Cudahy City Council
November 1, 2022

AGENDA

A REGULAR MEETING

OF THE CUDAHY CITY COUNCIL
and JOINT MEETING of the
CITY OF CUDAHY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY and HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY

TO THE CUDAHY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 1, 2022 – 6:30 P.M.

Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting shall be available for public inspection at www.cityofcudahy.com In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (323) 773-5143 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

Rules of Decorum
Under the Government Code, the City Council may regulate disruptive behavior that impedes the City Council Meeting.

Disruptive conduct may include, but is not limited to:
• Screaming or yelling during another audience member’s public comments period; • Profane language directed at individuals in the meeting room; • Throwing objects at other individuals in the meeting room; • Verbal altercations with other individuals in the meeting room; and • Going beyond the allotted three-minute public comment period granted.

When a person’s or group’s conduct disrupts the meeting, the Mayor or presiding officer will request that the person or group stop the disruptive behavior and WARN the person or group that they will be asked to leave the meeting room if the behavior continues.

If the person or group refuses to stop the disruptive behavior, the Mayor or presiding officer may order the person or group to leave the meeting room and may request that those persons be escorted from the meeting room. Any person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up a City Council meeting is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 403.)
Elizabeth Alcantar, Mayor
Jose R. Gonzalez, Vice Mayor
Jack M. Guerrero, Council Member
Blanca Lozoya, Council Member
Daisy Lomelí, Council Member

REMOTE TELECONFERENCE AND

ELECTRONICALLY
This meeting will be conducted telephonically
and electronically pursuant to Government
Code § 54953
Teleconference Phone Number:
1 (669) 900-6833
Meeting ID: 859 9235 6978
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85992356978

City of Cudahy
City Council and Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 1, 2022, at 6:30 P.M.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Council / Agency Member Guerrero
Council / Agency Member Lozoya
Council / Agency Member Lomelí
Vice Mayor / Vice Chair Gonzalez
Mayor / Chair Alcantar

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño-Tongva people. We show our respects to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplifting the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.

5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Community Development Department Annual Update

6. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS - NONE

7. CLOSED SESSION - NONE

8. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT - NONE
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.04.020, regular city council meetings are set to begin at 6:30 p.m., since there are no closed session items scheduled, the council will continue with the proceedings of this meeting without any break for closed session.

9. PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Each member of the public may provide a public comment telephonically or electronically by clicking the hand icon on Zoom or pressing star (*) nine (9) on the telephone, if he or she wishes to address the City Council. Members of the public are permitted to speak for three (3) minutes concerning items under the City Council’s jurisdiction, including items on the council agenda.) (Any person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up a City Council meeting is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 403).)

City of Cudahy
City Council and Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 1, 2022, at 6:30 P.M.

10. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS / REQUESTS FOR AGENDA ITEMS (Each Council Member is limited to three minutes.)
(This is the time for the City Council / Agency to comment on any topics related to “City Business,” including announcements, reflections on city / regional events, response to public comments, suggested discussion topics for future council meetings, general concerns about particular city matters, questions to the staff, and directives to the staff (subject to approval / consent of the City Council majority members present, regarding staff directives). Each Council / Agency Member will be allowed to speak for a period not to exceed three (3) minutes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council Members shall not use this comment period for serial discussions or debate between members on City business matters not properly agendized. The City Attorney shall be responsible for regulating this aspect of the proceeding.)

11. CITY MANAGER REPORT (information only)

12. REPORTS REGARDING AD HOC, ADVISORY, STANDING, OR OTHER COMMITTEE

MEETINGS

13. WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (Consideration to waive full text reading of all Resolutions and Ordinances by single motion made at the start of each meeting, subject to the ability of the City Council / Agency to read the full text of selected resolutions and ordinances when the item is addressed by subsequent motion.) (COUNCIL / AGENCY)
Recommendation: Approve the Waiver of Full Reading of Resolutions and Ordinances.

14. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion, prior to the vote to approve the Consent Calendar, each Council Member shall have a maximum of three (3) minutes to comment on the Consent Calendar as a whole. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council / Agency Member so requests specific item(s) be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Items may only be considered as a separate action if either (1) a Council Member must recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest or (2) a Council Member has specific questions for City Staff. Items called for separate discussion will be heard as the next order of business.) A. Adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 22-59 Proclaiming a Local Emergency, Ratifying the Proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and Re-Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City of Cudahy, for the Period from November 1, 2022, through December 1, 2022, Pursuant to Brown Act Provisions (page 7)
Presented by the City Attorney

City of Cudahy
City Council and Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 1, 2022, at 6:30 P.M.

Recommendation: The City Council is requested to approve proposed Resolution No. 22-59 proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and re-authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City of Cudahy, for the period from November 1, 2022, through December 1, 2022, pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act provisions.

B. Adoption of Proposed Ordinance Adding Section 2.12.030 (Powers and Duties) of Chapter 2.12 (City Manager) of Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Cudahy Municipal Code (page 17) Presented by the City Attorney
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to adopt an Ordinance No. 727 by second reading, adding Section 2.12.030 (Powers and Duties) of Chapter 2.12 (City Manager) of Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Cudahy Municipal Code.

C. Adoption of Proposed Ordinance Amending Section 3.16.120 (Bidding) of Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Cudahy Municipal Code (page 25) Presented by the City Attorney
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to adopt an Ordinance No. 728 by second reading, amending Section 3.16.120 (Bidding) of Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Cudahy Municipal Code.

15. PUBLIC HEARING – NONE

16. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Update on the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan (page 31) Presented by the Community Development Director
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to provide City staff feedback on the outreach components of the Economic Development Strategic Plan.

B. Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Classification and Total Compensation Study (page 33)
Presented by the Human Resources Manager

City of Cudahy
City Council and Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 1, 2022, at 6:30 P.M.

Recommendation: The City Council is requested to award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to MGT of America Consulting, LLC to conduct a Classification and Total Compensation Study, in the amount of $54,880.

C. Consideration to Adopt Proposed Resolution No. 22-60 of the City Council of the City of Cudahy Calling for the Resignation of Two Los Angeles Council Members (page 55) Presented by the City Clerk
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to adopt proposed Resolution No. 22-60 Calling for the Resignation of two Los Angeles Councilmembers.

D. Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Cudahy and the County of Los Angeles for Coordination of Digital Connectivity Investments (page 59)
Presented by the City Manager
Recommendation: The City Council is recommended to consider authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding “MOU” between the City of Cudahy and the County of Los Angeles for Coordination of Digital Connectivity Investments.

E. Discussion and Approval of Draft Letter addressed to the Honorable Janice Hahn (page 67) Presented by the City Manager
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to discuss, provide feedback if necessary and approve the attached letter addressed to the Honorable Janice Hahn, to be signed by Mayor Alcantar on behalf of the City Council.

F. Consideration to Adopt Proposed Resolution No. 22-61 Authorizing Submittal of an Application for Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (page 125)
Presented by the Management Analyst
Recommendation: The City Council is requested to adopt proposed Resolution No. 22-61 authorizing submittal of an application for Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for the Lower Los Angeles River Pocket Park Project.

G. Appointment of Two Cudahy Residents and One landlord to the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee (page 177)
Presented by the City Clerk

City of Cudahy
City Council and Successor Agency
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 1, 2022, at 6:30 P.M.

Recommendation: The City Council is requested to appoint two Cudahy Residents and one landlord to the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee.

17. COUNCIL DISCUSSION - NONE

18. ADJOURNMENT
I, Richard Iglesias, hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the City’s Website, City Hall, Clara Park, and Lugo Park not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. A copy of said Agenda is on file in the City Clerk’sOffice.

Dated this 27th day of October 2022
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 1 of 3

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
By: City Attorney’s Office
Subject: Adoption of Proposed Resolution No. 22-59 Proclaiming a Local Emergency, Ratifying the Proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and Re-Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City of Cudahy, for the Period from November 1, 2022, through December 1, 2022, Pursuant to Brown Act Provisions

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to approve proposed Resolution No. 22-59 proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and re-authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City of Cudahy, for the period from November 1, 2022, through December 1, 2022, pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act provisions.

BACKGROUND
COVID-19 (also known as the “Coronavirus Disease”) is a respiratory disease that was first reported in China in December 2019, has now spread throughout the state of California, including through the City of Cudahy (“City”). On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency in response to the rising cases of COVID-19 throughout the state of California. On the same day as Governor Newsom’s declaration, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“LACDPH”) declared a local emergency and local public health emergency in response to the spread of COVID-19 throughout the County. On April 10, 2020, in response to the conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons within the City, the Cudahy City Council (“City Council”) declared a local emergency consistent with the declaration of local emergency by the LACDPH.

Item Number
14A

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 2 of 3

On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill No. 361 (“AB 361”), which, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared State of Emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing or when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

Currently, the state-declared emergency remains in effect. LACDPH has issued a series of Health Officer Orders containing mandates and recommendations for keeping individuals safe, reducing risk, and preventing the spread of COVID-19. The most recent Health Order by the LACDPH, effective as of September 23, 2022, outlines the County’s current guidelines to continue to ensure the reduction in the transmission risk of COVID-19 and protect those persons at elevated risk for severe health outcomes due to COVID-19 infection.

On October 4, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-56, proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and re-authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City, for the period from October 4, 2022, through November 3, 2022.

ANALYSIS
AB 361 requires legislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under its abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internetbased service option, and to conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body. AB 361 also requires the legislative body take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored. AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comments in real time. AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period and the opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified.

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 3 of 3

All City Council, Board, and Commission meetings are open and public, as required by the Brown Act, so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City Council or City Commission conduct their business. Given the County of Los Angeles is currently experiencing an increase of COVID-19 cases throughout the County, the City continues to recommend measures to promote social distancing which include requiring staff and civilians wear masks in City buildings as well as posting COVID-19 safety measures throughout City buildings and on the City’s social media accounts.

Once the initial authorizing resolution is adopted, as it was on October 5, 2021, ongoing authorization every thirty (30) days is required by majority vote. If the legislative body desires to continue using the teleconference exception, it must confirm the circumstances of the State of Emergency thirty (30) days after the first teleconference meeting and every thirty (30) days thereafter. Resolution Number 22-56 expires on November 3, 2022, staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution before the existing resolution lapses.

CONCLUSION
In light of the continuing State declaration of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees at meetings conducted in person due to the spread of COVID-19, staff recommends the City Council approve proposed Resolution No. 22-59 proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and re-authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council of the City of Cudahy, for the period from November 1, 2022, through December 1, 2022, pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act provisions.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
None.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact on the City at this time.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Resolution No. 22-59

1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-59

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA PROCLAIMING A LOCAL

EMERGENCY, RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF A

STATE OF EMERGENCY BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM ON
MARCH 4, 2020, AND RE-AUTHORIZING REMOTE

TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL,

CITY BOARDS, AND ALL COMMISSIONS OF THE CITY OF
CUDAHY, FOR THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2022,
THROUGH DECEMBER 1, 2022, PURSUANT TO BROWN

ACT PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, COVID-19 (also known as the “Coronavirus Disease”) is a respiratory disease that was first reported in China in December 2019, it has now spread throughout the state of California, including throughout the City of Cudahy (“City”); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency in response to the rising cases of COVID-19 throughout the state of California; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“LACDPH”) declared a local emergency and local public health emergency in response to the spread of COVID-19 throughout the County; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29- 20, which allowed local governments meet remotely without adherence to the traditional teleconferencing rules set forth in the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”), this waiver was extended through September 30, 2021, by Executive Order N-08-21; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2020, in response to the conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons within the City, the Cudahy City Council (“City Council”) declared a local emergency consistent with the declaration of local emergency by the LACDPH; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill No. 361 (“AB 361”), which, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Brown Act, when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared State of Emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing or when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, the most recent Public Health Order (“Health Order”) by the LACDPH, effective as of September 23, 2022, outlines the County’s current guidelines to continue to ensure the reduction in the transmission risk of COVID-19 and protect those persons at elevated risk for severe health outcomes due to COVID-19 infection; and Attachment A Page 10 of 178
2 WHEREAS, the Health Order continues to strongly recommend masks for all persons, regardless of vaccine status, in indoor public settings and businesses; and WHEREAS, AB 361 requires legislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under its abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and to conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 requires the legislative body take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored; and WHEREAS, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period and the opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified; and WHEREAS, all City Council, Board, and Commission meetings are open and public, as required by the Brown Act, so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City Council or City Commission conduct their business; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-35, proclaiming a local emergency, ratifying the proclamation of a State of Emergency by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the City Council, City Boards, and all Commissions of the City, for the period from October 5, 2021, through November 4, 2021, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21- 43, extending Resolution No. 21-35 an additional thirty (30) days through December 4, 2021, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21- 46, extending Resolution No. 21-43 through January 3, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21- 51, extending Resolution No. 21-46 through January 20, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and

3 WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-02, extending Resolution No. 21-51 through February 17, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22- 07, extending Resolution No. 22-02 through March 17, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-11, extending Resolution No. 22-07 through April 14, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-13, extending Resolution No. 22-11 through May 5, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-19, extending Resolution No. 22-13 through June 2, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-21, extending Resolution No. 22-19 through June 16, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-25, extending Resolution No. 22-21 through July 7, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-36, extending Resolution No. 22-25 through July 21, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-41, extending Resolution No. 22-36 through August 18, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-48, extending Resolution No. 22-41 through September 15, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22- 52, extending Resolution No. 22-48 through October 6, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-56, extending Resolution No. 22-52 through November 3, 2022, pursuant to Brown Act provisions; and

4 WHEREAS, the City continues to recommend measures to promote social distancing which include requiring staff and civilians wear masks in City buildings as well as posting COVID-19 safety measures throughout City buildings and on the City’s social media accounts; and
WHEREAS, in light of the continuing State declaration of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the continuing recommendation by Los Angeles County Public Health officials for masking at indoor events and social distancing, and the imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees at meetings conducted in person due to the spread of COVID-19, the City Council desires to make the findings required by AB 361 to allow the City Council and all City Boards and Commissions to continue to meet under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the State and County declarations of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic remain in place.

SECTION 3. The City Council finds that local officials, specifically, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, continues to recommend social distancing and masks.

SECTION 4. The City of Cudahy staff along with the City Council are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting open and public City Council and City Board and Commission meetings in accordance with the newly revised provisions of the Ralph M.

Brown Act.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Resolution would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) December 1, 2022, or (ii) such time the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the City of Cudahy may continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953.

5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cudahy at the regular meeting of this 1st day of November 2022. ______________________________
Elizabeth Alcantar
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk

6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF CUDAHY )
I, Richard Iglesias, City Clerk of the City of Cudahy, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-59 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cudahy, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of November 2022 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Richard Iglesias
City Clerk

Blank Page

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 1 of 2

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager
By: City Attorney’s Office
Subject: Adoption of Proposed Ordinance Adding Section 2.12.030 (Powers and Duties) of Chapter 2.12 (City Manager) of Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Cudahy Municipal Code

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to adopt an Ordinance No. 727 by second reading, adding Section

2.12.030 (Powers and Duties) of Chapter 2.12 (City Manager) of Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Cudahy Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On June 22, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 649 establishing Chapter 3.16 (Purchase and Sale of Services, Supplies, and Equipment) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Cudahy Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 649 increased the City Manager’s purchasing authority from $10,000 to $25,000. There is a current inconsistency in the Municipal Code between Section 3.16.110 (Open Market Procedure) and Section 2.12.030 (Powers and Duties).

The City Council wishes to clarify the inconsistency concerning the City Manager’s purchasing authority under the Cudahy Municipal Code.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the City Council approve Ordinance No. 727, adding Section 2.12.030 (Powers and Duties) of Chapter 2.12 (City Manager) of Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Cudahy Municipal Code.

Item Number
14B

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 2 of 2

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
None.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no financial impacts anticipated by this requested action.

ATTACHMENT
A. Ordinance No. 727

ORDINANCE NO. 727

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CUDAHY AMENDING SECTION 2.12.030 (POWERS
AND DUTIES) OF CHAPTER 2.12 (CITY MANAGER) OF
TITLE 2 (ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL) OF THE

CUDAHY MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2015, the City of Cudahy City Council (“City Council”) adopted Ordinance No. 649 establishing Chapter 3.16 (Purchase and Sale of Services, Supplies, and Equipment) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Cudahy Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 649 increased the City Manager’s purchasing authority from $10,000 to $25,000; and
WHEREAS, there is a current inconsistency in the Cudahy Municipal Code between Section 3.16.110 (Open Market Procedure) and Section 2.12.030 (Powers and Duties); and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to clarify the inconsistency concerning the City Manager’s purchasing authority under the Cudahy Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The facts set forth in the recitals above are true and correct.

Section 2. Section 2.12.030 (Powers and Duties) of Chapter 2.12 (City Manager) of Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“2.12.030 Powers and duties.

The City Manager shall be the administrative head of the government of the city under the direction and control of the council, except as otherwise provided in this section. He shall be responsible for the efficient administration of all the affairs of the city which are under his control. In addition to his general powers as administrative head, and not as a limitation thereon, it shall be his duty, and he shall have the following powers:
1) Law Enforcement. It shall be the duty of the city manager to enforce all laws and ordinances of the city and to see that all franchises, contracts, permits and privileges granted by the council are faithfully observed. 2) Authority Over Employees. It shall be the duty of the city manager, and he shall Attachment A Page 19 of 178
Ordinance No. 727

have the authority to control, order, and give directions to all heads of departments and to subordinate officers and employees of the city under his jurisdiction with the exception of the city clerk, treasurer and city attorney who are directly appointed and directed by the city council.
3) Powers of Appointment and Removal. Subject to the rules and regulations for the administration of the personnel system of the city, it shall be the duty of the city manager to approve the appointment, transfer, promotion, demotion, reinstatement, layoff and suspension or dismissal of all city employees, including department heads and management personnel, and to report all such actions to the council.
4) Administrative Reorganization of Officers. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the city manager to conduct studies and effect such administrative reorganization of offices, positions, or units under his direction as may be indicated in the interests of the efficient, effective and economical conduct of the city’s business and to effectuate such reorganization upon a majority vote of the council. 5) Ordinances. It shall be the duty of the city manager, and he shall recommend to the council for adoption, such measures, resolutions and ordinances as he deems necessary.
6) Attendance at Council Meetings. It shall be the duty of the city manager to attend all meetings of the council, unless he is excused therefrom by the mayor individually or the council.
7) Financial Reports. It shall be the duty of the city manager to keep the council at all times fully advised as to the financial condition and needs of the city and, at the end of each fiscal year, present a complete report to the council on the finances and administrative activities of the city.
8) Budget. It shall be the duty of the city manager to prepare and submit the proposed annual budget and the proposed annual salary plan to the council for its approval.
9) Expenditure Control and Purchasing. It shall be the duty of the city manager to see that no expenditure shall be submitted or recommended to the council, except on the approval of the city manager or his authorized representative. The city manager, or his authorized representative, shall be responsible for the purchase of all supplies for all the departments or divisions of the city. Further, it shall be the duty of the city manager to establish a centralized purchasing system for all city officers, departments, and agencies.
10)Investigations and Complaints. It shall be the duty of the city manager to make investigations into the affairs of the city, and any department or division thereof, and any contract or the proper performance of any obligation of the city. Further, it shall be the duty of the city manager to investigate all complaints in relation to the matters concerning the administration of the city government and in regard to

Ordinance No. 727

the service maintained by public utilities in the city. 11)Public Buildings. It shall be the duty of the city manager and he shall exercise general supervision over all public buildings, public parks and all other public property which is under the control and jurisdiction of the council. 12)Additional Duties. It shall be the duty of the city manager to perform such other duties and exercise such other resolution or other official action of the council as may be determined by the council.
13)Execution of Contracts. Consistent with the provisions of Chapter 3.16 CMC, entitled “Purchasing System,” the city manager is authorized to execute contracts on behalf of the city with a value of $25,000 or less. The city manager may execute contracts on behalf of the city with a value of more than $30,000 when specifically directed by official action of the city council.” Section 3. CEQA. This Ordinance is not subject to CEQA under the general rule set forth in Section 15601(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. Inconsistent Provisions. Any provision of the Cudahy Municipal Code, or appendices thereto, that conflicts with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such conflict and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6. Construction. This Ordinance is intended to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. To the extent the provisions of the Cudahy Municipal Code, as amended by this Ordinance, are substantially the same as the provisions of that Code as it read prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, those amended provisions shall be construed as continuations of the earlier provisions and not as new enactments.

