130,000 $130,000
Jurisdictions Contribution $517,700
Total Project Cost $130,000 $647,700
6~,y
Attachment 2
Potential Funding Sources for Greening Existing Buildings and Landscapes
The following funding sources can potentially be leveraged. Other sources may also be available in addition
to the ones listed here.
1. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
Total Funding Available: $3.2 billion
Overview: Federal grants to units of local government, Indian tribes, and states to reduce energy use and
fossil fuel emissions, and for improvements in energy efficiency. Of the $3.2 billion appropriated, $2.8 billion
will go out through a formula set by federal law and another $400 million will go out in competitive energy
grants. Cities with a population of over 35,000 and counties with population over 200,000 will apply for funds
directly through the federal Department of Energy (DOE); Cities with populations of under 35,000 and
counties with population under 200,000 will get their funding through the California Energy Commission.
Preliminary estimate for Alameda County: $12.7 million. We are asking for approximately 4 % of this amount.
2. State Energy Program (SEP)
Total Funding Available: $50 million
Overview: Proposal from Bevilacqua Knight, Inc. to the California Energy Commission to allocate the SEP
grant as matching funds to encourage local governments to support regional comprehensive home energy
retrofit and solar programs.
3. Weatherization Assistance
Total Funding Available: $5 billion
Overview: Funding towards low-income weatherization programs through the federal Department of Energy
for existing residential and multifamily housing with low-income residents. Low income residents in California
can apply for weatherization funding through the State Department of Community Services and
Development.
4. Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Total Funding Available: $2.0 billion
Overview: The Neighborhood Stabilization Program provides emergency assistance to state and local
governments to acquire and redevelop foreclosed properties that might otherwise become sources of
abandonment and blight within their communities. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provides
grants to purchase foreclosed or abandoned homes and to rehabilitate, resell, or redevelop these homes in
order to stabilize neighborhoods and stem the decline of house values of neighboring homes.
5. Assisted Housing Stability and Energy and Green Retrofit Programs
Total Funding Available: $2.25 billion
Overview: $2 billion for project based rental assistance (e.g., "Section 8") fora 12- month period. In addition,
$250 million for grants or loans for energy retrofit and green investments in such assisted housing.
6. Green Jobs
Total Funding Available: $500 million
Overview: Research, labor exchange and job training projects to prepare workers for careers in energy
efficiency and renewable energy industries. Up to $37.5 million provided for Job Corps Centers, which may
include training for careers in energy efficiency.
7. State Water Board Revolving Loan Fund
Total Funding Available: $280 million of stimulus funds at 0% or 1 %, probably fully committed already.
Additional funding of at least $50 million and up to $3 billion is possible, at 2-3% {~/z the State General
Obligation Bond Rate).
Overview: Revolving Loan Fund for projects administered by the State Water Board.
~~ i~
Proposal to the Bay Area Council Economic Institute
The Bay Area Council Economic Institute (BACEI) has been asked by the California Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency (BT&H} to work with key regional partners to develop a Bay
Area Economic Recovery Workplan. The Workplan will be used by BT&H and other state and
federal agencies.to facilitate decision-making regarding the allocation of federal stimulus funds
available through the state, and other funds allocated by the state for economic development
purposes. It will also be used to support decision-making regarding regulatory and policy
measures that may streamline the flow of these funds to communities, and the implementation
of longer-term strategies to enhance state and regional economic competitiveness.
The Institute is not a funding entity and BT&H is not making funding decisions on proposals
based entirely this process. The Workplan is directed toward strategic planning for regional and
state economic development, with the goal of aligning federal stimulus funds and other state
resources with key regional priorities.
StopWaste.Org submitted the Green Packages proposal on behalf of the Alameda County City
Managers Association. Attached is the application submitted on-line. Our inputs are boxed in
on the following pages. We were not allowed to submit attachments, and had to stay within
specified limits for the electronic submittal, so the proposal is much briefer and contains fewer
details than we would have liked.
~~"I'AC~Y9' z
~~
1. Indicate the name of the entity submitting the proposal
Short text: Max 100 characters
This may be a public agency, company, orpublic-private partnership and can be different than
the organization name of the individual completing the form
StopWaste.Org on behalf of the Alameda County City Managers Association.
