The Docket · Government Meeting · DKT-2026-000361

On the agenda: Concord meeting — data center (Apr 29)

Past ⚠ Agenda Watch Concord, California · Wednesday, April 29, 2026 — 5 months ago

About this record

The published agenda for this April 29 meeting contains: "data center", "hyperscale", "Hyperscale", "Data Center". The meeting has passed; the record and its outcome live here permanently.

WhenWednesday, April 29, 2026
Check the agenda document for the meeting time.

WhereConcord, California

Money$250 million was at stake

On the record“data center”“hyperscale”“Hyperscale”“Data Center”

The agenda, word for word

Government public record — the full text of the published document, archived August 3, 2026. Gold highlighting of key terms is ours, not the original’s. Read the original document ↗

71 pages · scroll to read

Page 1 of 71

Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Carlyn S. Obringer, Chair
Pablo Benavente, Member

Special Meeting of the
Housing and Economic
Development
Committee
Wednesday,
April 29, 2026

5:30 p.m.

Garden Conference
Room
1950 Parkside Drive,
Wing A
Concord, CA

Information for the public on participation at Committee meetings can be found on the back of
the Speaker Identification Card. Should you have any questions after consulting the Speaker
Identification Card, please contact staff prior to the Committee meeting.
AGENDIZED ITEMS – The public is entitled to address the Committee on items appearing on
the agenda before or during the Committee’s consideration of that item. Each speaker will be
limited to approximately three minutes.
1.

ROLL CALL

REPORTS
The public is entitled to address the Committee on items appearing on the agenda before or during
the Committee’s consideration of that item. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three
minutes. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above.

a.
3.

Proposed Public-Private Partnership for Concord Center for Connectivity at
2000 Clayton Road. Report by Margaret O’Brien, Director of Finance.
ADJOURNMENT
1

Page 2 of 71

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative
decisions and orders which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of
discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6).
Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited by California
law to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the hearing or in a written
correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the hearing.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Law, it is the policy of the City of
Concord to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to
everyone, including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and require a copy of a public hearing
notice, or an agenda and/or agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require other
accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinator Tianjun Cao at (925) 671-3243 or
[email protected], at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Advance notification
within this guideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
Distribution:

City Council
Valerie Barone, City Manager
Susanne Brown, City Attorney
Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
Joelle Fockler, City Clerk

Page 3 of 71

2.a

Staff Report
Date:

April 29, 2026

To:

Council Committee on Housing & Economic Development

From:

Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager

Prepared by:

Margaret O’Brien, Finance Director
Margaret.O’[email protected]
(925) 671-3178

Subject:

Proposed Public-Private Partnership for Concord Center for
Connectivity at 2000 Clayton Road

Report in Brief
On February 23, 2026, the City’s Council Committee on Housing & Economic
Development (Committee) discussed a proposal from Lattice Industries to enter into a
public-private partnership involving the purchase and upfitting of 2000 Clayton Road to
be used for a regional innovation hub (Attachment 1). The Committee directed staff to
return with information about bond financing options and the risks those structures
create for the City of Concord (City). This analysis responds to that direction directly.
The proposed financing, up to $250 million in tax-exempt lease revenue bonds, would
place the City in the role of a governmental conduit issuer or Joint Powers Authority coparticipant. Under California law, that role carries debt service backstop obligations that
are real, enforceable, and triggered by project revenue shortfalls the City cannot control.
The revenue projections that would need to support debt service appear to be internally
inconsistent, independently unvalidated, and unsupported by any signed tenant or
member commitments. The compensation offered to the City, a 10% share of net
operating income (NOI), generating $4.0 million in Year 1, as noted in Appendix to the
Proposal, plus the $500,000 in services, does not reflect the scale of the exposure
being assumed, and so far, the City has not identified a need for these services.
Additionally, the services component may be legally unusable under the City’s own
compliance obligations as further discussed in this report.
Measured against the standards of a genuine public-private partnership, the current
proposal transfers no meaningful risk to the private developer. The City assumes
financing liability for a building it does not own, with no asset security, no performance

Page 1 of 69

Page 4 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

guarantees, no competitive selection process, and no independent validation of the
underlying financial assumptions.
More recently, the City received an updated proposal from Lattice Industries/Data
Institute to use 2000 Clayton Road as a municipal broadband operations hub in support
of the City’s fiber infrastructure (Attachment 2). This report does not address that
proposal, as it is both newly submitted and inconsistent with the Committee’s prior
direction.
Staff does not believe either proposal has merit and does not support their further
consideration.
Recommended Action
Continue facilitating discussions around potential future uses of 2000 Clayton Road
without any direct financial commitments by the City.
Background
The property at 2000 Clayton Road is a 400,000 square-foot, six-story technology
center originally built in the mid-1980s for Bank of America’s secure data operations. It
has been vacant since 2023. The facility features 14MW of electrical capacity, 7MW of
backup generator power, fully redundant systems, and hardened construction. It sold for
$68 million in 2018 and is currently listed at approximately $25 million, reflecting its
purpose-built design, aging mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems, and
complex campus management obligations.
Lattice Industries proposes to redevelop the site into the “Concord Center for
Connectivity,” a regional innovation hub providing shared AI and data services, a Dataas-a-Commodity (DaaC®) marketplace, cybersecurity operations, workforce training,
and research laboratories. Total proposed investment is $125 million to $250 million,
financed through tax-exempt lease revenue bonds issued through either a Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) with Diablo Valley College or other municipal entities, or a City-only
conduit bond structure.
The Council Committee on Housing & Economic Development met on February 23,
2026, to hear a proposal from Lattice Industries to develop a public-private partnership
to purchase and upfit 2000 Clayton Road to be used for the innovation hub. After
hearing information from Lattice Industries and City staff, the Committee directed staff to
return with information on bond financing options and the risks those structures create
for the City.

Page 2 of 69

Page 5 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

Analysis
I. The City’s Role: Tax-Exempt Conduit Issuer
The proposed financing structure requires a governmental entity, the City of Concord, to
serve as either the direct bond issuer or a JPA co-participant. This role is not incidental
to the transaction: it is the transaction. The Data Institute, as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit,
cannot access tax-exempt bond financing at the same terms without a governmental
conduit. Under Internal Revenue Code §147(f), tax-exempt bonds issued for a nonprofit
borrower require a TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing
conducted by a governmental entity, followed by formal approval from an elected
representative. That hearing and approval is the City’s primary functional contribution to
this proposal.
The City does not own the building. It is not contributing capital, land, operational
expertise, anchor tenants, or customer relationships. Its functional contribution to Lattice
Industries proposed transaction is its governmental status, specifically, its legal capacity
to conduct a TEFRA hearing, serve as conduit issuer or JPA member, and thereby
enable tax-exempt financing that The Data Institute cannot access independently.
The financial risk implications differ significantly between the two proposed structures.
Under Structure 1 (the JPA), the primary source of debt service is project operating
revenues, tenant rents, membership fees, and data service fees paid by Hub
customers, which flow as lease payments from the operator to the JPA and then to
bondholders. The City’s potential exposure arises only if those project revenues are
insufficient to cover bond debt service. At that point, whether the City bears any
obligation to cover the shortfall depends entirely on the backstop provisions in the JPA
agreement, which has not been drafted or reviewed. Some JPA structures obligate
member agencies to cover shortfalls through appropriation commitments or base rental
payments; others are structured as explicitly non-recourse to member agencies. The
Committee cannot assess the City’s actual financial exposure without seeing the
proposed JPA agreement and bond documents. Under Structure 2 (conduit-only
issuance), a properly documented conduit bond transaction does not impose a direct
debt service obligation on the City. The bonds are secured solely by The Data Institute’s
revenues and obligations, and the bond documents would explicitly state that the City
has no obligation to pay debt service from any City revenues.
However, even under a conduit-only structure the City is not without exposure. As the
governmental issuer of record, the City assumes 1) legal responsibility for ensuring the
TEFRA hearing was properly conducted and the bonds were legitimately qualified (if the
bonds later lose tax-exempt status due to errors in the approval process, the City faces
legal exposure to bondholders); 2) continuing disclosure obligations under SEC Rule
15c2-12; and 3) reputational risk if the project fails. These risks, while real, are
categorically different from a debt service backstop. The specific liability language under
each structure depends entirely on the bond documents, which have not been drafted.
Page 3 of 69

Page 6 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

II. Legal Requirements for Tax-Exempt Bond Qualification
Before authorizing a TEFRA hearing, the City must confirm that the proposed bonds
can qualify as tax-exempt. To qualify as tax-exempt under IRC §145, bonds issued for a
501(c)(3) borrower must satisfy six distinct legal requirements simultaneously. Failure to
meet any one causes the bonds to lose their tax-exempt status, potentially retroactively,
creating legal claims against the City as conduit issuer.
The matrix below was designed to identify the requirements and concerns.
Requirement

Status

Key Issue

Ownership Test
§145(a)(1)

Conditional

501(c)(3) ownership required at all times for
the full 30-year bond term. The multi-entity
structure (Lattice, Data Institute, SPE,
potential JPA) requires precise legal
definition. Any post-closing ownership change
could retroactively disqualify the bonds.

Private Business
Use Test
§145(a)(2)

Not
DemonstratedLikely
Disqualifying

The 5% private business use threshold is the
most critical requirement. The Hub’s primary
revenue model appears to be commercial
tenants (for-profit companies, defense
contractors). If for-profit use exceeds 5% of
net proceeds, the bonds do not qualify as taxexempt. Bond counsel has not addressed
this. Without restructuring, this requirement
likely cannot be met.

Unrelated Trade
or Business

Not Analyzed

The Data Institute’s IRS-determined exempt
purposes have not been provided to the
Committee. Operating a commercial data
marketplace and AI compute services for
paying commercial customers likely
constitutes unrelated trade or business, which
further compresses the 5% private use
threshold.

Page 4 of 69

Page 7 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

Requirement

Status

Key Issue

Existing Property /
Bond Maturity
§147(b)

Partially Met

The §147(d) restriction on existing property
does not apply to 501(c)(3) bonds, a
favorable carve-out. However, the bond
maturity limitation (120% of average
economic life of financed assets) has not
been analyzed. A 30-year bond on a 40-yearold building with aging technology
infrastructure raises a compliance question.