Section 7. Publication and Effective Date. The Mayor shall sign, and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.

This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

Ordinance No. 727

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cudahy this __ day of _____________ 2022.
________________________________
Elizabeth Alcantar
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk

Ordinance No. 727

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF CUDAHY )
I, Richard Iglesias, City Clerk of the City of Cudahy, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 727 was introduced for a first reading on the ___ day of ______ 2022 and approved for a second reading and adopted by said Council at its regular meeting held on the ___ day of ____ 2022 by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

________________________________
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk

Blank Page

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 1 of 2

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager
By: City Attorney’s Office
Subject: Adoption of Proposed Ordinance Amending Section 3.16.120 (Bidding) of Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Cudahy Municipal Code

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to adopt an Ordinance No. 728 by second reading, amending Section 3.16.120 (Bidding) of Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Cudahy Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On June 22, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 649 establishing Chapter 3.16 (Purchase and Sale of Services, Supplies, and Equipment) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Cudahy Municipal Code. On August 14, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 672, amending Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System) to clarify the City’s ability to make cooperative purchases of services and items. Most recently on October 4, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 726 adding section 3.16.140 (Alternate Procurement Procedure) to Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System).

The City Council wishes to further amend Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System) to clarify the requirements for the bidding process as set forth under Section 3.16.130 (Formal Contract Procedure). The proposed clarification would ensure the formal bidding process is only applied to public projects as defined by Section 20161 of the Public Contract Code when the expenditure exceeds the requirement as set forth by Section 20162 of the Public Contract Code, currently five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Item Number
14C

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 2 of 2

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the City Council approve Ordinance No. 728, amending Section 3.16.120 (Bidding) of Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Cudahy Municipal Code.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
None.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no financial impacts anticipated by this requested action.

ATTACHMENT
A. Ordinance No. 728

ORDINANCE NO. 728

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CUDAHY AMENDING SECTION 3.16.120 (BIDDING)
OF CHAPTER 3.16 (PURCHASING SYSTEM) OF TITLE 3
(REVENUE AND FINANCE) OF THE CUDAHY MUNICIPAL
CODE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 54201 through 54203, a city must adopt, by ordinance, policies, and procedures, including bidding regulations, governing purchases of supplies and equipment by the city; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2015, the City of Cudahy City Council (“City Council”) adopted Ordinance No. 649 establishing Chapter 3.16 (Purchase and Sale of Services, Supplies, and Equipment) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Cudahy Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 672, amending Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System) to clarify the City’s ability to make cooperative purchases of services and items; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 726 adding section 3.16.140 (Alternate Procurement Procedure) to Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System); and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to further amend Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System) to clarify the requirements for the bidding process as set forth under Section

3.16.130 (Formal Contract Procedure).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The facts set forth in the recitals above are true and correct.

Section 2. Section 3.16.120 (Bidding) of Chapter 3.16 (Purchasing System) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“3.16.120 Bidding.
1) Contracts for public projects within the meaning of Section 20161 of the Public Contracts Code which exceed the expenditure limits of Section 20162 of the Public Contracts Code shall by bid procedures pursuant to this section and CMC

3.16.130. Bidding shall be dispensed with only when an emergency requires that an order be placed with the nearest available source of supply, when the city council by a four-fifths majority determines after opening of bids that rejection of all bids and purchase on the open market will best serve the city, or when the Attachment A Page 27 of 178
Ordinance No. 728

commodity can be obtained from only one vendor.
2) Prior to bid solicitation, the purchasing officer shall confirm the requested purchase is identified in the current fiscal year adopted budget. For items not identified in the current fiscal year adopted budget, the requesting department shall be required to receive city council approval at the time of contract award.” Section 3. CEQA. This Ordinance is not subject to CEQA under the general rule set forth in Section 15601(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. Inconsistent Provisions. Any provision of the Cudahy Municipal Code, or appendices thereto, that conflicts with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such conflict and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6. Construction. This Ordinance is intended to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. To the extent the provisions of the Cudahy Municipal Code, as amended by this Ordinance, are substantially the same as the provisions of that Code as it read prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, those amended provisions shall be construed as continuations of the earlier provisions and not as new enactments.

Section 7. Publication and Effective Date. The Mayor shall sign, and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.

This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

Ordinance No. 728

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cudahy this __ day of __________ 2022.
________________________________
Elizabeth Alcantar
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk

Ordinance No. 728

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF CUDAHY )
I, Richard Iglesias, City Clerk of the City of Cudahy, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 728 was introduced for a first reading on the ___ day of ______ 2022 and approved for a second reading and adopted by said Council at its regular meeting held on the ___ day of ____ 2022 by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

________________________________
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 1 of 2

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
By: Juan Arauz, AICP, Community Development Director
Subject: Update on the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to provide City staff feedback on the outreach components of the Economic Development Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND

1. On April 19, 2022, the City executed a contract with Willdan Financial for professional services for the completion of an Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP). This plan would serve as a guide for future business and commercial development in the City.

2. In the Summer of 2022, community outreach was conducted through surveys and popup events.

3. On September 9, 2022, City staff made a presentation to the City Council on the status of the EDSP.

4. On October 6, 2022, a community meeting was held at Clara Street Park to solicit feedback from residents on the goals and strategies of the EDSP.

ANALYSIS
City staff is bringing this item before the City Council as an update on the progress of the EDSP, and to solicit feedback and comments from the Council. To date, several outreach and community feedback efforts have been completed. Next steps of the EDSP plan include:
• Schedule stakeholder interviews with City Council Members. (Pending) Item Number
16A

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 2 of 2

• Finalize Economic Profile Report and circulate for interview review/comments. (Q4 2022) • Draft Proposed Economic Development Strategic Plan Recommendations. (Q4 2022) • Draft Implementation & Funding Recommendations. (Q4 2022) • Draft Research Economic Development Case Studies. (Q1 2023) • Plan & Schedule Consensus Building Workshop with City Council (Q1 2023).

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide City staff feedback on the outreach components of the EDSP.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
The EDSP supports the following strategies identified in the City’s Strategic Plan as adopted by the City Council earlier this year.

Goal F.

Objective:

1. Develop the Cudahy brand.

2. Create a sense of place and establish the community’s identity.

3. Use the Cudahy brand to provide visual identity of the City, including signage.

4. Identify methods to connect with community members, including soliciting input on a regular basis.

5. Increase the City’s social media presence.

6. Explore opportunities for efficiency through insourcing and outsourcing.

7. Foster relationship building among residents.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for the execution of the professional services agreement with Willdan Financial have been allocated and no additional funds are being requested. Therefore, this item has no financial impact to the City.

ATTACHMENTS
None.

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 1 of 3

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
By: Noel Barajas, Human Resources Manager
Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director
Subject: Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Classification and Total Compensation Study

RECOMMENDATION
City Council is requested to award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to MGT of America Consulting, LLC to conduct a Classification and Total Compensation Study, in the amount of $54,880.

BACKGROUND

1. On September 6, 2022, the City issued an RFP for Classification and Total Compensation Study.

2. On October 6, 2022, the proposal due date closed, and three firms submitted a proposal.

3. On October 13, 2022, MGT of America Consulting, LLC was notified that it was the top ranked proposal and would be recommended to Council for contract approval.

ANALYSIS
In order to develop class specifications that are consistent with current changes and requirements in the law and reflect current job duties and requirements of the position, as well as develop a compensation study to identify current salary levels in the market, the City recommends the Council to approve and agreement with MGT to conduct these studies.

The City received three (3) proposals during the RFP phase. The three submittal summaries are below:

Item Number
16B

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 2 of 3

Firm Name Proposal Cost
HR Dynamics $72,500
Transformance Consulting $41,600
MGT $54,880
Due to its extensive experience, expertise, cost, and ability to accurately perform the task in a timely manner, the City deemed MGT to be the experienced, responsive, and responsible bidder. If approved, MGT’s project scope would be as follows:

Classification Study
The Classification Study includes recommend appropriate updates to the classification plan for all existing and proposed full-time and part-time classifications and consideration of additional classification to align with current service models. Additionally, conduct interviews with supervisory and management staff to develop classifications based on current job duties and requirements of the position, including physical requirements and essential functions to comply with ADA.

Compensation Study
The Compensation Study includes conducting an analysis of how its compensation plan compares with the selected labor market agencies by conducting a salary survey of comparable agencies. Additionally, will develop externally competitive and internally equitable salary recommendations for each class as part of the study.

CONCLUSION
The City recommends awarding a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to MGT of America Consulting, LLC to conduct a Classification and Total Compensation Study, in the amount of $54,880.00.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
Not applicable.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost to perform this cost is $54,880.00, funding by existing departmental available budget for FY2023.

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 3 of 3

ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Master Engagement Agreement by and Between MGT of America Consulting, LLC and the City of Cudahy.

MASTER ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING, LLC
AND

CITY OF CUDAHY
THIS MASTER ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT hereinafter referred to as  the (“Agreement”), made and entered into as of the 2nd day of November, 2022, by and between MGT of America Consulting, LLC., hereinafter referred to as (“MGT”), with offices located at 4320 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33609, and CITY OF CUDAHY hereinafter referred to as (“City” and/or “Client”), with offices located at 5220 Santa Ana Street, Cudahy, CA 90201 sets forth the parties’ understanding pursuant to which MGT shall be engaged by Client.

I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Scope of Services of MGT’s services hereunder (the “Services”) shall be set out in Annex No. 1 to this Agreement. Each Annex, upon execution by both parties, shall by this reference be incorporated in and made part of this Agreement. Each Annex shall specify the services to be performed by MGT, key MGT staff members assigned to assist in the performance of such Services and the payment terms for such Services, as well as any other detailsspecified by the parties. Should the Services as described in any Annex change in any material way, an adjustment to MGT’s fees and promised delivery dates for such Services may be required. MGT undertakes to advise Client promptly should any such adjustment be necessary and to negotiate with Client in good faith to arrive at a mutually acceptable revision to the applicable Annex.

II. STAFFING
Khary Knowles shall serve as Executive‐in‐Charge and point of contact for MGT under this Agreement.

MGT shall assign staff members to virtually perform all Services. Should any of the employees be unable to perform the Services, MGT may substitute another similarly qualified staff member. MGT may, from time to time and in its discretion, augment the listed staff as needed to perform the Services. All tasks are to be completed virtually, unless Client and MGT mutually agree to add in‐person work for an additional fee (to be determined). Any requests for in‐person work must be made in writing and must be approved by MGT and incorporated as an amendment and/or annex to this Agreement.

III. FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS
MGT proposes a total cost for the Services outlined in Annex No. 1. This all‐inclusive fee for professional services is to be billed monthly as tasks/milestones are completed.

All invoices submitted by MGT to Client shall be due and payable upon receipt. MGT reserves the right to impose an interest charge equal to one and one‐half percent (1.5%) per month in respect of any invoice which is outstanding for more than thirty (30) days.

Attachment A Page 36 of 178

IV. TERM AND TERMINATION
This Agreement shall be effective on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of time hereinafter referred to asthe (“Initial Term”), unless otherwise terminated. At Client’s option and if approved by MGT, the contract may be renewed for additional one‐month periods. The Client will notify MGT each month of their intention to exercise this option, at which time compensation and scope can be determined and agreed upon by both Parties.  Either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the other party (the “Termination Date”).   In the event that this Agreement is so terminated in advance of its scheduled completion, Client shall pay to MGT, upon receipt of an invoice, any and all proper charges earned and/or incurred by MGT in connection with the Services pursuant to this Agreement and the Annexes up to the time of its termination and shall indemnify MGT as provided in Section V(3) below.

V. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1) Modification, Cancellation or Suspension of Work
Upon consultation with MGT, Client shall have the right to modify, cancel or suspend any and all plans, schedules or work in progress under any Annex, and, in such event, MGT shall immediately take proper steps to carry out such instructions. In the event Client elects to modify the scope, an adjustment to the Annex Compensation may be necessary, and MGT will advise Client of any changes to Compensation. 2) Delay
If during the term, Client causes delay resulting from Client’s (i) failure to provide requested information on a timely basis, (ii) providing of inaccurate, incorrect or false information, (iii) Client’s failure to provide access to appropriate personnel if required by the Annex Scope, or (iv) delay due to Client rescheduling Annex Scope;  and such delay causes MGT any or all of (i) duplicate work efforts, (ii) corrective work efforts, or (iii) more than 7 days of idle time, MGT  reserves the right to charge additional fees on either or both of (i) hourly rate (ii) and material costs.
3) General Indemnification
Client shall fully defend, indemnify and hold harmless MGT and its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives or successors and assigns (collectively, “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of actions and any and all liabilities, costs and expenses (including but not limited to attorney’sfees and expenses, incurred in the defense of an Indemnified Party, including costs of appeal) damage or loss in connection therewith, what may be asserted by the Customer, its officers, employees, agents, representatives, successors or assigns or any other third party on account of, or sustained or alleged to have been sustained by, or arising out of or growing out of bodily injury, including death, or loss of use or damage to or destruction of property caused by, arising out of, sustained or alleged to have been sustained by, or in any way incidental to or in connection with the Customer’s performance of the Services under this Agreement or Statement of Work, regardless of whether such claims, demands, actions, causes of action or liability are or alleged to have been caused by in part or contributed to by the negligence, fault, or strict liability of any Indemnified Party.

MGT’s indemnity obligation under this Paragraph is contingent upon MGT seeking indemnity (“Indemnitee”) to (i) promptly notify the Customer (“Indemnitor”) of each claim; provided, however, that the Indemnitee’s failure to give prompt notice to the Indemnitor of any such claim shall not relieve the

Indemnitor of any obligation under this Paragraph except and to the extent that such failure materially prejudices the Indemnitor’s ability to defend against such claim; (ii) provide the Indemnitor with sole control over the defense and/or settlement thereof provided however, that Indemnitor shall not settle any claim that includes an admission of wrongdoing by the Indemnitee or otherwise adversely affects Indemnitee’sinterests without its prior consent; and (iii) at the Indemnitor’srequest and expense, provide full information and reasonable assistance to the Indemnitor with respect to such claim. 4) Confidentiality
MGT shall maintain in confidence all information and data relating to Client, its services, products, business affairs, marketing and promotion plans or other operations and its associated companies which are disclosed to MGT by or on behalf of Client (whether orally or in writing and whether before, on or after the date of this Agreement) or which are otherwise directly or indirectly acquired by MGT from Client, or any of its affiliated companies, or created in the course of this Agreement.

MGT shall ensure that it, its officers, employees and agents only use such confidential information in order to perform the Services, and shall not without Client’s prior written consent, disclose such information to any third‐party nor use it for any other purpose; provided, however, that MGT shall have the right to disclose Client’s name and the general nature of MGT’s work for Client in pitches and business proposals.

The above obligations of confidentiality shall not apply to the extent that MGT can show that the relevant information:
a) was at the time of receipt already in MGT’s possession; b) is, or becomes in the future, public knowledge through no fault or omission of MGT; c) was received from a third‐party having the right to disclose it; or d) is required to be disclosed by law.
5) Non‐Solicitation
During the term of this Agreement, and for a period of two (2) years after the Termination thereof, neither party shall directly or indirectly solicit for employment any person or persons currently employed, or who were employed in the last twelve (12) months, by the other unless (a) the other party has given its prior written consent, or (b) the employee has terminated his or her position, or (c) notice of termination given to the employee. Direct solicitation does not include advertisements published in the general media and, except to the extent that an individual was specifically encouraged to respond to such advertisements, nothing in this clause restricts an individual employee’s right to seek employment with the other party to perform work unrelated to this Agreement.
6) Risk
Any analysis, projections, forecasts, or conclusions of Project relies on the accuracy of information provided by Client as well as near‐term and long‐term assumptionsinfluenced by factors outside of MGT’s control and for which may adversely impact Client. Changes such as Client’s financial health, as well as state, local, and global economic conditions, may impact the Client, accuracy of projections and or feasibility of services. Additional risks to the Client include but are not limited to changes to demand, competition, regulatory changes, as well as Acts of Disaster.

7) Force Majeure
Neither party will be in breach of its obligations under this Agreement (other than payment obligations) or incur any liability to the other party for any losses or damages of any nature whatsoever incurred or suffered by that other party if and to the extent that it is prevented from carrying out those obligations by, or such losses or damages are caused by, a Force Majeure, except to the extent that the relevant breach of its obligations would have occurred, or the relevant losses or damages would have arisen, even if the Force Majeure had not occurred.  Force Majeure is defined as: 1) acts of God; 2) war; 3) act(s) of terrorism; 4) fires; 5) explosions; 6) natural disasters, to include without limitation, hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes; 7) failure of transportation; 8) strike(s); 9) loss or shortage of transportation facilities; 10) lockout, or commandeering of materials, products, plants or facilities by the government or other order (both federal and state); 11) interruptions by government or court orders (both federal and state); 12) present and future orders of any regulatory body having proper jurisdiction; 13) civil disturbances, to include without limitation, riots, rebellions, and insurrections; 14) epidemic(s), pandemic(s), or other national, state, or regional emergency(ies); and 15) any other cause not enumerated in this provision, but which is beyond the reasonable control of the party whose performance is affected and which by the exercise of all reasonable due diligence,such party is unable to overcome.  Such excuse from performance will be effective only to the extent and duration of the Force Majeure event(s) causing the failure or delay in performance and provided that the affected party has not caused such Force Majeure event(s) to occur and continues to use diligent, good faith efforts to avoid the effects of such Force Majeure event(s) and to perform the obligation(s).  Written notice of a party’s failure or delay in performance due to Force Majeure must be given within a reasonable time after its occurrence and which notice must describe the Force Majeure event(s) and the actions taken to minimize the impact of such Force Majeure event(s).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a party’s financial inability to perform its obligations shall in no event constitute a Force Majeure.
8) Exclusion of Liability caused by Political or Regulatory Decisions While Client has engaged MGT to assist it in dealing with certain regulatory or political decisions or actions that may adversely affect Client's business, and while MGT has agreed to provide such assistance, MGT cannot be held responsible for and cannot be held liable to Client for any loss, damage, or other adverse consequence that may result from any regulatory or political decision or action being rendered against Client or Client’s interests.
9) Governing Law, Submission to Jurisdiction and Consent to Suit

THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CHOICE OF LAWS PRINCIPLES OF THE STATE

OF FLORIDA) AS TO ALL MATTERS, INCLUDING MATTERS OF VALIDITY, CONSTRUCTION, EFFECT, ENFORCEABILITY, PERFORMANCE AND REMEDIES. CLIENT SUBMITS ITSELF AND ITS PROPERTY IN ANY

LEGAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ANY

STATE OR FEDERAL COURT WITHIN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CLIENT HEREBY ACCEPTS VENUE IN EACH SUCH COURT.
10) Dispute Resolution Procedure
In the event of a dispute, controversy or claim by and between Client and MGT arising out of or relating to this Agreement or matters related to this Agreement, the parties will first attempt in good faith to

resolve through negotiation any such dispute, controversy or claim. Either party may initiate negotiations by providing written notice in letter form to the other party setting forth the subject of the dispute and the relief requested. The recipient of such notice will respond in writing within five (5) business days with a statement of its position on, and recommended solution to, the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved by this exchange of correspondence, then senior management representatives of each party with full settlement authority will meet at a mutually agreeable time and place within fifteen (15) business days of the date of the initial notice in order to exchange relevant information and perspectives and to attempt to resolve the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved by these negotiations, the matter will be submitted to a mutually agreeable certified mediator. The mediation shall take place in Tampa, Florida.

Except as provided herein, no civil action with respect to any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement may be commenced until the matter has been submitted for mediation.