2. List possible partners formally involved in the proposal
Long text box (apprax 200 words} Need not be exhaustive but should represent the principal
parties
Implementation Partners: Bevilacqua Knight, inc. (BKi}, Build It Green, Renewable Funding. fihis
project is a public (StopWaste.Org}, private (BKi and Renewable Funding} and nonprofit (Build it
Green) partnership. BKi and Renewable Funding are working with many public agencies
statewide on developing retrofit programs and financing district formation. Partnering with BKi
will ensure that our program complements regional efforts such as ABAG. Build It Green is
California's leading nonprofit promoting residential green building. Our team members are
leaders in regional coordination of green building policy.
Technical Advisory Group: Participating Alameda County jurisdictions, air, water and resources
agencies, utilities, and other key local stakeholders.
Policy input and statewide coordination: California Home Energy Retrofit Coordination
Committee, including representatives from US EPA Region 9, Cal. Energy Commission, Cal.
Public Utilities Commission, Cal. Air Resources Board, PG&E, SMUD, BAAQMD, Sustainable
Spaces, Davis Energy Group, Rising Sun Energy Center, Cities of San Francisco, Berkeley and
Rohnert Park.
3. Type of project jCheck one]
• Public
• Private
X• Public Private Partnership
4. Type of entity submitting the proposal
jCheck all that apply)
X • City
X • County
• Economic Development Board
• Civic organization
X • Private company
~~i9
X • Education organization (e.g, community college, university, etc.)
X• Oilier (describe in SD characters)
Public-private partnerships, consortia or coalitions should specify the various types of entities
coming together to submit the proposal. Additional detail maybe provided in question 2
(partners) or question 7 (proposal description.)
Public joint powers agency -14 cities and county.
5. Contact
• Name Wendy Sommer
• Title Senior Program Manager _
• Organization StopWaste.Org
• Email wsommer@stopwaste.org
• Phone number 510-891-6523
This is for contact purposes for questions only. Organization information provided for this
question maybe different from that provided for question 1
6. Proposal name
Short text (Max~1Q0_°claracters Provide the concise name of your proposal
Green Packages: Alameda Countywide Resource-Efficiency Project to Green Existing
Buildings/Landscape
7. Provide a limited description of your proposal
tong text box (,~c ss~_...,__
~xiaX`~ ra actors)
Submit a concise description that is as complete as possible, including its core objective and
ultimate result. !t is not necessary to provide full details on impact or strategic importance here,
as these questions are covered in subsequent questions.
Green Packages is a comprehensive program for implementing energy efficiency, solar and
other improvements in existing buildings and landscapes in Alameda County. It consists of sets
of retrofit standards (or "green packages")eligible for funding under the AB811-type special
finance district that Alameda County is currently considering; systems to train workers and
document results; and consumer marketing and incentives.
The core objective is to stimulate demand and strengthen the infrastructure to retrofit the
County's existing residential and small commercial buildings by overcoming obstacles that
hinder widespread deployment of proven resource-efficient retrofit strategies.
Two-year funding of this project will produce immediate benefits: $115.5 million in local private
investment, 1,100 jobs created, $43.5 million of energy savings, and 46,120 tons of CO2 -
~°~ l9
reductions, More importantly, the funding allows us to create an infrastructure that will accrue
benefits for many years. By 2020, it can result in: 570,000 housing units retrofitted; $7.7 billion
of local private investment; $2.9 billion in energy savings; nearly 75,000 jobs created; and CO2
reduction of 3 million tons.