Volume Cap: Two
Frameworks
Apply

Split- See
Detail

California state cap (CDLAC / IRC §146):
does NOT apply — 501(c)(3) bonds are
exempt; no CDLAC allocation required.
Federal per-borrower cap (IRC §145(b)):
DOES apply, limits tax-exempt bonds to
$150M per organization. Proposal seeks up
to $250M; the remaining $100M must be
taxable bonds at materially higher interest
rates. Not addressed in any financial model.

TEFRA Hearing
§147(f)

Not Yet Held

Procedural requirements (7-day notice, public
comment opportunity, elected representative
approval within one year) are manageable.
However, the substantive requirement, that
the Council certify the project warrants a
federal tax subsidy, should not be exercised
until bond counsel confirms Requirements 1
to 5 above are satisfied.

The private business use test and the $150 million federal per-borrower cap are
threshold legal questions about whether these bonds can qualify as tax-exempt at
all. If bond counsel cannot provide a clean opinion on both, the City should not hold
a TEFRA hearing.
III. The Two Proposed Financing Structures
Structure 1: JPA with Diablo Valley College
The City and DVC and/or other municipal entities, would form a Joint Powers Authority
which would issue lease revenue bonds. Under this structure, the primary source of
debt service, as provided in documents to the City by Lattice, is project operating
revenues; tenant rents, membership fees, and data service fees paid by Hub customers
flow as lease payments from the operator to the JPA, which then uses those receipts to
the bond debt service. The City’s potential financial exposure arises only if project
Page 5 of 69

Page 8 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

revenues prove insufficient to cover bond debt service. Whether the City would then
bear any obligation to cover that shortfall depends on the backstop provisions in the
JPA agreement, which has not been drafted. Some JPA structures do obligate member
agencies to cover shortfalls; others are structured as explicitly non-recourse to member
agencies.
•

JPA formation requires formal authorization by the governing bodies of all
participating agencies (Cal. Gov. Code §6502). Discussions with DVC have not
progressed beyond staff level. City staff is unaware if the Contra Costa CCD
Governing Board received this proposal. This structure does not currently exist
as a viable option.

•

Step-up provisions in JPA bonds may obligate remaining member agencies to
cover debt service if one member cannot pay. If DVC or other member agencies
withdraw, the City’s exposure increases accordingly.

•

Under the JPA structure, the primary debt service source is project operating
revenues. The City’s potential exposure to cover shortfalls depends on whether
the JPA agreement contains backstop provisions obligating member agencies, a
question that cannot be answered until the JPA agreement is drafted.

Structure 2: City-Only Conduit Issuance
The City alone serves as governmental conduit issuer, conducting the TEFRA hearing
and lending its tax-exempt status to The Data Institute’s bond issuance. The City’s
direct debt service backstop may be narrower than under the JPA structure but carries
its own legal and reputational risks.
•

As conduit issuer, the City assumes legal responsibility for ensuring the bond
issuance proceeds lawfully under federal tax law and SEC disclosure
requirements.

•

The specific liability mechanisms depend on the bond documents, which have
not been drafted.

The proposal presents both structures as roughly equivalent. They are not. Under the
JPA structure, primary debt service comes from project operating revenues; the City’s
potential exposure to cover shortfalls depends on backstop provisions in the JPA
agreement that have not been drafted. Under the conduit-only structure, if properly
documented, the City bears no direct debt service obligation, but carries legal,
disclosure, and reputational exposure as the governmental issuer of record.

Page 6 of 69

Page 9 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

IV. How Debt Service Would Be Paid, and What Happens When Revenue Falls
Short
Debt service would be paid from project operating revenues, membership fees, tenant
rent, and data service fees. The Q1 2026 Opportunity Overview submitted with the
proposal shows example debt structure of two tranches totaling $130 million. Tranche 1
of $30 million at 5% over 30 years; and Tranche 2 of $100 million at 5% over 10 years.
Combined annual debt service after month 18 would be approximately $14.7 million.
This is labeled “example” structure.
The revenue projected to fund debt service is entirely speculative and has not been
independently validated:
•

Year 1 revenue is projected at $55.4 million with no signed anchor tenant
agreements, no committed member agencies, and no independent market
demand study.

•

Year 1 expenses are projected at $15.4 million, an amount that is internally
inconsistent with the revenue projection (see Section V).

•

Revenue is projected to grow substantially year-over-year; $55.4 million in Y1,
rising to $74.8 million in Y2; $97.3 million in Y3, $121.6 million in Y4, and $145.9
million in Y5. While growth rather than stagnation is presented, this trajectory has
no contractual support, no signed tenants, no committed members, and no
independent market demand study underpin any of these figures.

•

The DaaC® marketplace, the proposal’s stated long-term revenue driver, is
explicitly excluded from the financial projections.

Under a JPA lease revenue bond structure, the primary debt service source is the
project’s own operating revenues, tenant rents, membership fees, and data service
fees. Those revenues flow as lease payments from the operator to the JPA, which uses
them to pay the debt service on the bonds. If project revenues fall short of what is
needed to cover debt service, the question of whether the City bears any obligation to
make up the difference depends on the backstop provisions in the JPA agreement.
Some JPA structures do obligate member agencies to cover shortfalls through
appropriation commitments or base rental payments enforceable against the agency’s
general fund, others explicitly make the bonds non-recourse to member agencies.
The scale of potential exposure is significant. If the project fails to attract tenants and
members in Year 1, a plausible outcome given no signed commitments, the City could
face debt service obligations of $14.7 million or more annually on a project generating
minimal revenue, not considering the maintenance or operational costs of the building.

Page 7 of 69

Page 10 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

The City currently receives approximately $600 per year in property tax from 2000
Clayton Road.
V. Why the Revenue Projections Cannot Support Debt Service
The Occupancy Consistency Problem
The financial model’s fundamental flaw appears to be an internal logical inconsistency
that appears to persist across every year of the pro forma. Revenue and energy costs
are both functions of the same variable: facility utilization. A data center cannot
generate high revenue without simultaneously consuming substantial electricity to
power and cool the equipment generating that revenue. The proposal projects revenue
growing from $55.4 million in Year 1 to $245.7 million in Year 10, while total expenses
grow only from $15.4 million to $28.3 million over the same period. That means by Year
10, the model projects revenue 8.7 times greater than total expenses. For a data enter,
this appears to be highly irregular. At the utilization level required to generate $245.7
million in revenue energy costs alone, before spending on personnel, maintenance or
other operating costs, would consume a substantial portion of and likely exceed the
entire $28.3 million budget.
•

Scenario A: Low utilization (25–30%, consistent with a facility still in buildout):
Energy costs would be $6 million-$15 million, but Year 1 revenue cannot
plausibly reach $55.4M, revenue and energy consumption rise together because
both are driven by the same active workloads. Revenue at that occupancy level
would be proportionally lower, in the range $10 million to $20 million, which
would be insufficient to cover the approximate $14.7 million in annual debt
service, let alone other operating costs.

•

Scenario B: High utilization (required to support the revenue forecast): The
proforma projects Year 1 revenue of $55.4 million growing to $245.7 million by
Year 10. Revenue at those levels would require the facility to be actively
processing substantial workloads through the period, which means proportionally
high electricity consumption. At the utilization implied in Year 1 revenues, the
14MW facility would consume approximately 100-175 million kilowatt hours
annually, and at PG&E’s commercial rate of approximately $0.30/kWh, energy
costs alone would reach $30 million to $52 million, more than double the entire
Year 1 expense budget of $15.4 million before any other cost is counted. As
revenue grows toward $245.7 million in Year 10, the implied utilization and
therefore implied energy costs grow proportionally. Yet the total expense budget
grows only to $28.3 million by Year 10.

The occupancy consistency problem is not resolved by the fact that the proforma shows
growing revenues. Each year’s higher revenue implies higher utilization, which implies
higher energy costs, none of which appear in the expense column. The Committee

Page 8 of 69

Page 11 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

cannot evaluate debt service coverage ratios using projections that are internally
inconsistent. An independent financial feasibility study is required.
Uncosted Mandatory Expenses
The proposal’s expense projections omit several categories of costs that are mandatory
given the proposed government and law enforcement customer base and captured in
the table below:
Omitted Cost Category

Capital (OneTime)

Annual Operating

Physical security infrastructure
(government-grade)

$5M–$15M

$1M–$2M

SCIF construction (modest deployment)

$5M–$20M

$500K–$1M

FedRAMP High authorization

$500K–$2M

$150K–$500K

Cleared security staffing (24/7)

—

$1M–$1.7M

GovRAMP / CJIS / CMMC compliance
programs

$500K–$1M

TOTAL (estimated, uncosted)

$11M–$38M

$3.2M–$6.2M

Note on PG&E Rates. The Data Institute’s 501(c)(3) status provides no electricity
cost advantage. PG&E’s CARE discount applies only to residential facilities. This
data center would be billed at the standard large commercial rate (B-19S) at
approximately $0.30/kWh all-in, the same as any for-profit operator. California rates
increased 104% from 2015 to 2025.
VI. What the City Is Offered vs. What It Is Asked to Assume
The proposal offers the City two forms of compensation:
•

A 10% share of net operating income, which the proposal projects at $4.0 million
in Year 1, growing to $12.6 million by Year 5, for a cumulative 5-year partner
share of approximately $40.6 million if the NOI projections are met.

•

$500,000 per year in free Hub membership services.