Either party may commence mediation by providing to the other party a written request for mediation, setting forth the subject of the dispute and the relief requested. The parties will cooperate in selecting a mediator and in scheduling the mediation proceedings. The parties will participate in the mediation in good faith and will share equally in its costs. All offers, promises, conduct and statements, whether oral or written, made in the course of the mediation by either of the parties, their agents, employees, experts or attorneys, or by the mediator, are confidential, privileged and inadmissible for any purpose, including impeachment, in any litigation or other proceeding involving the parties; provided, however, that evidence that is otherwise admissible or discoverable shall not be rendered inadmissible or non‐ discoverable as a result of its use in the mediation. Either party may seek equitable relief prior to the mediation to preserve the status quo pending the completion of that process. Except for such an action to obtain equitable relief, neither party may commence a civil action with respect to the matters submitted to mediation until after the completion of the initial mediation session. Mediation may continue after the commencement of a civil action, if the parties so desire. The provisions of this clause may be enforced by any court of competent jurisdiction, and the party seeking enforcement shall be entitled to an award of all reasonable costs, fees and expenses, including legal fees, to be paid by the party against whom enforcement is ordered. In addition, should the dispute under this Agreement involve the failure to pay fees and/or Disbursements under Section III hereof, and the matter is not resolved through negotiation or mediation, Client shall pay all costs of collection, including, but not limited to, MGT’s legal fees and costs should MGT prevail.
11) Assignment
Neither party may assign any of its rights or delegate any of its duties or obligations under this Agreement without the express written consent of the other party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, MGT, or its permitted successive assignees or transferees, may assign or transfer this Agreement or delegate any rights or obligations hereunder without consent: (i) to any entity controlled by, or under common control with, MGT, or its permitted successive assignees or transferees; or (ii) in connection with a merger, reorganization, transfer, sale of assets or change of control or ownership of MGT, or its permitted successive assignees or transferees.
12) Non‐Discrimination/Equal Employment Practices
Neither party shall unlawfully discriminate or permit discrimination against any person or group of persons in any matter prohibited by federal, state or local laws. During the performance of this Agreement, neither party or their employees, agents or subcontractors, if any, shall discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of age, marital status, religion, gender,

sexual orientation, gender identity, race, creed, color, national or ethnic origin, medical conditions, or physical disability, or any other classifications protected by local, state or federal laws or regulations.

The parties further agree to be bound by applicable state and federal rules governing equal employment opportunity and non‐discrimination.
13) Partial Invalidity
In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be declared illegal or invalid for any reason, said illegality or invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof, but such illegal or invalid provision shall be fully severable and this Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had never been included herein.
14) Notices
All notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be deemed given, if and when personally delivered, delivered by fax, with receipt confirmed, or courier or by overnight mail delivery, in writing to the party or its designated agent or representative at the address stated in the first paragraph of this Agreement or at another address designated by the party. 15) Counterparts and Execution
This Agreement and any Annexes may be executed in counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The counterparts of this Agreement may be executed by electronic signature and delivered by facsimile, scanned signature, or other electronic means by any of the parties to any other party and the receiving party may rely on the receipt of this Agreement so executed and delivered as if the original had been received.
16) Survival
Sections III, IV, and V of this Agreement and the payment obligations described in the Annex(es) shall continue notwithstanding the termination or expiration of the Agreement or any Annex(es). 17) Entire Agreement
This Agreement and attached Annex(es) constitute the entire and only agreement between the parties respecting the subject matter hereof. Each party acknowledges that in entering into this Agreement it has not relied on any representation or undertaking, whether oral or in writing, save such as are expressly incorporated herein. Further, this Agreement may be changed or varied only by a written agreement signed by the parties. Any purchase order provided by the Client will be limited by, and subject to, the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Additional or contrary terms, whether in the form of a purchase order, invoice, acknowledgement, confirmation or otherwise, will be inapplicable, and the terms of this Agreement will control in the event of any conflict between such terms and this Agreement. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Master Engagement Agreement as of the date of the last signature below.

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:

MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING, LLC
Signed: _______________________
By:        _______________________
Title:     _______________________
FEIN:   81‐0890071_____________
Date: _______________________

THE CITY OF CUDAHY
Signed: _______________________
By:       _______________________
Title:    _______________________
FEIN:    _______________________
Date: _______________________

ANNEX NO. 1 TO MASTER ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT
DATED AS OF the 19th of October, 2022
This Annex No. 1 hereinafter referred to as (“Annex”) to the Master Engagement Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the (“Agreement”), by and between MGT of America Consulting, LLC., (“MGT”), and The The City of Cudahy (“Client”), sets forth the parties’ understanding pursuant to which MGT shall provide the below‐specified Services to Client.

Statement of Scope of Services
Work Plan
The tasks below represent MGT’s proven work plan for Compensation and Classification studies.

WORK PLAN TASKS
TASK 1.0: Conduct Initial Meeting and Finalize Project Work Plan TASK 2.0: Develop and Implement a Communications Strategy; Hold Orientation Sessions TASK 3.0: Review Existing Classification and Compensation System TASK 4.0: Gather and Evaluate Current Organizational and Employee Job Data TASK 5.0: Identify Relevant Recruitment Market(s)
TASK 6.0: Conduct Market Survey(s) & Benchmark All Positions TASK 7.0: Revise and Prepare Job Descriptions as Needed TASK 8.0: Develop Compensation and Classification System; Present Report TASK 9.0: Develop Implementation Strategies
TASK 10.0: Provide Ongoing Assistance
The work plan outlined below consists of ten tasks, with the final task being our commitment to work with our client partners for 12 months post‐study completion to address study‐related questions that may arise. The nature of these tasks requires that some be done sequentially, while others may occur simultaneously.

CONDUCT INITIAL MEETING AND FINALIZE PROJECT WORK PLAN

OBJECTIVE(S) PROJECT DELIVERABLE(S)
To meet with the designated City Project Officer (Project Officer), and other key staff as determined by the Project Officer, to gain a comprehensive and mutual understanding of the project’s background, goals, and scope.

To identify, in more detail, the City’s specific objectives and expectations for the study, other specific needs and concerns, the level of staff involvement required, and the strategies to be employed during the study.

To ensure MGT’s team has a solid understanding of the City’s present compensation system and the system’s strengths and weaknesses.

Revised work plan and timeline.

Data Request Checklist

To make any needed modifications to the work plan, expected outcomes, or timeline to ensure all parties agree regarding the scope and project goals.

To agree upon a work plan, timeline, deliverables, and monitoring procedures that will lead to the successful accomplishment of all project objectives.

Work Activities

1.1 Meet with the designated Project Officer and key client staff members (as appropriate) to accomplish the following:

Review the technical approach and work plan to make any necessary modifications.

Finalize the project schedule and assign initial responsibilities.

Determine how and when to best communicate project activities with the Project Officer, City staff, and administration, as appropriate.

1.2 Obtain relevant reports and current data, including but not limited to:

Existing job descriptions with detailed accounts of major duties, responsibilities, and requirements.

Organizational charts detailing supervisory roles for reviewing / approving job descriptions.

Current compensation plan(s) and personnel policies that relate to classifications, job descriptions, and pay plan issues as well as benefits administration.

Current guidelines used to place new or reclassified positions within the current structure(s).

Any previous studies, evaluations, or other reports as applicable to this project.

Benefits package details.

1.3 Review data requirements for preparing and administering MGT’s JCQ to address any potential data collection issues. The JCQ is used to capture specific job data on factors such as education requirements, experience requirements, financial authority, job complexity, authority, essential job duties, physical demands, and work environment (i.e., FLSA and ADA requirements).

1.4 Revise the work plan and finalize the timeline for each project task with the designated Project Officer, and update the following, as needed:

Data collection approach, in terms of questionnaires and related documentation.

Specifications of deliverables.

Revised schedule of deliverables.

Monitoring and / or reporting procedures.

DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY, HOLD

ORIENTATION SESSIONS

OBJECTIVE(S) PROJECT DELIVERABLE(S)
To provide key City stakeholders with input into study goals and objectives at the beginning of the process.

Remote orientation session(s) if
desired.

To create a clear and simple strategy to communicate the compensation and classification study process to City stakeholder groups.

To obtain input from employees on the study goals and objectives.

To maximize opportunities for participation and review by key City stakeholders.

Solicitation and discussion of
key stakeholder feedback.

Communications plan set for
status updates.

Customized Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) document
for employees.

Work Activities

1.5 Work with the Project Officer to schedule orientation presentation(s), if desired, with City staff and administration to provide an outline of the project, tasks, and timelines, and to explain how employees will be involved in project activities.

This activity will include a review of the JCQ and the Management Issues Paper© (MIP) (found in Appendix B) data collection processes to promote a smooth and quality data collection process.

The MIP survey serves two major purposes: 1) to offer supervisory employees the opportunity to briefly express their concerns regarding the current compensation and classification system, as well as organizational structure, to the project team; and 2) to identify key areas of focus to set the analysis and review process in the proper direction.

1.6 Identify any critical issues raised during the orientation session(s), or through interviews/focus groups with key department staff and share with the Project Officer.

1.7 Resolve and / or prepare a strategy for addressing critical issues.

1.8 Agree upon, and document, future communications including periodic update meetings and additional meetings to present the final report to designated City administrators.

1.9 Agree upon, and document, future communications with key stakeholders and the Project Officer for providing status updates on the progress of work plan tasks.

REVIEW EXISTING CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION SYSTEM

OBJECTIVE(S) PROJECT DELIVERABLE(S)
To perform a comprehensive review of the City’s current compensation system.

To assess the City’s current compensation policies in terms of assigned target market value to determine competitiveness.

To review the City’s current job descriptions for employees.

To review related compensation administration policies and the factors currently used by the City in determining pay grade or salary level.

To identify opportunities to consolidate job classes and overall compensation program to ease future maintenance of such frameworks Assessment of current
compensation system.

Work Activities

1.10 Review existing pay structures and compensation philosophy documentation. Request and verify data for each employee, including but not limited to, name, current salary, years of service, rank in the organization, organizational structure, recruitment market classification, and assigned department.

1.11 Analyze job placement in the current system using current job descriptions, duties, and responsibilities gathered from the JCQ data collection, employees’ educational credentials, employee longevity within the City, current position, and other relevant work experience.

1.12 Identify classifications and incumbents that fall outside of the predicted placement in the compensation plan.

1.13 Review the existing pay structure and note potential issues to be resolved.

GATHER AND EVALUATE CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL AND EMPLOYEE JOB DATA

OBJECTIVE(S) PROJECT DELIVERABLE(S)
To review existing position compensation and classification plan documents, current organizational charts, prior studies, and databases.

To administer MGT’s JCQ, as modified to meet City needs, to employees to collect relevant job data for analysis.

To administer MGT’s MIP survey to offer supervisory employees the opportunity to identify compensation, classification, and organizational problems relating to their own areas of responsibility.

To review JCQ and MIP data and related information.

Administration of MGT’s JCQ (or
current City instrument, if
desired) and MIP surveys.

Analysis of JCQ and MIP data.

Work Activities

1.14 Work with the Project Officer to administer the JCQ, or current instrument utilized by the City – if preferred – to employees included in this engagement.

1.15 Work with the Project Officer to modify and administer the MIP survey to supervisory employees included in this engagement.

1.16 Review the MIP surveys completed by administrators, managers, and supervisors to identify concerns regarding position levels and descriptions, organizational structure, and other issues as needed.

1.17 Review and analyze the results from the JCQ data collection to assist in the determination of the following:

Education and experience requirements.

Certification / license requirements.

Levels of responsibility and authority.

FLSA / ADA compliance.

Internal and external relationships.

Updated job duties and responsibilities, including physical requirements.

IDENTIFY RELEVANT RECRUITMENT MARKETS

OBJECTIVE(S) PROJECT DELIVERABLE(S)

To identify the appropriate recruitment market(s) for positions included in the study and for use in the selection of relevant market data sources.

Recruitment market(s)
identified.

Data sources identified for
benchmarking.

Work Activities

1.18 Work with the Project Officer to identify the appropriate public / private recruitment market(s) for included positions. Market levels may include City ‐recommended local jurisdictions at the state, county, town, or other locality level. Additional regional and national benchmarks may be included for more uniquely competitive positions, such as senior leadership/executive.

1.19 Identify appropriate data sources for benchmarking positions. Data sources may include:

Salary.com CompAnalyst data available and designed to support unique situations, such as hybrid positions.

Data gathered through market peer salary surveys from identified comparable organizations (see Task 6.0 below).

CONDUCT MARKET SURVEYS & BENCHMARK ALL POSITIONS

OBJECTIVE(S) PROJECT DELIVERABLE(S)
To determine appropriate public and private organizations, in collaboration with the City, that offer comparable employment opportunities to use for benchmark comparisons. Consideration will be given to the following criteria:
─ Geographic Area (Location). The geographical scope of the labor market survey (i.e., local, statewide, regional, or national recruitment areas).
─ Service Structure. Organizations with comparable jobs and similar organizational structure and economic characteristics.
─ Size. Comparability of organizational size (measured through number of management and non‐management positions, budget, population served, etc.).

To select benchmark positions that meet the approval of the Project Officer and are appropriate to use in conducting a market salary survey.

Benchmarks selected for the market salary survey should be based on the following criteria:
─ Benchmarks should be reasonably well‐known and concisely described.
─ Benchmarks should have a clear and identifiable relationship to other classes in their occupational group to ensure they will serve as a good reference point in relating and establishing salaries for other classes within their job category.
─ Benchmarks should be representative of the various functional areas, job categories, and pay levels within the City.

Creation and distribution of
market survey(s).

Analysis of market survey
results.

Work Activities

1.20 Establish a set of benchmark classifications consisting of selected positions that are utilized by the City and comparable organizations.

1.21 In close collaboration with the City, identify comparable organizations to survey and use for benchmark comparisons.

1.22 Conduct salary surveys.

1.23 Analyze data.

1.24 Prepare report of survey results.

REVISE AND PREPARE JOB DESCRIPTIONS AS NEEDED

OBJECTIVE(S) PROJECT DELIVERABLE(S)
To revise staff job descriptions, as needed, in a format agreed to by the City. A set of updated job descriptions.

Documented process for
evaluating new / revising
current jobs.

Work Activities

1.25 Review and examine JCQ data, MIP data, and additional comments from key stakeholders and managers concerning each position, personnel organizational charts, and similar documents.

1.26 Develop a draft job description format, if desired. All job descriptions will be updated in Microsoft Word format and will include factors such as but not limited to:

Essential job functions.

Knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Minimum qualifications.

Materials and equipment used.

Special certifications or requirements.

ADA characteristics of the position (i.e., physical, environmental, and sensory).

1.27 Make appropriate revisions to job descriptions.

1.28 Document process used to evaluate new/revise current jobs and provide as an operating guide.

DEVELOP COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, PRESENT REPORT

OBJECTIVE(S) PROJECT DELIVERABLE(S)
To provide an updated / new compensation system that:
─ Reflects the relevant recruitment markets in which the City competes.

Draft report.

Final report.

─ Is flexible to manage and update for ongoing maintenance and administration.
─ Contributes to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the City operations.
─ Reflects the mission, goals, and strategic plan of the City. ─ Provides implementation strategies for moving employees into the new structure(s).
─ Provides flexibility and guidelines for maintenance of the new structure(s).

To develop and present a final report containing detailed narrative about the study’s methodology, results, implementation strategies, guidelines for maintenance, and implementation costs. The final report will include a detailed description of the development and characteristics of the proposed pay structure(s), including grade and range spreads. Includes onsite presentation on the study results if desired.

Work Activities

1.29 Confirm with the Project Officer and other appropriate officials the desired characteristics of the updated City compensation and classification system.

1.30 Integrate employee and classification data into compensation and implementation reports.

1.31 Develop draft models for the City’s consideration. The drafts will provide steps for transitioning employees from their current classifications and / or salary structures to the proposed system.

1.32 Identify the financial impact of the revised compensation system.

1.33 Review the draft compensation system, including financial impact, with the Project Officer and other appropriate staff.

1.34 Complete revisions, if any and as appropriate, and prepare and provide the final report, which includes onsite presentation on the study results. The final report will detail the recommended compensation system and results of the market comparisons, including an overview of the key issues, methodology, and recommendations of the study. Specifically, the final report will include the following:

Identification of organizations surveyed and the selected benchmarks.

Identification of how City positions relate and compare to the market.

Survey data information.

Inclusion of those classes where no market data were identified, if any, and discussion of how those positions are classified to ensure internal equity.

Detailed narrative of the study’s methodology, processes, and data selection.

Detailed description of the creation and characteristics of the proposed system.

Tables reflecting proposed salary structures and the recommended salary grade ranges for each classification.

Costs to implement study recommendations with the presentation of phase‐in options.

Identification of outliers (i.e., employees falling above or below current proposed minimum and maximum salaries).

Guidelines for ongoing system maintenance and administration. Includes best practices on promotions, transfers, succession planning, and other compensation policies.

DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

OBJECTIVE(S) PROJECT DELIVERABLE(S)
To provide phase‐in options and cost projections for proposed changes.

To provide policies and procedures for long‐term system maintenance and administration.

To assist in communicating the results of the classification and compensation study to key stakeholders.

Phase‐in options and cost
projections.

Policies and procedures for
system maintenance and
administration.

Communication of study results.

Work Activities

1.35 Review study results with the Project Officer and other key staff, as directed, to identify and determine options for migrating the City from its current system to the recommended system.

1.36 Communicate study results to designated City leadership, including City staff and administration, as desired.

PROVIDE ONGOING ASSISTANCE

OBJECTIVE(S) PROJECT DELIVERABLE(S)
To provide staff consultation for a period of 12 months. On‐call consultation for 12 months. (MGT maintains
ongoing relationships with all
clients.)
Work Activities

1.37 Prepare compensation system materials and training for administering and maintaining the system and share with the Project Officer and key stakeholders. Revise, as necessary, and provide final copies. All materials are provided in Microsoft Word or Excel format, and there is no additional software necessary for purchase in implementation and maintaining the new system.

1.38 Provide consultation to HR on the maintenance and administration of the system.

1.39 Follow‐up with key City staff to address any issues related to system implementation.

Work Plan Assumptions
Providing assumptions helps the entire team (client and consultant) fully understand each other’s expectations for the project. The following outlines our work plan assumptions:
1) MGT will work with the City to find the appropriate balance between onsite and virtual work due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. MGT can and has successfully performed all tasks virtually. 2) The City will designate a Project Officer in concert with (or prior to) project kick‐off.

3) All phases of the project will involve significant input from key identified City stakeholders, including the Project Officer.
4) MGT will request employee / position data in a standard database format (Excel). The City will need to provide a usable database within a reasonable amount of time (e.g., two weeks) to meet the agreed upon study schedule. The initial work conducted by MGT’s team will be dependent on receiving the requested information in this database request. MGT will provide immediate notification if the database does not meet specifications. If data (e.g., employee names, salaries, etc.) cannot be provided, any additional programming or data mining work performed by MGT to establish a usable database or to clean a database provided by the City will be approved prior to initiation.
5) If the City prefers that MGT utilize additional sources of salary data (e.g., a subscriber service, or regional salary survey), the City will facilitate MGT’s access and bear any associated costs. 6) Data collection and analyses will primarily be conducted online, with interviews and focus groups utilized as necessary to ensure successful project outcomes. 7) The implementation of the new system will be dependent upon the City’s fiscal considerations and other factors to be identified by the City during the work effort. 8) The study is divided into tasks, although some will occur simultaneously to best meet the City’s desired schedule. In order to meet the quick turnaround schedule proposed, and additional reviews of materials by the City will need to occur within one week of submission. 9) A clear and concise implementation plan and strategy will be provided to the City to enable an appropriate phase‐in of study results.
10) MGT will be available to the City for a period of 12 months following the completion of the project, as needed, for implementation follow‐up.
11) Final reports are assumed final, if we do not hear from the City within two weeks of report delivery (email or hard copy).