8. indicate the Bay Area strategic priority your proposal falls into
(Check one)
• Transportation (e.g. 21st century infrastructure, improved regional mobility, and smart
growth)
• Water (e.g, reliability and security of the BavArea's water
X• Energy/Climate (e.g. energy efficiency, smart grid transmission and other infrastructure)
• Human Capital (e.g. workforce training and education)
• Business Development (e.g. opportunities to reduce obstacles to project delivery, streamline
funding flows, and stimulate job creation)
• Science and Innovation (e.g. opportunities to leverage universities, laboratories, businesses,
and other innovation drivers to advance science, technology, industry, and ultimately job
creation. Projects with potential to increase productivity such as electronic medical records and
broadband deployment)
• Housing (e.g. address housing foreclosures and finance, land use and affordable housing
policies, and potential projects to support transit integration)
We realize some proposals may spread across several priority areas. However, please select only
the main one. For instance, a workforce project may relate exclusively to water projects in the
Bay Area, but as a workforce protect you should likely select Human Capital. You can always
provide clarification in question 7 (project description) and question 9 (strategic impact). For
additional guidance on these priorities, please see the subject matter strategy remarks at the
end of this document.
9. Describe the overarching importance of your proposal to address the Bay Area's regional
economic competitiveness and the strategic priorities outlined above
,,.s~~..~~,~.~,~,,-~-:sue ~.~ ~., ~--R
Long text box (~rox.=2L~0,:,i%1!ords~3~200.,.charpcters) This is one of the most important questions
on this form. Ideally, regional priority proposals would have broad Impact across one or more
areas (e.g., water or pausing, with components relating to workforce or energy efficiency).
Many proposals maybe important for a local neighborhood or city but do not have a regional or
cross-cutting Impact
Construction led the economic downturn, and retrofit construction has the potential to lead the
upturn. Green Packages strengthens the local in#rastructure for retrofit construction that will
stimulate the economy, reduce spending for imported energy, water and other resources, and
create jobs for years to come.
u~ i9
As a market transformation program targeting 1.5 million people and 570,000 housing units,
Green Packages captures economies of scale across multiple jurisdictions. But its influence
won't end at the County borders. Given StopWaste.C}rg's 22-year history of launching
influential green programs, Green Packages is positioned to be a model program for regions of
the State that are behind on the retrofit curve. in particular, it builds an our experience
initiating the Alameda County Climate Protection Project and launching GreenPoint Rated
Existing Home and GreenPoint Rated Climate Calculator, respectively the nation's first green
rating system for existing homes and first third-party verified residential building calculator.
Green Packages also achieves economies of scope between energy efficiency and other
resource management practices (see #i23).
~0. !n which of the following counties does your proposal have a direct benefit/affect?
(Check all that apply)
X• Alameda
• Contra Costa
• Morin
• Napa
• San Francisco
• San Mateo
• Santa Clara
• Solano
• Sonoma
• Other (List) -All Bay Area Counties and Region (see #9 and #22)
!f your proposal benefits or affects counties outside of the nine-county Bay Area, please list them
as space permits. As noted immediately above, In many Instances (though not all instances);
proposals with cross Jurisdictional impact maybe of greatest interest in a regional workplan.
11. What is the currentstatus of the project in terms of planning/implementation
(Check one)
For Design-Bid-Build process:
• !n design
• Design completed
• Ready to go to bid and/or hiring
• Out to bid and/or hiring underway
• Work is underway or can begin within 90 days of funding
For Design-Build process:
• Ready to go to bid and/orhiring
X• Bid is completed and design is underway
• Design is completed and work is underway
ia~i9
This question is appropriate for any proposal that has a hiring or contracting component,
including not only construction, but also planning, training or other projects. The distinction
between Design-Bid-Build and Design-build is to accommodate public-private partnerships or
planning-type projects that put the design process out to bid first.
12. What is the main delivery timeframe/project length of your propoaa!?
(Check oneJ
• 6 months
• 12 months
X• 24 months
• Longer than 24 months
This question seeks to understand the immediacy and concentration of your proposal's impact in
calendar terms. Both short-term and longer-term proposals are invited.
.13. !n a best case scenario, when will you be able to start your project?
(Check oneJ
X• Project has commenced
• Q3 2009
• Q4 2009
• Q12010
• Q2 2010
• Q3 2010
• Q4 zo10
This question in conjunction with question 12 allows us to project the economic impact in
calendar terms. We recognize the uncertainty inherent in these projections in many instances.
14. What barriers affect or do you foresee affecting the execution of your proposal in the very
short term? .
