Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, February 3, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

2. The Building does not need to include retail, restaurant, and/or theater uses.

Ms. Smith claims that the Building must contain retail, restaurant, and/or theater uses to qualify for the ASOZ. This argument misconstrues Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”) Chapter

30.26.040.B, which expressly applies to the “geographic area” for ASOZs and not individual . individual buildings.

The proposed ASOZ amendment would extend the existing ASOZ for the Glendale Galleria, which contains the requisite amount of retail, restaurant, and theater uses. Therefore, the proposed amendments meet the requirements of GMC Chapter 30.26.040.B.

3. The ASOZ permits the signs to be located on the north and south faces of the Building.

Ms. Smith maintains that the ASOZ requires the signs to be located on the Building face that fronts the street. GMC Chapter 30.26.040.C contains no such requirement. Subsection C.5, as amended, provides that the signs be “installed parallel to the face of the building or the appurtenant structure on which they are attached.” (Emphasis added.) It does not require them to be on a specific face.

Like most buildings, the Building has four faces. Consistent with the ASOZ, as amended, the proposed Signs will be installed parallel to the face of the Building or an appurtenant structure on which they are attached. Therefore, the Signs comply with this ASOZ requirement.

4. The signs are consistent with the Secretary’s Standards.

Ms. Smith argues that the installation of the signs is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. The expert analysis by ARG, which was independently reviewed by City Staff, demonstrates that the signs are consistent with the Secretary's Standards. Specifically:
• The location and placement of the Signs would not result in the removal or obstruction of any of the Building’s character-defining features, which are largely concentrated on the Building’s primary (west) façade and are enumerated in ARG’s memo.
• While the north Sign would be mounted to the Building’s exterior concrete wall, the Sign would be installed in such a way that there would be minimal damage to the historic fabric.
• The size and scale of the Signs are similar to the size and scale of previous (non- extant) wall signs on the building. The Signs take up a small portion of the elevations and would be compatible with the historic size, scale, proportion, and massing of the Building.
269 of 499

The Honorable City Council
of the City of Glendale
February 3, 2026

Page 3 ends

• The Signs’ design would be simple but compatible with the historic building (simple dark surround), and their materials (metal frame) are similar to the existing materials (metal doors/windows) on the Building. • The Standards are inherently flexible; buildings need to change use to remain vital, and the Standards provide accommodations for change.

Ms. Smith claims that the signs are inconsistent with National Park Service Preservation (“NPS”) Brief 14. However, this Brief is not relevant as it pertains only to the expansion of a building’s footprint. The Project proposes no such expansion.

She also claims that the signs are inconsistent with NPS Preservation Brief 25. The Brief states that:

NPS discourages the adoption of local guidelines that are too restrictive, and that effectively dictate uniform signs within commercial districts. Instead, it encourages communities to promote diversity in signs-their sizes, types, colors, lighting, lettering and other qualities. It also encourages business owners to choose signs that reflect their own tastes, values, and personalities.

Therefore, the Signs are consistent with Preservation Brief 25.

5. Historic Preservation Commission approval is not required.

Ms. Smith and others maintain that the Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) must approve the signs. The HPC has the authority to approve “Major Alterations,” whereas the Community Development Director (Director) has the authority to approve “Minor Alterations.” The GMC defines a Major Alteration as:
• As a building addition above the specified square footages; • The addition of a story to the building;
• An alteration determined by the Director to be incompatible with the Secretary’s Standards.
• An alteration that the Director determines requires design review by the appropriate design review authority to be able to determine compatibility with the Secretary's Standards.

In this case:
• No square footage is being added to the Building:
• No additional story is being added to the Building; and 270 of 499

The Honorable City Council
of the City of Glendale
February 3, 2026

Page 4 ends

• The Director has determined the Signs to be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards.

Therefore, the Signs are a minor alteration, and Commission review is not required.

6. The signs are consistent with the Mills Act contract.

Ms. Smith asserts that the Signs are not consistent with the Mills Act contract (“Contract”). The Mills Act contract requires the owner to preserve the Building , if necessary to restore and rehabilitate it to conform to the Secretary's Standards.

The Contract includes a specific list of maintenance items, including inspection, cleaning, repairs, and graffiti removal, and a timeline for completion. Caruso has complied fully with these requirements.

The Contract does not prohibit the owner from making alterations to the Building. As previously discussed, the signs are consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. Therefore, they are also consistent with the Contract.

Ms. Smith also maintains that the Contract requires HPC review and approval of the signs. There is no such requirement in the Contract. As previously discussed, the Project is a Minor Alteration that does not require HPC approval.

B. Response to Email from Damian Sullivan dated February 3, 2026

1. The signs are consistent with the Secretary’s Standards.

Mr. Sullivan argues that, based on his own admittedly cursory, non-expert review, the installation of the Signs is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards.

ARG’s expert analysis, which was independently reviewed by City Staff, demonstrates that the signs are consistent with the Secretary's Standards.

2. The project is exempt from CEQA.

Mr. Sullivan implies that the City’s determination that the project is exempt from CEQA is incorrect because it relied on an expert hired by the applicant. The City’s determined that the Project is exempt from CEQA based, in part, on a thorough report from ARG, who are widely recognized and respected experts in historic preservation.

Consistent with CEQA and the City’s longstanding practice, City Staff independently reviewed and approved the report. Therefore, the City’s determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA is supported by substantial evidence and in compliance with CEQA.

271 of 499

The Honorable City Council
of the City of Glendale
February 3, 2026

Page 5 ends

For the foregoing reasons, the arguments in the late correspondence should be rejected.

Thank you for your consideration. We will be available at the hearing tonight to answer any questions you may have.

Very truly yours,

Dale J. Goldsmith

272 of 499

•A
APEKlAN
Al)VC)CACV
December12,2025
DomenicaK.Megerdichian
AssistanttotheCityManager
CityofGlendale,ManagementServices
613EastBroadway,Suite200
Glendale,CA91206
DearMs.Megerdichian:

Thankyoufortheopportunitytosubmitaproposalforstatelegislativeadvocacy servicesfortheCityofGlendale.

ApekianAdvocacyisaboutique,full-servicegovernmentaffairsfirmwithovertwenty yearsoflegislative,regulatoryandpoliticalaffairsexperienceinCaliforniagovernment.

Througheffectivestrategyandtrustedrelationshipswithlegislativeleadershipandthe Governor’soffice,ApekianAdvocacyhasachievednumerouslegislative,budgetand regulatoryvictoriesonavarietyofissues,includingenergy,housing,transportation,and landuse.

Harnessingourexperienceandtrackrecordofsuccess,weareconfidentthatwecan deliverexceptionalserviceandvalueinrepresentingtheCityofGlendalebeforethe legislature,regulatoryagenciesandseniormembersoftheGovernor’sAdministrationto advanceitspriorityissues.

WebelievethatwearethebestfittorepresentGlendalegivenourpolicyexpertise, diverseclientandissueexperience,andourunmatchedrelationshipswithGlendale’s legislativedelegationandlegislativeleadership.
1017LSTREET,#726,SACRAMENTO,CA95814I(916)[email protected] Sincerely,
ShantApekian
ApekianAdvocacy
273 of 499

PROPOSAL
FOR
STATE

LEGISLATIVE

ADVOCACY

SERVICES
FOR
CITY
OF

GLENDALE
Date:

December
12,
2025
Proposer:

Apekian
Advocacy
Address:
1414
K
Street.

Ste
450
City:

Sacramento
State:

Q&
Zip
Code:
95814
Telephone:
[216)
320-2647
Email:

ShanflTh.ApekianAdvocacv.com
TO
THE
CITY
OF

GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA:

In
response
to
the
Requestfor
Proposals
(“RFP”)
by
the
City
of
Glendale
(“City”),
the
undersigned
person
or
entity
(“Proposer”)
now
submits
this
Proposal
(“Proposal”),
with
the
accompanying
forms
and
attachments.

In
submitting
this
Proposal,
Proposer
certifies
that:

Proposer
has
read,
examined,
and
is
fully
familiar
with
all
three
of
the
items
below
(collectively,
:the
Documents’):
(1)
The
REPs
provisions;
(2)
The
Contract’s
terms,
conditions,
requirements,
specifications,
and
minimum
performance
standards;
and
(3)
Any
Addenda
issued
during
the
proposal
period;
B.

Proposer
has
carefully
checked
all
words,
figures,
and
statements
made
in
the
Documents;
C.

Proposer
is
satisfied
that
the
Documents
are
accurate;
D.

Proposer
understands
and
accepts
all
of
the
Documents’
provisions;
E.

Proposer
has
exercised
all
necessary
due
diligence
in
making
investigations
and
inquiries,
examining
documents,
and
inspecting
City
sites
and
facilities;
F.

Proposer
is
fully
familiar
with—
and
has
fully
considered—
all
facts,
conditions,
circumstances,
and
mailers
that
may
affect,
in
any
way,
Proposer’s
services
or
costs;
G.

Proposer
offers
to
fully
perform
all
of
the
duties
and
obligations
specified
in
the
Documents
in
exchange
for
the
consideration
described
in
the
Documents;
PF:

I
274 of 499

/
advantage
over
other
proposers;
and
D.

All
facts
and
statements
in
the
Proposal
are
completely
true,
accurate,
and
correct.

F
By
signing
this
Proposal,
each
individual
below
represents
and
certifies
that
the
individual:(1)
Has
the
right,
power,
legal
capacity,
and
authority
not
only
to
sign
this
Proposal
on
the
Proposer’s
behalf,
but
also
to
bind
the
Proposer
to
this
Proposal;
and
(2)
Binds
the
Proposer
to
this
Proposal.

PROPOSER:

SIGNATURE
MUST
BE

ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE
A
NOTARY
(USE
FORM
PF:5)
By
SI
nature
Name
Shant
J.

Apekian
Printed
Its
President
Title
Address
1414
K
St.

Ste
450,
Sacramento,
CA
958’
Telephone
(916)
320-2647
IF

PROPOSER
ISA

CORPORATION,
PLACE

IMPRINT
OF

CORPORATE
SEAL
IF

PROPOSER
IS
A

PARTNERSHIP,
BELOW:

JOINT

VENTURE,
OR
OTHER
LEGAL

ENTITY,
THEN
EACH

PARTNER,

PRINCIPAL,
OR

INDIVIDUAL
MUST
SIGN
THIS

PROPOSAL
ON
PAGE
PF;4,
IN
FRONT
OFA
NOTARY
PF:3
275 of 499

State
of
California
County
of
______________________________________
On
_________________________________
before
me,
________________________________________
DateNameandTiUeoftheOfficer
personally
appeared
Name(s)ofSnersj
who
proved
to
me
on
the
basis
of
satisfactory
evidence
to
be
the
person(s)
whose
name(s)
is/are
subscribed
to
the
within
instrument
and
acknowledged
to
me
that
he/she/they
executed
the
same
in
his/her/their
authohzed
capacity(ies),
and
that
by
his/her/their
signature(s)
on
the
instrument
the
person(s),
or
the
entity
upon
behalf
of
which
the
person(s)
acted,
executed
the
instrument.

Icertify
under

PENALTY
OF

PERJURY
under
the
laws
of
The
State
of
California
that
the
foregoing
paragraph
istrue
and
correct.

WITNESS
my
hand
and
official
seal,
Signature
_________________________________________
PlaceNotarySeatAboveSignatureofNotaryPublic

OPTIONAL
Although
the
data
below
is
not
required
by
law,
itmay
prove
valuable
to
persons
relying
on
the
document
and
could
prevenl
fraudulent
reattachment
of
this
form
to
another
document
Description
of
Attached
Document
Title
or
Type
of
Document:
_______________________________________________________ Document
Date:
____________________________________________________
Number
of
Pages:

Signer(s)
Other
Than
Named
Above
____________________________________________
Capacity(ies)
Claimed
by
Signer(s)
Signers
Name:
_____________________________________________
Signers
Name:

Individual
U
Corporate
Officer—
Title:
________
fl
Partner:

Limited
E3eneral
fl
Attorney-In-Fact
o
Trustee
o
Guardian
fl
Conservator
Olher.
_________________
Signer
isrepresenting:
_______________
o
IndividualCorporate
Officer—
Title:
________
C
Partner:

Limited
D3enerat
o
Attorney-In-Fact
fl
TrusteeGuardian
Conservator
C
Other:
________________________
Signer
isrepresenting:
_______________

RIGHTTHUMBPRINT

OFSIGNER
TopofThum.bHere
RIGHTTHuMBPRtNT

OFSIGNER
Tc.p.ztThuTbHere
PF:5
276 of 499

1.3 Ifyour
firm
is
alimited
liability
company,
answer
the
following:

1.3.1 Date
of
formation:
_______________

1.3.2 State
of
formation:
________________

1.3.3 Secretary
of
State’s
File
or
ID
number:
_________

1.3.4 Chief
Executive
Officer’s
name:
______

1.3.5 Name
of
Manager(s):
_______________

1.3.6 Agent
for
Service
of
Process:
__________________________________________

1.3.7 Agent’s
address:
_______________________________________________________

1.3.8 For
any
person,
firm
or
entity
whose
ownership
or
membership
interest
in
the
company
exceeds
25%,
identify
the
individual,
firm
or
entity
and
the
corresponding
percentage
of
ownership
or
membership:

Name:
________________________________________
Percent:
____________
Name:
______________________________________
Percent:
___________
Name:
______________________________________
Percent:
___________
Name:
______________________________________
Percent:

1.4 Ifyour
firm
is
apartnership,
answer
the
following:

1.4.1Dateofformation:
_________________________

1.4.2 Type
of
partnership
(General,
Limited,
LLP):
________________________

1.4.3 Secretary
of
States
Registration
or
ID
number:
______________________

1.4.4 List
the
name
of
the
General
Partner(s)
and
any
individual
who
has
any
equity
interest
in
the
partnership:

1.4.5 List
jurisdictions
in
which
your
firm’s
fictitious
name
(dba)
is
filed:

PF:7
277 of 499

22.5 Prior
name:
_____________________________________________

2.2.6 Address:
_______________________________________________

2.2.7Reasonnamechanged:
__________________________________

2.2.8 Starting
/ending
dates
of
prior
name:
__________________
/

2.3 Is
your
firm
asubsidiary,
parent,
holding
company,
or
affiliate
of
another
firm?
Yes
X
No
If
Yes,
explain
the
relationship
between
your
firm
and
the
associated
firms.

Include
information
about
an
affiliated
firm
only
ifone
firm
owns
50%
or
more
of
another
firm,
or
ifan
owner,
partner
or
officer
of
your
firm
holds
asimilar
position
in
another
firm:

2.3.1 Associated
firm’s
name:_________________________________________________

2.3.2 Address:
__________________________________________________________

2.3.3 Relationship
between
your
firm
and
the
associated
firm:

2.3.4 Principals
and
their
corresponding
percentage
of
ownership
or
control:

Name:

Percent:

Name:

Percent:

Name:

Percent:

Name:

Percent:

2.3.5 Associated
firm’s
name:
__________________________

2.3.6 Address:
______________________________________

2.3.7 Relationship
between
your
firm
and
the
associated
firm:

2.3.8 Principals
and
their
corresponding
percentage
of
ownership
or
control:

Name:
______________________________________
Percent:

PF:9
278 of 499

3.3.3 House
ID
number:

N/A

3.4 In
the
past
ten
years,
has
your
firm
or
any
of
its
owners,
partners,
officers,
or
employees
been
investigated,
cited,
assessed
any
penalties,
subject
to
any
disciplinary
action
by
alicensing
agency
or
lobbying
registration
authonty,
orfound
to
have
violated
any
licensing
or
registration
laws
or
regulations?
Elves
XNo
IfYes,
identity
the
licensing
agency,
license
type
and
number,
lobbying
registration
authority
and
ID
number,
and
reason
for
the
disciplinary
action.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

3.4.1 Licensing
agency:
______________________________________________________

3.4.2 Type
of
license:
____________________________________________________

3.4.3 License
number:
_______________________________________________________

3.4.4 Lobbyist
registration
authority:
____________________________________________

3.4.5 Lobbyist
registration
ID
number:
__________________________________________

3.4.6 Date
of
disciplinary
action:
_______________________________________________

3.4.7 Reason
for
disciplinary
action:
____________________________________________

3.4.8 Licensing
agency:
___________

3.3.9 Type
of
license:
_____________

3.3.10 License
number:
____________

3.3.11 Lobbyist
registration
authority:—

3.3.12 Lobbyist
registration
ID
number:

3.313
Date
of
disciplinary
action:

3.3.14 Reason
for
disciplinary
action:—

3.3.15 Licensing
agency:
___________

3.3.16 Type
of
license:
____________

3.3.17 License
number:
____________

3.3.18 Lobbyist
registration
authority:—

3.3.19 Lobbyist
registration
ID
number:

3.3.20 Date
of
disciplinary
action:

3.3.21 Reason
for
disciplinary
action:—
PF:11
279 of 499

4.3.5 Was
your
firm:

Selected
by
a
bid
or
RFP?
Q
Yes
No
Under
acontract
or
agreement?
Q
Yes
fl
No

4.3.6 Contact
Person:
__________________
Phone
Number:

4.3.7 Government
entity’s
name:
_________________________________

4.3.8 Services
that
your
firm
provided:
____________________________

4.3.9 Starting!
ending
dates
of
services:—
/
______

4.3.10 Fee(s)thatyourfirm
charged:
_______

4.3.11 Was
your
firm:

Selected
by
a
bid
or
REP?
U
Yes
No
Under
acontract
or
agreement?
E
Yes
fl
No

4.3.12 Contact
Person:
________________
Phone
Number:

4.3.13Governmententity’sname:
_______________________________

4.3.14 Services
that
your
firm
provided:
____________________________

4.3.15 Starting
/ending
dates
of
services:
___________________
/
___________________

4.3.16 Eee(s)thatyourfirm
charged:
_________________________________________

4.3.17 Was
your
firm:

Selected
by
a
bid
or
REP?
fl
Yes
LI
No
Under
acontract
or
agreement?
LI
Yes
LI
No

4.3.18 Contact
Person:
___________________________
Phone
Number:______________

4.4 For
the
years
below,
list
the
number
of
government
entities
for
which
your
firm
performed
legislative
advocacy
services:
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Number
of
public
entities:
0 PF:13
280 of 499

4.7 Describe
your
firm’s
background
and
experience
with
respect
to
working
with
state
legislature,
state
agencies,
and
senior
executive
and
committee
staff.

Provide
a
matrix
identifying
relationships
with
key
legislators,
committee
consultants,
agency
directors,
policy
staff
and
third
house
relevant
to
City
priorities,
including
demonstrated
interaction
within
the
past
24 months.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

See
Attachment

18.1 PF:15
281 of 499

4.9 List
some
of
your
firm’s
unsuccessful
state
legislative
efforts
for
government
entities
during
the
past
ten
years.

Identify
the
legislation,
describe
your
firm’s
efforts,
and
state
the
reason
or
reasons
why
the
government
entity
did
not
achieve
the
result
that
it
desired.

Provide
any
applicable
examples
of
efforts
to
identify
obstacles,
next
steps,
and
strategic
adjustments
for
other
clients.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

See
Attachment

18.3 PF:17
282 of 499

5.3 Does
your
firm
have
an
agreement
or
an
arrangement
with
any
other
firm
to
loan
or
share
your
firm’s
employees?
LjYes
X
No

5.4 List
the
personnel
who
will
perform
the
work
under
this
Request
for
Proposals
and
will
have
primary
responsibility
for
the
City’s
contract.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

5.4.1 Name:

Shant
Apekian

5.4.2 Title
Iposition:

President,
Apekian
Advocacy

5.4.3 Professional
background!
area
of
expertise:

Shant
J.

Apekian
brings
more
than
20 years
of
experience
in
California
policy
and
government
affairs,
with
aproven
track
record
of
navigating
the
state’s
complex
political
landscape
to
deliver
meaningful
results
on
the
most
challenging
issues.

Over
the
course
of
his
career,
Shant
has
developed
strong
expertise
in
the
legislative
process
and
strong
bipartisan
relationships
with
lawmakers,
staff,
and
administration
officials—
proving
tc
be
inviable
to
his
clients.

Today,
Shant
advises
adiverse
portfolio
of
clients,
including
Fortune
500
companies1
trade
associations,
and
nonprofits.

His
work
spans
a
broad
range
of
issues
such
as
energy,
transportation,
housing,
healthcare,
and
entertainment.

Shant’s
past
leadership
roles
with
major
organizations
underscore
his
breadth
of
experience.

At
the
Western
States
Petroleum
Association,
he
spearheaded
advocacy
and
political
strategies
on
climate
change,
renewable
energy,
transition,
and
labor
policy.

At
the
California
Apartment
Association,
he
worked
extensively
on
housing
policy
on
behalf
of
national
real
estate
investmen
trusts,
developers,
and
landlords.

He
began
his
career
as
a
legislative
staffer
in
the
State
Capitol
and
on
political
campaigns,
grounding
his
advocacy
work
in
firsthand
knowledge
of
Califomia’s
political
institutions

5.4.4 Number
of
months
Iyears
with
your
firm:
3years

5.4.5 Number
of
professional
degrees
Ilicenses
Icertifications
this
person
holds:
2 5.4.6
List
professional
degrees
/licenses
Icertifications:
___________________________
Master
of
Public
Administration-
University
of
Soutehrn
Califoirnia
Bachelor
of
Arts
in
Political
Science
&
Sociology-
University
of
California,
Los
Angeles

5.4.7Professionalaffiliations:
________________________________
California
Armenian
Legislative
Caucus,
Founding
Board
Member
PF:19
283 of 499

5.4.15 Number
of
professional
degrees!
licenses
/certifications
this
person
holds:
_______

5.4.16 List
professional
degrees!
licenses
/certifications:
___________________________

5.4.17 Professional
affiliations:
___________________________________________________

5.4.18 Related
professional
experience:
_________________________________________

5.4.19 Honors
and
awards:
____________________________________________________

5.4.20 Name
of
clients
and
government
entities
for
which
this
person
currently
performs
legislative
advocacy
services:

5.4.21Name:
______________________________

5.4.22 Title
/position:
___________________________________________________________

5.4.23 Professional
background
/area
of
expertise:

5.4.24 Number
of
months
/years
with
your
firm:
__________________________________

5.4.25 Number
of
professional
degrees!
licenses!
certifications
this
person
holds:
_______
PF:21
284 of 499

given;
identify
the
person
or
entity
that
provides
the
training;
and
state
how
often
the
training
occurs.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

All
employees
take
the
required
lobbyist
ethics
training
course
on
an
ongoing
basis
as
required
by
state
law.

PF:23
285 of 499

8.2 In
the
past
ten
years.
has
your
firm
had
any
consolidations,
mergers,
acquisitions,
closings,
layoffs,
or
staff
reductions?
LiVes
XNo
IfYes,
list
the
date,
and
describe
the
facts
and
circumstances
about
each
instance.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

8.3 Is
your
firm
in
the
process
of,
or
in
negotiations
toward:
(a)
consolidating,
merging,
selling,
or
closing
its
business,
or
(b)
laying
off
employees
or
reducing
staff?
flYes
XNo
IfYes!
describe
the
transaction;
list
the
anticipated
date
for
completing
the
transaction,
laying
off
employees,
or
reducing
staff;
and
describe
the
facts,
circumstances,
and
reasons
for
taking
the
action.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

PF:25
286 of 499

9.2 Has
agovernment
entity
or
aclient
ever
determined
that
your
firm
is
anon-responsible
bidder
or
contractor?EJYes
XNo
IfYes,
list
the
date,
and
describe
the
facts
and
circumstances
about
each
instance.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

9.3 Has
a
government
entity
or
a
client
ever
debarred
or
suspended
your
firm
from
bidding
or
contracting?LjYes
XNo
IfYes,
list
the
date,
and
describe
the
facts
and
circumstances
about
each
instance.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

PF:27
287 of 499

9.6 Has
agovernment
entity
or
aclient
ever
terminated,
suspended,
or
non-renewed
your
firm’s
contract
or
agreement
before
its
completion?
EYes
XNo
IfYes,
list
the
date!
and
describe
the
facts
and
circumstances
about
each
instance.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

9.7 Has
agovernment
entity
or
aclient
ever
notified
or
advised
your
firm
that
its
performance
under
a
contract
or
agreement
is
poor,
sub-standard,
or
non-compliant?
LjYes
XN0
IfYes,
list
the
date,
and
describe
the
facts
and
circumstances
about
each
instance.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

PF:29
288 of 499

10. BUSINESS

INTEGRITY
For
the
following
questions,
the
term
“owner”
does
not
include
owners
of
stock
in
your
firm
ifyour
firm
is
a
publicly
traded
corporation.

The
term
“convicted”
includes
averdict
of
guilty
by
ajudge
or
jury,
aplea
of
guilty,
a
plea
of
nob
contendere,
or
aforfeiture
of
bail.