The entire classification and compensation study process is transparent, and all data collection instruments, methodology, and final outcomes will be documented in great detail. All files are provided in Excel or Word formats for maximum implementation efficiency and periodic updating.

Timeline
Based on the RFP requirements, we understand the project will begin November 2, 2022 and must be completed by January 2, 2023. Based on these requirements, Exhibit 1 illustrates MGT’s timeline for completion of the tasks for this project.

Exhibit 1. Proposed Schedule

WORK TASKS
MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1.0 Conduct Initial Meeting(s) and Finalize Project Work Plan 

2.0 Develop/Implement a Communications Strategy; Hold
Orientation Sessions            

3.0 Review Existing Classification and Compensation System           

4.0 Gather and Evaluate Current Organizational and Employee Job Data              

5.0 Identify Relevant Recruitment Market(s)            

6.0 Conduct Market Survey(s) and Benchmark All Positions            

7.0 Revise and Prepare Job Descriptions            

8.0 Develop Compensation System; Present Report            

9.0 Develop Implementation Strategies              

10.0 Provide Ongoing Assistance  
Customer Support
We will not simply leave the City with a report and a plethora of recommendations. MGT is prepared to assist the City in developing, implementing, and sustaining an equitable compensation study and classification system. We will create detailed implementation strategies and work with you to successfully achieve the implementation process. We provide no‐cost assistance for a 12‐month period following study completion to ensure a smooth transition from current to desired state.

MGT proposes to complete the City’s project for a total cost of $54,880. Exhibit 2 details the cost by each work task in our work plan. This includes professional fees and other costs (travel, surveys, postage, etc., as applicable).

Exhibit 2. Proposed Cost by Task
Milestones and Tasks Professional
Hours

GRAND TOTAL
($)
1 Conduct Initial Meeting and Finalize Project Work Plan 15 2200 2 Develop and Implement a Communications Strategy;
Hold Orientation Sessions 48 7130
3 Review Existing Classification and Compensation
System 40 6040
4 Gather & Evaluate Current Employee Job Data 62 930
5 Identify Relevant Recruitment Markets 11 1650
6 Conduct Market Surveys 37 5490
7 Revise & Prepare Job Descriptions as needed 66 9880
8 Develop Compensation & Classification System &
Present Report 58 8780
9 Develop Implementation Strategies 28 4380
10 Provide Ongoing Assistance ‐  ‐
GRAND TOTAL, Hours and Fees 365 54,880
Hourly Rates
Our fee schedule by hourly rates is provided below.

Executive‐in‐Charge Project
Director
Consultant
Senior Consultant
Partner
Principal
Consultant
/ Associate
Designer
Administrative
Support / Office
Manager
$245   $220   $250 $125‐225 $105
Pricing Assumptions:
 Wage/salary survey of up to eight (8) comparison agencies.  Survey to be made of 52 regular classifications indicating matches identified and analysis of pay comparison data.  All meetings and employee interviews allowed to be virtual (via Zoom/Teams) at the Consultant’s discretion.
 Benchmarks will not be 100% of the jobs. It is our experience that this will be approximately 50% of the job classifications.
 Three (3) in‐person meetings, as determined by both Parties.  Administer an employee review and appeal process and provide conclusions to be billed separately based on actual work requirements as a function of appeals filed.  The proposed cost would be subject to approval prior to MGT starting appeal work if any needed.

Other Deliverables Included in Pricing:
 Updated job classification descriptions in City‐identified format as editable MS Word files that include a Purpose statement, examples of functions/duties/responsibilities, Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities related to each job, the typical qualifying education and experience for the job class, and FLSA classification (Exempt/Non‐Exempt).
 Initial virtual project kickoff meeting with key stakeholders (typically a steering committee with Human Resources staff, bargaining unit, confidential, and management/supervisory representation) to establish clear roles and expectations, followed by one or more employee engagement presentations to foster greatest participation possible.  Periodic status reports and progress updates during the study and final project closeout report of findings and recommendations including executive overview, details for each job class recommended, wage/salary tables, allocation tables for each employee, and job class descriptions.

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 1 of 2

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
By: Richard Iglesias, City Clerk and City Attorney’s Office Subject: Consideration to Adopt Proposed Resolution No. 22-60 of the City Council of the City of Cudahy Calling for the Resignation of Two Los Angeles Council Members

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to adopt proposed Resolution No. 22-60 Calling for the Resignation of two Los Angeles Councilmembers.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On October 9, 2022, the Los Angeles Times published an article along with a recording of comments made by Los Angeles City Council Members Nury Martinez, Kevin De León, Gil Cedillo, and Ron Herrera, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, during a meeting in October 2021, while discussing council district boundaries under the redistricting process.

The leaked recording revealed upsetting racial comments from Los Angeles City Council Members Nury Martinez, Kevin De León, and Gil Cedillo towards specific individuals and ethnic groups.

On October 10, 2022, in response to the outcry of Los Angeles residents and community leaders, Ron Herrera, President of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor resigned his position. Shortly after, on October 12, 2022, Los Angeles City Council Member Nury Martinez resigned from her position as well.

CONCLUSION
In response to the comments made by the three Los Angeles City Council Members behind closed doors, staff recommends that the Cudahy City Council adopt the proposed Resolution Item Number
16C

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 2 of 2

calling for the resignation of Los Angeles City Council Members, Kevin De León and Gil Cedillo.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
None.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. 22-60

RESOLUTION NO. 22-60

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CUDAHY CALLING FOR THE RESIGNATION OF TWO

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
WHEREAS, Los Angeles Council Members Nury Martinez, Kevin De León, and Gil Cedillo, and Ron Herrera, President of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, were recorded during an October 2021 meeting while discussing council district boundaries under the redistricting process; and
WHEREAS, the audio recording of the October 2021 meeting was leaked to the public, revealing racial and upsetting comments toward individuals and particular ethnic groups; and
WHEREAS, Council Members Nury Martinez, Kevin De León, and Gil Cedillo failed to conduct themselves ethically in their official capacity; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, Ron Herrera, President of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, resigned; and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2022, Councilmember Nury Martinez resigned; and WHEREAS, the City Council is calling for the resignation of all participants implicated in the recording of the meeting from October 2021.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Cudahy does not condone the racially insensitive and divisive statements, as reported by the media, made by Los Angeles City Council Members Nury Martinez, Kevin De Leon, and Gil Cedillo.

SECTION 3. The City Council requests Los Angeles Council Members Kevin De León and Gil Cedillo resign.

SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cudahy at its regular meeting on this 1st day of November 2022. __________________________
Elizabeth Alcantar
Mayor
Attachment A Page 57 of 178
Resolution No. 22-XX

ATTEST:
____________________________
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF CUDAHY )
I, Richard Iglesias, City Clerk of the City of Cudahy, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No.22-60, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a meeting of said City Council of the City of Cudahy held on this 1st day of November 2022, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following votes to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 1 of 3

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager
By: Janet Andrade, Executive Assistant
Subject: Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Cudahy and the County of Los Angeles for Coordination of Digital Connectivity Investments

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is recommended to consider authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding “MOU” between the City of Cudahy and the County of Los Angeles for Coordination of Digital Connectivity Investments.

BACKGROUND

1. On November 16, 2021, the County Board of Supervisors authorized the Los Angeles County Internal Services Department “ISD’ to enter into an MOU pursuant to Section 23005 of the Government Code, to partner with agencies to coordinate efforts for digital equity and connectivity and invest in viable options for the County to facilitate residential access to free reliable broadband service in underserved communities.

2. On August 31, 2022, ISD presented to the Board of Supervisors the recommended shortlist of companies deemed qualified to deliver Community Broadband Networks. Currently nine companies are pre-qualified.

3. On September 28, 2022, Cudahy City Manager, and neighboring City Managers met with ISD staff to discuss the opportunity to collaborate on digital equity.

4. On October 18, 2022, at the Cudahy City Council meeting, ISD presented the Community Broadband Network Demonstration project.

Item Number
16D

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 2 of 3

ANALYSIS
In Los Angeles County, it is estimated that approximately 365,000 households lack broadband internet service. The disproportionate impacts are mostly located in lower income communities and among populations that are predominantly Black and Latinx. The County of Los Angeles (County) Board of Supervisors (Board) directed the County Internal Services Department to assess viable options for the County of Los Angeles to facilitate residential access to reliable broadband service in low-income communities where greater than 20% of the households lack internet service.

The gap between those that have opportunities to access and benefit from the internet and those that do not – has been brought to the forefront by the disparities in the underserved communities negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic; and in response to the COVID19 pandemic, both the public and private sectors have prioritized digitizing and providing their services online, which requires residents to have basic internet connectivity to access these services.

CONCLUSION
If approved, partnering with the County will reduce duplication of efforts by establishing a joint plan for coordinated investments that would deploy each Parties' competitive advantages to bring new wide range public connectivity infrastructure effectively, efficiently, and equitably to communities and build a comprehensive regional strategy.

The MOU will be effective from the date of authorized signature by the Parties, unless terminated earlier by any Party as set forth in this MOU. An amendment to this MOU must be made by mutual written consent. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the Parties.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
This MOU supports the following strategies identified in the City’s Strategic Plan:

Goal B
Objective:

2. Pursue partnerships and develop memoranda of understanding (MOUs) to specify services to be provided and ensure accountability.

Goal E
Objective:

1. Ensure high-quality infrastructure to continue connectivity throughout the community.

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 3 of 3

2. Implement the City’s facility maintenance plan to ensure facilities and infrastructure are adequate and available to provide the desired services.

6. Implementation of the Smart Cities project.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
No financial impact.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Memorandum of Understanding

DRAFT TEMPLATE - 7/26/2022

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN PARTY AND THE COUNTY OF LOS

ANGELES FOR COORDINATION OF DIGITAL CONNECTIVITY INVESTMENTS THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU"), is made and entered into this _______day of ________ , 2022, by and between the PARTY, a municipal corporation acting by and through its XXX, and the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, acting by and through its Internal Services Department ("COUNTY" or “ISD”), (individually as "Party", or collectively as "Parties").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, ISD is authorized pursuant to Section 23005 of the Government Code and by the November 16, 2021 motion of the County Board of Supervisors' (Agenda Item #19, Investments to Accelerate Digital Equity) to enter into an MOU to partner with agencies to coordinate efforts for digital equity and connectivity; and
WHEREAS, the digital divide – the gap between those that have opportunities to access and benefit from the internet and those that do not – has been brought to the forefront by the disparities in the underserved communities negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, both the public and private sectors have prioritized digitizing and providing their services online, which requires residents to have basic internet connectivity to access these services; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Government and the State of California have demonstrated their commitment to bridge the digital divide by providing competitive grants to fund broadband internet access, affordability and adoption; and
WHEREAS, eligibility for grant funding requires local agencies to coordinate and collaborate to leverage the competitive advantages of each agency, including existing capital assets, authorities, and services, to build toward a coherent and interoperable regional strategy; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to collaborate and commit resources towards digital equity to ensure residents and businesses have access to high-speed internet; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits contained herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:

1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this MOU is to reduce duplication of efforts by establishing a partnership to plan for coordinated investments that would deploy each Parties' competitive advantages (including assets and operations) to effectively, efficiently, and equitably bring new wide range public connectivity infrastructure to communities and build a comprehensive regional strategy.

Attachment A Page 62 of 178
DRAFT TEMPLATE - 7/26/2022
The partnership is intended to encourage coordination and collaboration in regard to both community-based connectivity projects (such as wireless and/or fiber-optic technology that provides last-mile access within a particular geographic area) as well as the buildout of regionally-supportive backbone infrastructure such as open-access public fiber-optic networks.

2. TERM
This MOU will be effective from the date of authorized signature by the Parties through (DATE), unless terminated earlier by any Party as set forth in this MOU.

3. AMENDMENT
An amendments to this MOU must be made by mutual written consent of the Parties. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the Parties.

4. TERMINATION
This MOU may be terminated by either Party with twelve (12) days written notice.

5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Parties agree to work collaboratively to coordinate each party’s digital connectivity investments to maximize public impact and to secure additional funding in this vital area.

Furthermore, Parties agree to:
● Build a shared framework that can be used to develop a comprehensive regional strategy.
● Advocate for a coordinated digital connectivity strategy. ● Share non-personally-identifiable data that can help inform this effort and related strategies.
● Identify, assess, and share information on each party’s assets and operations that may be considered for hosting or otherwise supporting new infrastructure. ● Identify and share projected costs and funding sources for planned investments and for projects under consideration.
● Share timelines and locations for potential and planned investments. ● Explore grant opportunities to jointly pursue.

While the intent is to collaborate to the greatest extent possible, the Parties are free and able to use any shared information as each Party sees fit for their respective purposes around digital connectivity. Information being shared, or withheld, imposes no other duty on the Parties, outside of information sharing, and no duty to work collaboratively on future projects without entering into a separate agreement or an amendment to this MOU.

DRAFT TEMPLATE - 7/26/2022

6. REPORTING
Each Party is responsible for the collection, collation, and submission of required reporting under its own jurisdiction. When mutually agreed, the Parties will share information on areas of mutual interest or in relation to jointly pursued grants.

7. CONFIDENTIALITY
Parties shall maintain the confidentiality of all records and information in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, directives, guidelines, and policies and procedures relating to confidentiality.

8. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
Parties understand and agree that any documents shared with the other Party for purposes of this MOU, become a matter of public record and will be regarded as public records. Exceptions will be those elements in the California Government Code Section 6250 et seq., (Public Records Act or PRA) and which are marked “trade secret”, “confidential”, or “proprietary”. Parties will not in any way be liable or responsible to the other Party for the disclosure of any such records including, without limitation, those so marked, if disclosure is required by law, or by an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.

9. INDEMNIFICATION
Pursuant to the provisions of sections 895.4 et seq. of the California Government Code, each Party agrees to indemnify and hold the other harmless from all loss or liability for injury or damage, actual or alleged, to person or property arising out of or resulting from the indemnifying Party's acts or omissions in the performance of this MOU. In the event of third-party loss caused by the negligence, wrongful act or omission of more than one Party, each Party hereto shall bear financial responsibility in proportion to its percentage of fault as may be mutually agreed between them or judicially determined. The provisions of California Civil Code section 2778 regarding interpretation of indemnity agreements are hereby incorporated into this agreement.

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Each Party shall comply with all federal, State, and local conflict of interest laws and policies applicable to the particular Party now in effect or hereafter to be enacted during the term of this MOU. Each Party warrants that it is not now aware of any facts that create a conflict of interest.

If the Party hereafter becomes aware of any facts that might reasonably be expected to create a conflict of interest, it shall immediately make full written disclosure of such facts to the other Parties. Full written disclosure shall include, but is not limited to, identification of all persons implicated and a complete description of all relevant circumstances. Failure to comply with the provisions of this paragraph shall be a material breach of this MOU.

11. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW
In the performance of this MOU, Parties must comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, directives, guidelines, policies and procedures, and all provisions required thereby to be included in this MOU are hereby incorporated herein by reference.

DRAFT TEMPLATE - 7/26/2022

12. NON-EXCLUSIVITY
Nothing herein is intended nor shall be construed as creating any exclusive arrangement between the Parties. This MOU shall not restrict the Parties from entering into similar or equal MOUs with other entities or agencies.

13. GOVERNING LAW, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This MOU will be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Parties agree and consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of California for all purposes regarding this MOU and further agrees and consents that venue of any action brought hereunder shall be exclusively in Los Angeles County.

14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This MOU constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties. Neither verbal agreement nor conversation with any officer or employee of either Party shall affect or modify any of the terms and conditions of this MOU.

15. NOTICES
All notices and approvals must be in writing and directed to the following representative of the Parties:

PARTY:

Attn: XXX
Address
Email:

County:

County of Los Angeles, Internal Services Department (ISD) Attn: Selwyn Hollins
1100 N. Eastern Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90063
Email: [email protected]

DRAFT TEMPLATE - 7/26/2022

16. COUNTERPART AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE
The MOU may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same MOU. Parties agree to consider facsimile and electronic/digital versions of the original signature of authorized personnel of each party to have the same force and effect as original signatures, email or electronic signature of the Parties shall be deemed to constitute original legally binding signatures, and facsimile or electronic copies hereof shall be deemed to constitute duplicate originals.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Memorandum of Understanding is executed by the Parties hereto, by their duly authorized respective officers as follows:

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
By: ______________________________
NAME
Title
Date: _____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DAWYN R. HARRISON

ACTING COUNTY COUNSEL
By: _______________________________
NAME
Title
Date: _____________________________
PARTY
By: ______________________________
NAME
Title
Date: _____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Attorney of Party
By: _______________________________
NAME
Title
Date: _____________________________

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 1 of 2

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager
By: City Clerk’s Office and City Attorney’s Office
Subject: Discussion and Approval of Draft Letter addressed to the Honorable Janice Hahn

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to discuss, provide feedback if necessary and approve the attached letter addressed to the Honorable Janice Hahn, to be signed by Mayor Alcantar on behalf of the City Council.

BACKGROUND
In October 2022, the California Community Foundation (Digital Equity Los Angeles) released a report on the difference in pricing for reliable internet throughout communities in Los Angeles County. (Attachment A). Shortly after the report was released, On October 13, 2022, the Los Angeles Times published an article on internet cost disparity between low-income and higherincome residents in Los Angeles County.

ANALYSIS
The disparities in prices throughout Los Angeles County are a disadvantage to many lowincome residents. In today’s time, the internet plays a significant role in the United States and across the world, and it has become a necessity for organizations, in education, and people’s homes.

Based on the report by the California Community Foundation and the Los Angeles Times article, the City Council is being asked to discuss and provide edits to a letter addressed to the Honorable Janice Hahn to express the concerns about information recently brought to the City’s attention regarding access to fast and reliable internet.

Item Number
16E

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 2 of 2

CONCLUSION
The City Council is requested to discuss, provide feedback if necessary, and approve the letter addressed to the Honorable Janice Hahn, to be signed by Mayor Alcantar on behalf of the City Council.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
Not applicable.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.

ATTACHMENTS
A. California Community Foundation Report
B. Draft Letter Addressed to the Honorable Janice Hahn

DIGITAL EQUITY

L O S A N G E L E S
SLOWER
AND
MORE

EXPENSIVE
SOUNDING THE ALARM:

DISPARITIES IN ADVERTISED

PRICING FOR FAST, RELIABLE

BROADBAND
OCTOBER 2022
Attachment A Page 69 of 178
SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE: DIGITAL EQUITY INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT L O S A N G E L E S P1. Executive Summary

TABLE OF

CONTENTS
P4. Background
P12. Case Studies
Impact: Price, Demographics, and
Disconnection in Two Los Angeles
Communities
P17.

Impact: Reduced Efficacy of
Subsidies
P21.

P23. Call to Action
P26. Appendix A: Map and Tables
Appendix B: Definitions and
Methodology Notes
P45.

P47. Appendix C: Beyond LA County
P50. Endnotes
Key Findings: Internet is Slower
and More Expensive in High
Poverty Neighborhoods
P7.

Over the last two years, in California and across the
country, billions of public dollars have been allocated to end the digital divide. The Digital Equity LA coalition, supported by the California Community Foundation (CCF)
Digital Equity Initiative, has mobilized to ensure these investments are directed to the communities that need them most - those that have been historically marginalized and are disproportionately disconnected - and deployed in support of the most effective long-term solutions.

Low-income households, people of color, and immigrants are significantly more likely to be stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide than people living in wealthy, white
neighborhoods. The most common reason disconnected
people report for not having a fast and reliable connection is affordability; the price is too high, or the service they can afford isn’t fast or reliable enough to justify the expense.

Digital Equity LA and the CCF Digital Equity Initiative set out in this report to document what people are being
asked to pay for home internet in diverse neighborhoods across Los Angeles County. The findings of this report are sobering, raising significant red flags about the higher prices many poorer communities are being charged for the same or inferior service, and the implications of those pricing disparities on the effectiveness of current interventions to close the digital divide.