Against the exposure being assumed, contingent shortfall risk under the JPA structure,
or legal, disclosure, and reputational risk under conduit-only, this represents a highly
asymmetric risk-return profile. If the project performs as projected, the City receives $4
million in Year 1 (10% of projected NOI) plus $500,000 in services. Under the JPA
structure, if the project revenues fail to cover debt service of approximately $14.7 million

Page 9 of 69

Page 12 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

annually and the JPA contains backstop provisions, the City’s exposure could be
substantial. Note that the projected NOI share provides no protection if revenues are
insufficient to generate positive NOI in the first place.
The $500,000 in services is problematic on two independent grounds. First, the City has
no existing service contracts for comparable AI, data, or cloud services anywhere near
that value, the services replace no real expenditure and have no measurable cash
value. Second, the City may be legally prohibited from using these services at all. The
City’s mandatory CJIS Security Policy obligations require any vendor touching City
systems connected to law enforcement data to execute a CJIS Security Addendum and
demonstrate full compliance. GovRAMP authorization is separately required for cloud
services procured by municipalities. The Hub has neither, and to the knowledge of staff,
has not initiated either process.
The compensation being offered should be evaluated not as a development
participation return, but as the price Lattice and The Data Institute are paying to access
the City’s governmental conduit status and absorb $250 million in bond risk.
VII. Public-Private Partnership Analysis
A public-private partnership is defined by risk transfer to the private party, the private
developer takes on design, construction, financing, operating, and performance risk in
exchange for access to the public partner’s assets or financing advantages. Where
meaningful risk transfer does not occur, the PPP label is cosmetic regardless of how the
arrangement is described.
Under that standard, the current proposal is not a PPP. The private parties retain all
operational control, all business judgment, ownership of the building, and all residual
enterprise value, while asking the City to absorb the financial backstop. The table below
illustrates the gap between a standard California P3 and this proposal:

Page 10 of 69

Page 13 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

Element

Standard California P3

This Proposal

Selection process

Competitive RFP, multiple
qualified bidders

Unsolicited, single-party, no
competition

Feasibility validation

Independent, before any
commitment

Self-generated by proposing
party only

Risk to City

Defined, capped, milestonetriggered

Open-ended backstop on
$125M to $250M

City asset interest

Ownership, deed of trust, or
reversionary rights

None, building privately
owned throughout

Payments begin

After substantial completion
and occupancy

City assumes liability at bond
issuance

Revenue upside

Shared with escalation
mechanisms

10% of projected NOI, no
floor or minimum guarantee;
zero if NOI is not achieved.

Performance
guarantees

Contractual, independently
enforceable

None provided

Operating risk

Transferred to private
developer

Retained by private party; City
backstops debt

For this to become a legitimate PPP, the Committee would need to require at minimum:
1) competitive Request for Proposals; 2) a City deed of trust on the property as
collateral for any financing backstop; 3) milestone-based payment triggers tied to
independently verified occupancy benchmarks; 4) an independent P3 financial advisor
(not just bond counsel); and 5) compensation benchmarked against market rates for
conduit issuance and risk assumption.

Page 11 of 69

Page 14 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

Summary of Key Findings
Finding
Detail
Bond qualification
uncertain

The private business use test (5% threshold) is critical to
the bond issuance and currently unresolved. The proposal’
revenue model, SCIFs, Tier IV date storage, AI-as-aservice, and research labs for paying commercial
customers, is explicitly commercial and almost certainly
generates private business use exceeding the 5% cap.
The $150M federal per-borrower cap is not exceeded
under the $130 million structure but could be triggered if
total financing reaches the cited $250 million upper range.

Debt service backstop
is real and enforceable

Under the JPA structure, primary debt service comes from
project operating revenues; whether the City bears any
obligation to cover shortfalls depends on JPA agreement
backstop provisions that have not been drafted. Under
conduit-only, no direct debt service obligation exists if
properly structured, but legal, disclosure, and reputational
exposure remains.

Revenue projections
are internally
inconsistent

Revenue is projected to grow from $55.4 million in Year 1
to $245 million in Year 10, while total expenses grow only
from $15.4 million to $28.3 million. Energy costs appear to
be absent from the expense projections in every year. At
the utilization levels implied by the revenue forecast,
energy costs alone would exceed or consume the entire
expense budget. The occupancy consistency problem
compounds as revenues grows. Higher revenues require
higher utilization, which requires higher energy
consumption, none of which is reflected in the model.

$11M to $38M in capital
costs are unaccounted
for

Mandatory security compliance costs for the proposed
government and law enforcement customer base are
entirely absent from the financial projections. These costs
compete within the bond envelope and directly reduce NOI
available for debt service.

The $500K in services
may be legally
unusable

The City has no comparable existing contracts, so the
services have no measurable cash value. More critically,
CJIS and GovRAMP compliance obligations may prohibit
the City from using non-compliant Hub services at all.

Page 12 of 69

Page 15 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
April 29, 2026

Finding

Detail

This is not a genuine
PPP

The proposal lacks every structural element of a legitimate
public-private partnership: competitive selection, City asset
security, milestone-based payment triggers, performance
guarantees, and independent feasibility validation. The City
is being asked to serve as a financing mechanism, not a
development partner.

JPA structure is not
currently viable

The Contra Costa CCD Governing Board (or other
municipal entities) has not been presented the JPA
proposal and has not authorized participation. Per
California Government Code §6502, governing body
approval is required before a JPA may be formed.

Financial Impact
There are no financial impacts associated with receiving and considering the
information in this report, as staff recommends not proceeding with a partnership.
Should the Committee choose to continue exploring a public-private partnership with
Lattice Industries, no financial impacts would occur unless and until the City Council
takes action to authorize any financial commitments.
Public Contact
The Agenda was posted.
Attachments
1. February 23, 2026, HED Committee Packet
2. Updated proposal from Lattice Industries/Data Institute

Page 13 of 69

Page 16 of 71

Attachment 1

Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Carlyn S. Obringer, Chair
Pablo Benavente, Member

ANNOTATED
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the
Housing and Economic
Development
Committee
Monday,
February 23, 2026

5:30 p.m.

Garden Conference
Room
1950 Parkside Drive,
Wing A
Concord, CA

ROLL CALL – all present

Proposed Public-Private Partnership for Concord Center for Connectivity at
2000 Clayton Road. Report by Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager.

1
Page 14 of 69

Page 17 of 71

Action: Assistant City Manager Ezell delivered a brief oral report and formally
introduced representatives from Lattice Industries to present their proposal to the
Committee. Following discussion, the Committee determined that additional time
was necessary to allow Lattice Industries to engage with the property owners of
2000 Clayton Road. The Committee also directed staff to gather further
information regarding municipal bond options relevant to the proposal. The
meeting was continued until the second week of April.
3.

ADJOURNMENT at 7:27 p.m.

City Council
Valerie Barone, City Manager
Susanne Brown, City Attorney
Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
Joelle Fockler, City Clerk

2
Page 15 of 69

Page 18 of 71

Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Carlyn S. Obringer, Chair
Pablo Benavente, Member

Special Meeting of the
Housing and Economic
Development
Committee
Monday,
February 23, 2026

5:30 p.m.

Garden Conference
Room
1950 Parkside Drive,
Wing A
Concord, CA

ROLL CALL

a.
3.

Proposed Public-Private Partnership for Concord Center for Connectivity at
2000 Clayton Road. Report by Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager.
ADJOURNMENT
1
Page 16 of 69

Page 19 of 71

City Council
Valerie Barone, City Manager
Susanne Brown, City Attorney
Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
Joelle Fockler, City Clerk

2
Page 17 of 69

Page 20 of 71

2.a

Staff Report
Date:

February 23, 2026

To:

Council Committee on Housing & Economic Development

Prepared by:

Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3155

Subject:

Proposed Public-Private Partnership for Concord Center for
Connectivity at 2000 Clayton Road

Report in Brief
Lattice Industries, Inc., through its nonprofit affiliate The Data Institute, proposes a
partnership with the City of Concord to acquire and redevelop the former Bank of
America Technology Center at 2000 Clayton Road into the Concord Center for
Connectivity, a regional innovation hub focused on advanced data services, AI-driven
infrastructure, and workforce training. The proposed project would transform the
400,000-square-foot facility at 2000 Clayton Road into a Tier IV-ready resilience hub
that provides shared AI and data services, cybersecurity operations, and workforce
training programs. The estimated cost ranges from $125 million to $250 million, phased
over acquisition, facility upgrades, and Net Zero improvements. Lattice Industries is
seeking City participation through a Joint Powers Authority or direct financing.
Recommended Action
Receive the staff report, discuss its contents, and provide feedback to staff on any
additional information or analysis the Committee would require to formulate a
recommendation on next steps.
Background
The property at 2000 Clayton Road has been vacant since 2023 and was originally
purpose-built for secure data operations. Its prime location near BART and major
highways makes it ideal for redevelopment. The vision for the Concord Center for
Connectivity includes an AI Factory and high-performance computing clusters, a Dataas-a-Commodity Marketplace, a cybersecurity operations center, AR/VR workforce
training facilities, and research and innovation labs. The project is expected to generate
200 to 400 construction jobs, create more than 100 permanent positions, and provide

Page
Page181 of 69
43

Page 21 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
February 23, 2026

thousands of annual workforce training opportunities. These outcomes support
Concord’s long-term economic vitality and downtown revitalization goals.
Analysis
The project will be implemented in three phases: acquisition and initial upgrades,
expansion of AI and marketplace capabilities, and Net Zero energy improvements. The
facility’s hardened structure, redundant systems, and 14–15MW power capacity make it
uniquely suited for this purpose. Funding options include forming a Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) with Diablo Valley College (DVC) to issue tax-exempt lease revenue
bonds through either the California Statewide Communities Development Authority
(CSCDA), a City-only financing approach using similar bonds, or issuing bonds secured
by the non-profit corporation formed by Lattice to own and operate the project. The last
funding option would require Lattice to obtain a major bank letter of credit or a financial
guarantee from a credit-worthy entity to guarantee the bond commitment of the nonprofit. Under all three funding options, the plan would be for the non-profit entity to
refinance the project’s debt and relieve the obligations of the City, JPA, and Lattice’s
guarantor, as the case may be, once the Center itself is creditworthy.
While Lattice Industries has proposed the potential formation of a Joint Powers
Authority DVC, discussions to date have remained at the staff level and, to our
knowledge, have not been formally presented to the Governing Board of the Contra
Costa Community College District. Although DVC staff have expressed interest in the
workforce training and related opportunities associated with this proposal, that interest
is currently limited to staff. City of Concord staff have not yet met with the Contra Costa
Community College District President to initiate formal discussions. As with the City of
Concord’s internal processes, individual departments (or in this case, DVC) may explore
ideas, but no proposal can advance without formal consideration and approval by the
governing board.
Property tax impacts are also an important consideration. Currently, the City receives
just over $600 per year in property tax revenue from 2000 Clayton Road because the
site lies within a former redevelopment area. If the property were sold for approximately
$26 million, the City’s share of annual property tax revenue would increase to an
estimated $28,000. However, this increase would not occur until the City’s Successor
Agency dissolves, a process that wouldn’t be completed before 2027 and is dependent
on the sale of all remaining redevelopment properties, including the White Picket Fence
and Oak Street parcels. Until that time, property tax revenue will remain minimal.
Moreover, even this projected $28,000 annually would not be realized if the property is
owned by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Given these limitations, the City must
place greater emphasis on alternative revenue sources and broader economic benefits
of the proposed project, including workforce development, operational cost savings for
public agencies, and potential revenue-sharing arrangements.