(Check all that apply]
• legal issues
• regulatory issues
• administrative issues
X• no issues
• Comments (max 1200 characters/approx 200 words)
We are interested in understanding small and Jarge barriers to implementing high impact
" proposals, and ways to address them. We are particularly interested in things that maybe easy
to resolve through quick regulatory refinement.
We don't foresee legal, regulatory or administrative barriers. Green Packages leverages
Alameda County's well-developed green building capacity. Countywide, there is strong political
~3~ ~
will to adopt Green Packages; in fact, it has already been endorsed by the Alameda County City
Managers Association.
Our team is collaborating with key state and regional public agencies and private entities to
ensure our program aligns with other existing and future retrofit and solar construction
programs. This collaboration will ensure that Green Packages are consistent with the State's
Title 24 Energy Standards, California Energy Commission's HERS-2 home energy analysis
program, the California Solar Initiative, and other regional green retrofit programs.
We do anticipate a consumer acceptance barrier. Many property owners perceive green
retro0ts to be difficult and expensive to implement. To address this, a substantial component of
Green Packages focuses on consumer education, marketing, and other incentives. It would be
fruitless to develop infrastructure and train workers in retro#it construction without
simultaneously stimulating consumer demand.
15. What are the total costs of your proposal?
Costs in millions
• Development costs - $.13 Million -Committed
• Training costs - $1.15 Million -- Not Committed
• Construction costs - $115.5 Million -Not Committed
• Other (describe) - $4,21 Million -Not Committed
Enter costs in millions of dollars. Decimals are allowed for fractions of millions {e.g.,1.7 for
$1.7mn, 0.45 for $45D,000, 1071.8 for $1.0718 billion)
NOTE: Because of the on-line #ormat, the following explanation on the budget was not included
in the proposal:
o Development costs (Green Packages $167,700, Technical Advisory Group $115,000).
Amount included above only reflects funding committed by StopWaste.Org ($130,000}
o Training costs (Training, Verification & Tracking $150,000) + 1,000,000 (development of
multi-lingual training curriculum and delivery}
o Other (Outreach $175,000, Bundled Incentive $40,000} + 4,000,000 ($1,000,000 for
additional consumer marketing and $3,000,000 for rebates ($1,000 per home to cover costs
of performance testing for the first 3,000 homes that install green packages)
1&. What are the total funding sources (committed and potential) for your proposal?
jCosts in millions of doNarsJ
• State funding - $5 Million
• Other federal funding - $5 Million
• Other competitive grants -None
• Private debt financing - $115 Million
• Private equity funding - $115 Million .
• Other (describe) - $315 Million
~~ ~ i9
NOTE: Because of the on-line format, the following explanation on the budget was not included
in the proposal:
There are 570,619 housing units in Alameda County. Assuming that the target for retrofit in two
years is 1.5% (8,500 units) - at $15,000 average cost to retrofit -will generate $128 Million in
private investment. Assuming 90% spent locally in labor and materials = $115 Million (this
amount can be financed through private debt financing, equity funding, or other sources).
You should provide a snapshot of your funding sources as proposed, including those for which
you have already applied or secured, and help us understand the rough percentage of the
project that is already funded.
17. Would you say the timing of the funding needed for your proposal falls into:
(Check onej
• Tier 1 /Immediate: Projects subject to immediate funding (use-it-or-lose-itJ requirements.
X• Tier 2 /24 months: Infrastructure or economic development projects that will be
"shovel-ready" .
• Tier 3 /Other: Projects that do not fit inta a one of the above funding timeframes or that are
more long term or conceptual in nature
Identify whether the funding for your.proposal can orshould fall within specific time limits. Note
that proposals maybe strategically important for the region in any of these tiers. The purpose of
this question is to indentify the time criticality of funding application or disbursement.
Tier 1 projects may include strategies to overcome regulatory and operational barriers to project
delivery (e.g., relating to procurement procedures, or permit review).
Tier 2 projects should merit priority review within the next two years, with special priority given
to projects that develop sustainable infrastructure. Tier 2 can include projects that could fit
within this category with relatively simple policy adjustments to expedite the project, though
these should be noted in question 14.
Tier 3 may Include proposals to improve the business environment orstimulate Innovation that
aren't essentially connected to Tier 1 or Tler 2 projects.