This report is action-driven research intended to lift up the experience of those most affected by inequitable access to broadband. It represents a snapshot documenting the prices on offer to residents of diverse neighborhoods across LA County.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

L O S A N G E L E S INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT 1

This community-led and community-driven effort is intended to shine a light on what is a well-known reality on the ground, in communities that live the consequences of historic and persistent underinvestment and disinvestment: systemic discrimination is incessant, underinvestigated, and too rarely addressed head-on.

This report raises critical questions, speaking truth to the barriers that continue to limit equitable access to broadband in Los Angeles County.

Pricing information was obtained directly from internet service provider (ISP) websites using residential addresses in each of the neighborhoods examined. The monopoly provider in much of LA County is Charter Communications, operating as Spectrum. According to Charter’s filings with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), it serves approximately 97% of households in the county. The next largest provider, Frontier, serves 21%. Therefore, most of the pricing data included in this research is for Charter Spectrum service.

Published pricing for Charter Spectrum service shows a clear and consistent pattern of the provider reserving its best offers - high speed at low cost - for the wealthiest
neighborhoods in LA County.

People who live in higher poverty neighborhoods are not only routinely offered slower service at higher prices, but are offered contracts with worse terms and conditions. For
example, Charter Spectrum’s promotional offers -
guaranteeing a period of time before prices will increase - are for two years in wealthy communities, but for just one year in high-poverty communities.

Charter Spectrum's low-cost plans are not consistently
advertised to households in high-poverty neighborhoods.

FINDINGS
DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

L O S A N G E L E S INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT 2

About the CCF Digital Equity Initiative and Digital Equity LA CCF launched the Digital Equity Initiative in 2021 as a multi-year project to advance system change solutions to ensure equitable access to fast, reliable, and affordable broadband for every resident of Los Angeles County. More: calfund.org/digital-equity-initiative Digital Equity LA is a coalition of more than forty community-basedorganizations working in Los Angeles communities delivering vital education, housing, immigration, health care, and civic engagement services, supporting Los Angeles’ vulnerable communities, and working together to advance digital equity as a necessary precondition to meet their core missions. The CCF Digital Equity Initiative provides financial and programmatic resources in support of Digital Equity LA. More: digitalequityla.org
Digital Equity LA and CCF call on leaders in Los Angeles County, cities across the County, the CPUC, and the California legislature to:

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

L O S A N G E L E S INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT 3 Investigate these findings of potentially discriminatory disparities in advertised pricing for fast and reliable internet service and their implications for closing the digital divide.

Make equal access the policy of the State of California.

Build equal access into state, county, and local procurement policy.

Support independent, community-driven options for internet service.
1 2
3 4

One of the most durable images of the COVID pandemic was two elementary school students in Salinas, California, sitting in a Taco Bell parking lot with their school computers on their laps, trying to connect to the restaurant’s Wi-Fi because they had no connectivity at home.

BACKGROUND
Photo tweeted by Monterey County Supervisor Luis Alejo
with the text, “we must do better & solve this digital divide once & for all for all California students.”
1 The image documented a reality
that COVID exacerbated but which
persisted long before the pandemic
in communities across California
and Los Angeles County: deeply
inequitable access to fast, reliable,
and affordable internet left far too
many of our communities on the
wrong side of the digital divide, cut
off from a basic necessity.

Lack of access to fast, reliable and
affordable broadband is a longstanding barrier to equity in Los Angeles County and beyond, but the
COVID pandemic made plain its
catastrophic impacts across all
sectors in our communities.

The tragedy of thousands of Los
Angeles students from pre-K to college unable to access their virtual classrooms due to poor or absent broadband connectivity is well documented. Less examined, but equally unacceptable, are the ways the digital divide deepens Angelenos’ persistent barriers to health care, economic opportunity, government services, and housing support, as well as to participation in the community’s civic life through Census 2020, voter registration, and public meetings which all moved inexorably online.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

L O S A N G E L E S INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT 4

Post-pandemic, equitable access to a high-speed and reliable internet connection at a price that is sustainably affordable remains a vital necessity for full participation in society. With many healthcare providers switching to telehealth, rent relief programs going online, online education becoming more widespread, job applications moving online, and nearly every aspect of modern life moving (and staying) online, the need to close the digital divide is no less urgent today than it was during the peak of pandemic "safer at home" measures.

Research has consistently identified a simple reason that many families do not have access:
they cannot afford it. A 2021 study documenting connectivity in California found that 30% of households with income below $20,000 per year (just under the federal poverty line for a three-person household) do not have a broadband subscription, compared to 9% of households overall. 25% of Spanish-speaking households are disconnected. Los Angeles and the Central Valley lag behind the rest of the state in terms of connectivity: 19% of Angelenos are disconnected - nearly two million people. 70% of unconnected and underconnected people report they don’t have the internet because it is “too expensive.” This tracks with national research findings that cost or cost-benefit reasons are offered by nearly 75% of people who don’t have broadband at home.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

L O S A N G E L E S INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT 5 3 Research has consistently
identified a simple reason
that many families do not
have internet at home:
they cannot afford it.
households. $14.2 billion in funding was allocated to the ACP; without a renewed budget the program will end sometime between March 2024 and December 2025 when funding runs out.

In 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law three bills, SB156, SB4, and AB14, that together provide for billions of dollars in funding to build broadband infrastructure to every corner of the state and every disconnected neighborhood in rural, exurban, suburban, and urban communities. The subsequently passed federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides an additional $42.5 billion in taxpayer funding to close the digital divide; California’s share of that allocation may be more than $2 billion to fund broadband infrastructure deployment.

The primary approach to addressing this
affordability crisis in recent years has been
subsidies. First was the Emergency Broadband
Benefit (EBB), a $50 per month subsidy paid by
the federal government to participating ISPs to
be passed on in the form of bill credits to
enrolled eligible households. The program
expired and was renewed as the Affordable
Connectivity Program (ACP), a $30 per month
subsidy, again paid directly to ISPs to pass
through as bill credits to enrolled eligible
2 3
4 5
6 7
8

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

L O S A N G E L E S INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT 6 Charter, Comcast, and other national
incumbent providers have aggressively
moved to block municipalities and other
public agencies from building out
broadband solutions even in geographies
where they were not competing for those
dollars. In many cases, those challenges
so overwhelmed community efforts that
they quashed community-driven solutions
almost without a fight.

Other states’ broadband work offers cautionary tales. Examples of national publicly traded internet service providers (ISPs) laying claim to hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars with dubious benefit to the public are myriad. In Montana, half of the state’s broadband grants were awarded to Charter Communications (providing service as “Spectrum”) before watchdogs rang alarm bells about the company’s documented history of “cherry picking” their coverage areas to maximize profit over equitable service. Yet in late 2020, Charter was awarded $1.22 billion in public funding to expand its service footprint and build its subscriber base in rural areas in 24 states, and as of August 2022 Charter and Comcast were the largest beneficiaries of state broadband grants, with each receiving more than $100 million in public funding.

In recent weeks, the Attorneys General of both Connecticut and Indiana won settlement agreements from Frontier Communications, requiring the company to invest tens of millions of dollars to build out their infrastructure to deliver service they had long promised residents (and charged them for) but failed to deliver. In both states, the company was found to be charging customers for service speeds they were not delivering, charging hidden and confusingly labeled “fees”, and failing to provide reliable service in areas where they were the monopoly provider. At the same time, Frontier has announced its intentions to leverage public dollars to expand its footprint. As reported by Fierce Telecom, “all told, since it began pursuing grants in mid-2021 after emerging from bankruptcy in April, Frontier has received more than $70 million in state funding, with more than $22.4 million of that coming in 2022 alone."
With that context in mind and as the CPUC, California Department of Technology, California Broadband Council, and county and municipal governments across the state, including in Los Angeles County, are engaged in planning and preparation to make investments to finally, and for generations to come, eradicate the digital divide, this analysis of how a monopoly incumbent ISP operates in Los Angeles’ historically marginalized and underserved communities deserves attention and further exploration.

How a monopoly incumbent
ISP operates in Los Angeles’
historically marginalized and
underserved communities
deserves attention and
further exploration.
9 10
11 12 13
14 15
16 17

Internet is Slower and More Expensive in
High-Poverty Neighborhoods
DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

L O S A N G E L E S INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT 7

96.7% 20.7% 15.2%

KEY FINDINGS
Digital Equity LA and CCF documented advertised service options at a sample of 165 residential addresses across LA County by shopping for service on ISP’s websites. Advertised offers were documented for each of the ISPs that report to the CPUC that they deploy internet service with technology meeting current broadband standards to at least 5% of households in Los Angeles County. Three ISPs met that threshold at the end of 2020:18 3,269,618

HOUSEHOLDS
Charter Spectrum Frontier AT&T
688,757

HOUSEHOLDS
513,633

HOUSEHOLDS
Cox is the next largest provider in LA County, serving just 43,244 households in the County (1.3%), in Rancho Palos Verdes and one community in Torrance.

Charter, Frontier, and AT&T provide “fixed” residential service - service via a stationary, usually wired, connection, rather than over a mobile network. The largest wireless provider of home internet in the County, GeoLinks, reports serving just over 30,000 households in the County - less than 1%.

US census tract data, including the poverty rate and percentage of nonwhite residents in that census tract, was recorded for each residential address and the pricing data analyzed across those data points. Census tracts are stable geographies of roughly 4,000 people - a proxy for a “neighborhood.” 19 20
21

Charter Spectrum, the Monopoly ISP for
Most Angelenos, Offers Better Pricing for
High Speed Internet in Wealthier
Neighborhoods
DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

L O S A N G E L E S INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT 8 Analysis of advertised prices for a range of service tiers offered at 165 residential addresses in Los Angeles County’s 88 cities and unincorporated communities reveals several clear patterns:
1 Charter Spectrum is the only internet
service option for the majority of
addresses examined for this study.

This is not a surprise given the
coverage areas reported to the CPUC:

Charter Spectrum claims to serve

96.7% of the County, AT&T and
Frontier each claim to cover about a
fifth of the County, with all other
providers claiming coverage of 1.5%
or less.

Most Angelenos are
subject to a broken
monopoly market for
broadband
3 Charter Spectrum’s
advertised prices vary
widely from neighborhood
to neighborhood
2 "Internet Ultra" is Charter Spectrum's
branded service offering of up to 500
megabits per second (Mbps)
download speed. Internet Ultra is the
only tier of service offered at every
address in this study, with slower
“Internet” (300Mbps) offered to just
over three-quarters of households
and “Internet” (100Mbps) advertised
to less than a quarter of households.

Charter Spectrum’s
standard service tier is
“Internet Ultra”
4 Charter Spectrum offers
better pricing, under
better terms and
conditions, to residents in
wealthier neighborhoods

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

L O S A N G E L E S INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT 9 Average Advertised Prices:

Higher Prices for High Speed Service Tiers in
High Poverty Neighborhoods
“Internet 100”, the brand name for
Charter Spectrum’s service tier
offering up to 100Mbps download
speeds, is advertised at 34 of the
165 addresses in this study, in
census tracts with poverty rates
ranging from 3% to 34%. The price
for this tier of service is a consistent
$30 per month at every address it is
offered.

AT&T’s 100Mpbs or slower service
tiers, offered as “Internet 100,”
“Internet 75,” and “Internet 50,” are
advertised to 26 of the 165
Low Poverty ≤ 15% High Poverty ≥ 30%
$0 $20 $40 $60
Charter
AT&T
22 100Mbps Service Tier Advertised Price: $30
addresses in this study, in census tracts with poverty rates ranging from 3% to 45%. Of note: where AT&T offers Internet 100 or slower, that is the only AT&T service available - faster speeds are not on offer. This is likely because the slower service is available on outdated technology that has not been upgraded. The advertised price of AT&T’s slowest service offering is $55 per month at every address save one in this study, where it is offered for $60.

Frontier does not offer a 100Mbps service tier.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
1 0

L O S A N G E L E S
“Internet”, the brand name for
Charter Spectrum’s service tier
offering up to 300Mbps download
speeds, is advertised at 133 of the
165 addresses in this study. The
average price for this faster service
tier is $9 per month higher in high
poverty neighborhoods than in
wealthy neighborhoods: $50 per
month versus $41 per month.

The best advertised price for
Charter Spectrum“Internet”
300Mbps service tier is $20 per
month for two years before the
Low Poverty ≤ 15% High Poverty ≥ 30%
$0 $20 $40 $60
Charter
AT&T
300Mbps Service Tier Average Charter Spectrum
Offer: $41 in low poverty neighborhoods, $50 in
high poverty neighborhoods
price will go up, and is available to residents in census tracts with poverty rates ranging from 2% to 19%. At every address in a high poverty census tract (those with a poverty rate of 30% or higher), Charter Spectrum’s advertised rate for their “Internet” service tier is $30 per month higher that their best advertised rate: $50 per month, with a guarantee that prices will not be increased for just one year. “Internet 300”, the brand name for AT&T’s 300Mbps offering is available at 18 of the addresses in this study, five of them in high poverty census tracts. AT&T’s pricing for this service tier is consistent at $55 per month for one year.

Frontier does not advertise a 300Mbps service tier at any of the addresses in this study.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
1 1

L O S A N G E L E S
“Internet Ultra”, the brand name for
Charter Spectrum’s service tier
offering up to 500Mbps download
speeds, is the only Charter service
tier advertised at every address
examined in this study.

The average price for this standard
Charter Spectrum service tier is $16
per month higher in high poverty
neighborhoods than in wealthy
neighborhoods: $70 versus $54 per
month.

The best advertised price for
Low Poverty ≤ 15% High Poverty ≥ 30%
$0 $25 $50 $75
Charter
AT&T
Frontier
500Mbps Service Tier Average Charter Spectrum
Offer: $54 in low poverty neighborhoods, $70 in
in high poverty neighborhoods
Charter Spectrum “Internet Ultra” service is $30 per month, guaranteed not to go up for two years. This deal is only offered in census tracts with poverty rates ranging from 2% - 19%; we did not find a single example of an address in a high poverty census tract that was offered this lowest price.

At every address in a high poverty census tract (those with a poverty rate of 30% or higher), Charter Spectrum’s advertised price for “Internet Ultra” service is $40 per month higher than its best advertised rate: $70 per month, guaranteed not to go up for one year.
“Internet 500”, the brand name for AT&T’s 500Mpbs offering is available at 16 of the addresses in this study, split about evenly between high poverty and low poverty census tracts and offered at a standard price of $65/month for one year.

Frontier’s 500Mbps offering is available at 39 of the addresses in this study, all but six in census tracts with poverty rates lower than 15% and none in 30%+ poverty rate census tracts. Frontier advertises a standard price of $40 per month.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
1 2
Watts and Willowbrook: Charter Spectrum
service is $40 more expensive in a high
poverty neighborhood than in a low poverty
neighborhood just two miles away.

CASE STUDIES
Case Study 1
In South LA, a Willowbrook neighborhood with a low poverty rate (8% of residents in the census tract live below the federal poverty line) Charter Spectrum advertises affordable offers for fast internet service. For just $30 per month, a price guaranteed not to rise for 2 years, households can access Charter Spectrum’s “Internet Ultra” service tier providing up to 500Mbps download speeds, enough for a household of three or more people to engage in online education, remote work, and telehealth as well as powering “smart home” connected devices like thermostats and video baby monitors. (We note here that Willowbrook is generally considered a higher poverty community; the neighborhood examined here happens to be one of its lower poverty census tracts.)
23 L O S A N G E L E S

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
1 3
About 2 miles away, in a neighborhood in Watts with a poverty rate of 31% - just under a third of residents live below the federal poverty line - the same Internet Ultra service tier is offered at $70 per month, a price that will increase to $95 after one year.

Over the first two years of Internet Ultra service, a low-income household in Watts will pay Charter Spectrum $1,980, while a wealthier household two miles away will pay only $720 - a $1,260 disadvantage for the household that can least afford it.

Even if the household in Watts qualifies for and successfully enrolls in ACP, which provides for a $30 per month subsidy (paid directly to the internet service provider), they will pay Charter Spectrum $540 more out of pocket over the same two-year period than their wealthier neighbors.

Competitive pressures do not explain the disparity. According to the California Interactive Broadband Map, which relies on data supplied by ISPs, both addresses are served at the same maximum advertised speeds of one gigabit download by both Charter Spectrum and AT&T, and AT&T has deployed its fiber optic infrastructure to both locations. AT&T offers its 500Mbps service at both addresses for $65 per month, guaranteed for one year.
24 25

L O S A N G E L E S

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
1 4
Sylmar: One mile apart, 24% poverty rate
difference, and $40 price disparity for high
speed Charter Spectrum service.

Case Study 2

L O S A N G E L E S
Two neighborhoods less than a mile apart in Sylmar get very different advertised offers for internet service from Charter Spectrum. One, centered around Bromont Avenue, is a community of apartment buildings and home to a higher proportion of people living in poverty (31%.) The other, centered on Herron Street, is a community of single family homes and a lower rate of poverty (7%.)
Charter Spectrum advertises its Internet Ultra service for $70 per month, guaranteed not to increase for one year, in the higher poverty community on Bromont Ave. About seven blocks away, on Herron Street, Charter Spectrum advertises the same service tier for $30 per month, guaranteed to stay that affordable for two years.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
1 L O S A N G E L E S 5
Again, over the first two years of Internet Ultra service, a low-income household on Bromont will pay Charter Spectrum $1,980, while a better-heeled household a few blocks away on Herron St. will pay only $720 - a $1,260 disadvantage for the lower income household. If the household on Bromont qualifies for ACP, they will still pay Charter Spectrum $540 more out of pocket over the same two-year period than their wealthier neighbors on Herron.

Looking at the slower service tiers, the disparities persist. Charter Spectrum offers its “Internet” service tier of up to 300Mbps speeds for $20 per month on Herron Street (and locks that price in for two years) but advertises the same service for $50 per month, guaranteed for just one year, on Bromont Ave, in the higher poverty neighborhood.

The $20 per month 300Mbps Internet service tier is the slowest Charter Spectrum offers in the low poverty neighborhood on Herron Street. In the high poverty neighborhood on Bromont Ave they offer a barely-qualifies-as-broadband 30Mbps “Internet Assist” service tier for $18 per month, with no guarantee for how long that price will stay stable. Internet Assist is advertised for just $2 per month less than the 10-times-faster service on offer less than a mile away.

Competitive
pressures do not
explain the disparity
between Charter
Spectrum’s
advertised offers in
these two Sylmar
neighborhoods. At
both addresses,
Charter Spectrum is
the monopoly option
for internet service
that meets the
federal minimum
standard for
broadband, 25Mbps
download and 3Mbps
upload.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
1 6
Whittier: Three miles apart, 10% poverty rate
difference, $40 advertised price disparity for
Charter Spectrum Internet Ultra service.

Case Study 3

L O S A N G E L E S
Two neighborhoods in Whittier, one with a preponderance of multi-dwelling units (i.e. apartment buildings) and the other a neighborhood of single family homes, have three miles and a 10% difference in poverty rate between them and are receiving very different Charter Spectrum advertised offers.

One, on Lakeland Road in a census tract with a poverty rate of 12%, can purchase Charter Spectrum’s Internet Ultra for $30 per month, guaranteed not to increase for two years. The other, an apartment on Bright Avenue in a census tract with a poverty rate of 22%, can purchase the same service tier for $70 per month, a rate that will increase after just one year.

Competitive pressures do not appear to be a factor, as both addresses have access to the identical Charter and Frontier services, per reporting to the CPUC.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
1 7

L O S A N G E L E S
Maywood South Gate
Huntington Park
Cudahy Bell Gardens Bell
The hypothesis that in neighborhoods where prices for service are higher, fewer households will subscribe to that service, should not be controversial, especially in the context of survey data spanning years and geographies demonstrating that, where access is technically available, cost is the primary barrier to connectivity.

To examine that hypothesis, we explored two regions of Los Angeles County with low connectivity rates, high relative poverty rates, and high relative proportions of residents of color, and the advertised prices for internet service in those regions:

The Southeast Los Angeles (SELA) cities, and the historically Black communities of South LA.