Page
Page192 of 69
43

Page 22 of 71

Committee Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 2.a
February 23, 2026

Lattice Industries proposes that the Concord Center for Connectivity would position
Concord as a regional leader in technology and innovation, offering shared AI and data
services, cybersecurity infrastructure, and advanced workforce training programs.
These benefits extend beyond the City to regional agencies, educational institutions,
and private partners, creating a scalable and financially sustainable model for
modernization.
Financial Impact
The capital investment for the Concord Center for Connectivity is estimated at $125
million to $250 million, phased across acquisition, facility upgrades, and Net Zero
improvements. Financing would be structured primarily through tax-exempt lease
revenue bonds, either via a Joint Powers Authority with Diablo Valley College or through
a City-only financing approach. These mechanisms would enable Concord to leverage
long-term debt financing without immediate General Fund exposure, while creating
opportunities for revenue offsets through sublease agreements with The Data Institute,
participation in shared service agreements, and marketplace operations.
Property tax considerations are also relevant. Currently, the City receives just over $600
annually in property tax revenue from 2000 Clayton Road because the property is
located within a former redevelopment area. If the site were sold for approximately $26
million, the City’s share of annual property tax revenue would increase to an estimated
$28,000; however, this increase would not occur until the City’s Successor Agency
dissolves, a process that wouldn’t be completed before 2027 and dependent on the sale
of all remaining redevelopment properties, including the White Picket Fence and Oak
Street parcels. Until dissolution, property tax revenue will remain minimal. Moreover,
even this projected $28,000 per year would not be realized if the property is owned by a
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Taken together, these constraints reinforce the
importance of evaluating the broader economic impacts of the proposed project,
including workforce development, operational cost savings for public agencies, and
potential revenue-sharing arrangements.
Public Contact
The Agenda was posted and DVC staff have been invited to attend and participate in
the discussion.
Attachments
1. Project Overview prepared by Lattice Industries
2. Cost Benefit Analysis prepared by Lattice Industries
3. Regional Technology Servicing Budget Analysis prepared by The Data Institute
4. Letter of Support from Nvidia
5. Letter of Support from Dell
6. Letter of Support from LTTS

Page
Page203 of 69
43

Page 23 of 71

Attachment 1

Data-as-a-Commodity (DaaC®) Hub &
Member-Mutual Marketplace Developers

Opportunity Overview
Q1 2026

Page
Page214 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc.

Page 24 of 71

Lead Developer
Lattice Industries, Inc.
Data-as-a-Commodity (DaaC®) Hub & Member-Mutual Marketplace Developers
Legal Agent and Developer for The Data Institute, a 501(c)(3) research institute

Regional Resilience Hub
/ˈrē-jə-nəl ri-ˈzil-yəns həb/
noun
A community-serving cooperative facility
that delivers shared AI-ready technology,
immersive training, and secure data services
to strengthen regional coordination, next
generation workforce readiness, and longterm economic resilience.

Data By the People, For the People

Page
Page225 of 69
43
2

Page 25 of 71

Project Vision:
A Next Generation, Regional
Innovation & Training Hub
The Hub’s Key Features:
• AR/VR – Virtual & Augmented Reality
Simulations
• Centralized Member AI & Data Services
• Connected, Secure R&D Labs
• Civic Intelligence Center (CIC )
• Data-as-a-Commodity (DaaC®) Marketplace
• Connected Event Space
• Innovation Exhibit Spaces
• Educational AI Tours
Page
Page236 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 26 of 71

The Hub’s Partner-Operator
& Anchor Tenant
The Data Institute
A 501(c)(3) Research Institute

the
Data Institute

Cooperative Innovation For the Next Generation

The Hub’s Partnership Mission:
Be a public-first, self-sustaining regional
operation that delivers digital equity,
creates workforce opportunity, and
helps regions plan & deploy intelligent
innovation at scale.

Data by the People, For the People

Page
Page247 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 27 of 71

Concord Center for Innovation
A Regional Resilience Hub
& Civic Intelligence Center
Brief Overview of The Hub

Page
Page258 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 28 of 71

Concord Center for Innovation
Next Generation Innovation & Training Hub (The Hub)
With Onsite Civic Intelligence Center (CIC )
“The Hub” Project (CA) Details:
• Concord, CA
• San Francisco Bay Area (NE)
• 400,000 sq ft of Connected Facilities
• 6-Story T4 Technology Center
• Built in Mid-1980s for Bank of America
• Fully Redundant Systems
• 14MW Electricity Access
• 7MW Generator Backup Power
• Water Available
• Purpose-Built, Hardened Facilities

Page
Page269 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 29 of 71

The Hub
Next Generation
Resilient Innovation & Training Hub
With Onsite Civic Intelligence Center

Page 27
10 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 30 of 71

The Hub’s Features
Resilient Innovation & Training Hub
• AR/VR – Virtual & Augmented Reality Simulations
• Centralized Member AI & Data Services

• Connected, Secure R&D Labs
• Civic Intelligence Center (CIC )
• Data-as-a-Commodity (DaaC®) Marketplace
• Connected Event Space
• Innovation Exhibit Spaces
• Educational AI Tours

Page 28
11 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 31 of 71

The Hub’s Training Facilities
Workforce Readiness
Augmented & Virtual Reality (AR/VR) Training Campus
• AI Simulator Stations
• AR/VR Immersion Training
• Certificate Programs
• Academic / STEM Programs
• Occupational Training Programs

Page 29
12 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 32 of 71

The Hub’s Next Generation Ecosystem
Virtual & Augmented Reality (VR/AR) Programs
“Almost Hands-On” Workforce Training & Certificate Programs

Page 30
13 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 33 of 71

The Hub’s Next Connected Event Space
Interactive Lecture Arena & Connected Event Space
with Conference & E-Sports Competition Areas

Page 31
14 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 34 of 71

The Hub’s Member Services
Data-as-a-Commodity (DaaC®) Services for Members
Public Agency & Academic Discount Member Programs

DaaC® Member Mutual Marketplace
Member Institutions receive dedicated,
cooperatively priced, data transaction and
analytics services, plus exclusive access to:
• DaaC® Exchange & Clearinghouse
• Secure, AI-Ready Testing Facilities
• Connected Training Center
• Exhibit Spaces

Page 32
15 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 35 of 71

The Hub’s DaaC® Marketplace
Dedicated, Cooperatively-Priced AI-Ready Services

Data Science & Analytical Services

Edge Computing Services
Information/Reporting Services

Co-Location Storage Services
Contract Management Services

Exchange
Member
Transaction
Clearinghouse
Clearinghouse

Page 33
16 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 36 of 71

The Hub’s Sustainability & Resilience
Self-Sustaining, Revenue-Generating Shared Services Operation
HUB SYSTEM Revenue: Servicing Fees

➢ $500,000 Annual Membership Fee
➢ Includes the following:
- Member Hub Access and Data Services*
- Discounted Data / AI-as-a-Service Fees
- Discounted Training & Exhibit Space Rentals

HUB DATA Revenue: Monthly Subscriptions
➢ Metadata Subscriptions
➢ Public Report Servicing
➢ Research Subscriptions

HUB FACILITY Revenue: Facilities Fees

➢ AI-connected Research Labs
➢ Secure Compartmentalized Information Facilities (SCIFs)
➢ Tier IV Data Storage (Uptime Institute® Certified)
➢ HPE Processing for AI-as-a-Service
➢ Other Hub Facilities (Exhibits, AR/VR Training, Etc.)
*Per The Data Institute’s cooperative charter, the value of membership’s includes base services worth more than the membership cost.

Page 34
17 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 37 of 71

The Hub’s Civic Intelligence Center (CIC )
Civic Data Management & Information Reporting
Data Management at the Edge
Intelligence Agents

AI/ML layer

Edge Computing Facilities

Computation layer

API Gateways, Data Bus

Data layer

Lidar, Sensors, Cameras

AV layer

5G/6G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth

Connectivity layer

Power Grid, Battery, Solar

Power layer
Page 35
18 of 69
43

Page 38 of 71

Development Plan

THE HUB

Growth Plan
Financial Plan & Pro forma

Page 36
19 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 39 of 71

The Hub’s Development – PPP Financing Advantage
As a public private partnership (PPP), the Hub can leverage regional incentives
as well as public tax-exempt financing at advantageous rates

• Prioritize construction and capacity
• Durable operating cash flows support taxexempt financing for buildings and
equipment.
• Stable returns over a 10 - 30-year horizon.

PHASE II

Hub is structured as a long-life
public infrastructure asset:

PHASE I

Example Debt Structure
Tranche 1 (Mo. 6) – Building Acquisition & Fit-Out
Revenue Bond Issue: $30M, funding @ Month 6
Financing: 30-year, tax-exempt @ 5%
Monthly debt service ≈ $161K
Tranche 2 (Mo. 18) – Equipment Refinance
Revenue Bond Issue: $100M, funding @ Month 18
Financing: 10-year, tax-exempt @ 5%
Monthly debt service ≈ $1.06M
Total Mo. Debt Service Post Month 18 ≈ $1.2M
Page 37
20 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 40 of 71

The Hub’s Growth – Cumulative 5 Yr Impact
Moderated Growth Case with 10% Sponsor-Partner Share
Even under moderated assumptions, the Hub generates over $400 million in operating value
within 5 years, while returning meaningful, recurring capital to public partners.
Financial Impact Over First 5 Years
Total Revenue: ≈ $495 million
Less: Total Expenses: ≈ $89 million
Total Net Operating Income (NOI): ≈ $406 million
Total Partner / Public Share (10%): ≈ $40.6 million

✓ Covers debt service comfortably
✓ Builds operating reserves
✓ Establishes long-term financial independence
✓ Validates the public-private financing structure

Page 38
21 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 41 of 71

The Hub’s Pro forma – 10 Year Growth

$250
$225
$200
$175
$150
$125
$100
$75
$50
$25
$0

Revenue ($M)
Expenses ($M)
NOI ($M)

10% Partnership

Millions ($)

Hub Pro forma - 10 Year in Millions ($)