10.1 In
the
past
ten
years,
has
your
firm
or
any
of
its
owners,
partners,
officers,
or
employees
been
convicted
in
acriminal
action,
or
found
liable
in
acivil
suit,
for
making
false
claim(s)
or
material
misrepresentation(s)
to
any
government
entity?
LjYes
XNo
IfYes,
identify
the
government
entity;
list
the
date,
court
and
case
number;
describe
the
facts
and
circumstances
about
each
instance;
and
set
forth
the
outcome
or
disposition.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

10.2 In
the
past
ten
years,
has
your
firm
or
any
of
its
owners,
partners,
officers,
or
employees
been
convicted
of
acrime
involving
embezzlement,
theft,
fraud,
forgery,
bribery,
deceptive
or
unlawful
business
practices,
peijury,
falsifying
or
destroying
records
or
evidence,
or
receiving
stolen
property?
(ZjYes
XNo
IfYes,
identify
the
crime
or
offense;
list
the
date,
court
and
case
number;
describe
the
facts
and
circumstances
about
each
instance;
and
set
forth
the
penalty
or
punishment
imposed.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

PF:31
289 of 499

11. CLAIMS
AND
SUITS
For
the
following
questions,
the
term
owner
does
not
include
owners
of
stock
in
your
firm
ifyourfirm
is
a
publicly
traded
corporation.

11.1 In
the
past
ten
years,
has
your
firm
or
any
of
its
owners,
partners,
officers,
or
employees
been
a
defendant
in
court-
or
been
involved
in
a
mediation
or
arbitration-
on
amatter
related
to:

11.1.1 The
performance,
non-performance,
default,
or
breach
of
acontract
or
agreement?
DYes
XNo

11.1.2 Violating
any
laws,
rules,
or
regulations?
ljYes
XN0

11.1.3 Bodily
injury
or
personal
injury
(libel,
slander,
false
imprisonment)?
DYes
XN0

11.1.4 Employment-related
litigation
brought
by
an
employee
of
your
firm?
DYes
XNO

11.1.5 Payment
to
asubcontractor
or
subconsultant?
fYes
XN0
Ifthe
answer
to
questions

11.1.1 to

11.1.5 is
Yes,
identify
the
name
of
the
person
or
entity
that
sued
(i.e
.,“the
plaintiff’);
list
the
date,
court
and
case
number;
describe
the
facts
and
circumstances
giving
rise
to
the
lawsuit,
mediation,
or
arbitration;
and
set
forth
the
outcome
or
disposition.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

PF:33
290 of 499

12. INSURANCE12.1
In
the
past
ten
years,
has
an
insurance
company
or
asurety
company:

12.1.1 Refused
to
insure
your
firm?
LiVes
XNo

12.1.2 Canceled
or
non-renewed
your
firm’s
insurance
coverage?
DYes
XNO

12.1.3 Refused
to
issue
your
firm
abond?
LiVes
XNO

12.1.4 Canceled
or
revoked
abond
obtained
by
your
firm?
jYes
XNo
If
the
answer
to
questions
12,1.1
to

12.1.4 is
Yes,
identify
the
name
of
the
insurance
company
or
surety
company;
list
the
date;
and
describe
the
facts
and
circumstances
about
each
instance.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

13. CONFLICT
OF

INTEREST

13.1 Identify
government
entity
clients
whose
interests
are,
or
may
be,
in
conflict
with
the
City
of
Glendale’s
interests
(i.e.,
Glendale’s
issues,
needs,
goals,
objectives).

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

13.1.1 Government
entity’s
name:

None

13.1.2 Contact
Person:
_______________________
Phone
Number:

13.1.3 Starting
date
of
your
firm’s
services:
______________________
PF:35
291 of 499

15. PUBLIC

RECORDS
EXEMPT

INFORMATION
Below
please
identify
(by
ageneral
description)
all
copyrighted
material,
trade
secrets,
or
other
proprietary
information
(“protectable
documents”)
that
Proposer
has
included
in
this
Proposal
which
Proposer
believes
should
be
exempt
from
disclosure
under
California’s
Public
Records
Act,
Government
Code
Section
6250,
etseq.

By
listing
the
protectable
documents
below,
Proposer
agrees
to
indemnify,
defend,
and
hold
harmless
City
and
its
officers,
agents,
employees,
and
representatives
from
and
against
any
action,
claim,
lawsuit,
or
proceeding,
including
costs
and
expenses,
arising
out
of
or
connected
with
the
City’s
refusal
to
disclose
the
protectable
documents
to
any
party
making
a
request
for
those
items.

The
City
will
treat
any
Proposer,
who
fails
to
identify
below
protectable
documents
that
Proposer
believes
should
be
exempt
from
disclosure,
as
having
waived
its
right
to
an
exemption
from
disclosure,
as
the
Public
Records
Act
provides.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

None

16. PROPOSED
FEES
AND
RATES

16.1 For
the
period
of
February
1,
2026-
December
31,
2026,
list
the
billing
rate,
fee,
and
cost
foryour
firm
an
its
employees
(professional
and
administrative)
to
perform
the
services
and
complete
all
tasks
described
in
the
REP.

Specify
the
employee’s
name
and
title
or
position
with
the
corresponding
rate,
fee,
or
cost.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

Apekian
Advocacy
proposes
amonthly
retainer
of
$10,000
to
fully
and
successfully
implement
all
aspects
of
the
scope
as
laid
out
in
the
request
for
proposal.

As
the
City
is
aware,
typical
contracts
for
state
legislative
consulting
services
are
done
on
anot-to-
exceed
retainer
basis.

The
unpredictable
nature
of
the
legislative
calendar
and
the
varying
workload
throughout
the
year
lend
itself
best
to
this
type
of
contract
arrangement.

PF:37
292 of 499

additional
information
to
present.”
Our
firm
does
not
have
any
additional
information
to
present.

18. ATTACHMENTSForany
attachment
that
is
apart
of
this
Proposal,
please
list
and
describethe
attachment
(e.g.,
‘Explanation
concerning
question

9.3-2
pages”
or
“Information
required
by
Section
6of
the
RFP
—6
pages”).

Our
firm
declares
that
the
attachments
listed
below
are
added
and
are
made
apart
of
this
Proposal
in
order
to
fully
and
accurately
respond
to
the
RFP:

18.1 Response
to
Question

4.7 18.2
Response
to
Question

4.8 18.3
Response
to
Question

4.9 18.4
Response
to
Question

4.10 18.5
Shant
JApekian
Resume—
Information
Required
by
Section

5.5 13.6
Financial
Statements—
Information
Required
by
Section

8.4 18.7
Bank
Letter
of
Reference—
Information
Required
by
Section

8.4 18.8
Notary
Acknowledgement_Form-
Required
by
PF:
4 18.918.1018.11181216.131814
1815
______________________________
PF:39
293 of 499

AUACKMENT

18.1—
Response
to
Question

4.7 4.7
Describe
your
firm’s
background
and
experience
with
respect
to
working
with
state
legisLature,
state
agencies,
and
senior
executive
and
committee
staff.

Provide
a
matrix
identifying
relationships
with
key
Legislators,
committee
consuLtants,
agency
directors,
policy
staff
and
third
house
reLevant
to
City
priorities,
incLuding
demonstrated
interaction
within
the
past
24 months.

Apekian
Advocacy
is
afuLl
service
government
affairs
firm
with
over
twenty
years
of
LegisLative,
regulatory
and
political
affairs
experience
in
California
government.

Its
principal,
Shant
i.

Apekian
has
extensive
expertise
in
the
areas
of
housing,
healthcare,
energy
and
transportation
policy.

Apekian
Advocacy
has
developed
a
keen
understanding
of
how
to
navigate
California’s
compLex
politicaL
dynamics
to
advance
successful
outcomes
on
very
difficult
issues.

Apekian
Advocacy
has
the
experience,
reLationships,
and
proven
track
record
to
deLiver
meaningful
results
for
our
cLients.

Our
tong-standing
connections
with
legislators,
the
Newsom
administration,
regulatory
agencies,
and
key
stakeholder
groups
aLLow
us
to
effectively
advance
client
priorities
across
aLL
major
policy
arenas.

We
regularly
Lead
efforts
to
sponsor
LegisLation,
secure
budget
investments,
engage
in
regulatory
proceedings,
advocate
on
high-priority
biLLs,
and
buiLd
LegisLative
and
administrative
support
for
client
projects
and
programs.

We
pride
ourselves
on
our
deep
understanding
of
the
Appropriations
and
Budget
Committee
processes
and
our
abiLity
to
engage
directLy
with
the
Lawmakers
and
staff
who
determine
the
fate
of
fiscaL
legislation.

Our
strong
reLationships
in
the
LegisLature,
including
with
Leadership
in
the
Appropriations
Committees,
enabLe
us
to
navigate
these
chaLLenges
and
advance
priority
measures
through
key
fiscaL
hurdLes.

Our
firm
aLso
brings
substantial
expertise
in
the
state
budget
process.

We
work
cLoseLy
with
budget
committee
and
subcommittee
chairs,
Legislative
Leadership,
and
senior
fiscal
staff
in
both
houses
to
support
or
oppose
key
budget
items
on
behaLf
of
our
clients.

These
relationships
provide
access
to
top
decision-makers
and
aLlow
us
to
influence
budget
negotiations
at
criticaL
points
in
the
process.

Apekian
Advocacy
also
draws
on
extensive
experience
from
ourtrade
association
background,
incLuding
coordinating
Large-scale
advocacy
days
and
industry
conferences.

Direct
engagement
by
City
Leaders
in
Sacramento
is
essentiaL
not
onLy
to
advance
the
City’s
LegisLative
priorities,
but
also
to
elevate
its
visibility
with
a
broader
group
of
legislators
and
stakehoLders.

With
significant
turnover
in
the
Legislature
in
recent
years—and
more
ahead—these
advocacy
efforts
are
more
valuable
than
ever.

While
our
firm
has
not
directly
represented
local
governments,
our
work
has
consistentLy
focused
on
the
fuLL
range
of
policy
issues
that
directLy
affect
cities.

Over
the
course
of
our
advocacy
practice,
we
have
worked
extensiveLy
on
LegisLation
impacting
municipaL
finance,
public
safety,
housing
and
294 of 499

Centene
Corporation—
Healthnet
Managed
Care
Apekian
Advocacy
serves
as
the
lead
contract
lobbyist
for
Centene
Corporation
and
its
California
subsidiary,
HeaLth
Net.

HeaLth
Net
provides
heaLth
coverage
to
millions
of
Californians
and
is
among
the
Largest
Medi-Cal
managed
care
plans
in
the
state,
delivering
benefits
to
more
than
half
of
aLl
Medi-Cal
enrollees
in
Los
AngeLes
County
atone.

Because
Medi-CaL
represents
the
core
of
HeaLth
Net’s
business,
our
advocacy
is
heaviLy
focused
on
the
state
budget—working
to
ensure
adequate
funding,
program
stabiLity,
and
advancing
policies
that
support
the
delivery
of
high-
quality
care
to
Medi-Cal
members.

Ford
Motor
Company
Apekian
Advocacy
serves
as
the
lead
legislative
advocate
for
Ford
Motor
Company
in
Sacramento.

Ford
is
wideLy
recognized—both
gLobaLly
and
in
CaLifornia—for
its
leadership
in
manufacturing,
transportation
innovation,
eLectrification,
and
advanced
battery
technoLogies.

In
addition
to
our
work
in
the
Legislature,
Apekian
Advocacy
engages
directly
with
reguLators
at
the
CaLifornia
Air
Resources
Board
and
the
California
Energy
Commission
to
ensure
Ford’s
priorities
and
perspectives
are
effectively
represented
in
key
poLicy
and
reguLatory
processes.

Casino
M8trix
Casino
M8trix
is
athird-generation
famiLy-owned
business
in
the
City
of
San
Jose,
offering
a
range
of
entertainment
and
dining
experiences
for
residents.

As
one
of
the
city’s
Largest
taxpayers,
the
business
has
built
a
strong,
coLLaborative
relationship
with
municipal
leaders.

In
recent
years,
Apekian
Advocacy
has
worked
closely
with
the
City
of
San
Jose
to
support
its
legislative
priorities,
pushing
back
on
proposaLs
that
wouLd
undermine
the
abiLity
of
businesses
Like
Casino
M8trix
to
operate
effectively
and
continue
generating
criticaL
tax
revenue
for
the
community.

California
Apartment
Association
ShantApekian
represented
the
CaLifornia
Apartment
Association
and
[edits
legisLative
and
poLiticaL
programs
for
over
a
decade.

In
this
capacity,
he
successfuLly
represented
apartment
owners
and
developers
on
important
housing,
environmental,
water
planning,
tax
and
infrastructure
policy
issues.

Shant
often
collaborated
with
local
governments,
as
weLl
as
the
California
Association
of
Counties
and
the
CaLifornia
League
of
Cities
to
advocate
on
mutuaLLy
beneficial
Legislation
and
budget
proposals.
3 295 of 499

ATrACHMENT18.2-RESPONSETOOUESTION4.8

4.8Listsomeofyourfirm’ssuccessfuLstateLegislativeeffortsforgovernmententities duringthepasttenyears—bothpro-activeefforts(introductionoflegislationonbehalfofa governmententity)andreactiveefforts(helpingachievepassageorrejectionofspecific legisLation).IdentifytheLegislation,thetypeofissue,anddollarvalue(ifanappropriations issue).Describeyourfirm’seffortsandexpLainhowyourfirmwasinstrumentaLinachieving theresuLtthatthegovernmententitydesired.ProvideappLicabLeexamplesofprogressreports detailingmeetingsheld,outreachactivities,hiltstracked,positionsdeveloped,funding effortsundertaken,andoutcomesachieved.

ApekianAdvocacyhasastrongandconsistentrecordofdeliveringsuccessfullegislativeoutcomes forourclients.Ourworkspansproactiveefforts—introducingorshapinglegislation—andreactive efforts,wherewehelpclientssecurepassage,defeatharmfulproposals,orinfluencestatebudget decisions.WepairdeeppolicyexpertisewithextensiverelationshipsintheLegislature, Administration,andamongkeystakeholdergroups,enablingustodriveresultsthroughtargeted outreach,coordinatedcoalitionbuilding,andsustainedengagementwithdecisionmakers.Below arerepresentativeexamplesfromthepastdecadeillustratingourapproach,activities,and outcomes.

CaliforniaDowntownAssociation—ProtectingImprovementDistricts&AdvancingRetailTheft Reforms
FortheCaliforniaDowntownAssociation(CDA),ourprimarymissionhasbeentoprotecttheabiLity oflocalimprovementdistrictstofundcriticalservicessuchasstreetcleaning,safety ambassadors,Landscaping,marketing,andlocaLbusinesssupport.In2024,SenateBiLL1103 (Menjivar)soughttoexpandcommerciaLtenantprotections,butinadvertentLythreatenedthelegal frameworkenablingbusinessimprovementdistricts(BIDs)toLevyassessments.

Recognizingthebill’ssweepingimpLications,ApekianAdvocacyundertookaneducationand outreachcampaign,meetingrepeatedlywiththeauthor,sponsors,LegisLativestaff,andcommittee consuLtantstoexpLainBIDoperationsandthelocalbenefitstheydeliver.Weorganizedalargeand diversecoalitionofLocalgovernments,neighborhoodgroups,businessassociations,andresidents.

Throughthiseffort,wesecuredamendmentsfullyexemptingBIDsfromthebitt—preservingtheir authorityandprotectingmillionsofdoLlarsinlocaLservices.

Additionally,in2024,astheLegislatureandGovernordevelopedacomprehensiveretailtheft package,weensuredCDAhadaclearseatatthetableandplayedanactiveroleinshapingfinal negotiations.Weelevatedtheorganization’sprofilebypositioningitsleadershipasvisible,trusted membersofthestatewidecoalition—securingtheirinclusioninkeymediaeventsandultimatelyin theGovernor’sbill-signingceremony.
5 296 of 499

ATTACHMENT

18.3-

RESPONSE
TO

QUESTION

4.9 4.9
List
some
of
your
firm’s
unsuccessfuL
state
LegisLative
efforts
for
government
entities
during
the
past
ten
years.

Identify
the
legislation,
describe
your
firm’s
efforts,
and
state
the
reason
or
reasons
why
the
government
entity
did
not
achieve
the
resuLt
that
it
desired.

Provide
any
applicable
examples
of
efforts
to
identify
obstacles,
next
steps,
and
strategic
adjustments
for
other
clients.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary
Apekian
Advocacy
has
a
strong
record
of
success,
but
Like
any
firm
operating
in
a
complex
budget
and
policy
environment,
there
are
occasions
where
external
constraints
or
political
dynamics
prevent
clients
from
achieving
their
desired
outcome.

In
these
instances,
we
work
closely
with
our
cLients
to
identify
barriers,
adjust
strategy,
and
position
them
forfuture
opportunities.

Below
are
two
representative
examples.

Health
Net—
Medi-Cal
Budget
Reductions
CaLifornia’s
persistent
structuraL
budget
deficit
has
created
an
extremely
difficult
environment
for
protecting
health
care
programs,
particularLy
Medi-CaL
and
the
state’s
broader
safety-net
system.

In
the
Governor’s
most
recent
budget,
the
Administration
proposed
billions
of
dollars
in
Medi-Cal
reductions,
including
across-the-board
benefit
cuts
and
Limits
on
coverage
for
certain
immigrant
populations.As
one
of
the
state’s
Largest
Medi-CaL
managed
care
plans,
Health
Net
strongly
opposed
these
reductions.

Apekian
Advocacy
led
an
intensive
lobbying
effort—coordinating
with
health
plans,
providers,
county
governments,
clinics,
and
community
organizations—to
educate
legislators
and
Administration
officials
about
the
impact
of
the
proposed
cuts.

We
organized
meetings
with
budget
chairs,
delivered
data-driven
analyses,
and
mobilized
beneficiary
voices.

Despite
these
efforts,
the
scale
of
the
state’s
deficit,
limited
revenue
options,
and
the
political
sensitivity
surrounding
the
issue
prevented
the
Legislature
and
Administration
from
fully
reversing
the
reductions.

While
we
were
unable
to
stop
the
cuts
entirely,
we
did
secure
meaningful
mitigations,
including
protecting
certain
vulnerable
populations
and
converting
some
proposed
eliminations
into
more
targeted
or
limited
reductions.

These
outcomes
reflect
our
ability
to
adjust
strategy,
even
in
difficult
circumstances,
to
reduce
harm
and
preserve
critical
components
of
the
safety
net.

Ford
Motor
Company—
Electric
Vehicle
Tax
Credit
Backfill
With
the
federal
government
eliminating
the
$7,500
electric
vehicle
tax
credit,
Ford
and
other
automakers
sought
state
funding
to
offset
the
Loss
and
support
California’s
clean-transportation
goals.

As
Ford’s
lead
legislative
advocate,
Apekian
Advocacy
worked
closely
with
a
bipartisan
group
7 297 of 499

ATTACHMENT

18.4-

RESPONSE
TO

QUESTION

4.10 4.10
Describe
your
firm’s
familiarity
of,
and
expertise
with,
public
administration,
locaL
government,
and
the
state
legisLative
process—which
demonstrate
your
understanding
and
ability
to
meet
the
needs,
goats,
and
objectives
of
the
City
of
Glendale.

As
the
City
of
Glendale
approaches
the
2026
legislative
session,
it
faces
many
of
the
same
statewide
pressures
confronting
other
California
municipalities,
including
rising
service
demands,
housing
and
homelessness
challenges,
evolving
public
safety
policies,
and
Long-term
fiscal
obligations.

Apekian
Advocacy’s
approach
centers
on
proactive,
strategic
engagement
with
state
policymakers
to
secure
funding,
shape
legislation,
and
protect
local
authority.

We
willwork
closely
with
city
Leadership
and
the
City
Council
to
advance
GLendale’s
priorities
at
every
stage
of
the
legislative
and
budget
process.

Fiscal
Stability&
Economic
Development
A
core
focus
of
our
advocacy
wouLd
be
to
safeguard
Glendale’s
fiscaL
and
operationaL
interests
within
the
state
budget.

Even
amid
state
budget
deficits,
opportunities
exist
to
pursue
appropriations
for
infrastructure,
public
safety,
and
homelessness
programs.

At
the
same
time,
we
advocate
for
relief
from
unfunded
mandates
and
ensure
proposed
Legislation
does
not
negatively
impact
local
revenues,
pensions,
or
operational
costs.

Leveraging
our
reLationships
with
legislative
Leadership
and
the
Administration,
we
will
work
to
elevate
Glendale’s
needs
early
in
the
budget
cycle,
trying
to
help
the
City
secure
resources
critical
to
its
long-term
fiscal
stability.

While
advocating
for
direct
state
funding
remains
essential,
economic
growth
will
be
equally
critical
to
strengthening
Glendale’s
fiscal
health.

We
will
focus
on
policies
and
programs
that
support
business
retention
and
expansion,
job
creation,
tourism,
and
private
investment,
recognizing
their
direct
impact
on
local
revenues
and
service
delivery.

This
approach
is
particularly
important
as
the
region
prepares
for
the
upcoming
Olympic
Games,
which
present
significant
opportunities
for
economic
activity,
infrastructure
investment,
and
statewide
funding
support.

Housing
and
Horn
elessness
Housing
and
homelessness
will
remain
top
priorities
forthe
Legislature.

State
policymakers
increasingly
pressure
local
governments
to
address
issues
that
extend
beyond
municipal
boundaries,
often
without
adequate
resources.

Apekian
Advocacy
would
seek
to
position
Glendale
as
a
strong,
informed
voice
in
statewide
discussions
on
housing
production,
homelessness,
and
land
use.

We
will
advocate
for
state
programs
and
funding
that
support
the
City’s
goals,
while
protecting
local
land-use
authority,
design
review,
and
neighborhood
standards.

A
critical
component
of
expanding
affordable
housing
is
access
to
reliable
financing
toots,
including
state
and
federal
tax
credits
that
make
projects
financially
feasible.

We
will
actively
engage
on
legislation
and
budget
actions
affecting
programs
such
as
the
Low-Income
Housing
Tax
S
298 of 499

Attachment18.5—ShantApekianResume
SHANTiAPEKIAN
ApekianAdvocacyJ4
1414KStreet,Suite450
Sacramento,CA95814APEKIAN
(916)320-2647—[email protected]

PROFESSIONALEXPERIENCE
APEKIANADVOCACYINC.Sacramento,CA
President2023—Present
•Serveasafull-servicegovernmentaffairsandlobbyingfirmprovidingstrategiclegislative, regulatory,andpoliticaLadvocacy.
•Representabroadrangeofclients-includingFortune500companies,tradeassociations,and nonprofitorganizations-acrossmultiplesectors.
•Advocateoncomplexpolicyissuesspanningenergy,transportation,housing,healthcare, entertainment,andotherkeyareas.
•Delivercomprehensivemonitoringandanalysisoflegislative,regulatoryandbudgetproposalsto keepclientsinformedandpositionedtoact.
•BuiLdcoaLitionsandengagekeystakeholderstoadvanceclientprioritiesandamplifytheirinfluence. •Planandexecutelegislativeadvocacydays,includingcoordinatingmeetingswithlawmakers, developingbriefingmaterials,andmanagingalllogistics.

WESTERNSTATESPETROLEUMASSOCIATIONSacramento,CA
Vice-PresidentofCaliforniaPolicy&RegulatonjAffairs2019—2023 •LeadalladvocacyandpoliticalstrategyinCalifornia,advisingthePresidentandboardofdirectorson allonlegislative,regulatoryandpoliticalmatters.
•InvolvedinallthemajorlegislativeandreguLatoryenergypoliciesinvolvingclimatechange,renewable energy,transitionandlaborissues.
•EngagewithseniorstaffintheGovernor’sofficeandatvariousStateAgencies •Workwithvariousindustrypartnersandstakeholdergroupstocreatepoliticalandpublicaffairs coalitionssurroundingsharedissuesandcandidates.

CALIFORNIAAPARTMENTASSOCIATIONSacramento,CA
Vice-PresidentofPublicAffairs2007—2018
•ServeastheAssociation’sregisteredlobbyistandoverseeitspublicaffairsand politicalprograms.
•Draft,analyzeandtracklegislativeandregulatoryproposalsaffectingthe Association’smembership.Preparewrittenmaterialsandtestimonyonlegislative proposals.
•RegularlymeetandbuildrelationshipswithStatelegislatorsandcandidatesforlegislativeand statewideoffice.
•CreatepublicaffairsandcommunicationscampaignsaroundpolicyissuesimportanttotheAssociation. •DirectandmanagetheAssociation’smulti-milliondollarpoliticalactioncommittees. 299 of 499

PROFESSIONALAFFILIATIONS

CALIFORNIALEGISLATIVEARMENIANCAUCUS
FoundingBoardMember
PlayedakeyroleinestabLishingtheCaLiforniaArmenianLegislativeCaucusin2015andsecuring seedfundingtobringthevisiontofruition.
•CoLLaboratewithlegislativememberstoidentifypriorityissuesimpactingArmenianAmericansandto advancepoliciesthatstrengthenandempowertheArmenian-Americancommunitystatewide. •Supportastatewidehigh-schooLscholarshipprogramdesignedtopromotecivicengagementand raiseawarenessofissuesimportanttothecommunity,includingeducationabouttheArmenian Genocide.

EDUCATION
UNIVERSITYOFSOUTHERNCALIFORNIAMasterofPublicAdministration LosAngeles,California
UNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIA,LOSANGELESBachelorofArts,PoliticalScience,MagnacumLaude LosAngeLes,CaliforniaBachelorofArts,Sociology,t4agnacumLaude 300 of 499

CALIFORNIAACKNOWLEDGMENTCIVILCODE§1189
Anotarypublicorotherofficercompletingthiscertificateverifiesonlytheidentityoftheindividualwhosignedthedocument towhichthiscertificateisattached,andnotthetruthfulness,accuracy,orvalidityofthatdocument.