18. Have you already applied for state and/or. federal funding for this project?
(Check one)
X• Not yet applied
• Applied and awaiting approval
• Application approved, butfunding is on hold
• Disbursements have begun, and project is underway
Many strategically important projects have already gone through an application process, and in
some instances may even have been selected for funding or commenced work. Entering data for
i5~w
such proposals allows the Institute to incorporate important projects into the recovery workplan
even though they may already be funded or have commenced.
19. Number of people the proposal anticipates employing
jEnter actual numbers of employees)
a) in the 0-b months following the launch of the project 186
', b) in the b-12 months following the launch of the project 372
cj in the 12-24 months following the launch of the project 559
This is a direct employment measure for the project, including the employees of contractors. We
seek to understand the jobs that will directly be produced by funding. For planning, training, or
other types of grants, the direct employment may be low. Question 20 relates to the broader
employment impact due to supply chain effects, new business formation, R&D activities, and the
like.
20. Describe haw this proposal may relate to sustainable job creation and long term
competitiveness of the Bay Area workforce.
tong text box ra~ro-200':vi%ords 1200 characters) This is your opportunity to provide decal! on
those jobs created by a project that are not solely dependent an stimulus funding and maybe
sustainable in the long-term.
Training people to perform retrofits and install solar energy systems is laudable; unfortunately
too many workforce development programs send trained workers into communities where
there is little demand for their services. These programs miss the other side of the equation: job
creation efforts can't be sustainable without equal effort placed on stimulating demand.
To avoid this pitfall, Green Packages completes the sustainable job creation cycle by:
establishing verifiable standards and specifications that are easy for building owners,
contractors and funders to use; training contractors and workers in how to effectively install
green measures; and ensuring demand for these services via outreach to and incentives for
property owners.
During the project's initial two-year term, it will indirectly create more than 1,1x0 loyal career-
track green jobs. More significantly, Green Packages wil) strengthen the local retrofit
construction infrastructure, leading to a stable, ongoing stream of building improvement work.
By 2020, our efforts can result in retrofitting more than 570,000 housing units and creating
more than 74,000 jobs. (Please contact us for a copy of our economic analysis).
21. The estimated net economic benefit that your proposal may deliver to the California
economy ls:
jcheck one)
• under $25 million
• between $.25 and $50 million
~6 ~ ,~
• between $50 and $100 million
X• between $100 million and $500 million
• above $500 million
This question relates to the broad economic impact beyond jobs. Economists would express this
as a gross domestic product (GDP} measure, which is meant to include the value of all the
indirect, induced, business expansion, and capacity expansion effects that may have been
considered in question 20. There are several broader and longer term impacts you may foresee
from your proposal:
• Indirect impacts may occur at suppliers or vendors of contractors
• Induced impacts may come from multiplier effects related to consumption (e.g. employees
making purchases at local retailers}
• Business creation or industry expansion (e.g. the activity triggers new business formation or
even an entirely new industry due to new technology}
• Expansion of BayArea productive capacity (i. e., the proposal allows the Bay Area sustainably
to support more residents or businesses}
22. Briefly explain your answer to question 21
Long text box (approx 200 words) You are invited to indicate other economic benefits that may
extend beyond the expenditure of stimulus dollars (e.g., new business creation or expansion of
productive capacity}. Such projections are inherently imprecise, and not all proposers will be
able to provide them. In recognition of that, questions 20 and 2.2 demonstrate your thinking
about broad economic impacts and help the Institute to assess the strategic importance of the
proposal to the region and state.
During its initial two years, our efforts will spur private investment in retrofit construction and
renewable energy installation, resulting in a local economic benefit of more than $115 million.
However, the true economic benefit is vastly greater because Green Packages puts in place an
infrastructure that will accrue benefits far years to come. As the pace of the retrofits ramps up
in subsequent years, the economic benefits will grow exponentially.
Looking at the 11-year timeframe set forth by the Cal. Public Utilities Commission {40%
improvement in the performance of existing buildings by 2020), we estimate our projec#'s net
economic benefit to be $7.7 billion, based on retrofitting mare than 570,000 housing units in
Alameda County. Over the project's initial two-year term, we estimate 1,117 jobs (direct and
indirect) will be created. More significantly, by 2020 Green Packages can result in more than
74,000 career-track green jobs created in a growing, sustainable retrofit construction industry
in Alameda County alone.