Years in Operation
(through Year 10)
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 39
22 of 69
43
19

Page 42 of 71

The Hub’s Development Plan
Project Tasks

Description

Partnership Execution

Formation to own Hub
Create Special Purpose Entity
(Center of Innovation)

Acquisition/Occupation

The PPP leases the Facility
Completes initial installations

Operational Upgrades

Security Enhancements
Training (AR/VR)
Lecture spaces integrated

Member Space Updates
(In Operation)

Updates to Modernize Space
Secure Compartmentalized
Information Facilities (SCIFs)
Installed

Technology Asset Refinancing
Innovation Campus
Infrastructure

PPP leverages revenue for remaining
Campus infrastructure

Date

Milestone(s)
•
•
•
•

Training & Services partnerships
PPP formation begins
Public issuer financing
Offer to buy submitted

•
•

Equipment install for base
operations (1-AI factory)
Cloud services established

06.2026 – 08.2026

•
•
•

High security upgrades
AR/VR facilities installed
Operations commence

08.2026 - 03.2027

•
•
•

Upper floors renovations
SCIFS and AI Labs
Efficiency monitors installed

•

Major equipment, windows,
fixtures replacement / windows
for efficiency carbon project

02.2026 - 05.2026

06.2026 – 08.2026

06.2027 - 12.2028

Page 40
23 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 43 of 71

The Hub’s Project Timeline
Core Services
Established

Public
Financing
Bond Issued
Month 6

Building Improvements &
Operational Upgrades

Month 12

Partnership Execution
Month 1

Month 8

Bond Approval

Member Space
Updates

Month 18

Acquisition /
Occupation

Smart Monitoring for System
Carbon/Efficiency

Month 24

Facility
Upgrades

Debt Refinance
Carbon Offsets

Month 36

Efficiency
Upgrades

Page 41
24 of 69
43
©2026 Lattice Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 44 of 71

[email protected]
[email protected]

The Data Institute, a 501(c)(3) Research Institute

[email protected]
Page 42
25 of 69
43

Page 45 of 71

APPENDIX

Hub Operations – Pro forma 10 Year Summary

Year

Revenue ($M)

Expenses ($M)

NOI ($M)

10% Partnership
Share ($M)

55.4

15.4

40.0

4.0

74.8

16.5

58.4

5.8

97.3

17.6

79.7

8.0

121.6

18.9

102.7

10.3

145.9

20.2

125.7

12.6

167.8

21.6

146.2

14.6

184.6

23.1

161.5

16.1

203.1

24.7

178.3

17.8

223.4

26.5

196.9

19.7

245.7

28.3

217.4

21.7
Page 43
26 of 69
43
23

Page 46 of 71

APPENDIX

Hub Projects – Additional Information
• DI Regional Data Management Assessment
• DI Regional IT & Training Servicing Budget Analysis
• (Optional) Partner-Focused Business Case(s) Summary(ies)
•
•
•
•

1-Page Regional Hub Executive Summary
Project Team (Lattice & Data Institute) Biographies
Industry Research & Support Team - Partner Biographies
Financial Advisory Team - Partner Biographies

• Hub Initiative Letters of Support
• PPP Hub MOU

Page 47 of 71

Attachment 2
Concord City Council Committee – Briefing Document
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS - 2000 Clayton Road
I. Executive Summary
Lattice Industries, Inc. is leading an effort to upcycle 2000 Clayton Road building.
Lattice has determined that converting the building into a regional resilience Hub is the
best opportunity for Concord community. Lattice has concluded that the City is a
necessary partner to upcycle that at-risk property.
The property is highly at risk of default, based on current market conditions. Due to its
current state as a purpose-built 400,000 sq.ft. data processing and technology center,
the lack of competitive energy resources for that size space and the age of the core
MEP systems makes original purpose of the building no longer viable at full utility.
Additionally, a very complex campus management agreement, whereas the 2000
Clayton building manages utilities for all 4 buildings on the campus makes it very
expensive and subsequently unattractive to commercial developers in its current state.
The 2000 Clayton Road property (sold in 2018 for $68M) is currently available at $25
million but requires a minimum of $10+ million in mandatory MEP modernization to
become leasable and economically competitive. The core systems of the building
(Building D) are responsible for the utilities of the entire campus (4 Buildings total); a
portion of the $10M investment is to separate those systems and their liability from the
Building D.
Without intervention:
•
•
•
•
•

The asset will remain functionally obsolete.
The buyer pool remains severely limited.
The property risks prolonged vacancy or distressed sale.
The City receives limited tax or economic activity benefits.
The City risks a negative “spill-over” effect in its downtown district.

With a structured public-private partnership to operationalize the space:
•
•
•
•
•

The site can be repositioned into a Next-Generation Innovation & Training
Hub.
Revenue bonds can finance capital improvements.
Service contracts and municipal commitments can support bond underwriting.
The City can catalyze long-term economic and infrastructure value downtown.
New jobs to operate the Hub can be created for additional taxation.

Page 45
28 of 69
43

Page 48 of 71

Attachment 2
The proposed Hub (Concord Center of Innovation) represents an opportunity for the
City of Concord to facilitate the community stakeholders’ workforce and technology
needs:
•
•
•
•
•

Modernize existing IT and training services it already funds
Upgrade civic technology operations and systems for local business efficiency
Leverage tax-exempt revenue bond for long-term capital financing
Strengthen regional workforce development with industry & academic
collaboration
Generate long-term economic participation revenue from institutional Members

II. Current Financial Reality (As-Is Condition)
Asking Price: $25,000,000 or $62.50/SF (~400,000 SF)
Required Capital Improvements (MEP): $10,000,000+ (minimal improvements)
Effective Total Basis: $35,000,000 or $87.50/SF (~400,000 SF)
However:
• Required capital is defensive, not additive.
• Assets cannot support hyperscale data center conversion.
• Electrical capacity <15 MW (insufficient for Hyperscalers requiring 60–100 MW+).
• Private institutional buyers discount heavily due to risk and obsolescence.
Implied Market-Clearing Price (Private Market): Est. $12M–$15M range ($30–
$38/SF)
This indicates an implied risk:
• The current $25M pricing is not aligned with pure private market underwriting
based on primarily needed improvements.
• Without repositioning, liquidity risk remains high.
III. Why This Matters to the City
If the asset declines or remains underutilized:
• Reduced property tax growth.
• Lower employment density.
• Blight risk for surrounding commercial corridors.
• Loss of competitive positioning in regional business economy.
Conversely, repositioning provides:
• High-wage technical employment.
• Regional resilience infrastructure.
• Institutional data services revenue.
• Attraction of AI, mobility, and public infrastructure partnerships.

Page 46
29 of 69
43

Page 49 of 71

Attachment 2
IV. Proposed Upcycling Strategy
Partnership to Transform the Campus Into:
Regional Resilience & Institutional Data Hub
Operated through:
• The Data Institute (501c3)
• Special Purpose Entity (SPE)
• Member-mutual or cooperative governance structure
Member Program Uses May Include:
• AI-enabled public infrastructure analytics
• AR/VR emergency preparedness training
• Edge compute services (non-hyperscale)
• Cloud services for public agencies
This repositions the asset from:
Obsolete Technology Campus → Regional Infrastructure Asset
V. Revenue Bond Structure Overview
Proposed Capital Stack
Source

Role

Revenue Bonds

Finance acquisition + MEP upgrades

Service Contracts Provide predictable revenue streams
City Incentives

Credit enhancement / feasibility support

Private Equity

Subordinate risk capital

Revenue bonds would be supported by:
• Committed public service contracts
• Anchor tenancy agreements
• Institutional subscriptions
• Potential lease-back or service guarantees
VI. Revenue Share Participation Options
The City may consider support mechanisms in whole or part to achieve up to a 10%
revenue share based on the net operating income of the Hub:
Option 1: Committed Service Contracts (Non-Cash Support)
City commits to:
• Multi-year data service contracts
• Resilience analytics services

Page 47
30 of 69
43

Page 50 of 71

Attachment 2
Infrastructure monitoring services
Impact:
• Creates predictable revenue floor.
• Enhances bond creditworthiness.
• Reduces borrowing cost.
Lowest direct fiscal exposure.
•

Option 2: Tax Incentives
Examples:
• Property tax abatement (temporary)
• Infrastructure improvement credits
• Sales tax sharing for buildout materials
Impact:
• Improves early-stage cash flow.
• Reduces lease-up pressure.
• Preserves long-term tax base.
Moderate exposure, performance contingent.
Option 3: Credit Enhancement / Guarantee
City may:
• Provide partial revenue (e.g. service contracts) backstop
• Guarantee minimum occupancy revenue
• Support bond reserve requirements
Impact:
• Significantly lowers bond interest rate.
• Enables larger upfront capital pool.
• Accelerates project feasibility.
Higher exposure, but structured guarantees can be capped and time limited.
VII. Economic Rationale for Municipal Support
1. Avoids Asset Distress Cycle
Prevents prolonged vacancy and declining valuation spiral.
2. Preserves and Enhances Tax Base
Upcycled assets produce:
• Higher assessed value
• Employment density
• Ancillary commercial activity
3. Aligns With Digital Infrastructure Strategy
Positions city as:
• AI-forward municipality

Page 48
31 of 69
43

Page 51 of 71

Attachment 2
Regional data governance leader
• Infrastructure innovation hub
4. Converts Private Obsolescence into Public Utility
Rather than: Vacant office campus
Creates: Revenue-generating institutional infrastructure
•

VIII. Risk Mitigation Strategy for the City
To protect municipal interests (optional):
• Phase capital deployment.
• Tie incentives to performance milestones.
• Require anchor contracts before bond issuance.
• Establish independent oversight board.
• Cap guarantee exposure.
• Require minimum private equity contribution.
This is not:
• A bailout of private real estate.
• A speculative technology bet.
• A large direct capital grant.
This is:
• Revenue based on the modernization of services the City already funds.
• Strategic use of tax-exempt bond financing.
• Creation of a long-life public infrastructure asset.
• Participation in revenue upside without full ownership risk.
IX. Comparative Scenario: No Action vs Partnership
Scenario

Outcome

No Action

Property owner of 2000 Clayton building is likely repricing to
distressed levels, slow resale, minimal economic growth

Private Sale
Only

Opportunistic investor, uncertain repositioning

Public-Private
Upcycle

Strategic infrastructure conversion, revenue bonds supported by
service demand and facilities usage, public revenue share option

The City of Concord can:
1. Anchor a Regional Resilience Hub.
2. Offer cooperative pricing for shared AI & ITS services for public, academic and
small business stakeholders.
3. Reduce long-term IT and training costs.
4. Strengthen bond underwriting without major direct capital.