StateofCalifornia
Countyof
OnDeCME),beforeme,
Aiivue--iaci,tarAiiA’t,
DateHereInsertNameandTitleoftheOfficer
personallyappearedS’IANtJ.ApsKi.’r
Name(s)ofSigner(s)
whoprovedtomeonthebasisofsatisfactoryevidencetobetheperson(s)whosename(s)is/asubscribed tothewithininstrumentandacknowledgedtomethathe/sefkieqexecutedthesameinhis/Ir/t4r authorizedcapacity(iss),andthatbyhis/etftSver’signature(s)ontheinstrumenttheperson(s),ortheentity uponbehalfofwhichtheperson(s)acted,executedtheinstrument. _____________
IcertifyunderPENALTYOFPERJURYunderthe
,APdDRCWELUOUlawsoftheStateofCaliforniathattheforegoing NotaryPublic‘Cinfornia SacnmentoCountyparagraphistrueandcorrect.

Comninlon*24II95
Mvcomm.ExpIrelMayiaiozsjWITNESSmyhandandofficialseal.

Signature//“CtaC
PlaceNotarySealand/orStompAboveSignatureofNotaryPublic

OPTIONAL
Completingthisinformationcandeteralterationofthedocumentor fraudulentreottachmentofthisformtoanunintendeddocument.

DescriptionofAttachedDocument
TitleorTypeofDocument:
___________________________________________________________ DocumentDate:
_____________________________________________
NumberofPages:

Signer(s)OtherThanNamedAbove:
____________________________________________________
Capacity(ies)ClaimedbySigner(s)
Signer’sName:
_____________________________
Signer’sName:
_____________________________
UCorporateOfficer—Title(s):
__________________
UCorporateOfficer—Title(s):
oPartner—ULimitedUGeneralUPartner—ULimitedUGeneral
UIndividualUAttorneyinFactUIndividualUAttorneyinFact
UTrusteeUGuardianorConservatorUTrusteeUGuardianorConservator oOther:
__________________________________
UOther:
__________________________________
SignerisRepresenting:SignerisRepresenting:
(2Q18NationalNotaryAssociation
301 of 499

302 of 499

303 of 499

304 of 499

305 of 499

306 of 499

307 of 499

308 of 499

309 of 499

310 of 499

311 of 499

312 of 499

313 of 499

314 of 499

315 of 499

316 of 499

317 of 499

318 of 499

319 of 499

320 of 499

321 of 499

322 of 499

323 of 499

324 of 499

325 of 499

326 of 499

327 of 499

328 of 499

329 of 499

330 of 499

331 of 499

332 of 499

333 of 499

334 of 499

335 of 499

336 of 499

337 of 499

338 of 499

339 of 499

340 of 499

341 of 499

4.3. CONTINUED:

4.3.19 Government entity’s name: San Diego County Water Authority

4.3.20 Services that your firm provided:

4.3.21 Starting / ending dates of services: 4/1/2021/ 10/31/2024

4.3.22 Fee(s) that your firm charged: $20,000/month (included another firm)

4.3.23 Was your firm:

Selected by a bid or RFP? Yes X No

Under a contract or agreement? Yes X No

4.3.24 Contact Person: ________________________Phone Number: _________________ 342 of 499

4.7 Response

In this section, we provide additional details about the uniquely tailored qualifications, experiences, and knowledge provided by the LHGK team, led by Awet Kidane as Project Manager, that would be dedicated to helping CITY OF GLENDALE achieve its state advocacy goals.

LHGK offers access to high-level policy makers in the Legislature, Newsom Administration, and the various agencies, commissions, and boards critical to CITY OF GLENDALE.

Collectively, our team has the capacity to ensure cohesive and timely execution of CITY OF GLENDALE’s legislative agenda and strategy. Finally, we will bring energy, enthusiasm, and well-developed strategic and technical expertise that will successfully deliver results on behalf of CITY OF GLENDALE. These attributes combined will serve as a meaningful driving force behind successful implementation of CITY OF GLENDALE’s legislative agenda in Sacramento.

LHGK does not propose any subconsultants or subcontractors and the firm assures CITY OF GLENDALE that it will not substitute key personnel with other personnel or reassign key personnel without CITY OF GLENDALE’s prior approval. The demands of the legislative, budget, and regulatory cycles vary during the year and as such, we are committed to all necessary tasks and time commitments to successfully deliver results for CITY OF GLENDALE. We also affirm that LGHK and the firm’s principals are duly registered lobbyists and have secured the required registration with appropriate state agencies.

Project Team Members

Awet Kidane – Project Manager and CITY OF GLENDALE Advocate Mr. Awet Kidane will serve as the project manager for our firm’s representation of CITY OF GLENDALE and the main point of contact for all assigned projects during the duration of the contract. Mr. Kidane will handle day-to-day communications with CITY OF GLENDALE officials, as well as coordinating efforts of LHGK in support of CITY OF GLENDALE initiatives.

Before joining the LHGK family in 2020, Awet Kidane has been engaged in public policy for over two decades serving in both the Legislative and Executive branches.

343 of 499

4.7 Response Continued
During his career in the California State Assembly, Mr. Kidane was the staff point-person on multiple high-level policy and fiscal issues including budget negotiations and legislative compromises. Some of his key work included the creation of the film tax credit during budget negotiations and the first CEQA exemption for a Los Angeles stadium during a special session. Additionally, Mr. Kidane’s work also included the passage of the first and second Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Mr. Kidane’s service in the Administration included Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs where he managed close to 5,000 staff and led efforts to reform licensing and enforcement for all consumer boards and commissions, including negotiating the continuance of the boards and commissions under his jurisdiction. In this capacity, Mr.

Kidane worked closely with Governor Brown’s Cabinet and was among those advising the Governor directly on issues within his jurisdiction.

During his five years of service in the Administration, Mr. Kidane served as a constant advisor and chief negotiator for the Administration on all issues pertaining to the Department of Consumer Affairs, forming strong relationships with members and staff of the Legislature of both parties. Moreover, while serving the Governor, he successfully negotiated many contentious budget and policy issues pertaining to his Department, such as sunset review.

Mr. Kidane’s unique experience allows him to provide clients with world class strategic consulting and advice on any matters coming before state policy makers. Mr. Kidane concentrates his energy on providing high quality work and unparalleled customer service to his clients. Because of Mr. Kidane’s experience, LGHK can offer its clients insight into everything from house leadership decisions, budget process, to the inner workings of the Governor’s Administration.

Bob Giroux – CITY OF GLENDALE Advocate
With policy expertise based on decades of public service and political acumen forged in all aspects of political advocacy, Bob Giroux brings LHGK an unparalleled understanding of the legislative and political processes that drive California’s government.

Bob began his career in public service as an Assembly Fellow in 1984 and most recently served as Chief Advisor to Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez. Prior to that Bob served as Senior Advisor to John Burton, President Pro Tem of the California State Senate for over 6 years.
344 of 499

4.7 Response Continued

In addition to policy expertise in labor and employment issues, Bob has extensive experience in all phases of political work including coalition building, grass roots mobilization, legislative and initiative campaigns.

Bob’s knowledge of transportation earned him an appointment to the High-Speed Rail Authority where he currently serves as a Board Member. In addition, Bob was named in May 2005 as the Speaker’s Appointee to the Employment Training Panel.

Bob’s career in the capitol also includes serving as a consultant on labor and workforce development issues to former Assembly Labor and Employment Committee Chair, Dick Floyd. He has also consulted on a multitude of committees such as Budget, Ways & Means, as well as for the Democratic Caucus.

Bob also served as a Senior Consultant to Senator Lucy Killea, where he worked on controlled substances, transportation, insurance, corporate finance, and domestic violence.

Before joining Senator Killea’s staff, Mr. Giroux worked as the Senior Consultant to the Assembly Ways & Means Budget Subcommittee #6, where he was responsible for the budget of the California Department of Transportation, the California Highway Patrol and the Department of Motor Vehicles.

He also worked for three years on the staff of Speaker Willie Brown in the Office of Member Services.

Bob’s political experience is not limited to the halls of the California Legislature, as he has run and won several successful campaigns throughout the state of California, even earning a “Pollie Award” for outstanding campaign management.

Joe Lang, CITY OF GLENDALE Strategic Advisor
Mr. Joe Lang will serve as strategic advisor, assisting the project manager and providing key advice counsel to the team. Joe is managing partner of LHGK and has been involved working in or around the State Capitol for over 40 years. During that time, he has been directly involved in many of the major legislative efforts occurring over those years and has consistently been ranked within the “Top 50 Most Influential Californians” by Capitol Weekly.
345 of 499

4.7 Response Continued

Mr. Lang’s career in politics began in 1974 when he was appointed as staff to the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee. During his tenure as the principal staff consultant to the committee, Mr. Lang oversaw major legislation reorganizing the Health Services Agency, restructuring horseracing in California, and improving California’s disaster preparedness.

In 1982 Joe became Chief of Staff to the Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore, where he was responsible for overseeing floor action on legislation in the Assembly and developed the Congressional liaison for the State Assembly with California’s Congressional delegation.

In 1984 Joe opened his lobbying firm which has now become LHGK. Major issues Joe has been involved with include the comprehensive 1993 Worker’s Compensation Reform Act, the Electrical Restructuring Act of 1996 and efforts to achieve comprehensive regulation of gaming in California.

346 of 499

4.8 Response

Los Angeles Clippers
In its work with the Los Angeles Clippers, LHGK provided a comprehensive and ultimately winning strategy for the team’s relocation efforts to Inglewood, California, including managing legislative relationships, labor negotiations, and approval of project (new stadium) at both the local and state level. Successes include comprehensive stadium plan approval, successful labor negotiations, and securing specific legislation authorizing CEQA streamlining for the new arena enacted in 2018.

Los Angeles Rams
Bob Giroux and Joe Lang co-managed the successful relocation of the Los Angeles Rams from St. Louis. This project included a wide variety of services, which were successfully delivered resulting in the development and construction of a $5 billion sports stadium complex. This high-stakes project involved several complex, critical, and interrelated aspects that had to be managed simultaneously – the overall political management, labor management, environmental issue coordination, and advancement of special legislation.

In addition, further efforts to expand public transportation to the complex continue.

Westlands Water District
LHGK secured $100 million in the 2021-22 State Budget for canal linings in the Central Valley on behalf of the Westlands Water District. Services include comprehensive state budget work from drafting budget language, working with the Administration, legislative leadership, budget committee chairs, and other key elected officials, developing supportive collateral, testifying in budget committee, and more.

County of Riverside
LHGK was able to secure specific items requested by Riverside County in the eventual agreement on Proposition 4 allocations during the 2025-26 budget negotiations.

In 2024, SB 1224 (Ochoa-Bogh) created an exemption for Riverside County fairgrounds to allow them to continue to sell alcoholic beverages for public consumption under an existing ABC license.

Urban Counties of California
The legislative measure that eventually became Proposition 1 (2024) included locked mental health facilities as an eligible project for funding in large part due to advocacy by 347 of 499

4.8 Response Continued
UCC. Informed by internal polling, the UCC counties sought to incorporate this category of facilities as a much-needed component of behavioral health treatment.

San Deigo County Water Authority (San Vicente Energy Storage Facility) Secured $18.7 million for Phase One of the project – design and engineering. Work remains ongoing to secure some of the remaining funding needed for full implementation of the $1 billion project. Services include comprehensive state budget work from drafting budget language, working with the Administration, legislative leadership, budget committee chairs, and other key elected officials, developing supportive collateral, testifying in budget committee, and more.

348 of 499

4.9 Response

AB 339 (Ortega) Local public employee organizations: notice requirements. Our efforts involved coordination with a large coalition of local government entities including UCC and Riverside County of advocacy in opposition to this legislation.

While our efforts were successful in achieving amendments to the bill, ultimately the coalition was unsuccessful in advocating for a veto of this legislation. The legislation was sponsored and supported by the California Labor Federation and various union members and their advocacy efforts resulted in the Governor's approval of the legislation.

SB 577 (Laird) was a measure designed to limit local agency liabilities associated with childhood sexual assault claims that had moved through the legislative process. While not without controversy, legislators understood that there were significant and growing fiscal impacts to local agencies and schools that were not sustainable. However, the bill stalled at the end of the legislative session when some members became uncomfortable with a perceived impact on the ability of survivors to be compensated.

349 of 499

4.10 Response

Established in 1997, Lang, Hansen, Giroux & Kidane (LHGK) has provided governmental relations/lobbying services to clients for over 20 years. Our comprehensive services include strategic planning and plan implementation, legislative and regulatory monitoring and direct engagement, and advising clients on “macro” political issues so that our clients can achieve successful advocacy outcomes regardless of the current political, fiscal, or policy environment.

Our firm is consistently listed amongst the top five lobbying firms in California by revenue and recognized as one of California’s premier lobbying firms. Led by managing partner, Joe Lang (with over 42 years of experience in the State Capitol), our team, Awet Kidane and Bob Giroux, represent well over 100 years of experience in and around California politics.

Our professionals enjoy exceptional bipartisan relationships with leaders and members of both houses of the legislature as well as the Administration and contribute a wide array of policy expertise to further the interests of clients. Of specific interest to CITY OF GLENDALE is our firm’s experience and expertise in energy, water, natural resources, and utility related policy issues.

Our firm currently employs 5 individuals in one Sacramento-based office, located in the Senator Hotel Building directly across the street from the State Capitol. Our firm represents nearly 40 clients covering many disciplines and receives annual revenues in excess of $5 million.
350 of 499

5.4.8 Response

AWET KIDANE

PARTNER

Before joining the LHGK family in 2020, Awet Kidane has been engaged in public policy for over two decades serving in both the Legislative and Executive branches.

During his career in the California State Assembly, Mr. Kidane was the staff point-person on multiple high-level policy and fiscal issues including budget negotiations and legislative compromises. Some of his key work included the creation of the film tax credit during budget negotiations and the first CEQA exemption for a Los Angeles stadium during a special session. Additionally, Mr. Kidane’s work also included the passage of the first and second Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Mr. Kidane’s service in the Administration included Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs where he managed close to 5,000 staff and led efforts to reform licensing and enforcement for all consumer boards and commissions including negotiating the continuance of the boards and commissions under his jurisdiction. In this capacity, Mr. Kidane worked closely with Governor Brown’s Cabinet and was among those advising the Governor directly on issues within his jurisdiction.

Moreover, while serving the Governor, he successfully negotiated many contentious budget and policy issues pertaining to his Department, such as sunset review.

Mr. Kidane’s unique experience allows him to provide clients with world class strategic consulting and advice on any matters coming before state policy makers.
351 of 499

5.4.10 Response:

LANG, HANSEN, GIROUX & KIDANE’S

CURRENT LIST OF LOBBYING CLIENTS

AEGIS TREATMENT CENTERS LLC & ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES

ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC AND ITS AFFILIATES

AMERICAN BAIL COALITION

AMITY FOUNDATION

AXIOM ADVISORS

BALLARD PARTNERS

BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE GROUP-CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF EYE PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS

CALIFORNIA CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION

CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION

CATALINA MEDIA DEVELOPMENT II LLC

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES

CLEARWAY ENERGY GROUP LLC

DAIRY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA

E & J GALLO WINERY

EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
HILMAR CHEESE COMPANY , INC.

HOLLYWOOD PARK CASINO COMPANY LLC.

HURST BROOKS ESPINOSA, LLC

INSURED RETIREMENT INSTITUTE

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTER AND ALLIED TRADES AFL-CIO INTUIT INC.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

LOS ANGELES RAMS

MURPHY'S BOWL LLC

NATIONAL UNION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS

PACIFIC COAST ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC INSURANCE ADJUSTERS

SMART HORIZONS CAREER ONLINE EDUCATION

SONNYS CONSTRUCTION
TRINET HR III, INC.

WAYFINDER FAMILY SERVICES

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

WINE & SPIRITS WHOLESALERS OF CALIFORNIA

YOUNGS MARKET COMPANY LLC DBA REPUBLIC NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING

COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA

352 of 499

December 16, 2025

To: Mr. Joseph Lang, Managing Partner, Lang, Hansen, Giroux & Kidane 1121 L Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814

Regarding: Statement of good standing

From: Jason R. Saslow, SVP - Five Star Bank California

Via: email (Joseph Lang)

Dear Joe,

Per our telephone conversation earlier this week, please feel free to use this letter memorializing that your firm an excellent customer of the Bank, is held in high regard, and is in good standing.

Please feel free to contact me directly should there be any questions or should you or anyone else at your specific direction require additional information. My direct telephone line is (916) 640- 1506, and my email address is [email protected]

Best regards,

Jason R. Saslow
Senior Vice President
Managing Director of Private Client Services
Five Star Bank California

353 of 499

PROPOSAL

STATELEGISLATIVEADVOCACYSERVICES
FOR

CITYOFGLENDALE
Date:December152025
Proposer:CaliforniaPublicPolicyGroup,Inc.

NameofBusiness
Address:112711thStreet,Suite300
City:SacramentoState:CaliforniaZipCode:95814
Telephone:(916)974-9270FAX:
____________________
Email:[email protected]
TOTHECITYOFGLENDALE,CALIFORNIA:

InresponsetotheRequestforProposals(“RFP”)bytheCityofGlendale(“City”),theundersignedperson orentity(“Proposer)nowsubmitsthisProposal(“Proposal”),withtheaccompanyingformsandattachments.

InsubmittingthisProposal,Proposercertifiesthat:

A.Proposerhasread,examined,andisfullyfamiliarwithallthreeoftheitems below(collectively,“theDocuments”):
(1)TheRFP’sprovisions;
(2)TheContract’sterms,conditions,requirements,specifications,and minimumperformancestandards;and
(3)AnyAddendaissuedduringtheproposalperiod;
B.Proposerhascarefullycheckedallwords.figures,andstatementsmadeinthe Documents;
C.ProposerissatisfiedthattheDocumentsareaccurate;
D.ProposerunderstandsandacceptsalloftheDocuments’provisions; E.Proposerhasexercisedallnecessaryduediligenceinmakinginvestigationsand inquiries,examiningdocuments,andinspectingCitysitesandfacilities; F.Proposerisfullyfamiliarwith—andhasfullyconsidered—allfacts,conditions, circumstances,andmailersthatmayaffect,inanyway,Proposer’sservicesor costs;
G.Proposerofferstofullyperformallofthedutiesandobligationsspecifiedinthe DocumentsinexchangefortheconsiderationdescribedintheDocuments; N
PF:1
354 of 499

H.ProposerrepresentsandcertifiesthatProposerdoesnotcurrently—andwillnot whileProposerperformsservicesonCity’sbehalf—represent(oradvocateon behalfof)anotherperson,entity,ororganizationwhoseinterests:
(1)Conflict,orpotentiallyconflict,withCity’sinterests;or (2)DirectlycompetewithCity’sinterests.

ThisProposalisanirrevocableofferforaperiodofatleastninety(90)calendar daysfollowingCity’sopeningofallProposals;
J.ExceptastheContractorCalifornialawallows,Cityisnotliableorresponsible foranycosts,fees,orexpensesthatProposerincursforanyoneormoreofthe following:
(1)RespondingtothisRFP;
(2)AnticipatingorpreparingforanawardofaContract;
(3)Obtaininganyequipment,personnel,facilities,orotheritemstocomply withtheDocuments’provisions;or
(4)PerformingtheservicesundertheContract;
K.Withinfourteen(14)calendardaysafterCityissuestheNoticeofIntenttoAward aContract,orwithinanyextensionthatCitymayallow,Proposeragreesto:
(1)SignanddelivertheContract,ofwhichtheRFP,itsattachedExhibits, andtheNoticecallingforProposalsareapart;and
(2)FurnishtheinsurancethattheDocumentsrequire;and
L.Atitsexpense,Proposeragreestoindemnify,defend,andholdharmlessCity anditsofficers,agents,employees,andrepresentativesfromandagainstany andallliability,suits,actions,proceedings,judgments,claims,demands,liens, losses,damages,costs,andexpenses(includingattorneys’fees,litigation, arbitration,mediation,appealexpenses),ifadispute,lawsuit,orotherproceeding arisesoutofanyoneormoreofthefollowing:
(1)Proposer’ssubmittingtheProposal;
(2)City’sacceptingProposer’sProposal;or
(3)City’sawardingacontracttoProposerincompliancewiththisRFP,or state,federal,orlocallaws.

2.Underthepenaltyofperjury,Proposercertifiesthat:

A.ThisProposalisgenuine,isnotashamorcollusive,andisnotmadeinthe interestof,oronbehalfof,anyperson,partnership,corporation,firm, organization,oranotherentitynotnamedordisclosedintheProposal; B.Proposerdidnot,directlyorindirectly,induce,agree,orsolicitanyoneelseto submitafalseorshamProposal,torefrainfromproposing,towithdrawa Proposal,ortoattempttoinduceanactionprejudicialtoCity’sinterests; C.Proposerhasnotsoughtbycollusion,inanymanner,tosecureforProposerany PF:2
355 of 499

advantageoverotherproposers;and
D.AllfactsandstatementsintheProposalarecompletelytrue,accurate,andcorrect.

E.BysigningthisProposal,eachindividualbelowrepresentsandcertifiesthatthe individual:
(1)Hastheright,power,legalcapacity,andauthoritynotonlytosignthis ProposalontheProposer’sbehalf,butalsotobindtheProposertothis Proposal;and
(2)BindstheProposertothisProposal.

PROPOSER:

SIGNATUREMUSTBEACKNOWLEDGED
BEFOREANOTARY(USEFORMPF:5)——*——.—--.By
____
F Signature
NamecDn.tA5
Printed
lts’rc(tiii-e.5.cr.e%c..r7
Title
Address\tzl-itL&flOO.sac
Telephone9t(s’—%qL(-

IFPROPOSERISACORPORATION,

PLACEIMPRINTOFCORPORATESEALIFPROPOSERISAPARTNERSHIP,
BELOW:JOINTVENTURE,OROTHERLEGALENTITY,

THENEACHPARTNER,PRINCIPAL,OR

INDMDUALMUSTSIGNTHISPROPOSALON
PAGEPF:4,INFRONTOFANOTARY
PF:3
356 of 499

ADDITIONAL

SIGNATURE
PAGE
FOR

PROPOSAL
PROPOSER:

SIGNATURE
MUST
BE

ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE
A
NOTARY
(USE
FORM
PF:6)—
—
—
—
—
—
By
Signature
Name
__________________
Printed
Its
____________________________
Title
Address
_____________________
Telephone
_________________

SIGNATURE
MUST
BE

ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE
A
NOTARY
(USE
FORM
PF:5)
—
——,
—
—
—
By
_________________
Signature
Name
__________________
Printed
Its
____________________________
Title
Address
___________________
Telephone
_________________

SIGNATURE
MUST
BE

ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE
A
NOTARY
(USE
FORM
PF:5)
—
—
—
——‘—‘
By
__________________
Signature
Name
____________________
Printed
Its
____________________________
Title
Address
_____________________
Telephone
_________________

SIGNATURE
MUST
BE

ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE
A
NOTARY
(USE
FORM
PF:5)
—
—
——.
—
—
By
_________________
Signature
Name
__________________
Printed
Its
____________________________
Title
Address
___________________
Telephone
_________________

CALIFORNIA

ALL-PURPOSE

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
PF
:4
357 of 499

NameandTifleoftheOfficer
S
N)ne(s)ofSner(s)
whoprovedtomeonthebasisofsatisfactoryevidencetobethepersor4s) whosename(Wis/arubscdbedtothewithininstrumentandacknowledgedto methathelsbeltheslexecutedthesameinhislhethheirautho&edcapacftyQe4 andthatbyhis/het/th&rsignature(sontheinstrumenttheperson4e)orthe entityuponbehalfofwhichthepersonjsflcted,executedtheinstrument, IcertifyunderPENALTYOFPERJURYunderthelawsoftheStateofCalifornia thattheforegoingparagraphistrueandcorrect.

WITNESSmyhandandofficialseal
Signature______________________________
SignatureofNotaryPublic

OPTIONAL
Althoughthedatabelowisnotrequiredbylaw,itmayprovevaluabletopersonsrelyingonthedocument andcouldpreventfraudulentreaUachmentofthisformtoanotherdocument DescriptionofAttachedDocument
TiUeorTypeofDocument:

DocumentDate:
____________________________________________________
NumberofPages:
______________
Signer(s)OtherThanNamedAbove:
__________________________________________________________________ Capacity(ies)ClaimedbySigner(s)
Signer’sName:
_____________________
oIndividual
________
CCorporateOfficer—TIUe:
________
QPartner:CLimitedCGeneral
________________
oAttorney-In-Fact
________________
Trustee
CGuardianCConservator
_______
COther:
__________________
Signerisrepresenting:
_________________
StateofCalifornia
Counfyof}
On/-()l[2-OZbeforemeLc;rL1/)O*u+arj
M;
Date/
personallyappearedIDt3nC
q
PlaceNotarySealAbove
Signer’sName:
_____________________
CIndividual
CorporateOfficer—The:
_________
Partner:LimiledCGeneral
CAttorney-In-Fact
CTrustee
CGuardianCConservator
COther:
__________
Signerisrepresenting:

RIGHTTHUM8PRINT

OFSIGNER
TopotThumbHere

RIGHTTHUMBPRINT

OFSIGNER
TopofThuimbHere
PF:5
358 of 499

PROPOSER’SQUALIFICATIONSSTATEMENT
Allresponsesmustbetypewrittenorprintedlegiblyinink.Whenadditionalspaceisneeded toexplainananswer,attachsheetsasnecessary.InSection18ofthisform,listanddescribeeach attachment.Failureto(1)completethisform,(2)returnit,or(3)attacharequireddocumentmay rendertheProposalnon-responsive.