IMPACT
EXPLORATION:

PRICE, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND

DISCONNECTION IN TWO

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITIES
Disconnected and Priced Out in SELA
According to the CPUC, most census tracts in the SELA cities of Bell, Bell Gardens, Cudahy, Huntington Park, Maywood, and South Gate have a broadband adoption rate - the percentage of people in the neighborhood with a subscription to home internet service providing at least the bare minimum service level defined by the FCC as “broadband” - much lower than nearby comparison cities. In most SELA census tracts at least 20% of people are disconnected, versus a universal 80%+ connectivity rate in Cerritos and San Marino.26

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
1 8

L O S A N G E L E S
Addresses we examined in the SELA cities were advertised high speed service at a higher cost per month than addresses in comparison cities of Cerritos and San Marino. The pricing data set for addresses in SELA cities and comparison cities is included below (Charter Spectrum is the only ISP offering service at every addresses included; where AT&T and/or Frontier also offered service those details are noted in italics):

Address Poverty Rate % Nonwhite
Spectrum
Internet 100
(100Mbps)
Spectrum
Internet
(300Mpbs)
Spectrum
Internet Ultra
(500Mbps)
Alderton Ln
Cerritos, CA 90703 1% 89% $40
Frontier $40
Shakespeare Dr
San Marino, CA 91108 3% 77% AT&T $65
$40
AT&T $65
N Crescent Dr
Beverly Hills, CA 90210 6% 12% AT&T $65
$40
AT&T $65
Santa Ana St
South Gate, CA 90280 10% 66% $50 $70
California Ave
Huntington Park, CA 90255 16% 67% $50
AT&T $55
$70
AT&T $65
Granger Ave
Bell Gardens, CA 90201 20% 87% $50 $70
Carmelita Ave
Maywood, 90270 24% 86% AT&T $55 $50 $70
Live Oak St
Cudahy, CA 90201 28% 99% $50 $70
Otis Ave
Bell, CA 90201 34% 81% $30 $50 $70
At the addresses in the very low poverty neighborhoods, the slowest service tier Charter Spectrum advertises is 500Mbps (“Internet Ultra”); they offer it at $40 per month for two years.

In those neighborhoods, connectivity approaches 100% - nearly everyone has a fast, reliable, and affordable connection.

At the addresses in the higher poverty neighborhoods, the entry level service tier Charter Spectrum advertises is 300Mbps (“Internet”); they advertise it for $10 more per month than the nearly twice as fast service they offer in high income neighborhoods: $50 per month until it increases in one year. In these higher poverty neighborhoods, 20-40% of residents remain disconnected.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
1 9

L O S A N G E L E S
Disproportionately High Prices and Disconnectivity in LA’s Historically Black Neighborhoods
27 CPUC maps indicate that in every one of the census tracts in South LA’s historically Black neighborhoods of Baldwin Hills, Crenshaw, and West Adams, at least 20% of residents remain disconnected at even the slowest broadband speeds. Census tracts are color-coded by connectivity rate in the images below; turquoise designates a rate of 60-80% - at least 60% of people in those census tracts have service that meets the minimum definition of broabdband at home. Olive green designates a census tract with just 40-60% of residents connected.28 In the nearby community of Mar Vista, also in the City of Los Angeles and about five miles away, there is near universal connectivity in all but one census tract.

Again, the census tracts are color-coded: green means at least 80% of residents are connected, turquoise means the connectivity rate is 60-80%.29

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
2 0

L O S A N G E L E S
Charter Spectrum advertises much higher prices, at less favorable terms, in the historically Black communities of Baldwin Hills, Crenshaw, and West Adams than in whiter, wealthier neighborhoods in Mar Vista just a few miles away.

The advertised prices marked in in Map A below are for Charter Spectrum’s “Internet Ultra” 500Mpbs service tier, and those in Map B are for Charter Spectrum’s “Internet” 300Mbps service tier. The slower 100Mbps service tier is not offered in the Mar Vista neighborhoods, and is offered for $30 per month in the historically Black neighborhoods.

It is theoretically possible that the fact of higher prices for the best tiers of service is coincidental to fewer families in historically Black communities having internet at home than in nearby whiter, wealthier Mar Vista, where the advertised cost for service is significantly more affordable. However, the correlation is strong enough that further investigation by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, the CPUC and these communities’ representatives in the California legislature is warranted.
29

Cost is far and away the most consistent
reason provided by families without high
speed internet for why they remain
disconnected. Indeed, the households that
tend to be unconnected also tend to have
the least wealth, suggesting a significant
link. To address this affordability barrier,
Congress created the EBB, a $50 per
month subsidy paid by the federal
government to participating ISPs to be
passed on in the form of bill credits to
enrolled eligible households. EBB expired
in early 2021 and was renewed as the ACP,
a $30 per month subsidy, again paid
directly to ISPs to pass through as bill
credits to enrolled eligible households.

Research on the impacts of the EBB on
closing the digital divide paints a
disappointing picture. National data
suggests that, “the primary impact of the
EBB program was to alleviate the cost
burden for households that were already
connected pre-pandemic, with only
modest impact in bringing new
households online.” In other words, the
subsidy made the internet more affordable
for those that were already connected but
did not make connectivity possible for the
households who were, and largely remain,
disconnected. Moreover, data from both
the EBB and the ACP reveal that most
people apply their benefit to their cell
phone plan rather than home internet,
leaving them still underconnected, without
access to the fast, reliable service needed
for high-bandwidth activities like remote
work and telehealth, and vulnerable to
data caps.

The ACP is a $14.2 billion public
investment in closing the digital divide and
millions, perhaps tens of millions, of
additional public dollars have been spent
advertising the program, building out
teams of people to assist eligible
households in enrolling, and funding local
nonprofits’ capacity to do the hard work of
selling the program to affected
communities and getting people enrolled.

But the available evidence does not point
to its effectiveness in getting people
connected.
32 DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
2 1

L O S A N G E L E S
IMPACT
EXPLORATION:

REDUCED EFFICACY OF SUBSIDIES
30 31
Have these public subsidy
programs been unsuccessful in
part because ISPs charge more
in poor communities, thus
keeping fast, reliable service
out of reach?

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
2 2

L O S A N G E L E S
the subsidy is potentially minimized or
erased. An additional question emerges
from this data set: how consistently do
ISPs advertise low-cost options and
subsidy programs to the households that
could most benefit from them?
To explore this question, we made two
baseline assumptions:

Of the 165 addresses we examined, 64 are in census tracts that have poverty rates above the countywide rate of 14.2%. These addresses are most likely to house families that are eligible for the federal ACP subsidy.

In May 2022, the White House announced that it had secured commitments from 20 ISPs, including Charter Spectrum, Frontier, and AT&T, to offer all ACP-eligible households plans meeting at least 100Mbps speed threshold for no more than $30 per month. So, we included only advertised offers meeting those speed and price parameters.

Only a third of likely ACP-eligible addresses
are advertised an offer meeting the
commitments announced by the White
House a few months ago, even while offers
far exceeding those commitments are
advertised to households far less likely to
qualify for a subsidy.

Of the 64 likely eligible households in this data set:

1. 2.

Neither AT&T nor Frontier advertised any service tier for $30 or less to any of the likely ACP-eligible addresses.

Charter Spectrum advertised its “Internet 100” plan to just 22 addresses for $30 per month, and advertised a $30 per month price for service faster than 100Mbps to a single address.

The pricing disparities documented in this
report raise a disturbing but unavoidable
question: have these public subsidy
programs been unsuccessful in part
because ISPs charge more in poor
communities, thus keeping fast, reliable
service out of reach? To the extent that
ISPs, in this case Charter Spectrum, raise
their prices for high speed service tiers in
high poverty communities, the impact of
Setting aside any of the myriad additional
substantive questions surrounding the
efficacy of funneling public dollars to ISPs
as a mechanism for addressing the
affordability crisis preventing families from
accessing fast and reliable internet, for it to
work, plans meeting the promised
standards must be consistently offered to
those most likely to benefit from them.
33

The City of Los Angeles, along with other cities within Los Angeles County, the County of Los Angeles, the CPUC, and state legislative committees with oversight responsibilities have the authority, mechanisms, and resources to thoroughly investigate the potentially discriminatory pricing practices documented in this report.

Data points from 165 households across the County illuminate a very clear and disturbing pattern of pricing practices on the part of the ISP that holds a nearmonopoly on fixed residential internet service in Los Angeles County.

Government should pick up where community advocates leave off and expand the analysis to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of data points given the number of people affected and the billions of public dollars at stake in the coming months and years.

We anticipate that Charter Spectrum will take issue with these findings; the company should not only be required to participate in further public investigations but should welcome them if indeed the grassroots research presented here paints an inaccurate picture. In public on-the-record comments before the Los Angeles County Board and the California Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee, Charter Spectrum government affairs professionals have claimed that they have a national pricing model that affords the same price for the same service to every consumer in their national service area. If that is true, despite what CCF and Digital Equity LA have documented here with screenshots from the Charter Spectrum website, Charter should welcome the opportunity to set the record straight.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
2 3

L O S A N G E L E S
This report is a snapshot documenting the experience of people in neighborhoods across Los Angeles County. It is a community-led and community-driven effort to shine a light on what is a well-known reality on the ground, in communities that live the consequences of historic and persistent under- and disinvestment: systemic discrimination is incessant, under-investigated, and too rarely addressed head-on. This report raises critical questions that demand action.

We offer four places to start.

CALL TO ACTION
Action #1 Investigate and Validate Findings of Potentially Discriminatory Disparities in Advertised Pricing
34

Federal law prevents the State from regulating certain aspects of broadband pricing and offerings. It may not prevent the State and localities from requiring equal access in exchange for the public rights-of-way and other public benefits ISPs must have to operate.

Today, there is no California statute requiring plainly that ISPs operating under a state license or receiving state money in support of infrastructure deployment must provide services equitably, offering equal access at equal price, terms, and conditions across their publicly-licensed and supported service areas.

A very long overdue reform of the state’s outdated and anachronistic 2006 franchising law (known as DIVCA) is a reasonable place to start. Assemblymember Chris Holden authored the most recent bill to do so, staking a bold claim to advance digital equity by making equal access the state policy, and giving the CPUC the tools it needs to enforce it. The bill was stopped short in the Senate Utilities Committee.

California legislators should take another look, keeping in mind the consequences of inaction such as those documented in this report.

In recent weeks the Attorneys General of Connecticut and Indiana secured settlements to remedy some specific harms ISPs - in these two cases, Frontier Communications - have visited on communities by advertising and charging for service they ultimately did not deliver. California’s state leadership in the legislature, the Governor’s office, and the Attorney General’s office should examine whether the California Attorney General has the authority to do the same, and if not, remedy that gap legislatively.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
2 4

L O S A N G E L E S
Action #2 Make Equal Access (Equal Service at Equal Price, Terms, and Conditions) and Truth in Advertising the
Policy of the State of California
35 36
37 38
Incumbent ISPs contract with state, county, and local government agencies for tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Those contracts should include enforceable commitments to equitable service delivery within the jurisdiction, ensuring public dollars are not spent in service of undermining equity and thereby exacerbating the digital divide.

Action #3 Build Equal Access into State, County, and Local Procurement Practices

Multinational publicly traded companies have a core mission of maximizing profit - it is their legal, enforceable obligation. Their constituents are their shareholders, not the families who rely on - and deserve, as a civil right - equitable access to fast, reliable, and affordable internet. As long as the market for high-speed broadband is an effective monopoly, dominated by a single multinational corporation without roots or commitments in our communities, the kinds of disparities documented in this report are unlikely to abate, and the digital divide will be much harder, if not impossible, to close for good.

Public open-access networks and publicly-driven public-private partnerships, operated for the benefit of our communities and accountable to residents, are proven alternatives that deliver faster, more reliable, and more affordable internet to communities around the country. Independent ISPs, those that are not publicly traded, are rooted in our communities, and are open to more responsive outcomes with respect to profit margins and timelines for return-on-investment on infrastructure, also offer attractive alternatives. Decision-makers at all levels of California government should enthusiastically and aggressively support making these alternatives a reality in our communities.

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
2 5

L O S A N G E L E S
Action #4 Support Independent, Community-Driven
Options for Broadband Service
40 41
39

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
2 6
23 L O S A N G E L E S
APPENDIX A:

MAPS AND TABLES
While zooming in on community case studies is instructive, zooming out to a County-wide view of pricing disparities demonstrates the scale of the potential implications. The map below plots the advertised price for Charter Spectrum’s Internet Ultra 500Mbps service at every address we examined in this study, and the complete data set for all three ISPs.42

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
2 L O S A N G E L E S 7
Table: Charter Spectrum Advertised Monthly Price for Service

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
28

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
29

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
30

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
31

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
32

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
3 L O S A N G E L E S 3
Table: AT&T Advertised Monthly Price for Service

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
3 L O S A N G E L E S
4

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
3 L O S A N G E L E S
5

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
3 L O S A N G E L E S
6

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
3 L O S A N G E L E S
7

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
3 L O S A N G E L E S
8

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
3 L O S A N G E L E S 9
Table: Frontier Advertised Monthly Price for Service

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
4 L O S A N G E L E S
0

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
4 L O S A N G E L E S
1

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
4 L O S A N G E L E S
2

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
4 L O S A N G E L E S
3

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
4 L O S A N G E L E S
4

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
4 5
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets the national minimum standard for internet service to qualify as “broadband.” The current standard, set in 2015, is 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload. In July 2022, FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel proposed to increase the minimum standard to 100 Mbps download and 20 Mpbs upload, noting in a statement (emphasis added):
43 L O S A N G E L E S
APPENDIX B:

DEFINITIONS + METHODOLOGY
Digital equity is a condition in which all individuals and communities have equitable access to the connectivity, devices, skills, and information needed for full participation in our society, democracy and economy.

Defining Digital Equity
Defining "Fast and Reliable" Internet
The FCC’s consumer guide to the minimum speeds needed for common household use identify light, moderate, and high use cases for one or more devices or users. For any household of more than one person with more than one device connected to the internet at the same time and any of those devices operating a “moderate” use application - i.e. video conferencing - a minimum service level of 100 Mpbs download and 10 Mbps upload is recommended.
“The needs of internet users long ago surpassed the FCC’s 25/3 speed metric, especially during a global health pandemic that moved so much of life online. The 25/3 metric isn’t just behind the times, it’s a harmful one because it masks the extent to which low-income neighborhoods and rural communities are being left behind and left offline. That’s why we need to raise the standard for minimum broadband speeds now and while also aiming even higher for the future, because we need to set big goals if we want everyone everywhere to have a fair shot at 21st century success.”

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
4 6
This report includes data from 165 residential addresses: at least one address from every city and a sample from across the unincorporated communities in the County. Note that cities that are primarily industrial or commercial, with few or no residential neighborhoods, were excluded: the City of Industry, Commerce, and Vernon.

For each address, in addition to documenting the service offerings and pricing from Charter Spectrum, as well as Frontier and AT&T at the few addresses served by them, the study documented the census tract and the poverty rate and percentage of non-white residents in that census tract. Census tracts are small subdivisions of counties with roughly 4,000 residents utilized by the Census for statistical analysis - a reasonable proxy for a “neighborhood.”
This report’s data looks exclusively at Los Angeles County residential internet plans as a new customer shopping for services on the provider website. Many providers offer bundled services including phone, television, and internet. For the purpose of this data collection, we solely looked at stand-alone internet subscription plans. We modeled this methodology on a New America Foundation study, which examined internet costs around the globe and explained that by “studying standalone internet plans it enables us to make more streamlined price comparisons between plans as we take into account the lack of standard speed tiers and other plan aspects.” 44

L O S A N G E L E S
Methodology Notes

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
4 7
43 L O S A N G E L E S
APPENDIX C:

BEYOND LOS ANGELES COUNTY
The geographic focus of the CCF Digital Equity Initiative and Digital Equity LA is Los Angeles County.

However, we work with allies and partners across the state in service of advancing digital equity and ensuring every Californian - including every Angeleno - has fast, reliable, and affordable internet. In the course of that work we have identified a few examples of the same kind of price disparities documented here in other regions of California. We offer a few of them here as an invitation to our partners, and as a further nudge to state officials, to investigate these potentially discriminatory pricing practices.

Yolo County

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
4 L O S A N G E L E S 8
Tulare County

DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
4 L O S A N G E L E S 9
Orange County
Poverty rate 4.1%
Poverty rate 24.8%

[1] KTVU: Photo of girls using Taco Bell WiFi becomes symbol of digital divide: https://www.ktvu.com/news/photo-of-girls-usingtaco-bell-wifi-becomes-symbol-of-digital-divide [2] CETF 2021 Statewide Broadband Adoption Survey: https://www.cetfund.org/action-and-results/statewide-surveys/2021-2/ [3] Pew's Home Broadband 2021 Survey - by Mike Conlow: https://mikeconlow.substack.com/p/pews-home-broadband-2021- survey
[4] Affordable Connectivity Program: https://www.affordableconnectivity.gov [5] The timeline depends on the rate of enrollment. See a range of potential timelines at ILSR's ACP Dashboard:
https://acpdashboard.com
[6] California Takes Major Steps Toward Universal Internet Service | Common Sense Media:
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/kids-action/articles/california-takes-major-steps-toward-universal-internet-service [7] “Underconnected” means connected at speeds slower than the federal standard of 25/3 or connected solely via a cell phone.
[8] Hypothetical BEAD funding for states using current Form 477 data - by Mike Conlow:
https://mikeconlow.substack.com/p/hypothetical-bead-funding-for-states [9] Charter Poised to Haul in Half of Montana’s Broadband Grants; Smaller ISPs Raise Questions:
https://muninetworks.org/content/charter-poised-haul-half-montanas-broadband-grants-smaller-isps-raise-questions [10] Charter scores big in Phase I of the FCC's RDOF auction for rural broadband builds | Fierce Telecom:
https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/charter-scores-big-phase-i-fcc-s-rdof-auction [11] Charter, Comcast lead race for state broadband grants – for now: https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/chartercomcast-lead-race-state-broadband-grants-now [12]Attorney General Tong Announces Settlement With Frontier Communications: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/PressReleases/2022-Press-Releases/Attorney-General-Tong-Announces-Settlement-With-Frontier-Communications [13] Attorney General Todd Rokita secures $15 million settlement with Frontier Communications - State of Indiana:
https://events.in.gov/event/attorney_general_todd_rokita_secures_15_million_settlement_with_frontier_communications [14] Frontier prepares to pounce on broadband funding from infrastructure bill | Fierce Telecom:
https://www.fiercetelecom.com/operators/frontier-prepares-to-pounce-broadband-funding-from-infrastructure-bill [15] Frontier, Windstream's 2022 broadband grant tally surpasses $200M: https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/frontierwindstreams-2022-broadband-grant-tally-surpasses-200m [16] Monopoly Internet Service Providers Mire Grant Process With Costly, Empty Challenges: https://ilsr.org/monopolyinternet-service-providers-mire-grant-process-with-costly-empty-challenges [17] Beware the Grant Challenges: https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2022/08/29/beware-the-grant-challenges [18] EOY2020 CA Residential Fixed BB Deployment - LA County, by Internet Service Provider:
https://public.tableau.com/shared/S6M95KD27?:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link [19] California State-Issued Video Franchise Territory - Cox in LA County: https://arcg.is/09bq9i [20] EOY2020 CA Residential Fixed BB Deployment - LA County, Fixed Wireless by Internet Service Provider:
https://public.tableau.com/shared/S6M95KD27?:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link [21] Census Tracts | US Census Bureau: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/education/CensusTracts.pdf [22] Per the US Census American Community Survey (ACS), the Los Angeles County poverty rate is 14.2%. For this snapshot, a poverty rate under 15% is classified as “low poverty” and a poverty rate over 30%, double the county-wide rate, is classified as “high poverty.”