Page 49
32 of 69
43

Page 52 of 71

Attachment 2
5. Participate in long-term operational revenue.
6. Position Concord as a regional leader in civic AI and workforce resilience.
This is a low-disruption, high-leverage strategy.
X. Strategic Conclusion
At its current condition and pricing, the property is economically constrained in the
private market. However, through structured public-private partnership:
• The required $10M MEP modernization becomes infrastructure investment rather
than sunk cost.
• Revenue bonds convert capital burden into structured repayment.
• Service contracts create predictable cash flow (public & private).
• The City transforms a declining office asset into a long-term institutional
innovation campus drawing business to the city core.

Page 50
33 of 69
43

Page 53 of 71

Attachment 3

Regional Technology Servicing Budget Analysis
City of Concord & Contra Costa County Region
December 2025
Purpose
This section evaluates the technology servicing expenditures of municipalities and
academic institutions near and in Contra Costa County, to establish a baseline
understanding of current public-sector digital investment across the region. The analysis
supports the case for a regional shared services hub, data governance modernization,
workforce training accelerator and economies of scale through a coordinated digital
infrastructure and data utility model.
Because Contra Costa County publish consolidated “technology budgets”, this analysis
combines publicly available financial context with benchmark-based estimates derived
from comparable counties and established public-sector IT spending norms.
Contra Costa County serves approximately 1.15 million residents and includes nineteen
incorporated cities. Fragmented digital service delivery currently results in duplicative
systems, elevated operating costs, and inconsistent cybersecurity and data governance.
Based on benchmark-based analysis consistent with public-sector best practices,
decentralized technology, payments, and training expenditures across Contra Costa County
and ten participating cities are estimated to total $70–$150 million annually. A coordinated
shared services approach could conservatively generate $15–$40 million per year in
recurring operational improvements without new taxes.
1. City of Concord — Technology Servicing
The City of Concord is the largest municipality in Contra Costa County, serving
approximately 130,000 residents, and functions as a principal employment, transportation,
and service center within the Contra Costa County region.
As a full-service city, Concord delivers a broad range of mission-critical, resident-facing
services—including public safety, land use permitting, infrastructure maintenance, and
financial administration—that rely on secure, continuously available digital systems. These
services represent essential operating functions of the City.
Technology Service Structure
The City operates centralized and departmental information technology functions
supporting:

Page 51
34 of 69
43
1

Page 54 of 71

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Network infrastructure and telecommunications
Cybersecurity and system integrity
Enterprise applications and databases
Permitting, licensing, and planning systems
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Data management, reporting, and analytics
Server, cloud, and infrastructure operations

Consistent with municipal budgeting practices, technology expenditures are embedded
across multiple departments and funds rather than consolidated into a single budget line
item. These expenditures support:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Administrative Services / Information Technology
Police and Fire systems
Community Development and permitting platforms
Public Works asset management
Finance, Treasury, and revenue systems
Human Resources and workforce platforms

Estimated Annual Technology Servicing Expenditure
Based on benchmarking of California cities with comparable population, service complexity,
and digital maturity, municipal technology servicing expenditures typically represent
approximately 2.0%–4.0% of operating expenditures.
Applying this range to Concord’s operating profile yields an estimated annual technology
servicing expenditure of:
Approximately $8 million – $15 million per year
This level of total technology and servicing spending reflects recurring, non-discretionary
operating costs necessary to maintain service continuity, regulatory compliance, and
cybersecurity.
Credit-Relevant Observation
From a credit perspective, Concord’s technology servicing expenditures represent stable,
recurring operating obligations, not discretionary programs. However, these expenditures
are jurisdiction-specific and are not structured to support:
•
•
•
•

Regional interoperability
Coordinated cybersecurity operations
Shared data governance
Unified service platforms across jurisdictions

Page 52
35 of 69
43
2

Page 55 of 71

As a result, Concord currently incurs stand-alone operating costs that could be partially
reallocated under a shared services framework without reducing service levels, supporting
predictable, contract-based payments aligned with essential municipal operations.
2. Contra Costa County — Technology Servicing
Contra Costa County serves approximately 1.15 million residents and operates as a fullservice general-purpose county providing justice, public safety, health and human services,
infrastructure, and administrative functions. The County’s operations are supported by
enterprise-scale digital systems that are essential to daily service delivery.
Technology Service Structure
Contra Costa County maintains centralized enterprise information technology functions
that support:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Justice and public safety systems
Health and Human Services platforms
Financial management and ERP systems
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Data storage, integration, and analytics
Cybersecurity and network operations

Technology expenditures are distributed across multiple departments and funds and are not
reported as a single consolidated budget line item, reflecting standard county accounting
practices.
Estimated Annual Technology Servicing Expenditure
Benchmarking large California counties with similar population, service mix, and regulatory
responsibilities indicates that technology servicing expenditures typically range from 1.5%–
2.5% of operating expenditures attributable to general governmental and shared services.
Applying this benchmark to Contra Costa County’s operating profile results in an estimated
annual technology servicing expenditure of:
Approximately $30 million – $45 million per year
These expenditures are ongoing and essential, supporting statutory obligations, public
safety, and federally and state-mandated programs.
Credit-Relevant Observation
From a lender perspective, Contra Costa County’s technology servicing expenditure
represents highly stable, non-discretionary operating costs. However, these investments are

Page 53
36 of 69
43
3

Page 56 of 71

optimized for internal county operations rather than coordinated regional service delivery.
This structure limits:
•
•
•
•

Cross-jurisdictional data sharing
Unified cybersecurity monitoring
Economies of scale in licensing and platforms
Standardized service interfaces with cities

Accordingly, a portion of the County’s existing technology servicing expenditure could be
restructured through service agreements under a regional shared services model, providing
predictable, appropriation-based payments without increasing overall operating cost levels.
3. Implications for Shared Services and Data Governance
Based on comparable regional shared-services initiatives, consolidation of technology
services can reasonably produce 15%–30% savings without reducing service quality.
Estimated Annual Regional Savings Potential
$12 million – $15 million annually
These savings represent operational efficiencies within existing technology, payments, and
training expenditures and do not rely on new revenue sources or reductions in statutory
services.
4. Additional Operational Benefits
In addition to direct cost savings, a shared services model would deliver:
•
•
•
•
•
•

County-wide cybersecurity coordination and threat monitoring
Standardized data governance and audit controls across departments and cities
Shared analytics and AI infrastructure supporting justice, health, and infrastructure
systems
Improved interoperability with municipal systems and regional partners
Enhanced system resilience and disaster recovery capabilities
Reduced duplication in software licensing, infrastructure, and vendor contracts

From a lender and bond-investor perspective, these outcomes support stable operating
performance, reduced operational risk, and the feasibility of predictable, appropriationbased service payments under a regional shared-services framework.
5. Additional Inclusion: Estimated Contra Costa County & Participating Cities
Workforce Training Spend

Page 54
37 of 69
43
4

Page 57 of 71

Overview
This section estimates the annual workforce training and professional development
expenditures across Contra Costa County and participating cities, using widely accepted
public-sector budgeting heuristics and conservative scaling assumptions. The analysis is
intended to establish an order-of-magnitude baseline for evaluating shared training services
and regional workforce development opportunities.
Training Budgeting Assumptions
Two standard public-sector training budgeting approaches are applied:
1. Training as a Percentage of Payroll
• Public and institutional employers typically allocate approximately 1%–3% of payroll
to workforce training and professional development. (Source: ERC and public-sector
HR benchmarks)
2. Per-Employee Learning Spend
• National benchmarks for direct learning and development expenditures average
approximately $1,254 per employee annually (2024). (Source: HIGH5 Strengths /
national L&D benchmarks)
Regional Workforce Scaling Assumptions
To translate these benchmarks into regional dollar estimates, the following assumptions are
applied:
1. Service Population
• Contra Costa County population: ~1.15 million
• Participating cities (subset of incorporated cities): significant share of service delivery
and staffing
• Combined service footprint: county + city operations
2. Local Government Workforce Intensity
• Rule of thumb for local government employment: ~12–18 employees per 1,000
residents (Excludes school districts; includes county departments, city services,
courts, public safety, public works, and human services)
• Estimated total workforce (County + Cities): ~22,000 to 25,000 employees
3. Payroll Context
• Average state and local government wages and salaries: approximately $39–$42 per
hour, or ~$82,000–$87,000 annually at 2,080 hours. (Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics)

Page 55
38 of 69
43
5

Page 58 of 71

Method A: Per-Employee Training Spend
Assumptions
• Employees: 22,000–25,000
• Training
spend
per
employee:
$800–$1,500
annually
(Conservative-to-robust public-sector range; midpoint aligns with $1,254
benchmark)
Estimated Annual Training Spend
• Low: 22,000 × $800 =~ $17.6 million/year
• Mid (Planning Case): 23,500 × $1,254 =~ $29.5 million/year
• High: 25,000 × $1,500 =~ $37.5 million/year
Planning Range:
Approximately $18 million – $35 million annually
Method B: Training as a Percentage of Payroll
Estimated Payroll Base
•
•

22,000–25,000 employees × ~$82,000–$87,000 annually
Estimated total payroll: ~$1.8 billion – $2.2 billion

Training Allocation Scenarios
•
•

1% of payroll: $18 million – $22 million per year
2% of payroll: $36 million – $44 million per year

Planning Range:
Approximately $18 million – $30 million annually
Estimated Regional Workforce Training Spend — Contra Costa County & Cities
Based on both methodologies, a reasonable and conservative estimate for collective annual
workforce training expenditure across Contra Costa County and participating cities is:
Approximately $20 million – $30 million per year
This equates to:
•
•

~$0.8M – $1.5M per major jurisdiction, or
~$1,000 – $1,300 per employee annually, consistent with national benchmarks.