BUSINESSORGANIZATION!STRUCTURE

1.1Yourfirmisa:

CorporationUSoleProprietorshipQOther:
_________________
QLimitedLiabilityCompanyQGeneralorLimitedPartnership

1.2Ifyourfirmisacorporation,answerthefollowing:

1.2.1Dateofincorporation:9,2024

1.2.2Stateofincorporation:California

1.2.3CorporateIDnumber:6048547

1.2.4President’sname:DaneHutchings

1.2.5VicePresident’sname:
_____________________________________________

1.2.6Secretary’sname:DaneHutchings

1.2.7Treasurer’sname:
_______________________________________________

1.2.8AgentforServiceofProcess:
__________________________________________

1.2.9Agent’saddress:
______________________________________________________

1.2.10Isyourfirmapubliclytradedcorporation?
CYesNo

1.2.11Foranyperson,firmorentitywhoowns25%ormoreofthecorporation’sstock, identifytheindividual,firmorentityandthecorrespondingpercentageofownership:

Name:DaneHutchingsPercent:100%
Name:
______________________________________
Percent:

Name:
________________________________________
Percent:

Name:
______________________________________
Percent:

PF:6
359 of 499

1.3Ifyourfirmisalimitedliabilitycompany,answerthefollowing:

1.3.1Dateofformation:
_________________

1.3.2Stateofformation:
__________________

1.3.3SecretaryofState’sFileorIDnumber
_________

1.3.4ChiefExecutiveOfficer’sname:
_______________

1.3.5NameofManager(s):

1.3.6AgentforServiceofProcess:
________________

1.3.7Agent’saddress:
_______________________________________________________

1.3.8Foranyperson,firmorentitywhoseownershipormembershipinterestinthe companyexceeds25%,identifytheindividual,firmorentityandthecorresponding percentageofownershipormembership:

Name:
______________________________________
Percent:

1.4Ifyourfirmisapartnership,answerthefollowing:

1.4.1Dateofformation:
_________________________

1.4.2Typeofpartnership(General,Limited,LLP):
________________________

1.4.3SecretaryofState’sRegistrationorIDnumber:
_____________________

1.4.4ListthenameoftheGeneralPartner(s)andanyindividualwhohasanyequity interestinthepartnership:

1.4.5Listjurisdictionsinwhichyourfirm’sfictitiousname(dba)isfiled:

PF:7
360 of 499

1.5Ifyourfirmisindividuallyowned(asoleproprietorship),answerthefollowing:

1.5.1Dateyourfirmstarted:
_______________________________

1.5.2Nameofowner:
____________________________________________________

15.3Listjurisdictionsinwhichyourfirm’sfictitiousname(dba)isfiled:

1.6Ifyourfirmisotherthanthetypelistedabove,suchasajointventure,consortium,trust, associationorothercombination,describethebusinessorganizationorstructure,identifythe principals,andlisttheircorrespondingpercentageofownershiporcontrol:
1,6.1Descriptionofbusinessorganizationorstructure:

1.6.2Principalsandtheircorrespondingpercentageofownershiporcontrol:

Name:
_________________________________________
Percent:

Name:
______________________________________
Percent:

2.OWNERSHIPANDNAMECHANGES

2.1Howmanyyearshasyourfirmbeeninbusinessunderitspresentname?1

2.2Inthepasttenyears,hasyourfirmchangednames?
DyesNo
IfYes,listallpriornames,addresses,andthedatestheywereused.Explainthereasonfor eachnamechange:

2.2.1Priorname:
________________________________________________________

2.12Address:
______________________________________________________________

2.2.3Reasonnamechanged:
______________________________________________
2,2.4Starting/endingdatesofpriorname:
_________________
/
_________________
PF:S
361 of 499

225Priorname.
________________________________________________________ 226Address
__________________________________________________________ 227Reasonnamechanged
228Starting/endingdatesofpriornameS
__________________
/
__________________
23Isyourfirmasubsidiary,parent,holdingcompany,oraffiliateofanotherfirm? CYesNo
IfYes,explaintherelationshipbetweenyourfirmandtheassociatedfirmsInclude informationaboutanaffiliatedfirmonlyifonefirmowns50%ormoreofanotherfirm,orifan owner,partnerorofficerofyourfirmholdsasimilarpositioninanotherfirm 231Associatedfirm’sname
_________________________________________________
232Address:
______________________________________________________________ 233Relationshipbetweenyourfirmandtheassociatedfirm
234Pnncipalsandtheircorrespondingpercentageofownershiporcontrol Name
______________________________________
Percent
____________
Name
______________________________________
Percent:
____________
Name
______________________________________
Percent
____________
NameS
______________________________________
Percent
____________
235Associatedfirm’sname
______________________________________________
236Address
______________________________________________________________ 237Relationshipbetweenyourfirmandtheassociatedfirm.
238Principalsandtheircorrespondingpercentageofownershiporcontrol Name
______________________________________
Percent
____________
Name.
______________________________________
Percent.
____________
Name.
________________________________________
Percent
____________
Name.
______________________________________
Percent
____________
PF:9
362 of 499

3.LICENSING
Forthefollowingquestions,theterm“owner”doesnotincludeownersofstockinyourfirmifyourfirmisa publiclytradedcorporation.

3.1Areanyofyourfirm’slicensesheldinthenameofacorporationorpartnership? CYesNo
IfYes,listbelowthenameofthecorporationorpartnershipthatactuallyholdsthelicense:

3.1.1Corporation’sorpartnership’sname:
____________________________________

3.2Listjurisdictionsinwhichyourfirmislegallyqualifiedtodobusiness,providethelicensenumber, describethetypeoflicense,andstatethelicense’sexpirationdate.Attachadditionalsheetsas necessary.

3.2.1Jurisdiction:Notapplicable.Wearequalifiedtorepresentanylocalgovernment entityintheStateofCalifornia. 3.2.2Licensenumber:
_______________________________________________________

3.2.3Typeoflicense:
____________________________________________________

3.2.4Expirationdate:
____________________________________________________

3.2.5Jurisdiction:
___________________________________________________________

3.2.6Licensenumber:
_______________________________________________________

3.2.7Typeoflicense:
____________________________________________________

3.2.8Expirationdate:
____________________________________________________

3.2.9Jurisdiction:
_______________________________________________________________

3.2.10Licensenumber
____________________________________________________

3.2.11Typeoflicense:
________________________________________________________

3.2.12Expirationdate:
____________________________________________________

3.3IsyourfirmregisteredasalobbyistwiththeCaliforniaSecretaryofState,theUnitedStates Senate,orHouseofRepresentatives?
YesONo
IfYes,listyourfirm’sIDnumber:

3.3.1CAStateRegistrationorFilerIDnumber:1416731

3.3.2SenateIDnumber:N/A
PF:1O
363 of 499

3.3.3HouseIDnumber

3.4Inthepasttenyears,hasyourfirmoranyofitsowners,partners,officers,oremployeesbeen investigated,cited,assessedanypenalties,subjecttoanydisciplinaryactionbyalicensingagencyor lobbyingregistrationauthority,orfoundtohaveviolatedanylicensingorregistrationlawsorregulations? DYesNo
IfYes,identitythelicensingagency,licensetypeandnumber,lobbyingregistrationauthority andIDnumber,andreasonforthedisciplinaryaction.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

3.4.1Licensingagency:
______________________________________________________

3.4.2Typeoflicense:
____________________________________________________

3.4.3Licensenumber:
____________________________________________________

3.4.4Lobbyistregistrationauthority:
_______________________________________________

3.4.5LobbyistregistrationIDnumber:
__________________________________________

3.4.6Dateofdisciplinaryaction:
_______________________________________________

3.4.7Reasonfordisciplinaryaction:
______________________________

3.4.8Licensingagency:
________________________________________

3.3.9Typeoflicense:
________________________________________

3.3.10Licensenumber:
_________________________________________

3.3.11Lobbyistregistrationauthority:
______________________________

3.3.12LobbyistregistrationIDnumber:
_____________________________

3.3.13Dateofdisciplinaryaction:
_________________________________

3.3.14Reasonfordisciplinaryaction:
______________________________

3.3.15Licensingagency:
______________________________________

3.3.16Typeoflicense:
________________________________________

3.3.17Licensenumber
____________

3.3.18Lobbyistregistrationauthority:—

3.3.19LobbyistregistrationIDnumber:

3.3.20Dateofdisciplinaryaction:—

3.3.21Reasonfordisciplinaryaction:

PF:11
364 of 499

4.EXPERIENCEANDPERFORMANCEHISTORY
Forthefollowingquestions,theterm“owner”doesnotincludeownersofstockinyourfirmifyourfirmisa publiclytradedcorporation.

4.1Howmanyyearshasyourfirmbeeninbusinessasalegislativelobbyist?1year2months

4.2Doesyourfirmcurrentlyownoroperateanyotherbusiness?
DYesNo
IfYes,listthebusiness’nameandaddress,andthepersonwhooperatesthebusiness.

Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

4.2.1Businessname:

4.2.2Address:

4.2.3Person’snamethatoperatesbusiness:

4.2.4Descriptionofbusiness:

4.2.5Businessname:

4.2.6Address:

4.2.7Person’snamethatoperatesbusiness:

4.2.8Descriptionofbusiness:

4.3Listthegovernmententitiesforwhichyourfirmhasperformedlegislativeadvocacyservicesin thelastfiveyears.Providethenameandtelephonenumberofthepersonwithinthegovernment entitywhoismostfamiliarwithyourperformanceoftheservices(i.e.,“ContactPerson”).Detail performancemetricsforotherclientsandyourroleinsuccesses.Attachadditionalsheetsas necessary.

4.3.1Governmententity’sname:CityofBakersfield

4.3.2Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LobbyingandGrantWriting

4.3.3 4.3.4
StartingIendingdatesofservices:2021IPresent
Fee(s)thatyourfirmcharged:$13,500/month

4.3.5Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyabidorRFP?
Underacontractoragreement?

4.3.6ContactPerson:ChristianClegg
YesQNo
YesUNo
_______
PhoneNumber:6613263751
PF:12
365 of 499

4.3.7Governmententity’sname:CityofMountainView

43.8SeMcesthatyourfirmprovided:

4.3.9 4.3.10

4.3.11 4.3.12

4.3.13 4.3.14

4.3.15 4.3.16
LobbyingandGrantWriting

4.3.17Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyabidorRFP?
Underacontractoragreement?
kZIYesDNo
YesCNo

4.3.18ContactPerson:AngelaKimmeyPhoneNumber238263666

4.4Fortheyearsbelow,listthenumberofgovernmententitiesforwhichyourfirmperformed legislativeadvocacyservices:
20212022202320242025
Numberofpublicentities:1619202136
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2021/Present
Fee(s)thatyourfirmcharged:$12,501/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyabidorRFP?YesNo
Underacontractoragreement?YesDNo
ContactPerson:KimbraMcCarthyPhoneNumber:6509036031
Governmententity’sname:CityofVernon
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:Lobbying
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2024IPresent
Fee(s)thatyourfirmcharged:$12,000/month
PF:13
366 of 499

4.5 Please
list
current
work
assignments
for
other
government
entities,
the
starting
date
ofyourfirm’s
services
for
that
government
entity,
and
the
percent
of
your
firm’s
time
spent
on
those
assignments.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

4.5.1 Government
entity’s
name:

Additional
page

18.10 4.5.2
Assignment:
___________________________________________________________

4.5.3 Starting
date
of
your
firm’s
services:
____________________________________

4.5.4 Percent
of
your
firm’s
time
spent
on
that
assignment:

4.5.5 Government
entity’s
name:
____________________________________________

4.5.6 Assignment:
___________________________________________________________

4.5.7 Starting
date
of
your
firm’s
services:
_____________________________________

4.5.8 Percent
of
your
firm’s
time
spent
on
that
assignment:
_________________________

4.5.9 Government
entity’s
name:
______________________________________________

4.5.10 Assignment:
_______________________________________________________

4.5.11 Starting
date
of
your
firm’s
services:
_______________________________________

4.5.12 Percent
of
your
firm’s
time
spent
on
that
assignment:

4.5.13 Government
entity’s
name:
____________________________________________

4.5.14 Assignment:
_______________________________________________________

4.5.15 Starting
date
of
your
firm’s
services:
_____________________________________

4.5.16 Percent
of
your
firm’s
time
spent
on
that
assignment:

4.6 Is
your
firm
a
member
of
aprofessional
organization?
DYes
No
Ifthe
answer
to
question

4.6 is
Yes,
list
the
organization.

Attach
additional
sheets
as
necessary.

PF:14
367 of 499

4.7Describeyourfirm’sbackgroundandexperiencewithrespecttoworkingwithstatelegislature, stateagencies,andseniorexecutiveandcommitteestaff.Provideamatrixidentifying relationshipswithkeylegislators,committeeconsultants,agencydirectors,policy staffandthirdhouserelevanttoCitypriorities,includingdemonstratedinteraction withinthepast24months.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

Backgroundandexperiencewithstatelegislaturedescribedinadditionalpage18.1.

PF:15
368 of 499

4.8Listsomeofyourfirm’ssuccessfulstatelegislativeeffortsforgovernmententitiesduringthepast tenyears—bothpro-activeefforts(introductionoflegislationonbehalfofagovernmententity) andreactiveefforts(helpingachievepassageorrejectionofspecificlegislation).Identifythe legislation,thetypeofissue,anddollarvalue(ifanappropriationsissue).Describeyourfirm’s effortsandexplainhowyourfirmwasinstrumentalinachievingtheresultthatthegovernment entitydesired.Provideapplicableexamplesofprogressreportsdetailingmeetings held,outreachactivities,billstracked,positionsdeveloped,fundingefforts undertaken,andoutcomesachieved.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

Successfulstatelegislativeeffortsdescribedonadditionalpage18.2.

PF:16
369 of 499

4.9Listsomeofyourfirm’sunsuccessfulstatelegislativeeffortsforgovernmententitiesduringthe pasttenyears.Identifythelegislation,describeyourfirm’sefforts,andstatethereasonor reasonswhythegovernmententitydidnotachievetheresultthatitdesired.Provideany applicableexamplesofeffortstoidentifyobstacles,nextsteps,andstrategic adjustmentsforotherclients.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

Unsuccessfulstatelegislativeeffortsdescribedonadditionalpage18.3.

PF:17
370 of 499

4.10Describeyourfirm’sfamiliarityof,andexpertisewith,publicadministration,localgovernment,and thestatelegislativeprocess—whichdemonstrateyourunderstandingandabilitytomeetthe needs,goals,andobjectivesoftheCityofGlendale.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

Descriptionoffirm’sfamiliarityandexpertiseincludedonadditional18.4.

5.PERSONNEL

5.1Atpresent,howmanypeople(whetherpaidorunpaid)workatyourfirm?9

5.2Duringthepastfiveyears,howmanypeople—onaverageperyear—werepaidemployeesof yourfirm?
20212022202320242025
Numberofemployees:471010
PF:18
371 of 499

5.3Doesyourfirmhaveanagreementoranarrangementwithanyotherfirmtoloanorshareyour firm’semployees?
CYesNo

5.4ListthepersonnelwhowillperformtheworkunderthisRequestforProposalsandwillhave primaryresponsibilityfortheCity’scontract.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

5.4.1Name:DaneHutchings-AdditionalSheet18.9

5.4.2TitleIposition:
_________________________________________________

5.4.3Professionalbackground/areaofexpertise:
_________________________

5.4.4NumberofmonthsIyearswithyourfirm:
____________________________

5.4.5Numberofprofessionaldegrees/licenses!certificationsthispersonholds:

5.4.6ListprofessionaldegreesIlicensesIcertifications:
____________

5.4.7Professionalaffiliations:
__________________________________

5.4.8Relatedprofessionalexperience:
___________________________

5.4.9Honorsandawards:
_____________________________________
PF:19
372 of 499

5.4.10Nameofclientsandgovernmententitiesforwhichthispersoncurrentlyperforms legislativeadvocacyservices:

5.4.11Name:JakeWhitaker-AdditionalSheet18.9

5.4.12Title/position:
________________________________________________________

5.4.13Professionalbackground/areaofexpertise:

5.4.14Numberofmonths!yearswithyourfirm:
__________________________________

5.4.15Numberofprofessionaldegrees!licenses!certificationsthispersonholds:
_______

5.4.16Listprofessionaldegrees/licenses/certifications:
___________________________

5.4.17Professionalaffiliations:
________

5.4.18Relatedprofessionalexperience:

5.4.19Honorsandawards:
__________
PF:20
373 of 499

5.4.20Nameofclientsandgovernmententitiesforwhichthispersoncurrentlyperforms

5.4.21 5.4.22

5.4.23 legislativeadvocacyservices:

5.4.24Numberofmonths/yearswithyourfirm:
____________________________

5.4.25NumberofprofessionaldegreesIlicenses/certificationsthispersonholds:

5.4.26Listprofessionaldegrees!licenses/certifications:
_________

5.4.27Professionalaffiliations:

5.4.28Relatedprofessionalexperience:

5.4.29Honorsandawards:

Name:KyraRoss-AdditionalSheet18.9
Title!position:

ProfessionalbackgroundIareaofexpertise:

PF:21
374 of 499

5.4.30Nameofclientsandgovernmententitiesforwhichthispersoncurrentlyperforms legislativeadvocacyservices:

5.5Aretheresumesofalloftheemployeeslistedin5.4attachedtothisProposal? YesUNo

6.EMPLOYEETRAINING

6.1Doesyourfirmhavealobbyisttrainingprogramorcourseforitsnewemployees? UYesNo

6.2Doesyourfirmhaveongoingorreoccurringlobbyisttrainingforitsemployees? 1YesONo
Iftheanswertoquestion6.1or6.2isYes,describethesubjects,topics,orcoursesthatare given;identifythepersonorentitythatprovidesthetraining;andstatehowoftenthetraining occurs.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

CaliforniarequiredEthicsCourse,everytwoyears
PF:22
375 of 499

Descriptionoffirm’sfamilirityandexpertiseincludeon

7.SECURITY

7.1Inthepastfiveyears,haveanycrimesoccurredorbeenattemptedatyourfirm’sbusinessoffice orprincipalplaceofoperations?
QYesNo
IfYes,listthedate,identifythelocation,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabout eachinstance.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

8.FINANCIALRESOURESANDRESPONSIBILITY

8.1Inthepasttenyears,hasyourfirm,oranyoneelseactingonbehalfofyourfirm,filedfor bankruptcy,insolvency,receivership,orreorganization?
CYesNo
IfYes,listthefilingdate,identifythecourtandcasenumber,describethefactsand circumstancesgivingrisetoeachinstance,andsetforththedispositionorcurrentstatus.

Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

PF:23
376 of 499

8.2Inthepasttenyears,hasyourfirmhadanyconsolidations,mergers,acquisitions,closings, layoffs,orstaffreductions?
QYesNo
IfYes,listthedate,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabouteachinstance,Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

8.3Isyourfirmintheprocessof,orinnegotiationstoward:(a)consolidating,merging,selling,or closingitsbusiness,or(b)layingoffemployeesorreducingstaff? YesCNo
IfYes,describethetransaction;listtheanticipateddateforcompletingthetransaction,laying offemployees,orreducingstaff;anddescribethefacts,circumstances,andreasonsfor takingtheaction.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

CPPGisnotlayingofforundergoingareductionofstaff.

OnJanuary1,2026,KyraRosswilliointheCPPGstaff,bringingall12Emanuels Jones&Associatesclients,joiningforceswiththeCPPGteamtoprovidethehighest levelofservice.

PF:24
377 of 499

8.4TheRFPrequiresanauditedorreviewedfinancialstatement,oracompilation,preparedbya CertifiedPublicAccountant,andaletterofreferencefromabankorotherfinancialinstitution,to accompanytheProposal.Thisinformationwillbeusedonlyforthepurposeofdetermining whethertheProposerhassufficientfinancialresourcestoperformtherequestedservices.

Pleaseplacean“X”belowforeachyearthatyourfirmhasattachedafinancialstatement:

8.4.12024:X

84.22023:

8.4.32022:

8.5IsaletterofreferencefromthebankorotherfinancialinstitutionattachedtothisProposal? DYesUNo

9.BIDREJECTIONANDCONTRACTTERMINATION
Forthefollowingquestions,theterm“owner’doesnotincludeownersofstockinyourfirmifyourflrmisa publiclytradedcorporation.

9.1Hasagovernmententityoraclienteverrejectedyourfirm’sBidorProposalforservices? cjYesNo
IfYes,listthedate,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabouteachinstance.Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

PF:25
378 of 499

9.2Hasagovernmententityoraclienteverdeterminedthatyourfirmisanon-responsiblebidderor contractor?
DyesNo
IfYes,listthedate,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabouteachinstance.Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

9.3Hasagovernmententityoraclienteverdebarredorsuspendedyourfirmfrombiddingor contracting?
DyesNo
IfYes,listthedate,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabouteachinstance.Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

PF:26
379 of 499

9.4Hasyourfirmeverfailedtofulfillorperform,eitherpartiallyorcompletely,acontractoran agreementwithagovernmententityoraclient?
CYesNo
IfYes,listthedate,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabouteachinstance.Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

9.5Inthepasttenyears,hasanyofficerorprincipalofyourfirmbeenanofficerofanotherfirmwhich failedtoperformacontractoragreement?
DYesNo
IfYes,listthedate,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabouteachinstance.Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

PF:27
380 of 499

9.6Hasagovernmententityoraclienteverterminated,suspended,ornon-renewedyourfirm’s contractoragreementbeforeitscompletion?
DYesNo
IfYes,listthedate,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabouteachinstance.Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

9.7Hasagovernmententityoraclientevernotifiedoradvisedyourfirmthatitsperformanceundera contractoragreementispoor,sub-standard,ornon-compliant? DYesNo
IfYes,listthedate,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabouteachinstance.Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

PF:28
381 of 499

9.8Inthepasttenyears,hasyourfirmpaid,orhasyourfirmbeenassessed,liquidateddamageson acontractoragreement?
DYesNo
IfYes,listthedate,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabouteachinstance.Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

9.9Inthepasttenyears,hasyourfirmoranyofitsowners,partners,officersoremployeesbeen convictedofacrimerelatedtothebiddingofagovernmentcontract,theawardingofa governmentcontract,ortheperformanceofagovernmentcontract? (“Convicted”includesaverdictofguiltybyajudgeorjury,apleaofguilty,apleaofnob contendere,oraforfeitureofbail.)
DYesNo
IfYes,identifythegovernmententity;listthedate,courtandcasenumber;describethefacts andcircumstancesabouteachinstance;andsetforththepenaltyorpunishmentimposed.

Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

PF:29
382 of 499

10.BUSINESSINTEGRITY
Forthefollowingquestions,theterm“owner’doesnotincludeownersofstockinyourfirmifyourfirmisa publiclytradedcorporation.Theterm“convicted”includesaverdictofguiltybyajudgeorjury,apleaof guilty,apleaofnobcontendere,oraforfeitureofbail.

10.1Inthepasttenyears,hasyourfirmoranyofitsowners,partners,officers,oremployeesbeen convictedinacriminalaction,orfoundliableinacivilsuit,formakingfalseclaim(s)ormaterial misrepresentation(s)toanygovernmententity?
CYesNo
IfYes,identifythegovernmententity;listthedate,courtandcasenumber;describethefacts andcircumstancesabouteachinstance;andsetforththeoutcomeordisposition.Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

10.2Inthepasttenyears,hasyourfirmoranyofitsowners,partners,officers,oremployeesbeen convictedofacrimeinvolvingembeIement,theft,fraud,forgery,bribery,deceptiveorunlawful businesspractices,perjury,falsifyingordestroyingrecordsorevidence,orreceivingstolenproperty? DYesNo
IfYes,identifythecrimeoroffense;listthedate,courtandcasenumber;describethefacts andcircumstancesabouteachinstance;andsetforththepenaltyorpunishmentimposed.

Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

PF:30
383 of 499

10.3Isagovernmententitycurrentlyinvestigatingyourfirmoranyofitsowners,partners,officersor employeesformakingfalseclaim(s)ormaterialmisrepresentation(s)? DYesNo
IfYes,identifythegovernmententity,anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabouteach instance.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

10.4Inthepasttenyears,hasanygovernmententityever:(a)investigated,cited,disciplined,or assessedanypenaltiesagainstyourfirmoranyofitsowners,partners,officers,oremployees,or (b)determinedthatyourfirmoranyofitsowners,partners,officers,oremployeesviolatedany laws,rules,orregulations?
DYesNo
IfYes,identifythegovernmententity,listthedate,anddescribethefactsandcircumstances abouteachinstance.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

PF:31
384 of 499

11.CLAIMSANDSUITS
Forthefollowingquestions,theterm‘owner”doesnotincludeownersofstockinyourfirmifyourfirmisa publiclytradedcorporation.
liiInthepasttenyears,hasyourfirmoranyofitsowners,partners,officers,oremployeesbeena defendantincourt—orbeeninvolvedinamediationorarbitration—onamafterrelatedto:

11.1.1Theperformance,non-performance,default,orbreachofacontractoragreement? DYesNo

11.1.2Violatinganylaws,rules,orregulations?
DYesNo

11.1.3Bodilyinjuryorpersonalinjury(libel,slander,falseimprisonment)? DYesNo

11.1.4Employment-relatedlitigationbroughtbyanemployeeofyourfirm? ElYcsNo

11.1.5Paymenttoasubcontractororsubconsultant?
DYesNo
Iftheanswertoquestions11.1.1to11.1.5isYes,identifythenameofthepersonorentity thatsued(i.e.,“theplaintiff”);listthedate,courtandcasenumber;describethefactsand circumstancesgivingrisetothelawsuit,mediation,orarbitration;andsetforththeoutcome ordisposition.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary
PF:32
385 of 499

11.2Hasyourfirmeverfiledaclaimfordamagesoralawsuit,orrequestedarbitrationormediation, againstagovernmententity?
DYesNo
IfYes,identifythegovernmententity;listthedate,courtandcasenumber;describethefacts andcircumstancesabouttheclaimfordamages,lawsuit,mediation,orarbitration;andset forththeoutcomeordisposition.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

11.3Arethereanypendingoroutstandingjudgmentsorliensagainstyourfirmoranyofitsowners, partners,officers,oremployees?
DYesNo
IfYes,identifythenameofthepersonorentityentitledtopayment;listthedate,courtand casenumber;describethefactsandcircumstancesgivingrisetothejudgmentorlien;and setforththeamountofthejudgmentorlien.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

PF:33
386 of 499

12.INSURANCE

12.1Inthepasttenyears,hasaninsurancecompanyorasuretycompany:

12.1.1Refusedtoinsureyourfirm?
GYesNo

12.1.2Canceledornon-renewedyourfirm’sinsurancecoverage? DYesNo

12.1.3Refusedtoissueyourfirmabond?
DYesNo

12.1.4Canceledorrevokedabondobtainedbyyourfirm?
DYesNo
Iftheanswertoquestions12.1.1to12.1.4isYes,identifythenameoftheinsurance companyorsuretycompany;listthedate;anddescribethefactsandcircumstancesabout eachinstance.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

13.CONFLICTOFINTEREST

13.1Identifygovernmententityclientswhoseinterestsare,ormaybe,inconflictwiththeCityof Glendale’sinterests(i.e.,Glendale’sissues,needs,goals,objectives).Attachadditional sheetsasnecessary.

13.1.1Governmententity’sname:
____________________________

13.1.2ContactPerson:
_______________________
PhoneNumber:

13.1.3Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:
_____________________
PF:34
387 of 499

13.1.4Descriptionofintereststhatconflict,ormayconflict,withGlendale’sinterests:

13.1.5Governmententity’sname:
______________________________________

13.1.6ContactPerson:
_______________________
PhoneNumber:____________

13.1.7Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:
_________________________________

13.1.8Descriptionofintereststhatconflict,ormayconflict,withGlendale’sinterests:

Re:4.77Backgroundandexperiencewithstatelegislature.

13.1.9Governmententity’sname:
______________________________________

13.1.10ContactPerson:
_________________________
PhoneNumber_____________

13.1.11Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:
____________________________________

13.1.12Descriptionofintereststhatconflict,ormayconflict,withGlendale’sinterests:

14.REFERENCECHECK

14.1TheCityofGlendalemay:(1)requestcredit,criminal,andinvestigativereportsaboutyourfirm, and(2)contactthereferences,governmententities,andotherpersonslistedinthisProposal.

TheCityofGlendalewillusethisinformationtoevaluateyourfirm’sfinancialresources, responsibility,andintegritywithrespecttothisProposal,anawardoftheContract,oranycontract renewal.TheCityofGlendalewilltreatanysuchinformationthatitobtainsnoworlateras confidential.

14.1.1DoesyourfirmauthorizetheCityofGlendaletoobtaincredit,criminal,and investigativereportsaboutyourfirm?
YesQNo

14.1.2Doesyourfirmauthorizethereferences,govemmententities,andotherpersons listedinthisProposaltoreleaseinformationaboutyourfirmtotheCityofGlendale? YesUNo
PF:35
388 of 499

15.PUBLICRECORDSEXEMPTINFORMATION
Belowpleaseidentify(byageneraldescription)allcopyrightedmaterial,tradesecrets,orotherproprietary information(“protectabledocuments”)thatProposerhasincludedinthisProposalwhichProposer believesshouldbeexemptfromdisclosureunderCalifornia’sPublicRecordsAct,GovernmentCode Section6250,etseq.Bylistingtheprotectabledocumentsbelow,Proposeragreestoindemnify,defend, andholdharmlessCityanditsofficers,agents,employees,andrepresentativesfromandagainstany action,claim,lawsuit,orproceeding,includingcostsandexpenses,arisingoutoforconnectedwiththe City’srefusaltodisclosetheprotectabledocumentstoanypartymakingarequestforthoseitems.The CitywilltreatanyProposer,whofailstoidentifybelowprotectabledocumentsthatProposerbelieves shouldbeexemptfromdisclosure,ashavingwaiveditsrighttoanexemptionfromdisclosure,asthe PublicRecordsActprovides.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

CPPGisinhealthyfinancialcondition.Duetothefactthatthisdocumentinitsentiretyis subjecttotheCaliforniaPublicRecord’sAct,wearewillingtosubmitfinancialrecords undersealuponrequest.

16.PROPOSEDFEESANDRATES

16.1FortheperiodofFebruary12026-December31,2026,listthebillingrate,fee,andcostforyourfirmanc itsemployees(professionalandadministrative)toperformtheservicesandcompletealltasks describedintheRFP.Specifytheemployee’snameandtitleorpositionwiththecorresponding rate,fee,orcost.Attachadditionalsheetsasnecessary.

Feeproposalincludedinadditionalpage18.11.

PF:36
389 of 499

16.2FortheperiodofFebruary112026-December31,2026,listtherate,cost,orfeefor reimbursableexpenses(including,butnotlimitedto:travel,transportation,rent,overhead, administration1telephonecalls,facsimile,anddocumentprintingandreproduction).Attach additionalsheetsasnecessary.

Feeproposalincludedinadditionalpage18.11.

16.3FortheperiodofFebruary1,2026-December31,2026,yourfirm’sTotalFeeforthe servicesdescribedintheRFPwillbe:

Optionsincludedinadditionalpage18.11.dollarsVariable

16.4FortheperiodofFebruary1,2026-December31,2026,theproposedpaymentscheduleforthe TotalFee(paidinequalinstallments)willbe:

Monthly
Quarterly
COther:

16.5TheContractwiththesuccessfulproposermayincludeanoptionfortheCitytoextendthe Agreementforuptothree(3)annualperiods.IftheContractweretoincludethisoption,please specifyanychange(s)toyourfeesandcoststhatwouldapplyforsuchextendedperiod(s):

Descriptionofoptionalextensionsincludedinadditionalpage18.11.

17.ADDITIONALINFORMATION
Belowpleasestateanyotherinformationthatyourfirmbelievesisessentialtoacompleteevaluationof theProposal.Ifyourfirmhasnoadditionalinformation,pleasestatebelow:‘Ourfirmdoesnothaveany additionalinformationtopresent.”
PF:37
390 of 499

18.ATtACHMENTS
ForanyattachmentthatisapartofthisProposal,pleaselistanddescribetheattachment(e.g.,Explanation concerningquestion9.3-2pages”or“InformationrequiredbySection6oftheRFP—6pages”).

OurfirmdeclaresthattheattachmentslistedbelowareaddedandaremadeapartofthisProposalin ordertofullyandaccuratelyrespondtotheRFP:

18.1Re:4.7Explanationofbackgroundandexperiencewithstatelegislature

18.2Re:4.8Descriptionofsuccessfulstatelegislativeeffortsforgovernmententities

18.3Re:4.9Descriptionofunsuccessfulstatelegislativeeffortsforgovernmententities

18.4Re:4.10Descriptionoffirm’sexpertise

18.5Re:4.3Descriptionofclientstopresent

18.6Re:8.4Financialdisclosurestatement

18.7Re:8.5Bankletter

18.8Re:13.1Conflictofintereststatement

18.9Re:5.5Resumesforprimarypersonnel

18.10Re:4.5Descriptionofcurrentclients

18.11 18.12

18.13 18.14

18.15 18.16

18.7 18.18

18.19 18.20
PF:38
391 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Attachment18.1
RE:InformationRequiredbySection4.7oftheRFP,3Pages
CPPGmaintainsdeep,longstandingrelationshipsacrosstheLegisLature(membersandstaff),key poLicyandbudgetcommittees,andsenioradministrationofficials.CPPGprioritizesreLationship buiLdingwellbeforespecificissuesariseandleveragesthisnetworktoadvancecLientpolicyand fundingpriorities.

Legislativeofficesandleadership
•WorkingreLationshipswithvirtuallyeveryLegislativeoffice. •ReguLarengagementwithleadershipofficesinboththeSenateandAssembLy. •Ongoingconnectionswithbudgetdecision-makers(Budget.Appropriations,andBudget Subcommittees).

Keylegislativecommittees(policyandbudget)
CPPGmaintainsworkingrelationshipswithchairs,members,andconsuLtantsacrossmajor committees,including:
•Appropriations
•BudgetandBudgetSubcommittees
•LocaLGovernment
•Housing
•Judiciary
•Transportation
•Labor
•NaturalResources
•BusinessandProfessions
•GovernmentalOrganization
Committeestaffandconsultantrelationships
ThroughCPPG’steamexperience—andparticuLarLyviaSeniorLegisLativeAdvocateKyraRoss—the firmmaintainsroutine,high-frequencycontactwithkeycommitteestaff,incLuding:

AssemblyLocalGovernmentCommittee
•ChiefConsultant:AngelaMapp
•PrincipalConsultant:JimmyMacDonald
AssemblyNaturalResourcesCommittee
•ChiefConsultant:LawrenceLingbloom
•PrincipalConsultant:ElizabethMacMiLlan
•SeniorConsultant:PaigeBrokaw
AssemblyHousingandCommunityDeveLopmentCommittee
•ChiefConsultant:LisaEngel
AssemblyUtilitiesandEnergyCommittee
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM tPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE1
392 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.
•ChiefConsultant:LauraShybut
•SeniorConsultant:LinaMalova
SenateHousingCommittee
•ChiefConsuLtant:AUsonHughes
•PrincipalConsultant:HankBrady
SenateLocalGovernmentCommittee
•ChiefConsultant:AntonFavorini-Csorba
•PrincipalConsuLtant:JonathanPeterson
SenateEnergy,UtilitiesandCommunicationsCommittee
•ChiefConsuLtant:NidiaBautista
•Consultant:SarahSmith
SenateNaturalResourcesandWaterCommittee
•ChiefConsultant:KatharineMoore
•PrincipalConsultant:GenevieveWong
Individuallegislativememberrelationships
Assembly
•SpeakerRobertRivas(D)
•MajorityLeaderCeciliaAguiar-Curry(D)
•AssemblymemberMatHaney(D)—Chair,AssemblyHousingCommittee •AssembLymemberJohnHarabedian(D)—Chair,SelectCommitteeonHousingFinance andAffordability;Chair,ArmenianCaucus
•AssemblymemberIsaacBryan(D)
•AssemblymemberAshKalra(D)—Chair,AssemblyJudiciaryCommittee •AssemblymemberMaggyKrelL(D)
•AssemblymemberAlexLee(D)—Chair,ProgressiveCaucus
•AssembLymemberTinaMcKinnor(D)—Chair,PublicEmpLoymentandRetirement Committee
•AssemblymemberStephanieNguyen(D)—CapitaLCaucusMember
•AssemblymemberLizOrtega(D)—Chair,LaborandEmploymentCommittee •AssemblymemberBlancaPacheco(D)
•AssembLymemberDianePapan(D)—Chair,Water,ParksandWildlifeCommittee •AssemblymemberCottiePetrie-Norris(D)—Chair,UtiLitiesandEnergyCommittee •AssemblymemberSharonQuirk-SiWa(0)—Chair,AssemblyBudgetSubcommittee5 Committee
•AssembLymemberBuffyWicks(D)—Chair,AssembLyAppropriationsCommittee •AssembLymemberLoriWiLson(D)—Chair,AssemblyTransportationCommittee •AssemblymemberPatrickAhrens(D)
•AssemblymemberJoaquinArambula(D)
•AssemblymemberJasmeetBaines(0)
•AssemblymemberMarcBerman(D)
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM £T&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE2
393 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.
•AssemblymemberTashaBoerner(D)
•AssemblymemberLisaCalderon(D)
•AssembLymemberJessicaCaLoza(D)
•AssembLymemberiuanCarrillo(D)—Chair,LocalGovernmentCommittee •AssembtymemberDamonConnoLLy(D)—Chair,EnvironmentalSafetyandToxicMateriaLs Committee
•AssemblymemberSadeElhawary(D)
•AssemblymemberHeathFlora(R)—RepublicanLeader
•AssembtymemberJesseGabriel(D)—Chair,AssemblyBudgetCommittee •AssemblymemberJamesGallagher(R)
•AssembLymemberRobertGarcia(D)
•AssembLymemberMikeGipson(D)—Chair,AssembLyRevenue&TaxationCommittee •AssemblymemberMarkGonzalez(D)
Senate
•SenateProTemMoniqueLimon(D)
•FormerSenateProTernMikeMcGuire(D)
•SenatorBobArchuleta(D)
•SenatorJesseArreguin(D)—Chair,SenatePublicSafetyCommittee •SenatorAngeLiqueAshby(D)—Chair,Business,Professions&EconomicDevelopment Committee;CapitalCaucusMember
•SenatorJoshBecker(D)—Chair,SenateEnergyCommittee
•SenatorCatherineBlakespear(D)—Chair,SenateNaturalResourcesCommittee •SenatorChristopherCabaldon(0)—CapitaCaucusMember;Chair,Budget Subcommittee4Committee
•SenatorAnnaCabalLero(D)—Chair,SenateAppropriationsCommittee •SenatorSabrinaCervantes(D)
•SenatorDaveCortese(D)—Chair,SenateTransportationCommittee •SenatorMariaELenaDurazo(D)—Chair,SenateLocalGovernmentCommittee •SenatorLenaGonzalez(D)—MajorityLeader;Chair,LatinoCaucus •SenatorTimGrayson(D)
•SenatorShannonGrove(R)
•SenatorMelissaHurtado(D)
•SenatorBrianJones(R)—MinorityLeader
•SenatorJohnLaird(D)
•SenatorCarolineMenjivar(D)
•SenatorRogerNietlo(R)—CapitaLCaucusMember
•SenatorELoiseGOmezReyes(D)
•SenatorKeLLySeyarto(R)—ViceChair,LocalGovernmentCaucus •SenatorLolaSmallwood-Cuevas(D)
•SenatorHenryStern(D)
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM E&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE3
394 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.
•SenatorThomasUmberg(D)—Chair,SenateiudiciaryCommittee
•SenatorAishaWahab(D)—Chair,SenateHousingCommittee
Legislativechiefsofstaff,leadershipadvisors,andotherkeystaff CPPGmaintainstong-runningworkingrelationshipswithseniorstaffacrossLeadership,rules,and memberoffices,including:
•KipLipper(SenateProTem’sEnergyAdvisor)
•KatieKolistos(AssemblySpeaker’sOffice,localgovernmentconsultant) •BrynSullivan(SenateRulesCommittee)
•DanReeves(ChiefofStafftoSenatorStevePadiLLa)
•GustavoArroyo(ChiefofStafftoSenatorSusanRubio)
•JuLieSauls(ChiefofStafftoSenatorRogerNiello)
•GiLTopete(ChiefofStafftoSenatorHenryStern)
•DavidOrosco(ChiefofStafftoSenatorStevenChoi)
•SophiaKwongKim(ChiefofStafftoAssemblymemberMikeFong)
•JohnFerrera(ChiefofStafftoAssemblymemberCeciliaAguiar-Curry) •DavidStammerjohan(ChiefofStafftoAssemblymemberMaggieKreLL) •NghiaNguyen(ChiefofStafftoAssemblymemberALexandraMacedo) •MarkStivers(ChiefofStafftoAssemblymemberAnamarieAviLaFarias) •ArwenChenery(ChiefofStafftoAssemblymemberSteveBennett) •KaterinaRobinson(ChiefofStafftoSenatorJerryMcNerney)
•CameronUrkofsky(ChiefofStafftoSenatorCarolineMenjivar) •BethanyWestfaLl(ChiefofStafftoAssemblymemberChrisWard) •ElizabethBiondi(AssembLyNaturaLResourcesCommittee)
•LawrenceLingbLoom(ChiefConsultant,AssemblyNaturalResourcesCommittee) •JoshTooker(ChiefConsuLtant,AssemblyEnvironmentalSafetyCommittee) •CarrieCornwelt(StaffDirector,SenateElectionsCommittee) Governor’sOfficeandseniorAdministrationrelationships(named) •CPPGmaintainsextensiveconnectionswiththeGovernor’sOfficeandsenior AdministrationofficiaLs,builtoverdecadesofengagementandcredibility.

Stateagenciesandconstitutionaloffices(accessandfacilitation) WhiLestateagenciesarenotalwaystheprimarydriversoflegislativepriorities,CPPGleveragesits networktofaciLitateclientaccesswhenagencyorconstitutionaLofficeengagementisneeded, including:
•StateController’sOffice:BismarkObando(PressSecretarytoControLLerMaliaCohen) •StateTreasurer’sOffice:PatrickHenning(ChiefDeputyTreasurer) Third-houselobbyists,associations,andcoalitionpartners
CPPGmaintainsrelationshipsandcoordinatesstrategywiththird-houseLobbyistsand associationsthathoLdsignificantinfluence,including:
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM E&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE4
395 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.
•CalCities(LeagueofCaliforniaCities)
•CaliforniaContractCitiesAssociation(CCCA)
•CaliforniaStateAssociationofCounties(CSAC)
•RegionalCountyRepresentativesofCaLifornia(RCRC)
•CaLiforniaMunicipalUtilitiesAssociation(CMUA)
•SouthernCaliforniaPubLicPowerAuthority(SCPPA)
•AssociationofCaliforniaWaterAgencies(ACWA)
•CaliforniaSanitationAgencies(CASA)
•WateReuse
•Otheralignedorganizationsandcoalitionpartners
CPPGLobbyistsregularLyparticipateinconferencecaLLs,caucusmeetings,andcoalition-building effortstoalignstrategyonlocalgovernmentandutilitypriorities.

Localgovernmentandutilityclientrelationships(namedexamples) ThroughKyraRoss’spriorwork(EmanuelsJones&Associates)andongoingCPPGengagement, CPPCmaintainsclient-drivenrelationships,incLuding:
•CityofGlendaLe
•GlendaLeWater&Power
•CityofBurbank
•CityofPasadena
•Burbank-Glendale-PasadenaAirportAuthority
KyraaLsomaintainsfrequentcommunicationwiththedelegationrepresentingGLendale,including:
•SenatorSashaRenéePerez
•AssemblymemberNickSchultz
•AssemblymemberJessicaCaLoza
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLIGPOLIGYGROUP.COM

ET&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE5
396 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Attachment18.2
RE:InformationRequiredbySection4.8oftheRFP,2Pages
CPPGlobbyist,KyraRoss,hasbeensuccessfullyadvocatingfortheCityofGlendalefortheLast decade.ShefoughtforchangestoprotectGLendale’sredevelopmentfunds,backfillfundingfor utiLityarrearspost-COVIDandmillionsinstatebudgetallocations.ShehasassistedtheCityin procuringover$125,000,000since2015.

SuccessfulLegisLativeadvocacyrequiresstrongcoalitionbuiLding,keenpoliticaLacumenand expertiseinthefieldaswellasconnectionswithbothindividuallegisLativeofficesandcommittees.

Ourpowerhouseteamoflegislative,policy,fundingandtechnicalexpertsiswell-positionedwith extensivenetworksintheCapitoLandastellarrecordofLegisLativesuccesses.Afewofthese successesarenotedbeLow:

SB1177(Poflantino,2022)BurbankGlendalePasadenaRegionalHousingTrust-Chaptered Inearly2022,thecitiesofGlendale,Burbank,andPasadenarecognizedtheneedforfunding assistanceforfamiliesinthetn-cityregionwithextremeLylow,verylow,Low,andmoderateincomes andhomelessindividuaLs.TheacuteshortageofaffordabLehousingintheArroyoVerdugoregion combinedwithinsufficientfundingtobringalLofthehousingprojectsinthepipelinetocompletion createdtheneedforanadditionalfundingoption.ThethreecitiessponsoredSB1177(Portantino) thatalLowedthecitiestoenterintoajointpowersagreementtocreateandoperatethetrusttofund housingintheregion.InadditiontotheenactinglegisLation,abudgetappropriationof$23million wassuccessfullyobtainedthroughthebudgetprocess.CPPGlobbyist,KyraRoss,wasthelead lobbyistonthebilL,draftingbiLLbackgrounddocuments,taLkingpoints,andothermaterialsforthe authorandcommitteeoffices.Additionally,shecoordinatedandLedaLLlobbyingmeetingsinthe Capitolwithpolicycommitteeconsultants,policycommitteemembersandtheirstaffaswellas meetingswiththeGovernor’sofficeonboththebillandappropriation.Allthreecityclientswerekept uptodatethroughweeklyemailupdates,bi-weeklycallswithcitystaffaswellascalLsandemaiLs asneededwithin24hoursofanyactiononthebiLLs.Impressively,thebillhadno“no”votes throughouttheprocessandwassignedbytheGovernor.

InJune2024,theBurbankGlendalePasadenaRegionalHousingTrustissueditsfirstaward,acapital constructiongrantpavingthewayforapioneering,multipurposeHomelessSolutionsCenterin Burbank.

CPPGlobbyistshavealsoprotectedcityclients,includingtheCityofGLendale,fromLegislationthat wouldbedetrimentaltoboththeCityandGlendaleWaterandPower. 112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM tPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE6
397 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

SB445(Wiener)2025HighSpeedRail-Halted
In2025,SenatorWienerintroducedabiLlthatproposedtodrasticallyalterexistingapprovaland coordinationprocessesbyimposinghighlyprescriptiveandimpracticaltimeframesthatdonot reflectthecomplexityofinfrastructurecoordination,environmentaLreview,andpublicengagement necessaryforresponsibleprojectdelivery.Theauthorsoughttoaddressdeadlinesinthepermitting processbyimposingdeadlinesonlocalgovernments,publiclyownedutilities,specialdistricts, privatelyownedutiLitiesandtelecommunicationscompaniestocomplywiththepermittingprocess.

IfthestateagencydoesnotgetthelocaLagencypermitsbecauseofthesedelays,theyare empoweredtojustbeginconstruction.TheLegislationwouLdhaveaLsoLimitedlocaLgovernments fromrequiringconcessionsunrelatedtotheprojectasarequirementforreceivingapermit.InJune 2025,thebiLlwasamendedtoonlyapplytotheHigh-SpeedRaiLAuthorityandthoseLocaLagencies inthepathofHigh-SpeedRaiLtracksfocusedprimarilyonInvestorOwnedUtilitiesandPublicly OwnedUtilities,incLudingGLendaleWaterandPower.

CPPGlobbyistsengagedwiththeCaliforniaMunicipalUtilitiesAssociation,theLeagueofCalifornia Cities,andtheAssociationofCaliforniaWaterAgenciestoLobbythelegislativemembers highlightingthenumerousissuesofconcerninthebillincludingtheabilitytomanagepublic infrastructure,ensureworkerandpublicsafety,andcoordinatewithaLLcriticalinfrastructure sectors.Notably,becausethebillwasintheAssemblyandbeingheardintheAssemblyUtility CommitteewhichAssemblymemberSchuLtzisamember,CPPGlobbyistsmetwith AssemblymemberSchuLtzonthebillonseveraloccasions,notingthespecificimpactstotheCityof GLendale.AssemblymemberSchuLtzspokeoutinoppositiontothebilLincommitteeasadirect resuLtofCPPGLobbyistinteractions.InAugust,inresponsetothelargeandgrowingcoalitionof Cities,UtiLitiesandothersinstrongoppositiontothebilL,thebillwasheldbytheAssembly AppropriationsCommittee,haltingitsprogressin2025.

CPPGLobbyistsbothcommunicatedclientconcernsdirectLytotheLegisLativedelegationon numerousoccasionsthroughletterssubmittedtothelegislativeportal,directmeetingswiththe Legislatorsandtheirstaffandthroughcoalitionefforts.Clientswerekeptuptodatethroughbi weekLymeetings,weeklywrittenupdatesandcaLLsandemaiLsasneededwithin24hoursofany actiononthebilLs.

SB423(Gonzalez)Housing:realpropertytransfertaxes:affordabilitycovenants Inthefinaldaysofthe2025legislativesession,SB423was“gutandamended”toincludelanguage thatwouldhaveprohibitedcitiesfromimposingarealestatetransfertaxoncertainnewLy constructedresidentialandcommercialproperties.TheproposalwouLdhavebarredtransfertaxes for15yearsfollowingtheissuanceofacertificateofoccupancyformultifamilyandcommercial deveLopmentsandforfiveyearsonsingle-familyhomesrebuiLtafteradisaster.Anotherversionof theproposaLextendedtheserestrictionstodocumenttransfertaxes,posingsignificantfiscaL impactsforLocalgovernmentsstatewide.
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM tPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE7
398 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

CPPGmobilizedimmediately,workingdirectlywithcityclientstoquantifypotentialrevenuelosses andpreparecity-specificimpactanalyses.OurteamaLsocoordinatedwitheachcity’sLegislative delegation,theLeagueofCaliforniaCities,andexternalpartnerssuchastheCaliforniaProfessional Firefighters,amplifyingstatewideopposition,andelevatingtheissuepoLiticalLy.