ENDNOTES
DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
5 0

L O S A N G E L E S

[23] The federal poverty level for a household of three is $23,030 - Poverty Guidelines | ASPE:
https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines [24] Affordable Connectivity Program: https://www.affordableconnectivity.gov [25] California Interactive Broadband Map: https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov [26] CPUC EOY 2020 Fixed Broadband Adoption by Population at 25/3 Subscription Speed Benchmark:
https://public.tableau.com/shared/B6JSPY83R?:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link [27] CPUC EOY 2020 Fixed Broadband Adoption by Population at 25/3 Subscription Speed Benchmark:
https://public.tableau.com/shared/B6JSPY83R?:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link [28] The census tracts visualized for Baldwin Hills, Crenshaw, and West Adams are: 2197.00, 2198.00, 2199.01, 2199.02, 2200.00, 2201.00, 2247.01, 2247.02, 2215.00, 2195.00, 2361.01, 2360.01, 2361.02, 2362.03, 2362.04, 2362.05, 2362.06, 2364.00, 2189
[29] The census tracts visualized for Mar Vista are: 2714, 2715, 2716, 2717.02, 2718.01, 2719.01, 2719.02, 2721, 2731, 2736 [30] Affordable Connectivity Program: Affordable Connectivity Program: https://www.affordableconnectivity.gov [31] A Roadmap for Affordable Broadband: Lessons from the Emergency Broadband Benefit | USC Annenberg:
https://arnicusc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Policy-Brief-final.pdf [32] ACP Dashboard | ILSR: https://acpdashboard.com
[33]FACT SHEET: President Biden and Vice President Harris Reduce High-Speed Internet Costs for Millions of Americans - The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/09/fact-sheet-president-biden-andvice-president-harris-reduce-high-speed-internet-costs-for-millions-of-americans [34] California Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance, Last Mile Oversight Hearing:
https://acom.assembly.ca.gov/sites/acom.assembly.ca.gov/files/Last-Mile%20Final%20Agenda.pdf [35] Local Franchising, Big Cities, and Fiber Broadband | Electronic Frontier Foundation:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/local-franchising-big-cities-and-fiber-broadband [36] Bridging the Digital Divide with DEVFA | Official Website - Assemblymember Chris Holden Representing the 41st California Assembly District: https://a41.asmdc.org/press-releases/20220428-bridging-digital-divide-devfa [37] Attorney General Tong Announces Settlement With Frontier Communications: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/PressReleases/2022-Press-Releases/Attorney-General-Tong-Announces-Settlement-With-Frontier-Communications [38] Attorney General Todd Rokita secures $15 million settlement with Frontier Communications - State of Indiana:
https://events.in.gov/event/attorney_general_todd_rokita_secures_15_million_settlement_with_frontier_communications? utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=widget&utm_source=State+of+Indiana [39] eBay v. Newmark: Al Franken Was Right, Corporations Are Legally Required To Maximize Profits:
https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-rightcorporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits [40] For example: Community-Owned Fiber Networks: Value Leaders in America (https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/34623859), Snapshots of Municipal Broadband (https://ilsr.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/05/05-2021-Snapshots-Fact-Sheet.pdf), UTOPIA Fiber wraps work on largest open access broadband network in US (https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/utopia-fiber-wraps-work-largest-open-access-broadband-networkus) DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
5 1

L O S A N G E L E S

[41] Re: incumbent ISP profit and ROI requirements: Frontier’s Bankruptcy Reveals Why Big ISPs Choose to Deny Fiber to So Much of America: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/frontiers-bankruptcy-reveals-cynical-choice-deny-profitable-fibermillions [42] Internet Ultra is the only tier offered at every address. Slower service tiers are not consistently offered in wealthy neighborhoods.
[43] FCC Household Broadband Guide: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/household-broadband-guide [44] OPEN TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, The Cost of Connectivity 2020:
https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/cost-connectivity-2020/methodology DIGITAL EQUITY SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE:

INTERNET PRICING DISPARITIES REPORT
5 2

L O S A N G E L E S

[Date]
The Honorable Janice Hahn
500 W Temple Street, Room 822
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Supervisor Hahn,
On behalf of the City Council for the City of Cudahy (“City Council”), we write to share our frustration and concern about information recently brought to light regarding the lack of access to fast and reliable broadband throughout the City of Cudahy (“City”) and neighboring communities, and to ask for your support in righting this wrong.

In today’s world, access to broadband is a utility –as necessary for participation in education, the economy, and civic life, as electricity. Yet, according to two recently released reports, internet service providers are making it harder for residents of the City to connect by charging our communities more for slower, inferior service.

The Digital Equity LA coalition – a group that includes many nonprofit organizations from Southeast Los Angeles (“SELA”) and is supported by the Los Angeles County’s (“County”) community foundation, the California Community Foundation – released a report that included a focus on SELA cities. What they documented was infuriating, SELA cities have some of the region’s lowest rates of connectivity yet are advertised as some of the highest prices in the County for fast and reliable service by our dominant provider, Spectrum. The SELA households included in the study were advertised rates $30 per month more expensive than households in more affluent communities for the same service tier.

Considering the wide-ranging impacts of the digital divide on our residents’ ability to thrive, and the disconcerting evidence in the above-mentioned report that our communities are being systematically disadvantaged – trapped on the wrong side of the digital divide, we ask for you to lead a motion that:
• Directs the County Counsel’s office or other appropriate County agency to report back regarding avenues available to the County to further investigate and validate the findings in these reports.
• Directs the Internal Services Department to report back regarding whether the County’s contracts with internet service providers include provisions barring practices like those documented in these reports, and/or proactively require equal access. • Supports policy in Sacramento to address these kinds of underlying systemic drivers of the digital divide.

In addition, we encourage you to collaborate with the other Supervisorial districts to deliver a five-signature letter to the California Public Utilities Commission asking them to use their Attachment B Page 123 of 178
authority to investigate the findings in the report as they impact California consumers in SELA and all our neighbors across LA County.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Alcantar
Mayor
City of Cudahy

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/1/2022 Page 1 of 3

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager/Executive Director
By: Andres Rangel, Management Analyst
Subject: Consideration to Adopt Proposed Resolution No. 22-61 Authorizing Submittal of an Application for Rivers and Mountains Conservancy

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to adopt proposed Resolution No. 22-61 authorizing submittal of an application for Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for the Lower Los Angeles River Pocket Park Project.

BACKGROUND

1. On February 3, 2020, the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy’s Governing Board approved a $332,490 Proposition 68 grant for the Los Angeles River Pocket Park Project. The lead applicant for the project was From Lot to Spot on behalf of the City of Cudahy.

2. On April 20, 2022, the City received a letter from the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) notifying that the grant agreement would be terminated, effective April 30, 2022, due to inactivity, and lack of quarterly status updates. Staff has since been in discussions with the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy to resubmit the same application and assume lead agency responsibilities.

3. On October 2022, Cudahy staff was notifed by RMC that the request to change the lead agency role from From Lot to Spot to City of Cudahy is going to be presented to RMC’s Governing Board for approval at the November board meeting.

Item Number
16F

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/1/2022 Page 2 of 3

ANALYSIS
In early 2020, the City was notified that it received $332,490 from the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) for the Los Angeles River Pocket Park Project. The project was a planning, outreach, and design project that consisted of designing four potential pocket parks in the City.

The project also included a community outreach element in the design process to ensure that residents were able to provide feedback on park design.

The project identified four potential pocket park sites:
• Salt Lake Avenue/Walnut Street
• Salt Lake Avenue/Flower Street
• Salt Lake Avenue/Olive Street
• Otis Avenue Pocket Park
From Lot to Spot was supposed to be the lead agency for this project. However, the non-profit organization has not been active, which led to this project not moving forward, and in danger of being terminated.

Therefore, the City requested RMC to resubmit the application with Cudahy as lead agency to salvage this project.

Allowing the City of Cudahy to be the lead agency for this project, and extending the period of performance to a reasonable new date is projected to be placed on the RMC’s Governing Board meeting in November.

To show commitment to this project, RMC asked the City to provide a resolution to submit the grant application with Cudahy as the lead agency. Therefore, the City Council is requested to approve a resolution authorizing submitting the project application. Doing so would allow staff to revisit and complete this project.

CONCLUSION
If approved, the proposed Resolution would be brought to RMC to confirm that the City is committed to completing the Lower Los Angeles River Pocket Park design project.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
Goal A (Community Services, Programs and Activities for All Ages) Objective:

5. Pursue funding opportunities to assist Cudahy residents.

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/1/2022 Page 3 of 3

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is not impact to the general fund.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Resolution No. 22-61
B. Originally Submitted Grant Application
C. Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Termination Letter

RESOLUTION NO. 22-61

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION TO THE RIVERS AND MOUNTAINS

CONSERVANCY FOR THE LOWER LOS ANGELES RIVER POCKET PARK

PROJECT
WHEREAS, From Lot to Spot submitted an application on behalf of the City to the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) for the Lower Los Angeles River Pocket Park Project; and
WHEREAS, due to inactivity, the RMC notified the City that the grant application would be terminated effective April 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to complete this project and assume responsibility as lead agency, replacing From Lot to Spot.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUDAHY, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Authorizes the submittal of application(s) to Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for the Lower Los Angeles River Pocket Park Project; and SECTION 2. That the City Manager, or his/her designee is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Cudahy all grant documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments and requests for payment, necessary to secure grant funds and implement the approved grant project.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cudahy at the regular meeting of this 1st day of November 2022. ______________________________
Elizabeth Alcantar
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Richard Iglesias
City Clerk
Attachment A Page 128 of 178
Resolution No. 22-61

2 CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF CUDAHY )
I, Richard Iglesias, City Clerk of the City of Cudahy, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-61 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Cudahy, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of November 2022 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Richard Iglesias
City Clerk

Attachment B Page 130 of 178

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION_______________________________________________________ 1 a) Complete Description ____________________________________________________________ 1 Background_______________________________________________________________________________ 1 Cudahy Pocket Parks Planning, Outreach, and Design Project_______________________________________ 1 Community Input To-Date ___________________________________________________________________ 2 b) Statement of Need_______________________________________________________________ 3 81%+ CalEnviroScreen Score _________________________________________________________________ 3 Extremely Low Park Space ___________________________________________________________________ 3 Severely Disadvantaged Population ___________________________________________________________ 4 c) Description of Audience and Geographic Area Served ___________________________________ 4 d) Goals and Objectives _____________________________________________________________ 5 e) Community Outreach_____________________________________________________________ 5 f) Monitoring and Assessment Plan____________________________________________________ 7 g) Organizational Capacity ___________________________________________________________ 7

2. CERTIFIED YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PLAN _________________________________________ 8

3. TASKLIST AND TIMELINE _____________________________________________________ 9

4. BUDGET__________________________________________________________________ 13

5. RESOLUTION______________________________________________________________ 14

6. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ______________________________________________ 17

7. PERMITS, EASEMENTS, or CERTIFICATIONS _____________________________________ 18

8. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE _____________________________________________ 19

9. AGREEMENTS _____________________________________________________________ 20

10. POCKET PARK SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ___________________________________________ 21 Salt Lake Avenue/Walnut Street Potential Cul-De-Sac____________________________________ 21 Salt Lake Avenue/Flower Street Potential Cul-De-Sac ____________________________________ 21 Salt Lake Avenue/Olive Street Potential Cul-De-Sac _____________________________________ 22 Otis Avenue Pocket Park Site________________________________________________________ 22

11. LETTERS OF SUPPORT______________________________________________________ 23 Communities for a Better Environment _______________________________________________ 23 Southeast Los Angeles (SELA) Collaborative ____________________________________________ 24 TreePeople ______________________________________________________________________ 25 From Lot to Spot__________________________________________________________________ 26 Appendix___________________________________________________________________ 27

1 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a) Complete Description
Background
The Cudahy Pocket Parks Planning, Outreach, and Design Project (project), is the first step in implementing new park and public space included as part of the City’s Long-Range Water Conservation and Parks Plan in Cudahy General Plan 2040. The City of Cudahy was one of the first suburbs in an expanding Los Angeles County, as such, the City is dominated by dense multi-family residential housing and industrial (manufacturing and railroad) uses. Today, the city is one of the densest areas in the country, with little park space for residents to escape urban density and heavy industry.

Cudahy Pocket Parks Planning, Outreach, and Design Project The project will provide planning, feasibility, and conceptual designs for four potential pocket park sites in the City of Cudahy located at (from top to bottom in the map below): 1) Salt Lake Avenue/Walnut Street, 2) Salt Lake Avenue/Flower Street, 3) Salt Lake Avenue/Olive Street, and 4) Otis Avenue Pocket Park. All the pocket park sites are located immediately next to residential and industrial uses and would include unique opportunities to create new public space in the City, such as creating park-like cul-desacs and street closures.

2 The project is a multi-jurisdictional partnership between the City of Cudahy (lead agency), Watershed Conservation Authority, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, and Padres Líderes en Acción.

The project will consist of four primary tasks:

1. Grant Administration
• The City of Cudahy will administer the grant and move the project administration forward.

2. Project Coordination
• The City of Cudahy and the Watershed Conservation Authority will mutually ensure that the project is progressing by coordinating all partners and future consultants toward the end goal of the planning process: Final Cudahy Pocket Parks Report.

3. Public Engagement
• East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice and Padres Líderes en Acción, with coordination from the Watershed Conservation Authority, will lead a robust public engagement process. The process will include outreach at community events, door-todoor outreach, online engagement and community workshops and charrettes.

4. Planning and Conceptual Design
• The City of Cudahy and the Watershed Conservation Authority will lead the process with a strong planning/feasibility and design consultant for the four potential pocket parks.

The final deliverable of the project will be the Cudahy Pocket Parks Report, which will outline what types of projects are feasible on the four sites, what potential restraints there are on the sites, and the final community-led conceptual designs.

Community Input To-Date
Preliminary conversations with community members and local organizations indicate a want and need for park designs that include elements of the following:
• Art-Oriented Design
o Cudahy and the Southeast Los Angeles region are noted for their local art scenes, but public spaces currently do not reflect that culture.
• Community Greening
o The four pocket park sites are located adjacent to an industrial railroad right-of-way and industrial land uses, with little to no tree cover and natural green spaces. The community wants their neighborhood to look less industrial, greener and more welcoming.
• Natural Habitat
o The city of Cudahy currently has the only California native habitat garden in the area on the opposite side of town at Elizabeth Learning Center; the pocket park sites can expand the opportunity for residents to experience natural California habitats. • General Environmental Clean Up

3 o The area the pocket park sites are in are a mix of industrial and multi-family residential land uses, residents want their community to be greener and more inviting. • Multi-Benefit Opportunities (Water Quality and Public Transit Improvements) o The southernmost potential park site, located at Otis Avenue and Salt Lake Avenue, would include a small street closure of Elizabeth Ave. for conversion into water quality improving greenspace.
o Additionally, there is currently an unimproved Metro Bus Stop for Line 612, the opportunity to create a people-friendly public transit stop would also be part of any conceptual design.
b) Statement of Need
The community around the project area is a Disadvantaged and Severely Disadvantaged area with a tremendous need for more park and public space. The pocket parks would serve all surrounding areas, providing them with a respite from urban density and industrial land uses, as well as provide community greening.
81%+ CalEnviroScreen Score
Per CalEnviroScreen 3.0, the pocket park sites are located in an area with an 81 – 90% CalEnviroScreen Score and are immediately adjacent to areas with a 91 – 100% score.

This community has amongst the highest scores under CalEnviroScreen.

Extremely Low Park Space
Per the California State Parks, Parks for All Californians tool, the pocket park sites are in a community with an abysmal 0.28 acres of parks per 1,000 people; well below the 2 acres of parks per 1,000 people rating which qualifies communities as Park Poor.

This is a severely park poor community.

4 Severely Disadvantaged Population
Per the California Department of Water Resources Disadvantaged Community Map, the pocket park sites are in a Disadvantaged Community and are immediately next to Severely Disadvantaged Communities.
c) Description of Audience and Geographic Area Served
To summarize the Statement of Need, which is in itself a description of the area served, the area:

5 • Has a CalEnviroScreen score of 81% or higher.
o The area is ranked amongst the highest CalEnviroScreen score brackets. • Has a severely low 0.28 acres of parks per 1,000 people. o Park space is lacking in the area, crowded out by dense residential and industrial uses, which is why the pocket parks are crucial.
• Consists of Severely Disadvantaged and Disadvantaged census tracts. o The area is amongst the lowest income areas in California.

According to the United States Census, 2013 – 2017 American Community Survey, the City of Cudahy:
• Is 96.3% Latino.
• Has a density of 20,462 people per square mile.
o Denser than San Francisco with nowhere near the same housing or park space. o While density is usually good, in the case of Cudahy, density means overcrowded housing due to low incomes.
• 28.7% of families has an income below the poverty level. • 62.6% of the population, ages 25 – 64, does not have a high school degree. o This is characteristic of a disadvantaged immigrant community.

The numbers above show that Cudahy is a very disadvantaged community. Nonetheless, residents love Cudahy. Residents want to be a part of making the city greener and building the community they love.

The Cudahy Pocket Parks project would be an opportunity for our residents to have a direct influence in what their city looks like, all while making their neighborhoods visually inviting and environmentally friendlier.
d) Goals and Objectives
The overall project goal is to take the first step in implementing new park space in the City of Cudahy, which will soften the dense urban and industrial land uses, create space that community members find inviting, and include art, water quality and natural habitat elements.

Goals

1. Refine pocket park opportunities.

2. Increase park and public space.

3. Minimize impacts from urban density and provide environmental benefits.

4. Involve the Cudahy community.

Objectives

1. Develop planning report that outlines what is feasible for each of the pocket park sites.

2. Art and natural environment elements will be incorporated into each design.

3. Pocket park designs will include visually and environmentally friendly aesthetics.

4. Each pocket park design, no matter how small, will reflect the community. e) Community Outreach
As the Cudahy community is an environmental justice community, a community-led design process played a central role in how the Cudahy Pocket Parks project was put together. We took an intentional step in having the community involved by partnering with local agencies and organizations that do work

6 in Cudahy and the Southeast Los Angeles region. In addition to just being good policy, this ensures that the project conforms to the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy’s Environmental Justice Policy.

The Watershed Conservation Authority, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, and Padres Líderes en Acción are as much a part of the project as the City and will play an intricate role in coordination and community outreach to ensure that the project reflects the community’s wants, needs, and values.

The defined public engagement tasks are both specific and broad enough to capture as many Cudahy residents as possible while allowing the organizations flexibility in how, when, and where they conduct outreach:
• Task 3.1 – Develop Outreach Plan & Survey Materials
o Develop goals and outreach plan the project, with detailed and actionable outreach activities; including development of potential survey questions and material.
• Task 3.2 – Outreach at Community Events
o Attend relevant community events/meetings to promote the planning and design of the pocket parks.
• Task 3.3 – Door-to-Door Outreach
o Provide door-to-door outreach to residents in the adjacent areas to the project sites, gathering information and inviting them to events. • Task 3.4 – Online Engagement
o Build and maintain webpage with information about project and engagement opportunities.
o Cultivate social media following on Facebook and Twitter to increase awareness of community events and directly engage stakeholders.
• Task 3.5 – Community Workshops/Charrettes
o Organize community workshops to provide preliminary information to the planning and design consultant, review findings from surveys, outreach events, and gather additional input into planning and design priorities. Including community vote on final conceptual designs.

Watershed Conservation Authority (WCA)
The WCA has led the acquisition, planning and development of a variety of park and open space projects with complex jurisdictional and entitlement considerations. This work has provided the WCA with experience relative to the proposed scope of work, including multi-jurisdictional coordination, community engagement, and site programming/planning.

As a regional government agency with a focus on urban greening, the WCA will provide their projectlevel expertise on the project by providing coordination between all the partners and consultants.

East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice (EYCEJ)

7 EYCEJ is an environmental health and justice non-profit organization working towards a safe and healthy environment for communities that are disproportionately suffering the negative impacts of industrial pollution.

As a non-profit with a history of advocating in the Southeast Los Angeles region, EYCEJ will provide their expert community knowledge and community building skills on the project.

Padres Líderes en Acción
Padres Líderes en Acción is a local Cudahy parent group under the South Bay Center for Counseling whose focus it is to connect neighbors, provide opportunities for participation in city improvement projects, and be the voice for Cudahy.