Credit and Policy-Relevant Observation
From a financial and operational perspective, workforce training expenditures represent
existing and recurring operating costs essential to service delivery, regulatory compliance,

Page 56
39 of 69
43
6

Page 59 of 71

and workforce resilience. These expenditures are currently distributed across departments
and jurisdictions, limiting scale efficiencies and coordination.
A shared services or regional training framework would enable:
•
•
•
•
•

Cost-effective delivery of standardized training
Improved compliance and credentialing
Shared curriculum and digital platforms
Reduced duplication across agencies
Predictable, appropriation-based service payments

These characteristics support the feasibility of multi-year service agreements tied to
essential operating functions without increasing aggregate public-sector spending.
6. Strategic Conclusion
The combined technology servicing footprint of and the surrounding cities in Contra Costa
County are:
•
•
•
•

Large enough to justify a regional shared-services model
Fragmented enough to create measurable inefficiencies
Uneven enough to leave smaller counties exposed
Strategically positioned for modernization through a data utility/shared-services hub.

A regional digital infrastructure approach would allow Concord and other participating
jurisdictions in Contra Costa County and beyond to reallocate existing spending more
efficiently, improve service quality, and strengthen long-term resilience without increasing
general fund tax burdens. By adding additional Cities or Joint Power Authorities such as the
to the Hub’s ownership, efficiencies and pricing power improve. Through estimations based
on existing mid-sized communities in Concord, the range for potential ITS spend is
somewhere between $17M-$23M and the potential training spend is between $10M-$20M.
If those service contracts were centralized and cooperatively negotiated and serviced, the
debt service would be more than taken care of, and the revenue share would accelerate the
Rte. 30 infrastructure build-out. Simultaneously the workforce development in that area
would spur economic growth for the region, that will increase the tax base.

Page 57
40 of 69
43
7

Page 60 of 71

Attachment 4

Page 58
41 of 69
43

Page 61 of 71

Attachment 5

Page 59
42 of 69
43

Page 62 of 71

Attachment 6

2035 Lincoln Highway, Suite #3002 Edison, NJ – 08817, USA
1/27/2026
City of Concord, California
Attn: City Council Committee / City Leadership
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
RE: Letter of Support – Concord Center for Connectivity & Data-as-a-Commodity Marketplace
Dear Members of the Concord City Council Committee,
On behalf of L & T Technology Services, LTD, I am pleased to express our strong support for the
City of Concord’s efforts to advance the Concord Center for Connectivity and the first-of-its-kind
Regional Resilience Hub for workforce development and centralized services, in partnership with
Lattice Industries and The Data Institute.
We believe this initiative is both timely and necessary, as AI and advanced digital systems are
rapidly reshaping global competitiveness, and regions that invest now in modern data and
infrastructure foundations will be best positioned to lead. This project will support economic
development, responsible data stewardship, and expanded participation from public agencies and
academic institutions—ensuring they remain competitive in a world increasingly driven by data and
AI.
We encourage the City of Concord to move forward in supporting this initiative and we commend
the City’s leadership in taking a forward-looking approach to regional resilience, innovation, and
workforce readiness.
Sincerely,

Madhav Komaragiri
Vice President
Smart World - Americas
L&T Technology Services

https://www.ltts.com/

Page 60
43 of 69
43

Page 63 of 71

Attachment 2

Executive Brief – City of Concord
The Opportunity: 2000 Clayton Technology Building: City Investment Use Case
New Municipal Network, Operations Center & Regional Civic Intelligence Center (CIC)
Provided By: The Data Institute, 501c3
Problem Statement: The 2000 Clayton Road Technology Center needs updated core systems
to be an attractive acquisition or leaseable property in today’s current commercial real estate
market. With City support to help upgrade the property into a useable location for the City’s
connected infrastructure, the City will not only get a worthwhile return on investment, but will
propel Concord as a municipal digital infrastructure example of success for the East Bay. The
property because of its ultra-secure structure is a viable operations center for secure activities,
however, the mechanical and electrical systems are out of date and very intensive in capital
costs. A partnership with the City could be advantageous to the City to propel its own
broadband operation to be ready in preparation for Concord Naval Weapons Station
development and a fiber network expansion.
The City of Concord has a generational opportunity to transform its digital infrastructure into a
self-sustaining municipal utility and a premier regional economic engine. While Concord does
not yet, on average, have municipal last-mile fiber installed to individual homes and businesses,
the City possesses immense value and expansion capabilities in its Middle-Mile backbone and
the greenfield development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) Reuse Project.
By establishing an operational foundation that can be exhibited to neighboring communities and
focusing on specific high-margin Enterprise Wholesale and Quality of Service (QoS)
monetization, Concord can establish itself as the definitive "Smart Corridor" leader along the I680 technology belt today, funding the affordable last-mile and edge connectivity for the
workforce and residents of tomorrow. The advantages of a municipal owned data and
connectivity network are in its ability to create operational revenue streams to make it selfsufficient and able to fund an operational center like 2000 Clayton Road, because it:
●
●
●
●
●

Pivots the network strategy from a costly residential fiber build to a highly profitable
Middle-Mile and Enterprise Anchor model.
Establishes a public-private operating model with 100% municipal ownership of the
physical network that can be leveraged by regional transportation groups.
Introduces enterprise-grade Quality of Service (QoS) Data Lanes, monetizing submillisecond latency for high-value corporate, medical, and government partners.
Uses WISP (Fixed Wireless) and Mobile eSIMs to immediately bridge the residential lastmile gap without expensive trenching.
Creates the new Concord Reuse & Infrastructure Fund to capture non-tax revenue and
fund future FTTH (Fiber-to-the-Home) expansion.

Financial Model – Utility Operation Snapshot (Enterprise-Led Strategy)

Page 61 of 69

Page 64 of 71

Because residential last-mile fiber is not yet deployed, this financial model initially relies on
capturing regional high-value Enterprise QoS SLAs, Middle-Mile transit, and capturing 35% of
the market via Fixed Wireless (WISP) and eSIMs with future fiber expansion capabilities.
Adoption Assumption: 150+ Enterprise/Government QoS SLAs, Tier 3+ Data Center Wholesale
connectivity plus 35% WISP/eSIM residential/small business capture.
Annual Gross Revenue: ~$31,500,000
Less OCC Management Fees (15% of Gross Revenue): - $4,725,000
Net Revenue: $26,775,000
Estimated Operating Costs (OpEx): ~$1,500,000
Estimated Net Income: ~$25,275,000

Net Income Allocation & Community Reinvestment into Infrastructure
The Net Income allocation that potentially could have some or all allocated (estimated
$25.275M) to a special fund specifically that benefits the Concord civic operations, economic
development opportunity, education expansion and community safety.
For Example: The New Concord Reuse & Infrastructure Fund (City of Concord).
● Example: Infrastructure Fund Rules: Fund proceeds may only be reinvestment into
fundamental infrastructure & City Services only to promote digital opportunity and data
sovereignty for all the citizens and businesses of Concord. Each potential recipient of
funding must endure a rigorous project due diligence to ensure proper return on
investment for the Fund’s participants.

Why It Matters to Concord
●
●
●

Capitalizes on Existing Assets: Generates massive revenue using the middle-mile fiber
currently available, rather than waiting for years of residential trenching.
Reduces Regional Data Sovereignty Risk: Keeps Concord's data local rather than paying
"transit taxes" to backhaul data to San Jose or San Francisco.
Entices Economic Development: Attracts biotech, autonomous logistics, and advanced
manufacturing to the CNWS footprint by offering latency tiers they cannot get from
commercial ISPs.

Page 62 of 69

Page 65 of 71

SECTION I: The Core Concept
The Concord Center for Connectivity (CCC)’s Civic Intelligence Center (CIC) and
municipal intelligent infrastructure network.
To execute this vision, The Data Institute, 501c(3), proposes to partner with The City of Concord
to design, build, finance, operate and manage (DBFOM) the formation of a new special purpose
entity (SPE) the Concord Center for Connectivity (CCC) as a municipal edge network utility
operation. The CCC will serve as the exclusive Managed Service Provider (MSP) for the CCC
Network (CCCN). This isolates the City from the day-to-day burdens of running an internet
service provider (ISP) while preserving the City's absolute ownership and net income share up
to 85% that can be allocated to Concord’s regional infrastructure projects, such as expanding
broadband fiber to the rest of Concord and the future CNWS community development.

The I-680 Smart Corridor
The middle-mile fiber backbone will act as the central nervous system for the I-680 and SR-4
corridors. By leveraging an opportunity to lease the 2000 Clayton Building with a right of first
refusal (ROFR) option to buy after 3 years, The Data Institute can scale MSP operations of the
Concord Center for Connectivity (CCC)’s Civic Intelligence Center (CIC) to enable revenue for
reinvestment into the digital infrastructure in order to:

Page 63 of 69

Page 66 of 71

●
●
●
●

Optimize automated traffic routing to reduce commute congestion.
Provide high-capacity, low-latency data transit for corporate campuses.
Connect and optimize City services and civic fleet communications.
Establish fully redundant emergency communications for the first responders in the
community.

SECTION II: The Modified "Triple-Play" Architecture
Since last-mile fiber to the premises (FTTP) is not yet universally available, the CCCN will
deploy a strategic, multi-modal architecture to generate immediate revenue and maximum
geographic coverage.

Middle-Mile & Custom Enterprise Laterals (The Foundation)
Instead of trenching to every home, dedicated "fiber laterals" will be directly from the middlemile backbone to high-value anchor institutions (hospitals, schools, government buildings, and
corporate parks). These custom builds are paid for by the enterprise client's long-term contract.

Strategic WISP (Fixed Wireless Access – Acting as The Last Mile Bridge)
WISP gateways will be mounted on any approved municipal or partnership assets (e.g., 2000
Clayton Building leased rooftop, approved water towers, any public light poles) connected to the
middle-mile fiber. This allows low bandwidth and residential bandwidth, e.g. 100Mbps - 1Gbps
speeds, directly to homes and businesses instantly, bridging the last-mile gap without trenching
streets.

Concord-Based Civic Mobile Network (eSIM)
Powered by a Private 5G/LTE Core, a municipal network will enable Concord to issue mobile

Page 64 of 69

Page 67 of 71

data plans to qualified city employees, underserved residents as well as deploy secure, heavily
encrypted private networks for municipal vehicle fleets and public works. This low-cost
alternative to current mobile plans can also subsidize operations for the network through the
savings.