SB499(Stern)Residentialprojects:feesandcharges
InthewakeoftheLast-minutegut-and-amendofSB937(Wiener,Chapter290,Statutesof2024), locaLagencies—incLudingrecreationandparkdistricts—wereLeftgrapplingwithhowtointerpret whichdevelopmentmitigationfeeswererequiredtobedeferredversusthosethatcouldstiLLbe coLlectedatthetimeofapplication.SB937failedtorecognizethatparks,openspace,andparkLand playanessentialroleinpubLicsafety—servingasnaturaLfuelbreaks,fLoodplains,andstagingareas forfirstresponders.

Inresponse,CPPGassistedtheCaLiforniaAssociationofRecreationandParkDistrictsinsponsoring SB499toensurethatparkandrecreationdistricts,alongwithotherlocaLagencies,retaintheability tocollectspecifiedmitigationfeeswhenparks,openspace,andparkfacilitiesareidentifiedina localhazardmitigationplanorlocaLsafetyelement.

Assponsorofthebill,CPPGworkedhand-in-glovewithSenatorStern(D-Malibu),servingasthelead negotiatorthroughoutthelegislativeprocess.OurteamactedasLeadtestimony,deveLoped backgroundmaterials,committeebriefings,advocacydocuments,andtechnicalamendments necessarytosecurepassage.WhiLeinthesecondhouse,thebillwasamendedtoexpanditsscope beyondparkstoexplicitlyincludethetimeLycolLectionofconnectionandcapacitycharges.

Despiteoppositionfrompowerfulspecialinterestgroups,CPPGledabroadanddiversecoaLition— includingpublicsafetyorganizations,majorutilities,andcitiesacrossCalifornia—tosuccessfully advanceSB499.
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM UAiCPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE8
399 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Attachment18.3
RE:InformationRequiredbySection4.9oftheRFP,2Pages
SenateBill79(Wiener)Housingdevelopmenttransit-orienteddevelopment SB79makeshousingdevelopmentanaLlowabLeusewithinahaLfmiLeradiusofamajortransitstop andallowstransitagenciestoadoptobjectivestandardsforbothresidentialandcommerciaL deveLopmentsproposedtobeconstructedonLandownedbythetransitagencyoronwhichthe transitagencyhasapermanentoperatingeasement.ThebiLlundermineslocalplanningeffortsat theircorebyallowingdeveLopmentinareaswhereacityhasnotplannedforasignificantincreasein density.

Immediatelyuponintroduction,CPPGlobbyistsworkedwithadvocatesinthebroaderlocal governmentadvocacycommunity—includingtheLeagueofCaliforniaCities,amongothers—to createarobustoppositioncoalitiontoeducatetheLegislatureonspecificimpactstoLocalagencies.

Inaddition,CPPGlobbyistsmetwithdelegationmembersandtheirstaffonnumerousoccasionsto informthemofclientpositionsandspecificimpactstotheclientcommunities.

AsadirectresultofoureffortswithacoalitionofstakehoLders,SB79wassubstantiaLlyamended,a totalof13setsofamendmentspriortomakingitswaytoGovernorNewsom.TheLastsetof amendmentsremovedthethird“tier”inthebiLl,narrowingitsappLicabilitytothecitiesinBcounties.

ThelastsetofamendmentsadditionaLlyremovedtheoppositionoftheStateBuiLdingand ConstructionTradeswiththeadditionofnewlaborstandardsonspecificprojects.Thesetwo amendmentspavedthewayforthebareminimumvotesintheAssembLyandSenatetosendthebill totheGovernorforhissignature.BasedonconfirmedvotecountsbytheLocaLgovernmentcoalition opposedtoSB79,hadthebillnotbeenamendedthefinaltimetoremovethestatewideapplication andtheLaboropposition,itveryLikeLywouLdhavediedontheAssemblyFloor.SenatorWienerwas abletogarnerthenecessaryvoteswiththeseamendments.

ThebiLl,nowLaw,continuestobeaprobLemforthecitieswithinthe8countieswhoarenow beginningtoprepareforimpLementation.CPPGlobbyistshavealreadyconfirmedthatSenator WienerispLanninga“clean-up”biLLin2026thatwillLikelycontainlanguagetocloseanyperceived “loopholes”aswellastechnicalclarifyingamendmentstotheLawthathavecometoLightascities andcountiesbegintoimplementthebilL.

AB339(Ortega)Localpublicemployeeorganizations:noticerequirements AB339exemplifiedagrowingtrendinstatepolicymaking—effortstorestrictorcomplicatealocal agency’sabiLitytocontractforessentialservices.AsintroducedinJanuary2025,thebiLLwouldhave requiredlocalagenciestoprovide120days’noticetoeverybargainingunitforanyservicecontract (neworrenewal)involvingsimiLarorreLatedwork.ItalsoaLLowedbargainingunitstoreopenexisting MOUsanddemand“meet-and-confer”negotiationsforeachaffectedcontract.CoLLectively,these 112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM U&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGES
400 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.
provisionswouldhavemadelocalcontractingvirtuallyunworkable.Recognizingthethreat,CPPG engagedearLy,providingadetailedanalysis,coordinatingwiththeLeagueofCaLiforniaCities,the CaliforniaContractCitiesAssociation,andtheCaLiforniaChamberofCommerce,heLpingtobuilda broadoppositioncoalitiontoeducatelegislatorsontheoperationalandfiscalconsequencesfor localgovernments.

Throughsustainedadvocacy,CPPGandcoalitionpartnerssecuredaseriesofmajoramendments thatsubstantiallyreducedthebill’simpactbeforeitspassage.Keyamendmentsincluded:
•Eliminationofthe“meetandconfer”requirementandtheremovaLoftheMOUreopening provision.
•Reductionofthenoticeperiodfrom120daysto45days.
•FullexemptionforcontractsrelatedtodecLaredstatesofemergency. •Targetedexemptionsfor:
oConstruction,alteration,demoLition,instalLation,repair,andmaintenancework. oSpeciaLizeddata,software,orservicesreLatedtothoseactivities. oContractsfortheplanning,design,administration,oversight,ordeliveryofpublic works,residentiaL,commerciaL,orindustriaLprojectssubjecttouniformcodesor standards.

WhileAB339wasultimatelysignedintoLaw,theseamendmentstransformedabillthatwouldhave crippledlocalcontractingintoonethatisfarnarrowerinscopeandmoreadministratively manageable.
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM &CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE10
401 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Attachment18.4
RE:InformationRequiredbySection4.10oftheRFP,3Pages
CaliforniaPublicPolicyGroup(CPPG)isaSacramento-based,full-serviceLobbying,grantwriting, andmunicipalstrategyfirmdedicatedtoadvancingtheprioritiesofpublicagenciesnavigating California’scomplexlegislativeandreguLatoryenvironment.RootedinLocalgovernment,CPPG representscities,specialdistricts,andstatewideassociationsacrossthestate—ensuringour clientshavetheLegislativepresence,poLicyinsight,andfundingstrategiesnecessarytodeliver resuLtsfortheircommunities.

Originallyoperatingasthelegislativeadvocacyandgrant-writingdivisionofRennePubLicLaw Group,CPPGbecameanindependentcorporationin2024andnowservesnearly40localagency clientsfromourheadquartersoneblockfromtheStateCapitol.Our15-personteamincludessenior legisLativeadvocates,seasonedpolicyandtechnicaladvisors,andarobustgrantsdivision—offering clientsdeepsubject-matterexpertiseacrossmunicipalfinance,housing,transportation, environmentaLpolicy,publicsafety,utiLities,andinfrastructurefunding.

Amajordevelopmentstrengthensthatbenchfurther:effectiveJanuary1,2026,KyraRoss—Principal atEmanueLs,Jones&Associates(EJA)—willjoinCPPGasaSeniorLegislativeAdvocate.Kyrabrings morethan20yearsofexperienceinwater,utilities,environmentalpolicy,andlocaLgovernment advocacy.MostimportantLyforthisengagement,shehasservedastheprimarylegislativeadvocate fortheCityofGlendaleforthepast18years.

HerlongstandingrepresentationofGLendale—coupledwithCPPG’sfuLLteamofpolicyspeciaLists, grantprofessionaLs,andstrategicadvisors—createsanunmatchedleveLofcontinuity,institutional knowLedge,andlegislativeinfluence.Together,CPPGandKyraoffertheCityofGlendaleauniqueLy powerfulandseamlesstransition:theadvocatewhohasrepresentedGlendalefornearLytwo decadeswiLLcontinuetoadvancetheCity’spriorities,nowbackedbytheexpandedcapabiLitiesand resourcesofafull-servicefirm.

ThiscombinedstrengthpositionsCPPGtodeliverexceptional,proactive,andhighlyinformed representationfortheCityofGlendale.

Embeddedmunicipalperspectiveinourservicemodel
Acrossthefirm,ourapproachbeginswithunderstandinghowacityoperates:itscharterstructure, budgetandrevenuemix,departmentalresponsibilities,andcommunityexpectations.Forother municipaLcLientswehaveconductedin-depthinterviewswithdepartmentheadsand counciLmembers,developedcityspecificlegisLativeplatforms,andtranslatedthoseintoclear messagingdocumentsforuseinLegislativemeetingsandbudgetnegotiations—anapproachthat resulted,forexample,insecuringmorethan$12millioninonetimestatefundingforinfrastructure 112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM U&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE11
402 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.U&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
prioritiesintheCityofSantaRosa.WewouldbringthesameleveLofpreparationandtaiLoredstrategy toGLendale.

Integratedunderstandingofpolicy,funding,andimplementation CPPG’sservicesareintentionallybuiltattheintersectionofpublicpolicyandfunding,emphasizing howlegisLativeandbudgetarydecisionstranslateintopracticaL,on-the-groundoutcomesfor today’spubLicagencies.Weachievethisthrough:
•LegisLative,administrative,andregulatoryadvocacytoshapestatepoLicyandprotectlocal authority;
•Grantwriting,research,andrevenuesourcingtoturnpoLicywinsintotangibledolLarsfor capitaLprojectsandprograms;and
•StrategicplanningandmunicipalconsultingtoaligntheState’seffortswithwhatcitystaff andresidentsneedontheground.

WemaintainadedicatedGrantServicesTeamthatworkscloseLywithouradvocatestoidentify fundingopportunitiesthatmatchcitypriorities,assessprojectreadiness,andstrengthen applications.ThatintegrationhasallowedustosecuresubstantiaLcompetitiveanddiscretionary fundsforclientsacrossissueareassuchastransportation,water,housing,publicsafety,climate resiLience,andurbangreening.

OurMunicipalFundingOutlookandreLatedpubLicationsfurtherdemonstrateourcommitmentto trackingandinterpretingstateandfederalgranttrendsforlocaLgovernments,particularlyascities navigateshiftingfiscalconditionsandevolvingfederalpriorities.

Abilitytomeettheneeds,goals,andobjectivesoftheCityofGlendale GlendaLe’sstatusasafull-service,charter,councilmanagercitymeansthatstatepoLicydecisions reverberatethroughabroadsetofin-houseservices—frompublicsafetyandtransportationto utilities,parks,andhousing.CPPG’steamcompositionandworkhistoryaretailoredtoexactlythat environment:
•Weunderstandhowstatehousingandlandusemandatesinteractwithlocalplanning, infrastructure,andcommunityexpectations,informedbyourinternalhousinglawexpertise andpriorserviceinsideHCDadministeringprogramssuchasProhousingincentives. •Wehavedeepexperiencewithtransportation,transit,andclimaterelatedfundingand policy,incLudingsuccessfulpursuitofmajormultisourcefundingpackagesandproject specificenabLinglegislation.
•Ouradvisorshavewritten,implemented,anddefendedtheverytypesofstatutes,budget provisions,andeconomicdevelopmenttooLsthatGlendalemustnavigateasitmaintains andupgradesitsinfrastructurewhilepreservinglocalcontroL. 112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COMPAGE12 403 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.E&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE13
ForGlendale,wewouldbring:

1.AtaiLoredLegislativeandfundingplatformrootedinyourCouncil’sstrategicpriorities, departmentalneeds,andcommunityvision;

2.ProactiveengagementinSacramento,incLudingcontinuousbiLLandbudgetmonitoring, timeLyanalysis,andearlyoutreachtoyourdelegation,keycommitteemembers,and Administrationofficials;and

3.ActionabLeguidanceforcityleadership,transLatingcompLexstatedevelopmentsintocLear optionsandstrategiesfortheCouncil,CityManager,anddepartmentheads.

Insum,CPPG’sfamiliaritywithpubLicadministration,itsdeeplocalgovernmentDNA,anditsproven masteryofthestatelegislativeandbudgetprocesspositionthefirmtoeffectivelyadvancetheCity ofGlendale’sneeds,goals,andobjectives—bothinSacramentoandathomeinthecommunity.

Withmorethan30cityand4publicLyownedutilitycLients,CPPGisoneofthefew,ifnotonLylobbying firmsinSacramentothathastheexpertiseinbothcityandpubliclyownedutilityrepresentation.

KyraRosshas10yearsofexperienceintheCapitol,3yearsasChiefConsultanttotheAssembLy NaturalResourcesCommittee,10yearswiththeLeagueofCaliforniaCities,and12yearsLobbying forCitiesandPOU5(EJA).ShehaswrittendozensofbiLLs,andmaneuveredhundredsofbiLlsthrough theprocess.

DaneHutchingshas17yearsoflegisLativeadvocacyandpublicaffairsexperience,incLudingservice asaLegisLativeRepresentativeandFederaLPolicyLiaisonfortheLeagueofCaliforniaCities,where headvisedcityofficialsonLaborrelations,transparency,BrownActcompLiance,workers’ compensation,andemergingtechnoLogyissues.Underhisleadership,CPPGhasbroadenedfroma purelobbyingpracticeintoanintegratedadvocacyandfundingfirmthathashelpedsecure hundredsofmiLLionsofdoLLarsforcommunitiesacrossCalifornia.

GrantServicesDirectorJakeWhitakerhassecuredover$190milLioninfundingforGrantServices clientsandwillworkcloselywithGlendaLestafftobestpositiontheCityforcompetitivegrant appLications.
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM 404 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Attachment18.5
RE:InformationRequiredbySection4.3oftheRFP,8Pages
Note:ThefollowingarecurrentgovernmentclientsofEmanuels,Jones&Associates.

WearecurrentlyworkingontransitioningtheseclientstoCPPG.

Governmententity’sname:CityofGlendale
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2013toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:S9,750/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:DomenicaMegerdichian,AssistanttotheCityManager PhoneNumber:(818)550-4314
Governmententity’sname:CityofBurbankandBurbankWaterandPower Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyServices Starting/endingdatesofservices:1988toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$5000/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:JustinHess,CityManager
PhoneNumber:818-238-5800
Governmententity’sname:CityofCoronado
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacyServices Starting/endingdatesofservices:2020toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$5100/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanIFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:TinaFriend,CityManager
PhoneNumber:819-522-7335
Governmententity’sname:CityofLosAngeles
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeConsulting(thisisanon-lobbycontract) Starting/endingdatesofservices:Pre-2020toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$4500/month
Wasyourfirm:
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM r&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE14
405 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

SelectedbyanRFP?NO
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:SteveLuu
PhoneNumber:(213)473-5720
Governmententity’sname:TownofMammothLakes
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyServices Starting/endingdatesofservices:2023-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$3450/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?NO
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:RobPatterson,TownManager
PhoneNumber:760-965-3601
Governmententity’sname:MannCountyCouncilofMayorsandCouncilmembers Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyServices Starting/endingdatesofservices:Pre-2020toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$3820/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanREP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:AliceEredericks,Chair
PhoneNumber:415-789-5166
Governmententity’sname:CityofPasadenaandPasadenaWater&Power Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacyServices Starting/endingdatesofservices:Pre-2020toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$5990/Month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:BrendaHarvey-WiLLiams,AssistantCityManagerPhoneNumber:626-744-3718 Governmententity’sname:CityofSanMarcos
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyServices Starting/endingdatesofservices:Pre-2020toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$4300/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanREP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM E*iCPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE15
406 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

ContactPerson:PhiLScollick,CityClerk
PhoneNumber:760-744-1050
Governmententity’sname:CityofSolanaBeach
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyServices Starting/endingdatesofservices:Pre-2020toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$2850/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?NO
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:AlyssaMuto,CityManager
PhoneNumber:858-7202400
Governmententity’sname:CityofStockton
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacyServices Starting/endingdatesofservices:Pre-2020toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$9270/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:AlexBailey,ProgramManager
PhoneNumber:209-937-8205
Governmententity’sname:TownofTruckee
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyServices Starting/endingdatesofservices:Pre-2020toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$3826/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:HiLaryHobbs,AssistantTownManager
PhoneNumber:530-582-2914
CurrentCPPGGovernmentClients
Governmententity’sname:CityofEastvaLe
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2020-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$5,750/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?NO
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM E&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE16
407 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

ContactPerson:MarkOrme,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(951)361-0900
Governmententity’sname:BeLmont
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2021-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$4,500/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanRFP?NO
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:AfshinOskoui
PhoneNumber:(650)595-7408
Governmententity’sname:RedwoodCity
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting Starting/endingdatesofservices:2019-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$8,500/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:MelissaStevensonDiaz,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(650)780-7300
Governmententity’sname:CityofBakersfieLd
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting Starting/endingdatesofservices:2021-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$13,500/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:ChristianClegg,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(661)326-3751
Governmententity’sname:CityofCarLsbad
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2021-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$7,000/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:GeoffPatnoe,CityManager
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM

ET&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE17
408 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

PhoneNumber:(442)339-2958
Governmententity’sname:CityofCorona
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2021-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$6,000
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:JacobEllis,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(951)739-4903
Governmententity’sname:CityofFosterCity
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2021-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$5,000/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanRFP?NC
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:StefanChatwin,City/DistrictManager
PhoneNumber:(650)286-3288
Governmententity’sname:TownofHiLLsborough
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2021-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$4,000/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?NO
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:DougDavis,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(650)375-7400
Governmententity’sname:CityofRanchoCucamonga
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting Starting/endingdatesofservices:2022-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$9,500/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:JohnGillison,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(909)774-2005
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95816•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM T&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE18
409 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Governmententity’sname:CityofRanchoPalosVerdes
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2022-2025
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$4,500/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:AraMithranian,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(310)544-5202
Governmententity’sname:CityofSantaRosa
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting Starting/endingdatesofservices:2021-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$9,922.50/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:MaraskeshiaSmith,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(707)543-3010
Governmententity’sname:CityofBeaumont
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting Starting/endingdatesofservices:2023-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$9,000/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:ELizabethGibbs,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(951)769-8520
Governmententity’sname:Burbank-Glendale-PasadenaAirportAuthority Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2023-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$8,300/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:PamelaMarcelLoDirectorofGovernmentAffairs PhoneNumber:(818)524-3828
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM T&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE19
410 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Governmententity’sname:CityofELCerrito
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting Starting/endingdatesofservices:2023Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$6,500/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanRFP?ND
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:KarenPinkos,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(510)215-4302
Governmententity’sname:CityofMerced
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting Starting/endingdatesofservices:2023-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$9,500/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:ScottMcBride,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(209)388-7000
Governmententity’sname:CityofRoseviLLeELectricaLUtility Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2023-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$10,000/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:MarkWolinski,GovernmentRelationsAdministrator PhoneNumber:(916)774-5179
Governmententity’sname:CityofThousandOaks
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2025-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$7,500/month
Wasyourfirm:

SeLectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:AndrewPowers,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(805)449-2100
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM E&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE20
411 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Governmententity’sname:OntarioInternationalAirportAuthority Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2025-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$10,000/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:MarthaPreciado,DirectorofGovernmentReLations PhoneNumber:(909)260-6905
Governmententity’sname:CityofMountainHouse
Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegislativeAdvocacy
Starting/endingdatesofservices:2025-Present
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$5,500/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:StevenPinkerton,CityManager
PhoneNumber:(209)831-2300
Governmententity’sname:CityofVernonandVernonPublicUtility Servicesthatyourfirmprovided:LegisLativeAdvocacy(sharecontractwithCPPG) Starting/endingdatesofservices:2024toPresent
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:$12,000/month
Wasyourfirm:

SelectedbyanRFP?YES
UnderaContractorAgreement?YES
ContactPerson:AngelaKimmey,DeputyCityAdministrator
PhoneNumber:323-826-3666
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM L7&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE21
412 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Attachment18.6
Re:FinanciaLStatementDisclosure
StabiLityofFirm
TheCaliforniaPubLicPolicyGroup(CPPG)isinstrongandstablefinancialcondition.Becausethis proposaL,initsentirety,issubjecttodisclosureundertheCaliforniaPublicRecordsAct,CPPGis preparedtoprovidedetaiLedfinancialstatementsundersealuponrequest. 112711THSTREEr,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM E&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE22
413 of 499

cTjtncountiesbank
Attachment18.7-BankLetter
12/08/2025
ToWhomItMayConcern,
ThisletteristoconfirmthatCaliforniaPublicPolicyGroup,underthemanagementofMr.

DaneHutchings,maintainsadepositaccountalongwithatineofcreditwithTnCounties Bank.AsofthedateofthisLetter,bothaccountsareingoodstandingwiththebank.

Boththedepositaccountandthetineofcredithavebeenhandledresponsibly,withtimely paymentsandadherencetothetermsoftheagreement.Wearepleasedtoprovidethis referencebasedontheaccount’shistoryandtheborrower’scommitmenttomaintaininga positiverelationshipwithourinstitution.

Shouldyouhavefurtherquestions,orrequireadditionalclarification,pleasefeelfreeto contactourofficeatTnCountiesBank.

Sincerely,
SarineAnderson
AVP,BusinessDevelopmentManagerIII
TnCountiesBank—FolsomEmpireRanchOffice
25065BlueRavineRoad#100
Folsom,CA95630
(916)984-2029
(415)830-5154
[email protected]
414 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Attachment18.8
Re:ConfLictofInterestStatement
TheCaliforniaPublicPoucyGroup(CPPG)hasconductedathoroughreviewofitscurrentandrecent governmentandpublic-sectorclients.CPPGconfirmsthatitdoesnotrepresentanygovernment entityororganizationwhoseinterestsare,ormaybe,inconflictwiththeCity’sissues,needs,goals, orobjectivesastheyrelatetolegislativeadvocacyservices.

CPPGmaintainsinternalprotocolstoensureongoingcompliancewithallapplicableconflict-of- interestrequirements.Shouldanypotentialconflictariseinthefuture,CPPGwillpromptlydisclose themattertotheCityandworkcoLlaborativelytoaddressandresolvetheissueinaccordancewith legalandethicalstandards.
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM L7&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE24
415 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Attachment18.9
Re:InformationRequiredbySection5.4oftheRFP,Background
InformationofPrimaryPersonneL,3Pages
Name:KyraRoss
Title/position:SeniorLegislativeAdvocate
Professionalbackground/areaofexpertise:

Forthepast18years,KyrahaslobbiedonbehalfofCityandPubliclyOwnedUtilityclients.Beginning in2026,sheismergingEmanuels,Jones.andAssociateswithCPPGtobringaweaLthoflocal government,landuse,utiLityandenvironmentalpolicyknowledgeaswellassignificantCapitoland StateAgencyexperience.Shehasnearly30yearsofexperienceworkingintheStateLegislative, budget,andreguLatoryenvironments.

NumberofMonths/yearswithyourfirm:KyrawillbejoiningCPPGonJanuary1,2026 Numberofprofessionaldegrees/Licenses/certificationsthispersonholds:

KyrahasaBachelorofSciencefromtheUniversityofCaliforniaatDavisandisaregisteredLobbyist withtheStateofCalifornia.

Professionalaffiliations:

KyraisamemberoftheInstituteofGovernmentAdvocates,CaliforniaWomeninEnergyandthe CapitoLNetwork.

ProfessionalExperience:

Forthepast1Byears,KyrahasLobbiedonbehaLfofCityandPubLicLyOwnedUtilityclients.Beginning in2026,sheismergingEmanuels,Jones,andAssociateswithCPPGtobringawealthoflocal government,landuse,utilityandenvironmentalpolicyknowledgeaswellassignificantCapitoland StateAgencyexperience.Shehasnearly30yearsofexperienceworkingintheStatelegislative, budget,andregulatoryenvironments.

HonorsandAwards:

CaliforniaConservationCorps-OutstandingStaff
LeagueofCaliforniaCitiesServiceAward
ClientsandGovernmentEntitiesforwhichthepersoncurrentlyperformslegislativeadvocacy services:
•TheCityofGlendale,GlendaleWater&Power
•TheCityofBurbank,BurbankWater&Power
•TheCityofCoronado
•TheCityofLosAngeles
•TheTownofMammothLakes
•TheMannCountyCouncilofMayorsandCouncilmembers
•TheCityofPasadena,PasadenaWater&Power
•TheCityofSanMarcos
•TheCityofSolanaBeach
•TheCityofStockton
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM

ET&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE25
416 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.
•TheTownofTruckee
•TheCityofVernon,VernonPubLicUtiLities
Name:DaneHutchings
Title/position:FounderandCEO
Professionalbackground/areaofexpertise:LegisLativeandpubLicpoLicyexpertspeciaLizingin Californiastategovernmentprovidingstrategicgovernmentaffairs,legislativeadvocacy,andpolicy developmentservices.Extensiveexperienceinhousing,Landuse,governmentoperationspoLicies incLudingbutnotLimitedtoRaLphM.BrownAct,CaliforniaPublicRecordsAct,Meyers-MiLias-Brown Act(MMBA),professionalservicecontractingandCaLPERSpolicies.