As the experts of any community are the people who live, work, and play in them, Padres Líderes en Acción are integral to ensuring that the project results in conceptual designs that reflect the community’s wants, needs, and values.
f) Monitoring and Assessment Plan
As the project is a planning process, no Monitoring and Assessment Plan is required.

Nonetheless, project planning and conceptual designs will take future operation and maintenance into consideration of the designs.
g) Organizational Capacity
The City of Cudahy has recently been part of regional and local planning processes. The Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan involved City Staff input for projects such as the River Road conversion to public space, which is included as a Signature Project in the master plan.

Most importantly, the City finalized the new blueprint for the future, Cudahy General Plan 2040, in May 2018. After a two-year process, including community input from residents in every corner of the city, and a $293,000 grant for our Long-Range Water Conservation and Parks Plan from the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Proposition 1 Grant Program, the final Cudahy General Plan 2040 lays out how the City will move forward and included the development of the Cudahy Pocket Parks.

8 2. CERTIFIED YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PLAN
As the project is a planning process, no Certified Youth Employment Plan is required.

Nonetheless, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice has a strong focus on youth engagement process. In addition, the Los Angeles and Long Beach Conservation Corps will be engaged by the Watershed Conservation Authority as part of the Project Coordination process, to ensure that any potential future maintenance considerations are included as part of the planning process.

9 3. TASKLIST AND TIMELINE
The project tasks and deliverables are detailed below, with the City of Cudahy and our local partner, the Watershed Conservation Authority, providing project management and oversight throughout the process.

Tasks

1. Grant Administration
• Task 1.1 – Project Kick-Off Meeting
o The project will have two kick-off meetings, one with the core group of the City, Watershed Conservation Authority, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, and Padres Lideres. The second meeting will be with the planning and design consultant that is chosen.
o Involved: City of Cudahy and WCA
o Deliverable: Meeting agendas and notes
• Task 1.2 – Invoicing
o Submit complete monthly invoice packages to the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC).
o Involved: All parties
o Deliverable: Invoice packages
• Task 1.3 – Quarterly Reports
o Submit quarterly reports to the RMC, providing a summary of project progress and grant expenditures.
o Involved: City of Cudahy and WCA
o Deliverable: Quarterly reports

2. Project Coordination
• Task 2.1 – Grant Action Plan
o Develop an action plan describing detailed steps for achieving scope of work activities and deliverables. Update plan as requested by RMC. o Responsible Party: WCA (primary), Planning & Design Consultant o Involved: City of Cudahy
o Deliverable: Up-to-date action plan for grant activities • Task 2.2 – Project and Team Coordination
o Ongoing coordination of the project and team members. o Convene monthly meetings with project team to discuss progress on scope of work, action plan and other relevant activities.
o Responsible Party: WCA (primary), City of Cudahy, Outreach Partners, Planning and Design Consultant
o Deliverable: Meeting agendas and notes, sign-in sheets. • Task 2.3 – Technical Stakeholder Input

10 o WCA will seek to connect with other agencies and organizations that can provide valuable technical input on the project, for purposes of design and future maintenance.
o Responsible Party: WCA
o Deliverable: Meeting agendas and notes.
• Task 2.4 – Planning & Design Consultant Procurement
o Procure planning and design consultant(s) responsible for pocket park planning and design.
o Responsible Party: WCA, City of Cudahy, and Outreach Partners. o Deliverable: RFP, executed contract.
• Task 2.5 – Project Closeout
o Finalize project with all partners and the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. o Responsible Party: WCA and City of Cudahy.
o Deliverable: Grant closeout, final planning document, any city action.

3. Public Engagement
• Task 3.1 – Develop Outreach Plan & Survey Materials
o Develop goals and outreach plan the project, with detailed and actionable outreach activities; including development of potential survey questions and material.
o Responsible Parties: Outreach Partners and WCA
o Deliverable: Up-to-date outreach plan and materials.
• Task 3.2 – Outreach at Community Events
o Attend relevant community events/meetings to promote the planning and design of the pocket parks.
o Responsible Parties: Outreach Partners and WCA
o Deliverable: Sign-in sheets.
• Task 3.3 – Door-to-Door Outreach
o Provide door-to-door outreach to residents in the adjacent areas to the project sites, gathering information and inviting them to events. o Responsible Parties: Outreach Partners and WCA
o Deliverable: Sign-in sheets.
• Task 3.4 – Online Engagement
o Build and maintain webpage with information about project and engagement opportunities.
o Cultivate social media following on Facebook and Twitter to increase awareness of community events and directly engage stakeholders.
o Responsible Party: Outreach Partners, WCA, and City of Cudahy o Deliverable: Webpage, contacts.
• Task 3.5 – Community Workshops/Charrettes

11 o Organize community workshops to provide preliminary information to the planning and design consultant, review findings from surveys, outreach events, and gather additional input into planning and design priorities. Including community vote on final conceptual designs.
o Responsible Party: Outreach Partners (primary), WCA
o Deliverable: Event flyers, sign-in sheets, meeting notes.

4. Planning and Conceptual Design Development
• Task 4.1 – Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs)
o Procure ESA consultant.
o Conduct Phase I and Phase II ESAs on the larger triangle parcel pocket park, to be included in the final report for the project.
o Responsible party: WCA (lead), City of Cudahy, Third Party Consultant o Deliverable: Phase I and Phase II ESA Reports
• Task 4.2 – Planning and Feasibility
o Planning and feasibility analysis on the four pocket park sites, including, but not limited to: reviewing potential site access issues, easements, potential for street vacation and cul-de-sacking, and incorporation of the Phase I and Phase II ESAs.
o Responsible party: Third Party Consultant (primary), WCA o Deliverable: Draft Cudahy Pocket Parks Planning and Feasibility Report • Task 4.3 – Outreach Workshops
o Up to 4 public workshops to introduce the project, present preliminary designs, refine designs, and present final designs.
o Responsible party: Consultant I (primary), all other parties o Deliverable: Meeting notes
• Task 4.4 – Conceptual Designs
o Conceptual designs for the 4 pocket parks, consisting of two iterations to refine/change the design.
o Responsible party: Consultant I (primary), WCA
o Deliverable: Conceptual designs
• Task 4.5 – Final Report
o Finalize Cudahy Pocket Parks Planning and Feasibility Report, including conceptual design chapter.
o Responsible party: Consultant I (primary), WCA
o Deliverable: Final Report
Timeline
The timeline is provided below and in the Appendix.

12

13 4. BUDGET
The budget is provided below and in the Appendix.

14 5. RESOLUTION
The resolution is provided below and in the Appendix.

15

16

17 6. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
As the project is a planning process, no Environmental Compliance is required.

Nonetheless, environmental compliance needs will be included as part of the Final Report.

18 7. PERMITS, EASEMENTS, or CERTIFICATIONS
As the project is a planning process, no Permits, Easements, or Certifications are required.

Nonetheless, future permits, easements, and certifications needs will be included as part of the Final Report.

19 8. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
As the project is a planning process, no Operation and Maintenance is required.

Nonetheless, future operation and maintenance needs will be included as part of the Final Report.

20 9. AGREEMENTS
The pocket park sites are all owned by the City of Cudahy.

Three of the sites would occur on City right-of-way, meaning there is no Assessor Parcel Number (APN) for them as they are streets, the proposed pocket parks will cul-de-sac the streets.

The Otis Avenue parcel is a designated parcel, APN 6224-007-900, it is also a City-owned parcel. Below is the parcel detail from the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office, the full parcel detail report is provided in the Appendix:

21 10. POCKET PARK SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Salt Lake Avenue/Walnut Street Potential Cul-De-Sac
Salt Lake Avenue/Flower Street Potential Cul-De-Sac

22 Salt Lake Avenue/Olive Street Potential Cul-De-Sac
Otis Avenue Pocket Park Site

23 11. LETTERS OF SUPPORT
The letters of support are provided below and in the Appendix.

Communities for a Better Environment

24 Southeast Los Angeles (SELA) Collaborative

25 TreePeople

26 From Lot to Spot

27 Appendix

Task Number Task J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J 1 Grant Administration

1.1 Project Kick-Off Meeting X

1.2 Invoicing X X X X X X X X X X X X X

1.3 Quarterly Reports X X X X
2 Project Coordination

2.1 Grant Action Plan X X X

2.2 Project and Team Coordination X X X X X X X X X X X X X

2.3 Technical Stakeholder Input X X X X X X X X X X X X

2.4 Planning and Design Consultant Procurement X

2.5 Project Closeout X X
3 Public Engagement Engagement

3.1 Research, Develop Outreach Plan, and Survey Materials X X X X X X X

3.2 Outreach at Community Events X X X X X X X

3.3 Door-to-Door Outreach X X X X X X X

3.4 Online Engagement X X X X X X X

3.5 Community Workshops/Charrettes X X X X
4 Planning and Conceptual Design

4.1 Environmental Site Assessments X X X

4.2 Planning and Feasibility X X X

4.3 Outreach Workshops X X X X

4.4 Conceptual Designs X X X X

4.5 Final Report X X
Cudahy Pocket Parks: Planning, Outreach, and Design: Timeline Fiscal Year 2019/20 Fiscal Year 2020/21

Task Number Task Responsible Party Total Cost
1 Grant Administration

1.1 Project Kick-Off Meeting Cudahy/WCA/Outreach Team

1.2 Invoicing Cudahy/WCA

1.3 Quarterly Reports Cudahy/WCA
2 Project Coordination

2.1 Grant Action Plan WCA

2.2 Project and Team Coordination WCA/Cudahy/Outreach Team/Planning and Design Consultant

2.3 Technical Stakeholder Input WCA

2.4 Planning and Design Consultant Procurement WCA/Cudahy/Outreach Team

2.5 Project Closeout WCA/Cudahy
3 Public Engagement Engagement

3.1 Develop Outreach Plan & Survey Materials Outreach Team/WCA

3.2 Outreach at Community Events Outreach Team/WCA

3.3 Door-to-Door Outreach Outreach Team/WCA

3.4 Online Engagement Outreach Team/WCA/Cudahy

3.5 Community Workshops/Charrettes Outreach Team/WCA/Cudahy 4 Planning and Conceptual Design

4.1 Environmental Site Assessments Environmental Consultant/WCA/Cudahy

4.2 Planning and Feasibility Planning and Design Consultant/WCA/Cudahy

4.3 Outreach Workshops Planning and Design Consultant/WCA/Cudahy/Outreach Team

4.4 Conceptual Designs Planning and Design Consultant/WCA

4.5 Final Report Planning and Design Consultant/WCA/Cudahy Total Cost $365,000
Cudahy Pocket Parks: Planning, Outreach, and Design: Budget $15,000
$70,000
$110,000
$170,000

 Summary
16,135 0 12,600
0 0 0
16,135 0 12,600
AIN: 6224-007-900 3
Building & Land Overview
2020 Roll Preparation 2019 Current Roll RC Year 1975 Base Value $ $ 0 0 $
$ $ 0 0 $
$ $ $
Assessor's Responsible Division
Situs Address:

Use Type:

Parcel Type:

Tax Rate Area:

Other Property Type
Government Owned, Exempt
11368
Parcel Status:

Create Date:

Delete Date:

Tax Status:

Year Defaulted:

Exemption:

ACTIVE
EXEMPT
None
Use Code:

Design Type:

Quality Class:
8800
# of Units:

Beds/Baths:

Building SqFt:
/
0 Year Built:

Effective Year:

Land SqFt: 5,444
(http://assessormap.co.la.ca.us/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/PAIS/VirtualDirectory/AssessorMaps/ViewMap.html?val=6224-007) Parcel Map (http://assessormap.co.la.ca.us/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/PAIS/VirtualDirectory/AssessorMaps/ViewMap.html?val=6224-007) / Map Index (http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/PAIS/VirtualDirectory/AssessorMaps/ViewMap.html?val=6224-NDX) District:

Region:

Cluster:

South District Office
26 26820 HP/MAYWD/BG/SG
South District Office (https://maps.google.com/?q=1401+E.+Willow+St.+Signal+Hill%2C+CA+90755) 1401 E. Willow St.

Signal Hill, CA 90755
Phone: (562) 256-1701
Toll Free: 1 (888) 807-2111
M-F 7:30 am to 5:00 pm

Building and Land Characteristics
Land Information
1 of 1 Select Date
Please set a location or search for an address.

Use Code = 8800 (Other Property Type)
Total SqFt (GIS):

Total SqFt (PDB):

Usable SqFt:

Acres:

Land W' x D':
5,444
0 0 x 0
Sewers:

Flight Path:

X-Traffic:

Freeway:

Corner Lot:

Golf Front:

Horse Lot:

View:

Zoning:

Code Split:

HPM2*
Layers

+
–

9 0
Sequence Number:

Document Number:

Ownership Code 1:

Ownership Code 2:

Document Type:

Document Reason Code:
# of Parcels Transferred:
% Interest Transferred:

Verification Code:
0 0
Building Information
Events History
Show Re-Assessable Only:

Recording Date Seq. # Re-Assessed # Parcels % Ver. Code DTT Sale Price Assessed Value 01/18/1994 50 No 1 00%-0 1 $ $
50 0102863
3 - Review Not Required
7 - Non-Reappraisable
A - Excluded Transfer - No DTT
Z - Other Exclusion
1 00%-0
1 - Single Parcel Sale, Unverified
01/06/1967 50 Yes $ $
Situs Address:

Legal Description (for assessment purposes):

TR=349 BLK I
Impairment: None
Use Code: 8800 (Other Property Type)
8 = Miscellaneous
8 = Government Owned Property
0 = Unused or Unknown Code (No Meaning)
0 = Unused or Unknown Code (No Meaning)
SUBPART:

Design Type:

Quality Class:
# of Units:

Beds/Baths:

Building SqFt:
/
0 Year Built:

Effective Year:

Depreciation: / /
RCN Other:

RCN Other Trended:

Year Change:
$ 0
$ 0

Design Type:
=
=
=
=
SUMMARY: Total
# of Units:

Beds/Baths:

Building SqFt:

Avg SqFt/Unit:
0 0/0
0 
Ownership () Parcel Change ()

Sequence Number:

Document Number:

Ownership Code 1:

Ownership Code 2:

Document Type:

Document Reason Code:
# of Parcels Transferred:
% Interest Transferred:

Verification Code:

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries.
16,135 16,135
Recording Date Seq. # Re-Assessed # Parcels % Ver. Code DTT Sale Price Assessed Value 50 -
-
-
-
- Unknown or Unused Code
Assessment History
Show All: Hide Inactive Rolls:

Bill Number Bill
Type
Bill
Status
Date to
Auditor
Recording
Date
Total Value Land Value Improvement Value
220-PSEG 01/18/1994 $ $ $

Roll Detail
Bill Type: -
Bill Status: -
Date Created:

Date to Auditor:

Tax Reason Code: -
Tax Origin Code: -
Tax Rate Area (TRA): 11368
Consumer Price Index (CPI):

Processing Code: -
Recording Date: 01/18/1994
Sequence Number: 50
Document Number: 0102863
Document Type: A - Excluded Transfer - No DTT
Document Reason: Z - Other Exclusion
Ownership Code 1: 3 - Review Not Required
Ownership Code 2: 7 - Non-Reappraisable
Percent Interest: 00%-0
Exemption Key: - None
Land Value Reason: B - Historical: Auth to Establish 1975 Base Year Value Land Valuation Date: 02/33/1975
Land Appraisal Date: 07/31/1979
Improvement Value Reason: G - Historical: 1975 Reappraisal Improvement Valuation Date: 02/33/1975
Improvement Appraisal Date: 0
Value Detail
New Construction Completion (NCC)
NCC Type: -
NCC Date:

NC Land Added Value $ 0
NC Imp Added Value $ 0
Total NC $ 0
Real Property Value (RP)
Land Value $ 16,135
Improvement Value $
Total RP $ 16,135
Personal Property Value (PP)
Personal Property Value $ 0
Fixture Value $ 0
Total PP $ 0
Exemption/Exclusion Value
Home Owner Exemption (HOX) $ 0
Real Estate Exemption $ 0
Personal Property Exemption $ 0
Fixture Exemption $ 0
Total Exemptions $ 0
Net Assessed Value $ 16,135
© 2017- Los Angeles County Assessor
Contact Us (https://assessor.lacounty.gov/contact-us/) | Disclaimer (disclaimer) | FAQ (faq) PDB Effective Date: 07/04/2019
 (https://facebook.com/LACAssessor)  (https://www.twitter.com/LACASSESSOR)  (https://www.linkedin.com/company/los-angeles-county-office-of-the-assessor)  (https://youtube.com/u

July 8, 2019
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Rd.

Azusa, CA 91702
Re: Letter of Support for the City of Cudahy’s Proposition 68 Grant Application for the Cudahy Pocket Parks: Planning, Outreach, and Design Project
To Whom It May Concern:

I am pleased to support the coordinated effort of the City of Cudahy and the Watershed Conservation Authority on the Cudahy Pocket Parks: Planning, Outreach, and Design Project (project) to be submitted under the 2019 San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Proposition 68 Program.

Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) is one of the preeminent environmental justice organizations in the nation, specially in South East Los Angeles. Our mission is to build people’s power in California’s communities of color and low-income neighborhoods to achieve environmental health and justice by preventing and reducing pollution and building green, healthy and sustainable communities and environments. We serve communities that are disproportionately impacted by industrial pollution. Our members have first-hand knowledge of health disparities as a result of industrial activity adjacent to where they live and work and are active in advocating for green space and clean energy. The development new parks, big or small, is a much-needed in the City of Cudahy, which is classified as a community of Very High Park Need by the Los Angeles County Regional Parks and Open Space District.

The collaborative approach proposed by the City of Cudahy and the Watershed Conservation Authority ensures that the community’s wants, needs, and values, are ultimately reflected in the design of the pocket parks. This is a shift from the top-down approach that is typical of many planning projects.

As a supporter of the project, I plan to support and engage the project appropriately during both the outreach and design phases, and beyond into the funding and implementation of the project.

I respectfully request that you give favorable consideration to this funding application, which will allow the City of Cudahy to work towards providing equitable park space to its residents.

Sincerely,
Milton Hernandez Nimatuj
Southern California Program Director

Attachment C

Blank Page

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 1 of 2

STAFF REPORT
Date: November 1, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and City Council/Agency Members From: Alfonso Noyola, City Manager
By: City Clerk’s Office and City Attorney’s Office
Subject: Appointment of Two Cudahy Residents and One landlord to the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is requested to appoint two Cudahy Residents and one landlord to the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee.

BACKGROUND

1. On July 19, 2022, the City Council appointed Mayor Alcantar and Council Member Lomelí to serve on the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee (the “Committee”).

2. On September 6, 2022, the City Council requested that the Committee composition item be brought back for consideration at the September 20, 2022, City Council Meeting to amend the current composition of the Committee.

3. On September 20, 2022, Council Member Lomeli stepped down from her position on the Committee and the City Council appointed Vice Mayor Gonzalez to serve on the Committee.

ANALYSIS
Ad Hoc Committees are formed at the request of the council to investigate, research, and ultimately provide policy recommendations to the council for consideration.

The Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee was created to study, develop, and propose possible policies for rent control within the City.

Appointing two residents and one landlord to serve on the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee Item Number
16G

“Serving The People” "Sirviendo A La Comunidad"
Staff Report
11/01/2022 Page 2 of 2

allows a broader perspective and understanding between community members, landlords, and council members.

In the event the Council is unable to appoint two residents and one landlord for any reason, the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee appointed members may continue with the duties of the Commission.

CONCLUSION
In an attempt to fill the three empty positions on the Committee at this time, the Council is requested to appoint at maximum two (2) residents and one (1) landlord to the Rent Control Ad Hoc Committee.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
Goal F (Communication and Outreach)
Objective:

4. Identify methods to connect with community members, including soliciting input on a regular basis.

7. Foster relationship building among residents.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
This requested action anticipates no financial impact.

ATTACHMENT
None