SECTION III: Enterprise QoS & Priority Data Framework
To maximize the revenue potential of the middle-mile asset, the BACC will implement strict
Quality of Service (QoS) traffic engineering. Standard "best effort" bandwidth is a cheap
commodity, but guaranteed low latency is a premium product. We will monetize time by offering
specialized, high-margin Service Level Agreements (SLAs).

High-Priority Latency Use Cases
●

●

Medical & Healthcare (John Muir Health, Regional Clinics): Real-time synchronization of
massive high-resolution MRI/CT scans, zero-drop telehealth diagnostics, and latency-free
inputs for remote robotic surgeries.
Government & Public Safety: 911 Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems, real-time
drone video feeds for first responder situational awareness, and automated traffic grid
controls.
Autonomous Logistics (CNWS & Buchanan Field): Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) telemetry
data for autonomous trucking fleets operating on the highway corridors and automated
logistics at the local airport.
Research & Education (MDUSD & Higher Ed): Priority routing for educational institutions
processing massive AI models and genomic datasets via connections to regional
supercomputing clusters (like UC Berkeley or Lawrence Livermore National Lab).

Enterprise SLA Pricing Model (The Latency Premium)
By prioritizing mission-critical traffic over standard commercial data, the utility commands
significant premium pricing structures based on corporate Dedicated Internet Access (DIA)
rates:
● Tier 1: Standard Commercial DIA (Best Effort): ($500 - $800/mo.)
Standard high-speed business internet. No traffic prioritization during peak usage hours.
Suitable for standard retail and office administration.
● Tier 2: Priority Lane SLA (Guaranteed <5ms Latency): ($1,500 – $2,500/mo.)
Traffic is actively engineered to jump to the front of the queue, circumventing standard
network congestion. Essential for cloud-dependent SaaS businesses, remote video
collaboration, and automated inventory systems.
● Tier 3: Critical Ultra-Low Latency SLA (Guaranteed <1ms & 0 Jitter): ($5,000 $10,000+/mo.)
Provides dedicated logical network slices or dedicated physical wavelengths (lambdas)
directly on the dark fiber. Ensures absolute 100% packet prioritization for life-critical
medical applications, 911 dispatch, automated transit, and high-frequency financial
platforms.

Page 65 of 69

Page 68 of 71

SECTION IV: Digital Equity & The "Mt. Diablo Link"
By capturing high-margin wholesale corporate revenue and Enterprise QoS premiums, the
BACC can fund vital social connectivity goals internally, entirely bypassing the need for taxpayer
subsidies.
● The Bridge Tier (WISP): $14.99/mo (100Mbps symmetrical via Fixed Wireless) for
qualifying low-income households (e.g., CalFresh, NSLP participants), effectively
removing the financial barrier to digital participation.
● Student Scholar eSIM: $0/mo (15GB) of CIPA-compliant educational data provided
directly to devices issued by the Mt. Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD), directly
combating the municipal "homework gap."

SECTION IV: Additional Revenue – “Connected” Shared Space
If the City were to support and partner this effort with Jamestown LP and The Data Institute, it
will enable modernization of key building systems, improving asset value and reducing risk
through diversified revenue streams. Leasing underutilized space to community and institutional
users (e.g., Diablo Valley College, Diablo Valley Tech Initiative) provides immediate revenue
potential while supporting workforce and innovation needs beyond just managing municipal
fiber.

Revenue Opportunity:
• Shared, secure, AI-enabled workspaces for academia, government, and remote
workers
• Supports high-demand sectors (e.g., GovTech, MedTech, AI development)
• Estimated annual revenue (100,000 sq ft): $4.9M–$6.0M
Additional Cost Savings Opportunity:
• Migration of select City cloud services to on-premises infrastructure
• Current City cloud spend: ~$15M annually
• Estimated savings: 10–25% ($1.5M–$3.75M annually)
• Savings can offset infrastructure investment and ongoing operations

SECTION V: Public Financing – CCCN Launch & Civic Intelligence Center
Phase I Cost: ~$10M (tax-exempt financing eligible via The Data Institute partnership)
Use of Funds: Building system upgrades (MEP), operational readiness, and network
scalability to support citywide broadband and critical infrastructure
The 2000 Clayton property is well-suited for secure digital infrastructure but requires
modernization. A City-backed partnership would:
• Improve commercial viability of a key downtown asset
• Reduce vacancy risk in a challenging real estate market
• Enable launch of a municipal broadband operations hub leveraging existing dark
Page 66 of 69

Page 69 of 71

fiber
Phasing:
• Phase I ($10M): Facility upgrades + lease-to-operate (min. 3 years, option to
purchase)
• Optional Phase II ($15M): Acquisition following successful operations
Proposed Financing Structure:
• ~$2M annual debt service (25-year tax-exempt bond, callable in 3 years)
• Initial revenues used to demonstrate self-sustaining utility model and enable
refinancing
Outcome:
• Operational revenues projected to exceed debt service
• Creates a self-sustaining digital infrastructure utility
• Supports workforce development, economic growth, and long-term city revenue
Next Step:
The Data Institute and partners are prepared to submit an unsolicited proposal to the
City to support public financing, deploy municipal broadband as a managed service, and
develop the Concord Center for Connectivity. The key to this initiative is the City’s
support to finance the initial system upgrades to make the property viable, in exchange
for a negotiated nominal lease (e.g., $1/mo.) with Jamestown LP for the upfront
financing of the improvements to bring value opportunity.
This enables two options for City investment repayment and risk mitigation if the City
chooses to proceed and plan on an exit strategy via a refinance:
1. Operations produce revenue to refinance the property for acquisition, or
2. Jamestown is able to attract a buyer independently that will repay the debt (with
interest back to the City and guarantee the remainder of the 3 year lease terms).
*Please Note: This information and analysis are only estimates. This information was provided
by the Data Institute based on public available information regarding City of Concord services.
Details regarding Concord’s Fiber network, though publicly available information, were not
provided by the City for this analysis. The Data Institutes’ estimates for network equipment and
scalability costs were based on data provided as average municipal costs and equipment
pricing. This anonymized data for estimations was provided with help from NT Fiber, Comcast,
and L&T Technology services, whose decades of combined experience in network deployments
in municipal and regional settings provide expertise in these calculations.

Prepared by: The Data Institute
TDI Contact: Jeanne Cooke, [email protected]

See Appendixes for more information.

Page 67 of 69

Page 70 of 71

APPENDIX A: Opportunities for Additional Community Support
Subject: Silicon Valley Bypass - Redundant Fiber Backhaul & Interconnects
Opportunity To: Regional Tier 3 Data Center Operators
Unlike traditional telecommunications providers, the Concord Connected Corridor treats fiber as
a foundational utility. By leveraging this unique public ownership structure to offer guaranteed
wholesale capacity at 80% of current Silicon Valley incumbent market rates.
By utilizing Concord's carrier-neutral middle-mile asset, data center operators can establish submillisecond, diverse-path backhaul to their facilities, bypassing the severe congestion and
exorbitant cross-connect fees typical of the South Bay infrastructure. The CCCN guarantees a
"Five Nines" (99.999%) uptime SLA, enforced by automated billing credits.
Subject: Community Outreach Programs for Municipal Network Providers
Opportunity To: Underserved Communities and Businesses
CCCN can partner with industry groups to expand community programs around digital equity
and social impact programs, such as their most significant initiatives.

Example Community Program Partners
The Data Institute engages industry for the community benefit and expanding connectivity.
Comcast (and Comcast NBCUniversal) participates in a wide range of community outreach and
social impact programs, primarily focused on digital equity, education, economic mobility, and
nonprofit support. Below is a clear, high-level breakdown of their most significant initiatives:
Project UP
Project UP is Comcast’s flagship $1 billion commitment to advance digital equity and economic
opportunity across the communities it serves. The initiative brings together multiple programs
focused on connectivity, skills training, and workforce development. [corporate....omcast.com]
Key focus areas:
• Affordable internet access
• Digital skills and literacy training
• Support for small businesses and workforce development
• Community partnerships nationwide
Internet Essentials
Launched in 2011, Internet Essentials provides low-cost, high-speed internet to eligible
low-income households, along with:
• Discounted laptops and computers
• Free digital literacy training
• No long-term contracts or credit checks
The program has helped connect over 10 million people to the internet since its

Page 68 of 69

Page 71 of 71

launch. [corporate....omcast.com], [xfinity.com]
Lift Zones
Lift Zones are free, high-capacity WiFi locations placed in community spaces such as:
• Libraries
• Community centers
• YMCAs
• Schools and nonprofit facilities
These safe spaces give students and families reliable internet access for schoolwork, job
searching, and essential services. Comcast has opened 1,250+ Lift Zones nationwide, with
expanded Flagship Lift Zones offering workforce training and digital skills
programming. [corporate....omcast.com], [businesswire.com]
Digital Navigator Program
Through partnerships with nonprofits, Comcast supports Digital Navigators—trained individuals
who help community members:
• Get connected to the internet
• Set up devices
• Learn digital skills
• Access online healthcare, education, and job tools
This program focuses on closing the knowledge gap, not just the access
gap. [corporate....omcast.com], [edam.org]
Comcast RISE
Comcast RISE is designed to support small businesses, particularly those owned by people of
color and impacted by economic disruption. Support includes:
• Technology grants
• Marketing services
• Coaching and educational resources
To date, more than 14,500 small businesses have received support through the
program. [corporate....omcast.com]
Nonprofit & Community Partnerships
Comcast partners with thousands of local nonprofits, municipalities, and schools to support:
• Workforce development
• Digital inclusion
• Education access
• Community resilience initiatives
These partnerships often combine funding, technology, connectivity, and volunteer
engagement.

Page 69 of 69

Read the agenda documentPrimary source ↗

The government’s own published record — read it yourself, then decide what to do about it.

Data centers in ConcordLocal report →

The facilities, the coverage, and the local record for this community.

Outcome

Not yet recorded. The record stays open — outcomes are added as minutes and vote results are published.

Provenance

Where this record came from. Every source is listed, permanently.

Agenda Watch · Aug 3, 2026

Permanent ID DKT-2026-000361 — this record is never deleted.

Record history

Every change to this record, logged as it happened.

Aug 3, 2026 Filed on the Docket
Aug 3, 2026 Full document archived — public record

← The full Docket · every meeting, vote, and action on the permanent record · also in the National Record Index.

On the agenda: Concord meeting — data center (Apr 29)

The agenda, word for word

Provenance

Record history

More on the Docket in California