Numberofmonths/yearswithyourfirm:6yearsand7months
NumberofProfessionaldegrees/licenses/certificationsthispersonholds:3 Listofprofessionaldegrees/licenses/certifications:

B.A.,PubLicRelations—CaliforniaStateUniversity,Sacramento MasterofPublicPoLicy(MPP)—NewEnglandCoLLege,Henniker,NewHampshire RegisteredLobbyist—CaLiforniaSecretaryofState
Professionalaffiliations:

Member,InstituteofGovernmentalAdvocates(IGA)
Member,PubLicAffairsCommittee,InstituteofGovernmentalAdvocates(IGA) FormerBoardMember,CaliforniaCoalitiononWorkersCompensation(CCWC) Relatedprofessionalexperience:
17yearsofgovernmentreLationsexperience
10yearsrepresentinglocalgovernmentagencies
FormerlegislativeadvocateandfederalpolicyLiaisonwiththeLeagueofCaliforniaCities ProvideslegisLativeadvocacyandpolicyadvisoryservicestostate,regionaL,andLocaLgovernment entities
Honorsandawards:

Nameofclientsandgovernmententitiesforwhichthispersoncurrentlyperformslegislative advocacyservices:

Astheheadofthefirm,IengagewitheveryListedCPPGcLientwhoretainsourfirmforservice.

However,IamtheleadlobbyistforthefolLowingcLients.
•Burbank-GLendale-PasadenaAirportAuthority
•CityofBeLmont
•CityofElCerrito
•CityofFosterCity
•CityofMountainHouse
•CityofMountainView
•CityofPanchoCucamonga
•CityofRedwoodCity
•CityofRosevilLe,EnvironmentalUtiLitiesDepartment
•CityofSanMateo
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM E&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE26
417 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.
•CityofSantaRosa
•CityofVernon
•OntarioInternationAirportAuthority
•TownofHillsborough
Name:JakeWhitaker
Title/position:DirectorofGrantServices
Professionalbackground/areaofexpertise:Grantwriting,statefundingprograms,federal fundingprograms,MPO/regionalfundingprograms,grantadministration,municipal governance
Numberofyears/monthswithyourfirm:4years6months
NumberofProfessionalDegrees/Licenses/certificationsthispersonholds:3 ListofprofessionaLdegrees/Licenses/certifications:Bachelor’sdegreeinpoliticsfrom WillametteUniversity,aGrantWritingCertificatefromGrantWritingUSA,andaGrantManagement CertificatefromGrantManagementUSA
ProfessionaLaffiLiations:GrantProfessionalsAssociation
RelatedProfessionalExperience:4andahalfyearsatCPPG,1yearatCaliforniaConsulting,4 yearsasaTrusteefortheWoodlandJointUnifiedSchoolDistrict,4andahalfyearsat‘(010County (seeResume).

HonorsandAwards:RecognitionofServicefromWoodlandJointUnifiedSchoolDistrict-Board Presidentfor2021and2022
NameofClientsandGovernmentEntitiesforwhichthispersoncurrentlyperformslegislative advocacyservices:N/A
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM E7&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE27
418 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Attachment18.10
RE:InformationRequiredbySection4.5oftheRFP,4Pages
CPPGemploysthreeadditionallobbyistswhoserveasprincipallobbyistsforanumber ofourclients.FortheCityofGlendale,KyraRossandDaneHutchingswillserveasthe designatedprincipallobbyists.GlendalewillalsohavefullaccesstoCPPG’sbroader advocacyteamasneeded.WhilestafftimeisflexibleandwillvarybasedontheCity’s prioritiesandthelegislativecalendar,estimatedpercentageallocationsareprovided belowforreference.Projectionsdonotincludestafftimeassociatedwithgrantwriting services.

Governmententity’sname:CityofBurbankandBurbankWaterandPower Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyServices
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:1988
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofCoronado
Assignment:LegisLativeAdvocacyServices
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2020
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofLosAngeles
Assignment:LegislativeConsulting(thisisanon-Lobbycontract) Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:Pre-2020
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:TownofMammothLakes
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyServices
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2023
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:MannCountyCouncilofMayorsandCouncilmembers Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyServices
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:Pre-2020
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofPasadenaandPasadenaWater&Power Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyServices
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:Pre-2020
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM U&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE28
419 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Governmententity’sname:CityofSanMarcos
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyServices
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:Pre-2020
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofSoLanaBeach
Assignment:LegisLativeAdvocacyServices
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:Pre-202
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofStockton
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyServices
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:Pre-2020
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:TownofTruckee
Assignment:LegisLativeAdvocacyServices
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:Pre-2020
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofVernonandVernonPubLicUtility Assignment:LegisLativeAdvocacy(sharecontractwithCPPG)
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2024
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofGlendale
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2013
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofBelmont
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2020
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofEastvaLe
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2020
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:RedwoodCity
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM tPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE29
420 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2019
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofBakersfield
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2021
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CaliforniaAssociationofRecreationandParkDistricts Assignment:LegisLativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2022-Present
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofCarlsbad
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2021
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofCorona
Assignment:LegisLativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2021
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofFosterCity
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2021
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:TownofHittsborough
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2021
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofMountainview
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2021
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofRanchoCucamonga
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974,9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM E&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE30
421 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2022
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofSantaRosa
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2021
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofBeaumont
Assignment:LegisLativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2023
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:Burbank-GLendaLe-PasadenaAirportAuthority Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2023
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofELCerrito
Assignment:LegisLativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2023
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofMerced
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2023
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofRoseviLleELectricaLUtiLity Assignment:LegisLativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2023
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofThousandOaks
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2025
Feesthatyourfirmcharged:

Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofSanMateo
Assignment:LegisLativeAdvocacyandGrantWriting
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM U&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE31
422 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2025
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:OntarioInternationaLAirportAuthority Assignment:LegistativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2025
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
Governmententity’sname:CityofMountainHouse
Assignment:LegislativeAdvocacy
Startingdateofyourfirm’sservices:2025
Percentofyourfirm’stimespentonthatassignment:3%
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM U&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE32
423 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.ET&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
Attachment18.11
Re:InformationRequiredbySections16.2—16.5oftheRFP,Description ofProposedFeeScheduLes,2Pages
Feesandcosts
CPPGwouldproposeoneofthreeoptionsforlegisLativeand/orgrantservicesfortheCityof GlendaleandGlendaleWaterandPower.

Option#1:LegisLativeOnLyServices
UnlimitedLegisLativeRepresentative
Services
$2,500.00(nottoexceed
annual,travel)
$10,000permonth
Totalnot-to-exceed
$120,000peryear
$122,500.00
CPPGproposesafLatmonthLyretainerfeeforallservicesoutlinedfortheCityofGlendaLeand GlendaleWater&Power.ThemonthlyretainerincLudesallworkperformedbyCPPGprimarystaff, advisors,operationaLandadministrativesupportasdetailedasweLlasinclusiveofallcosts associatedwithquarterlyfilingsrequiredbytheFairPoliticalPracticesCommission.Pleasenote thatthe$2,500.00not-to-exceedannualtravelwouldonLybeusedinconnectionwithclient- requestedtraveloutsideoftheSacramentoMetropolitanRegion(e.g.,airtravel,hotel, transportation,etc.associatedwitharequestedin-personmeeting).Notravel-reLatedexpenses shalLbeassessedunlessspecificallyrequestedandapprovedbythecLient.

Option#2:DiscountedRetainerAgreement
180,000.00peryear
$182,500.00
Themonthlyretainerincludesalllegislativerepresentativeservices(asnotedaboveinOption#1) plusunlimitedgrantwritingservices,grantresearch,strategicgrantconsulting,andcapacity buildingsupport.BecausetheCityofGLendaleisanexistingclientforourlobbyingpractice,thebase retaineramountissignificantlyreducedcomparedtoournormalrates.CPPG’sGrantServicesTeam wilLprovidestrategicconsuLtingsupport,proactivegrantopportunityresearch,anddeveLopand submitgrantproposalsonbehalfoftheclient.CPPGschedulesmonthlymeetingswithcLientsthat Unlimited
LegislativeRepresentative
Services+GrantServices-$15,000permonth
Nocaponsubmissions
$2,500.00(nottoexceedTotalnot-to-exceed annual,traveL)
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COMPAGE33 424 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.E&CPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
haveusonretainertokeepclientsinformedofupcomingfundingopportunitiesandprogresson grant-seekingactivities.Consultantsareavailabletomeetwithstaffonrequest.

Option#3:ResearchandStrategicConsultingRetainer+
DiscountedPer-ProjectFeeScheduLe
Legislative
+Base
Retainer
(Grants)
LegislativeRepresentative
Services
$2,500(not-to-exceed
annual,travel)
On-callresearch,vetting,
strategicconsulting,and
capacitybuilding
$10,000permonth
$2,500permonth
TotaLNot-To-Exceed
$120,000peryear
$2,500peryear
$30,000peryear
$152,500.00
Thisdiscountedmonthlyretaineroptionincludesalllegislativerepresentativeservices(asnoted aboveinOption#1),grantresearch,strategicgrantconsulting,andcapacitybuildingservices.Grant applicationswillbebilledbasedonthefeescheduleoutlinedbelow.Consultantsareavailableon- calltovetfundingopportunities.

TierI
Tier2
Tier3
Tier4
Tier5
Tiers
Tier7
LettersofIntent/Inquiry(standalone)orgrantsworth
Si0,000andbelow
$10,001to$50,000
$50,001to$200,000
$200,001to$499,999
$500,000to$1,499,999
$1,500,000to$5,000,000
$5,000,001orhigher
$500
$2,500
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$10,000
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COMPAGE34 425 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.tPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PersonneLResumes
KyraRoss,SeniorLegislativeConsuLtant
APPLICABLEEXPERIENCE:ATAGLANCE
•Nearly30yearsoflegislativeadvocacyandCapitolstaffexperience •FormerChiefConsultant,AssemblyNaturalResourcesCommittee •PolicyExpertiseintheareasofLandUse,Environment,Utilities,and PublicHealth
•SkilLedinsuccessfullynavigatingtheStateLegislativeandBudget process
•ServedonAssemblySpeakerandLeadershipstaff
•RegisteredlobbyistwiththeStateofCalifornia;B.A.PoLitical Science,UniversityofCalifornia,Davis
MoreAboutKyra
Forthepast18years,KyrahasLobbiedonbehalfofCityandPublicLyOwnedUtilityclients.Beginning in2026,sheismergingEmanuels,Jones,andAssociateswithCPPGtobringawealthoflocal government,landuse,utilityandenvironmentaLpolicyknowLedgeaswelLassignificantCapitoland StateAgencyexperience.ShehasnearLy30yearsofexperienceworkingintheStatelegislative, budget,andregulatoryenvironments.

KyrabeganhercareerintheLegisLature,servingoveradecadeintheStateAssembly.Duringthat time,sheworkedfortheSpeaker’sOfficeandtheAppropriationsChairwhereshewasresponsible forstaffinglegislationandensuringbiLlsweremovingintheSenate.ShewastheChiefConsuLtantto theAssemblyNaturalResourcesCommittee,whereshewasresponsibLeforthedaiLyworkand poLicysettingfortheAssemblyonenvironmentalissues,focusingprimarilyonwaste,energy,land use(CEQA),andclimate.KyrawasinvolvedwiththedraftingandanalysisofhundredsofbilLs, includingthedraftingandanalysisofmajorclimate-relatedbills,includingAB32—TheGlobal WarmingSolutionsActof2006.

ShealsoservedastheSeniorLegislativeRepresentativefortheLeagueofCaliforniaCities.During thattime,Kyrawastheleadlobbyistonenvironmentalandcommunityservicesissues,includingair quality,climatechange,cap-and-trade,energy,CEQA,watersupply,waterquality,andhazardous andsolidwaste,andmore.

Since2012,Kyrahasservedastheprincipallobbyist,andmostrecentlyPresidentofEmanuelsJones &Associatesworkingsolelyoncityandmunicipalutilityissues.Overthepastdecade,shehasbeen instrumentalinsecuringmorethan$500millioninstatefundingandgrantsforclients.Herwork includeshelpingclientsnavigatethestatelegislativeandannualStateBudgetprocess,obtaining grantsthroughstateagenciesandbonds,andnavigatingthestateregulatoryprocess.

Kyrahasbeenvitalinclientlegislativesuccesses.Sheplayedaninstrumentalroleinprocuring legislationtoprovideinjunctivereliefunderCEQAforanewentertainmentsportscomplex; establishingaregionalhousingtrustalongwitha$23millionStateBudgetappropriationtoprovide 112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COMPAGE35 426 of 499

foraffordablehousing;successfullydevelopedstrategyandlobbiedforspeciallegislationtolower thespeedlimitindesignatedequestrianareastopreventhorsesfrombeinghitbycarsandtrucks; and,successfullylobbiedthestateforone-timefundingtoprocurea$3millionhelicopterforamajor city.

DaneHutchings,Founder+CEO
APPLICABLEEXPERIENCE:ATAGLANCE
•17YearsOfLegislativeAdvocacyAndPubLicAffairsExperience •FormerLegislativeRepresentativeAndFederalPoLicyLiaison, LeagueOfCaliforniaCities
•ProvenProficiencyInCoalitionBuilding
•StrongRelationshipsWithKeyLegislative,Administrative,And ExecutiveBranchOfficials
•RegisteredLobbyistWithTheStateOfCalifornia
•B.A.InPublicAffairs,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Sacramento; M.P.P.,NewEnglandCollege
MoreAboutDane
Fornearlytwodecades,DaneHutchingshasservedasatrustedadvocateforpublicandprivate sectorclientsnavigatingCalifornia’sfast-evolvinglegislative,budget,andregulatorylandscape.As FounderandCEOoftheCaliforniaPublicPolicyGroup(CPPG),heleadsateamrecognizedfor deliveringmeasurableresultsforlocalgovernments,utilities,andspecialdistrictsacrossthestate.

Danehasbuiltastatewidereputationforrepresentinghigh-performinglocalagenciesthatmust balancecomplexregulatorycompliancewithfiscalsustainability.Hisworkspanspolicyareas includingpublicfinance,infrastructureinvestment,waterandwastewateroperations,utility governance,administrativelaw,andhousingandland-uselegislation.Knownforhisstrategic foresightandbipartisanapproach,DaneishighlyregardedforanticipatingemergingpoLicyshiftsand aligningclientobjectiveswithlegislativemomentum.

Aveteranpolicyadvocate,DanepreviouslyservedasaLegislativeRepresentativeandFederalPolicy LiaisonfortheLeagueofCaliforniaCities,wherehestrengthenedhisproficiencyincoalitionbuilding anddevelopedstrongworkingrelationshipswithkeylegislative,administrative,andexecutive- branchofficials.Overthecourseofhiscareer,hehassecuredmillionsofdollarsinstatebudget appropriationsandcompetitivegrantfundingforlocalagencies,advisingclientsthroughsomeof California’smostchallengingfiscalandregulatoryconditions.

Dane’srecentachievementsincludesuccessfullybrokeringlanguageinSB499(Stern,Chapter543, Statutesof2025)torestoretheauthorityofwater,wastewater,andutilitydistrictstoassess connectionandcapacitychargesfornewhousingdevelopmentsatthetimeofconstruction— ensuringcriticalinfrastructureinvestmentcankeeppacewithCalifornia’shousingdemands.His worksupportingutilityagencies,includingguidanceonratestructures,capitalplanning,and 112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM tPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
PAGE36
ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.

A
—
427 of 499

ADVOCACY.FUNDING.RESULTS.tPPG

CALIFORNIAPUBLICPOLICYGROUP
statewideregulatoryrequirements,reflectshisdeepunderstandingoftheoperationalandfinancial challengesfacingessentialserviceproviders.

Today,Danecontinuestorepresentforward-thinkinglocalagenciesstatewide,providinghands-on Legislativestrategy,budgetadvocacy,andregulatoryexpertise.Hiscommitmenttolong-term relationship-building,detailedpolicyanalysis,andpracticalimpLementationsupporthasmadehim atrustedpartnertoagenciesseekingtoprotectlocalrevenues,strengtheninfrastructure investment,andadvancecommunityprioritiesatthestatelevel.

DirectorofGrantServices
APPLICABLEEXPERIENCE:ATAGLANCE
•CertifiedGrantWriterWithOverS155MillionInFunding
SecuredForLocaLGovernmentAgencies.InstitutionsOf
HigherEducation,AndNonprofitOrganizations
•Nearly10YearsOfExperienceWorkingInAndWithLocalGovernment •4YearsAsALocalGovernmentELectedOfficial
•Member,GrantProfessionalsAssociation
•B.A.Politics,WillametteUniversity
MoreAboutJake
JakeWhitakerservesasDirectorofCPPG’sGrantServicesTeam,bringingaproventrackrecord ofsecuringmillionsinstateandfederalfundingforLocalpublicagencies.Hisworkspans diversecommunitiesacrossCalifornia,fromLargeurbancenterslikeBakersfieldandSan BernardinotosmallercitieslikeGreenfieldandRedwoodCity—experiencethatreflectsadeep understandingofthechallengesandopportunitiesfacedbygrowingmunicipalities.

Jakespecializesinpositioningcitiesforcompetitivefundingopportunitiesintransportation infrastructure,watersystemimprovements,economicdevelopment,publicsafety,wildfire mitigation,andurbangreening.Headvisesclientsongrantreadiness,heLpingcitiesassess projectviability,buildstrategiccommunitypartnerships,andconducttechnicalreviewsto ensureapplicationsareaLignedwithfundingagencycriteriaandhighLycompetitive.

WithexperiencebothasapubLicagencystafferandasaneLectedboardmemberforthe WoodLandJointUnifiedSchoolDistrict,JakeunderstandshowtoaLigngovernancegoaLswith staffprioritiesinsuccessfulgrant-seekingefforts.Heprioritizescollaboration,clear communication,andhigh-qualityserviceineveryengagement.

JakeWhitaker,
112711THSTREET,SUITE300,SACRAMENTO,CA95814•916.974.9270•PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COMPAGE37 428 of 499

1 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Award of Contract for State Legislative Advocacy Services

1. Motion Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to California Public Policy Group, Inc. for State Legislative Advocacy Services through December 31, 2026, for a Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $112,500.00 with City Options to Extend for Three One-Year Terms in Annual Amounts Not to Exceed $122,500 Per Year; and (2) Rejecting all other proposals for State Legislative Advocacy Services.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for February 3, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 26, 2025, the Management Services Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for State Legislative Advocacy Services. The RFP was posted on the City’s website, amplified further by staff’s efforts in direct outreach to a number of firms, welcoming all qualified and interested individuals and firms to review the RFP and consider submitting a proposal. This is the second time staff has undergone an RFP process for State Legislative Advocacy Services in the last five years.

The City received three proposals which were thoroughly reviewed by a review committee comprised of high-level staff regularly involved in legislative affairs from the City’s Management Services Department, City Attorney’s Office, Community Development Department, and Glendale Water and Power. Two of the proposers were determined to meet the experience and qualifications outlined in the RFP and were granted interviews.

The review committee conducted the interviews, and collectively recommend that the contract be awarded to California Public Policy Group.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the motion to award a professional services agreement for State legislative advocacy services to California Public Policy Group, Inc.

ANALYSIS
The City of Glendale has had a professional services agreement with Emanuels Jones and Associates (EJA) since 2013 for State Legislative Advocacy Services, and previously retained EJA in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. With the contract expiring in 2025, City 429 of 499

2 staff was directed to pursue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to explore options and welcome the engagement of firms interested in providing these services to the City.

On November 26, 2025, the Management Services Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for State Legislative Advocacy Services for the purposes of advocating on issues that would directly or indirectly affect the City and our ability to efficiently and cost-effectively conduct business, avoid undue fiscal impact the City, protect the City’s revenue and secure state and federal funding.

The RFP was posted on the City’s website, amplified further by staff’s efforts in direct outreach to six firms, welcoming all qualified and interested individuals and firms to review the RFP and consider submitting a proposal.

The City invited proposals from qualified and experienced individuals or firms with:
A minimum of five years of direct experience providing state representation on issues and objectives common to municipal entities similar in size and governance to the City of Glendale
A strong focus and demonstrated expertise in California municipal policy; Deep understanding of the current trends and issues in municipal policy and local governance;
Demonstrated accountability, funding strategy, relationship specificity and strong strategic planning in legislative affairs;
Ability to deliver high-performance and outcome-driven support of legislative affairs and lobbying, including the responsibilities and professional services listed within the RFP;
Knowledge of and familiarity with the City of Glendale’s needs, concerns, legislative priorities; and
An operational presence in Sacramento with the ability to physically attend meetings, hearings, and briefings on short notice.

The City received three proposals from the following firms:
California Public Policy Group, Inc. (CPPG)
Lang, Hansen, Giroux & Kidane (LHG&K)
Apekian Advocacy
Anticipating additional proposals, staff conducted due diligence and requested feedback from one firm that had originally expressed interest, but ultimately did not submit a proposal, sharing that their firm did not meet the requirement of having an operational presence in Sacramento.

Method of Selection
Evaluation of the proposals was based on a comprehensive selection process, including the consideration of technical merit, experience, references, demonstrated successes, and the proposed fee, which would all be considered in the selection process. 430 of 499

2 431 of 499

3 MSD established an RFP review committee comprised of high-level staff regularly involved in legislative affairs, including the Assistant to the City Manager, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Deputy Director of Community Development overseeing Long Range Planning, General Manager of Glendale Water and Power, and the Administrative Analyst/Utility Legislative Affairs representative from Glendale Water and Power.

Together, this committee reviewed the proposals, participated in interviews, and determined the recommendation for the award of contract.

In addition to the minimum qualifications, the RFP provided a list of attributes of the ideal consulting individual/firm, listed on page 13 of the document, and shared a Scope of Work listed on page 4. Based on these elements and the content of the proposals, two of the proposers were determined to meet the experience and qualifications outlined in the RFP and were granted interviews. The RFP review committee conducted the interviews, and collectively determined a strong front runner, and that the contract be awarded to California Public Policy Group, Inc. (CPPG). CPPG inspired confidence in their experience in representation of local municipalities, specifically in the realm of land use, housing, transportation, and utilities, which have been significant areas in legislative affairs and efforts for the City in recent years, and anticipated to remain top priorities.

A second firm, LHG&K, stood out for their niche private development focus, as well as focus on specific areas of utilities work; staff expressed interest in keeping good relations and, in the event that specific and direct legislative efforts be undertaken, this firm could help supplement the City’s legislative efforts.

CPPG has a team of five lobbyists, some of whom have career-long experience in legislative affairs and in working for the League of California Cities, and the lead contact has 18 years of municipal and water and power experience. CPPG specializes in municipal and water and power legislative affairs, focused at the regional and state levels, and have experience in housing, transportation, water, sewer infrastructure, wildfire prevention and public safety matters.

Emanuels Jones and Associates (EJA) has joined CPPG as of January 1, 2026. CPPG is a Sacramento-based legislative advocacy and public policy form that also provides lobbying and grant writing services to a number of California municipalities, including both of Glendale’s neighboring cities of Burbank and Pasadena.

The contract is for a partial-year through the end of December 2026, with the option to extend three one-year terms, potentially allowing for services through December 2029.