We expect Green Packages to serve as a model for other parts of the Bay Area and the State,
thereby providing further opportunities for economic growth.
~~, i~
z3. Describe the measures taken in your proposal that enhance environmental sustainability
in the Bay Area and beyond. These measures would be beyond what existing State and
Federal law require.
Long text box (~prex;=200.:;wards%120_:,characters Environmental sustainability may be related
to resource efficiency, conservation, commute distance reduction, increased use of public
transportation, increased use of renewable energy or supplies, reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, reduced pollution discharges, or any other environmental sustainability impacts
relevant to your proposal.
Since buildings account for 23% of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and existing buildings
represent the majority of the State's building stock, the CPUC.has a goal of improving the
energy performance of existing buildings by 40% by 2020.
Our program wit! result in immediate and long-term reductions in energy use and greenhouse
gas emissions of existing buildings. Over atwo-year term, it will produce $43.5 million in energy
savings and reduce C02 emissions by 46,120 tons. By 2020, it can result in nearly $3 billion in
energy savings and reduce C02 emissions by more than 3 million tons. The program's
verification and tracking components will allow cities to document their climate action results.
While energy is the main focus, the project also includes measures to conserve water ~e.g.,
water-efficient showerheads) and other resources (e.g., recycled-content products). Some
measures may not be fundable under AB811-type special #inance districts; nevertheless, we will
include them because they represent low-hanging fruit that wilt lower property owners' costs,
reduce water use, help jurisdictions meet waste diversion goals, and stimulate markets for
recycled-content products.
2~4. Describe the measures taken in your proposal to address the needs of disadvantaged
communities in the Bay Area?
Long text box (a~pr`oX':2..DDrwords%1200 c~'a octets) Positive impacts on disadvanta ed
communities may relate to hiring, training, access to services, reduced pollution, increased
educational attainment, increased entrepreneurship, or any other measures or impacts that
support improved quality of life and/or economic benefit for disadvantaged communities in the
Bay Area.
The economic downtown has exacerbated the affordable housing crisis. In Oakland alone, there
have been more than 5,000 foreclosed homes. Mortgages and rents remain out of reach for too
many of citizens, including seniors on fixed incomes, single-parent families, disabled people,
and the working poor.
Green Packages will have many positive impacts on these communities. It will facilitate retrofits
that will reduce property owners' and tenants' energy costs. It will expand water conservation
programs, reducing owners' and tenants''water and sewer costs. The Green Packages will
,$~,~
include proven, cost-effective strategies that increase building longevity and reduce
maintenance costs, another savings for owners and tenants.
Green Packages expands the County's demand and infrastructure for green and renewable
retrofits, thereby leading to permanent green job creation for newly trained local workers in
retrofit and building performance sectors, and potentially in local distribution and
manufacturing of green products. A number of workforce development programs are already in
place in the County, and our consumer outreach strategies will help create necessary demand.
~ ~ r~
RESOLUTION NO. - 09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO ACOST-SHARING AGREEMENT
WITH STOPWASTE.ORG FOR THE PROPOSED GREEN PACKAGES PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Stopwaste.Org Green Packages project is a county-wide program to stimulate demand
and strengthen the infrastructure for retrofits of existing residential and small commercial buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Green Packages program is intended to maximize the long-term benefits from the
federal stimulus distributions to Alameda County jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, participating jurisdictions will contribute a portion of their Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant (stimulus funding) to create Green Packages; and
WHEREAS, the original cost-sharing plan, presented at the Apri18, 2009 Mayor's Conference, proposed
at $130,000 contribution from Stopwaste.Org with Dublin contributing approximately four percent of their
Block Grant allocation ($14,300); and
WHEREAS, Dublin's fair-share contribution would be entirely funded by Fund 224 (Recycling).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin would like to
participate in the Green Packages Program with StopWaste.org; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to enter into acost-sharing
agreement with Stopwaste.Org for the proposed Green Packages project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
ATTACHMENT 3