At this time, staff recommends that the City enter into a partial-year agreement with California Public Policy Group, Inc. with three one-year extensions at the City’s option.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost to enter the PSA for the remainder of FY 2025-26 is $52,500. The Management Services Department has sufficient funds for this engagement through the 432 of 499

3 433 of 499

4 end of FY 2025-26 as outlined below and will plan to budget for the remainder of the year in the FY 2026-27 budget process and any extensions in future budget years.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$52,500 43110-1010-MSD-6504-P0000 General Fund
Department Cost Center Program
Management
Services
City Manager

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is exempt from CEQA.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, the following are the names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report:

Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Dane Hutchins President & Secretary 1127 11th Street, Suite 300 Sacramento CA 95714

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) The City Council may consider rejecting all proposals and re-issuing an RFP with amended requirements and/or criteria; or
2) Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Roubik R. Golanian, City Manager
Prepared by:

Domenica Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: State Legislative Advocacy Services Request for Proposals 434 of 499

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby awards a Professional Services Agreement to California Public Policy Group, Inc. for state legislative advocacy services and authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with California Public Policy Group in the not to exceed annual amount of $112,500 for the term of February 1, 2026 through December 31, 2026. The Council further authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to extend the initial term herein by up to three consecutive one-year terms each in the amount of $122,500 per year. The agreement and any extensions shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney. All other proposals submitted for State Legislative Advocacy Services Request for Proposals are hereby rejected.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
435 of 499

City of Glendale, CA
Management Services Department

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES

Posting Date: November 26, 2025
Due Date: December 17, 2025

Contact:

Domenica K. Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager City of Glendale, Management Services
613 East Broadway, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91206
(818) 548-4844
[email protected]

436 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

1 Contents
Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 2 A. Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2 B. Assumptions / Definitions ................................ ................................ ........................... 2 C. About the City of Glendale ................................ ................................ .......................... 3 D. Scope of Work ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3 E. Minimum Qualifications ................................ ................................ ............................... 5 F. City’s Representatives ................................ ................................ ................................ 6 RFP Process ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 7 A. Schedule of Events ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 7 B. RFP Distribution ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 7 C. Proposal Deadline and Proposal Submission ................................ ................................ . 7 D. Interim Inquiries and Responses; Interpretation or Correction of RFP ............................ 8 E. Addenda ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8 General Requirements and Instructions ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 A. Examination of Documents ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 B. Proposer’s Representations in the Response ................................ ................................ . 9 C. Withdrawal, Cancellation, or Modification of a Proposal ................................ ................. 9 D. Insurance ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................10 E. Proposal Preparation Expenses ................................ ................................ ....................10 F. Proposer’s Indemnification of the City ................................ ................................ ............10 Proposal Content and Format ................................ ................................ ................................ ...11 A. Proposal Format; Using the Attached Proposal Forms ................................ ..................11 B. Identifying Proprietary Information; Public Records Act ................................ .................11 C. Proposal Signature(s) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....12 Method of Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................12 A. Basis for Award and Evaluation Criteria ................................ ................................ .........12 B. Selecting a Consultant ................................ ................................ ................................ ...13 C. City’s Reservation of Rights ................................ ................................ ...........................14 Award of Contract ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................15 Letter of Objection; Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ .15 EXHIBIT I ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..17 SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ................................ ......................17 EXHIBIT D-1 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................47 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE ................................ ................................ ........47 EXHIBIT D-2 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................49 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE ................................ ................................ ....49 EXHIBIT D-3 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................50 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY OR BUSINESSOWNERS LIABILITY INSURANCE 50 EXHIBIT D-4 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................52 BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE ................................ ..........................52 EXHIBIT D-5 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................54 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ................................ ................................ ............................54 EXHIBIT D-6 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................58 CONSULTANT’S SUBMITTAL OF CERTIFICATES AND ENDORSEMENTS ...................58 PROPOSAL FORM ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................60

437 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

2 Introduction
A. Summary
The City of Glendale (“CITY”) is seeking the services of an individual or a firm (“Consultant”) to provide state legislative advocacy services to gain support from key public officials and policy makers on decisions critical to CITY, in accordance with the instructions and requirements in this Request for Proposals (“RFP”).

To be considered in this process, the City is inviting written Proposals from qualified and experienced individuals or firms with:
• a minimum of 5 years of direct experience providing state representation on issues and objectives common to municipal entities similar in size and governance to the CITY

• a strong focus and demonstrated expertise in California municipal policy

• deep understanding of the current trends and issues in municipal policy and local governance

• an operational presence in Sacramento with the ability to physically attend meetings, hearings, and briefings on short notice.

The CITY requires a well -managed and financially sound Consultant with demonstrated skills and technical ability, high levels of customer service, responsiveness, and satisfaction, in order to fulfill the requirements outlined in this RFP.

This document is for use by CITY Staff and all potential Consultants. Please read it carefully before preparing any response.

B. Assumptions / Definitions
The following assumptions and definitions were used in preparing this RFP, and should be adopted by the Consultant:
• The term RFP refers to this Request for Proposals and all of its attachments, including any materials from CITY and relevant third parties. • The term Proposal refers to the materials submitted by the Consultant in response to this RFP.
• The term Proposer refers to the Consultant.
• Responding Proposals will be based on the business needs outlined in this RFP and on technical and operational trends in the industry. • This RFP is based on the best available information. Information not in this document, and not said to be forthcoming, should be assumed to be unavailable. • Departure from the standards outlined in this RFP must be communicated via written notice to CITY.
438 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

3 C. About the City of Glendale
The City was incorporated as a Charter City in 1906 and has grown to a population of over 200,000, making it one of the largest cities in Los Angeles County. The City remains a busy commercial and cultural center, with a blend of large and small businesses, and multi- national corporations. Finally, Glendale is a full service city offering its own water and power utilities, a municipally owned transportation department, high quality police services, and a Class 1 Fire Department. The City is under a Council -M anager form of governance.

The City is proactive in monitoring, taking positions and lobbying on legislation which impact its operations, particularly in the areas of housing, public safety, energy/water policy, transportation and infrastructure, and community services. The City participates in multiple professional associations and organizations, such as the Independent Cities Association, National League of Cities and League of California Cities, as well as regional organizations that have an influence in local, state, and federal affairs.

The City is vigilant about the introduction and passage of potentially harmful legislation that affects its ability to exert local control, while protecting its local budgets and mitigating impacts via unfunded mandates. Constant review and management of t he onslaught of annual legislation is a daunting task; language and “intent” are often difficult to comprehend. Monitoring and analysis by an experienced, informed and proactive lobbying firm will help the City develop a stronger, faster and more effective legislative program to ensure its position is heard, understood and considered by state policymakers. The City has also been able to meet many local public improvement needs through the appropriation of local revenues and/or the successful pursuit of stat e and federal grant funds and strategic financing opportunities. The City requires an aggressive approach to protect the interest of our residents, and to successfully pursue, secure and maximize funds for local projects through the state authorization/ ap propriation process, or competitive grant programs.

D. Scope of Work
i. TERM OF SERVICES AND CONTRACT
The Services described in this RFP and in the proposed Contract are for a period of eleven (11) months, beginning February 1, 2026 and ending on December 31, 2026. CITY reserves the right to extend the term of the Contract, on an annual basis, for up to three (3) additional one-year terms.
ii. RESPONSIBILITIES
Consultant will primarily represent CITY’s interests in Sacramento, CA for the purposes of:
• Advocating on issues that directly or indirectly impact CITY’s ability to efficiently and cost-effectively conduct its business
• Avoiding undue fiscal impact to the CITY
439 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

4 • Protecting CITY’S revenue; and
• Securing funding.

Consultant will have a strong emphasis and recognized expertise on municipal policy and local governance. Consultant will also coordinate work with the League of California Cities and representatives of other cities and districts which likewise may oppose or support legislation.

The professional services include, but are not limited to:

1. Legislative Monitoring: Monitor state legislative, regulatory, and budget matters affecting the City and keep designated City staff informed of significant developments. Provide same-day review and guidance on high-impact legislative developments, amendments, or urgent state actions affecting the City.

2. Information Liaison: Serve as a consistent conduit of information between the City, the Legislature, and state agencies, providing regular oral and written reports on relevant activities.

3. Legislative Relationships & Advocacy: Maintain effective working relationships with key legislators, legislative committees, and state agency staff. Represent and advocate for the City’s interests, needs, and concerns before legislators, committees, state agencies, boards, and commissions. Consultant shall provide and maintain a matrix identifying relationships with key legislators, committee consultants, agency directors, policy staff and third house relevant to City priorities.

4. Relationship-Building: Support the development of productive relationships between City elected officials and staff and key state policymakers. Consultant shall coordinate with regional partners, local government coalitions, local, regional and statewide organizations associations to leverage collective influence on issues affecting the City, and work to leverage local, regional and state influence.

5. Policy Guidance & Impact Analysis: Advise City staff on statewide trends, emerging issues, and proposed state initiatives affecting local government.

Analyze and advise on legislation and policy proposals affecting local control, City resources, operations, or services.

6. Strategic Planning: Meet regularly with City staff to assist in identifying and refining the City’s goals, priorities, and project needs, including matters before City commissions as appropriate. Work with City staff to d evelop a written strategy including City priorities, bill sponsorship opportunities, regulatory pathways, and targeted engagement plans aligned with Council -adopted goals. Identify City priorities suitable for advancement at the state level and prepare associated briefing or advocacy materials.

7. Council Engagement: Meet with the City Council to provide updates and assist in developing goals, priorities, and the City’s legislative policy platform. Work with staff to provide communications and messaging support where appropriate, including but not limited to talking points, briefs, letters of support/opposition, and messaging documents for Council, staff, or community advocates as needed. 440 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

5 8. Meetings: Attend meetings as necessary to support City legislative objectives.

Maintain at least bi -weekly meetings with City legislative affairs staff and make consultant available for meetings with City leadership, departments and staff on an as-needed basis.

9. Funding Opportunities: Assist with the active pursuit of funding opportunities and support a proactive funding strategy , including grant mapping, appropriations strategy, legislative earmark planning, coalition-building around funding priorities, and creation of a City funding roadm ap. Work hand-in-hand with City staff to identify and pursue funding opportunities through state level programs, grants, legislative and third house (associations, organizations, etc.) avenues to advance City projects and initiatives.

10. Advocacy Day Coordination & Scheduling Support: Plan and organize at least one annual Glendale Advocacy Day in Sacramento for City officials and staff, and Glendale participation in larger advocacy days held by Associations an d other regional and state partners. Assist with scheduling and coordination of legislative meetings and related engagements on the City’s behalf.

11. Staff Training/ Legislative Capacity Building : Provide annual training to City staff and appropriate staff members in each department on legislative process, funding pathways, and state advocacy best practices.

12. Deliverables & P erformance: Consultant shall provide measurable quarterly progress reports detailing meetings held, outreach activities, bills tracked, positions developed, funding efforts undertaken, and outcomes achieved.

Consultant shall identify obstacles, next steps, and strategic adjustments.

13. Annual End- of-Legislative Session Report and Presentation : At the end of each legislative session, provide a post-session analys is, inc luding budget outcomes, legislative wins/loses, and recommended adjustments for the next year.

14. Compliance, Transparency & Ethical Standards: Consultant shall comply with all state lobbying regulations, file required disclosures and provide copies to the City. Consultant shall disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest.

The successful Proposer must directly provide all services described in this document, and must appoint one of its employees as the key contact for approval by CITY.

E. Minimum Qualifications
A Proposer must have:
• A minimum of 5 years of direct experience providing state representation on issues and objectives common to municipal clients similar in size and governance to the City of Glendale;

441 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

6 • An established office in Sacramento, CA; maintain an operational presence in Sacramento with the ability to physically attend meetings, hearings, and briefings on short notice.

• Demonstrated expertise in California municipal issues and policy;

• Demonstrated accountability, funding strategy, relationship spe cificity and strong strategic planning in legislative affairs;

• Ability to deliver a high -performance and outcome-driven support of legislative affairs and lobbying, including the responsibilities and professional services listed above ;

• Knowledge of and familiarity with CITY’s needs, concerns, legislative priorities; and

• No conflicts of interest in representing CITY’s interests.

F. City’s Representatives
Domenica K. Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager, is the contact for this RFP and contract. Roubik Golanian is the City Manager.

442 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

7 RFP Process
A. Schedule of Events
The following events will take place during the RFP process (see further explanations, below):

Event Responsibility Date(s)
RFP Distribution City November 26, 2025
Last Day to Submit Interim Questions Proposer December 10, 2026 RFP Responses Due Proposer December 17, 2025
Tentative Staff Review of Proposals City December 22, 2025 Tentative Candidate Interviews City January 7-8, 2026
Contract Award (City Council Approval) City January 27, 2026 Project Commencement Proposer February 1, 2026

B. RFP Distribution
A prospective Consultant may receive this RFP by mail, e -mail, in person, or online by contacting:

Domenica K. Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager City of Glendale, Management Services
613 East Broadway, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91206
(818) 548-4844
[email protected]

Distribution of the RFP in no way represents the City’s acceptance of a Consultant’s qualifications, reputation, or ability to perform the Services.

C. Proposal Deadline and Proposal Submission
CITY must receive the Proposal on or before 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 17, 2025. A Proposal received after this date and time will be considered non-responsive and CITY will return the Proposal, unopened.

A Proposal must be in writing, and must be delivered by mail or in person. Oral, telephonic, facsimile, telegraphic, or electronically transmitted Proposals are invalid and CITY will not accept or consider them.
443 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

8 Proposer must submit in a sealed, clearly labeled envelope (or box):
• Four (4) printed Proposal documents [one (1) original and three (3) copies]; and

• One compact disc containing a PDF file (compatible with Adobe Reader or Acrobat) of the Proposal.

The Proposal must be clearly marked “CITY OF GLENDALE STATE ADVOCACY SERVICES” and addressed to:

Domenica K. Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager City of Glendale, Management Services
613 East Broadway, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91206
(818) 548-4844
[email protected]

D. Interim Inquiries and Responses; Interpretation/Correction of RFP If a Proposer has any question about this RFP, the proposed Contract, or the scope of work― or if a Proposer finds any error, inconsistency, or ambiguity in the RFP, or the proposed Contract, or both― the Proposer must make a “Request for Clarification” before submitting its Proposal.

The Proposer must submit a Request for Clarification to: Domenica Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager, via email at [email protected]. CITY must receive the Request for Clarification on or before 5:00 p.m., December 10, 2025.

If necessary, CITY will make written clarifications, interpretations, corrections, or changes to the RFP or the proposed Contract by issuing Addenda, as described in Section IIE (below). A Proposer must not rely upon, and CITY is not bound by, verbal clari fications, interpretations, corrections, or changes to the RFP or the proposed Contract.

E. Addenda
CITY will issue Addenda in writing only. CITY will make reasonable efforts to deliver Addenda to all Proposers whom CITY knows have received a complete set of the RFP and have provided a street address for receipt of Addenda. CITY cannot guarantee that all Proposers will receive all Addenda. All addenda will be posted on the City of Glendale website: www.GlendaleCA.gov
Proposers may also inspect the Addenda at City of Glendale, Management Services (613 East Broadway, Suite 200, Glendale, CA 91206) during regular business hours, Monday – Thursday: 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m., Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. This RFP is also on fi le there.

Posting of the Addenda on the City of Glendale website shall be considered sufficient notice of the changes made by the City.

444 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

9 General Requirements and Instructions
A. Examination of Documents
Before submitting an RFP Response, a Consultant must thoroughly examine the RFP, make all necessary investigations and inquiries, and understand the Services that CITY requires.

B. Proposer’s Representations in the Response
By submitting a Proposal, a Proposer represents that:
• The RFP is sufficient in scope and detail to indicate and convey reasonable understanding of all requirements, terms, and conditions for performance of the work required in this project;

• The Proposer has exercised all necessary due diligence in making investigations and inquiries, examining documents, and inspecting City sites and facilities;

• The Proposer is fully familiar with— and has fully considered— all facts, conditions, circumstances, and matters that may affect, in any way, the Proposer’s services or costs;

• The Proposal is an irrevocable offer for a period of at least ninety (90) calendar days following City’s opening of all Proposals; and

• The Proposer is, and will be, in compliance with the RFP’s requirements, terms, and conditions.

C. Withdrawal, Cancellation, or Modification of a Proposal Before the Proposal Deadline, a Proposer may withdraw and then modify a Proposal, by giving written notice, signed by the Proposer, to:

Domenica K. Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager City of Glendale, Management Services
613 East Broadway, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91206
(818) 548-4844
[email protected]

For a withdrawal to become effective, CITY must receive the Proposer’s request for withdrawal before the Proposal Deadline. CITY will not accept or consider a Proposer’s verbal request for modification or withdrawal of a Proposal. 445 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

10 After the Proposal Deadline, a Proposer must not withdraw or cancel its Proposal for a period of at least ninety (90) calendar days following the Proposals’ opening on December 18, 2025. CITY may extend the 90 day period upon CITY’s written request and upon the affected Proposers’ written approval.

D. Insurance
Specific insurance requirements are noted in EXHIBIT II (“Insurance Requirements”), and evidence of the insurance coverages will need to be in place before the start of the work.

CITY will require certificates of insurance and additional insured endorsements when the successful Consultant submits a signed Contract to CITY. A Consultant does not need to submit proof of insurance to submit a Proposal, but must be prepared to meet all City insurance requirements (with no additional cost to CITY), if the Consul tant is awarded a Contract.

E. Proposal Preparation Expenses
Expenses for developing the RFP response are entirely the responsibility of the Proposer and are not chargeable to the City in any manner. The City is not liable for any pre - contractual expenses, which are defined as expenses incurred by Proposer in:
• Preparing its Proposal in response to this RFP.
• Negotiating with the City any matter related to the Proposal. • Any other expense incurred by Proposer prior to the date of award of the Contract for this RFP.

F. Proposer’s Indemnification of the City
At its expense, Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against any and all liability, suits, actions, proceedings, judgments, claims, demands, liens, losses, damage s, costs, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees, litigation, arbitration, mediation, appeal expenses) if a dispute, lawsuit, or other proceeding arises out of any one or more of the following:
• Proposer’s submitting the Proposal;
• The City’s accepting Proposer’s Proposal; or
• The City’s awarding a Contract to Proposer in compliance with this RFP, or state, federal, or local laws.

446 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

11 Proposal Content and Format

A. Proposal Format; Using the Attached Proposal Forms
“Proposal Forms” (PF:1 to PF:38) are attached to this RFP. A Proposer must submit its Proposal only on those forms. With its Proposal, the Proposer must submit various attachments (e.g., employees’ resumes, financial statements, a bank’s reference letter, further explanations) that this RFP and the Proposal Forms describe.

The Proposer must fill in the blanks on the Proposal Forms, using a typewriter or printing legibly in ink. When answering the Proposal Forms’ questions, the Proposer must furnish pertinent and relevant information rather than merely provide promotional fac ts or materials. The Proposer must respond to the Proposal Forms’ questions with all applicable information, in order for the City to consider the Proposal as “responsive.” If a Proposer fails to provide the information that the forms require, fails to return all of the forms, or fails to submit the required attachments, the City may treat the Proposal as “non- responsive.”
The Proposer must place initials next to all interlineations, alterations, and erasures on the Proposal Forms.

The Proposer must not modify or qualify the Proposal Forms in any manner. Unauthorized conditions, exemptions, limitations, or provisions attached to a Proposal will render it informal and may cause its rejection.

With the Proposal each Proposer must submit the following attachments:
• Proposers’ resume and, if applicable, its employees’ resumes (See: PF:22); • Audited or reviewed financial statements, or compilations (See: PF:25); and • Bank’s reference letter (See: PF:25).

The Proposal should establish that the Proposer possesses the competence, experience, expertise, skill, facilities, equipment, personnel, financial wherewithal, and other resources necessary to perform the Services in a professional, ethical, dependable, a nd competent manner. Proposals should detail demonstrated success and performance metrics for other clients where applicable, and what role the firm had in those successes, inclusive of success in identifying/securing funding opportunities for clients.

B. Identifying Proprietary Information; Public Records Act A Proposer must identify and list all copyrighted material, trade secrets, or other proprietary information (“protectable documents”) that the Proposer included in its Proposal which Proposer believes should be exempt from disclosure under California’s Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250, et seq. 447 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

12 By listing the documents, the Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against any action, claim, lawsuit, or proceeding, including costs and expenses, arising out of or connected with CITY’s refusal to disclose the protectable documents to any party making a request for those items.

CITY will treat any Proposer, who fails to identify documents that the Proposer believes should be exempt from disclosure, as having waived its right to an exemption from disclosure, as the Public Records Act provides.

All Proposals and other material submitted become the property of CITY and may be returned only at CITY’s option. CITY reserves the right to use any ideas presented in any response to the RFP. Selection or rejection of the Proposal does not affect this right.

C. Proposal Signature(s)
The person or persons legally authorized to bind the Proposer to the RFP must sign the Proposal in ink. The individuals signing the Proposal must represent that they are authorized to bind the Proposer’s legal entity.
• A corporation must execute the Proposal by its duly authorized officer(s) in accordance with its corporate bylaws.
• A partnership must execute the Proposal by all of its partners. After each signature, each partner must list a residential address or the firm’s address, either of which must include the state , zip code, and telephone number. • If the Proposer is a joint venture consisting of a combination of any of the above entities, each entity in the joint venture must sign the Proposal. • An individual signing a Proposal as an agent of another or others must attach to the Proposal evidence of that person’s legal authority to sign on behalf of another or others.

Method of Selection
All Proposals received on time will be opened on December 18, 2025. Proposals will first be reviewed to ensure compliance with the terms of this RFP. Non -compliant or non - responsive Proposals may be rejected. CITY will then evaluate all remaining Proposals in accordance with the criteria listed below.

A. Basis for Award and Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation of a Proposal will be based on a competitive selection process. Technical merit, experience, references, demonstrated successes, and the proposed fee will be considered in the selection process. CITY reserves the right to award the contract not 448 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

13 necessarily to a Proposer with the lowest cost proposal, but to a Proposer who will provide the best overall match to the RFP requirements and who best serves CITY’s interests.

Proposals received by City will be reviewed, evaluated, and ranked based upon the following criteria:
• Expertise, competence, experience, performance, financial solvency, and responsiveness to City’s goals, interests, or objectives; • References and demonstrated success;
• Cost; and
• Conformance with the terms of this RFP.

In addition, CITY may consider other factors, including, but not limited to, evidence of untimely and unsatisfactory performance on prior, similar projects.

CITY may investigate the qualifications of any Consultant under consideration, require confirmation of information furnished by the Consultant, and require additional information or evidence of qualifications to provide the Services described in this RFP.

B. Selecting a Consultant
An Evaluation Committee comprised of City representatives will evaluate each RFP submission, select up to three (3) finalists for possible interviews, and will submit recommendations to City Manager. Upon interviewing the finalists, City Manager will submit a recommendation to City Council, which may select a Proposer.

During the evaluation process, the Evaluation Committee may, at its discretion, request any or all Proposers to make one or more oral presentations. The presentations will provide a Proposer with an opportunity to answer any questions that the Committee may have about the Proposer or its Proposal.

The ideal Consultant will:
• Have at least five (5) years of direct experience providing state representation on issues and objectives common to municipal clients similar in size and governance to City of Glendale;
• Have no professional and/or ethical conflict with City of Glendale’s interests; • Have a demonstrated and verifiable track-record;
• Have an established office in Sacramento, CA;
• Have independently verifiable references of similar size and scope of CITY; • Have extensive experience providing state advocacy services to public agency clients, particularly in housing, public safety, transportation and infrastructure, and electric and water utilities;
• Have established, longstanding and positive working relationships with members of the state Legislature, state agencies, and senior executive and committee staff, 449 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

14 regional and state coalitions, treasurer’s office and key committees, members and leadership;
• Be pro-active in monitoring, identifying, and analyzing state legislation that may be of interest or impact CITY;
• Be pro-active in monitoring, identifying and securing state funding opportunities that may be of interest to CITY; and
• Be pro-active in monitoring, identifying, and analyzing state regulation that is of relevance or impact to CITY;
• Be fully dedicated to the funding goals and objectives of CITY.

The contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for completing the work scope as determined by CITY, including: the proposal evaluation criteria described on the previous page; results of background and reference checks; results from interviews and presentation phase; and proposed compensation.

CITY Council must approve an award of a Contract to the successful Proposer and no rights or obligations begin under an award until the approval is secured and a Contract has been duly signed by all parties.

Once selected, the successful Proposer must enter into a written Agreement with CITY within seven (7) calendar days following Proposer’s receiving CITY’s notice of award.

C. City’s Reservation of Rights
This RFP and the proposal evaluation process do not:
• Obligate CITY to accept or select any Proposal;
• Constitute an agreement by CITY that it will actually enter into any contract with any Proposer.

When it best serves CITY’s interests, CITY may do any one or more of the following:
• Reject any Proposal or all Proposals at its sole discretion. • Extend the deadline for accepting Proposals.
• Accelerate the pace of the RFP process if only one or a handful of Proposals are received.
• Waive any or all information, defects, irregularities, or informalities in a Proposal. • Accept amendments to Proposals after the Proposal Deadline. • Amend, revise, or change the RFP’s evaluation or selection criteria. • Cancel, withdraw, amend, revise, change, or negotiate the terms of this RFP, the proposed Contract, or both.
• Reissue a Request for Proposals.
• Conduct oral interviews.
• Examine financial records of Consultant to the extent necessary to ensure financial stability.
• Make a partial award.
450 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

15 • Negotiate with one or more Consultants.
• Award contracts to one or more Consultants.
• Require a best and final offer from one or more Consultants. • Provide its own services for legislative advocacy, or contract directly— without an RFP or bids— for those services.

Award of Contract
Within forty-five (45) calendar days after CITY opens all Proposals, if CITY Council selects a Proposal, CITY will give the selected Proposer notice and specify the start date for performing the Contract’s services.

The RFP, or any part of it, and the Proposer’s responses, will be incorporated into and made a part of the Contract. A copy of the proposed Contract is provided as EXHIBIT I.

CITY reserves the right to further negotiate the terms and conditions of the Contract. The Proposer whom City Council selects must cooperate with CITY in good faith to negotiate, sign, and deliver the final Contract. CITY will draft the Contract and may require the selected Proposer to attend one or more Contract negotiation conference s to discuss possible revisions or additions to the Contract.

At any time, and for any reason, if contract negotiations with the selected Proposer fail to progress, to CITY’s reasonable satisfaction, CITY reserves the right to not only end negotiations with the selected Proposer, but also cancel the award and reject the Proposal. At its discretion, CITY may then: reopen the proposal process; choose from among the remaining, if any, qualified proposers; reissue the RFP; negotiate directly with any firm for services; or choose not to contract for services.

Within fourteen (14) calendar days after CITY issues the Notice of Intent to Award Contract, or within any extension that CITY may allow, the selected Proposer must submit to CITY all of the following items:

1. Three (3) originals of the Contract, properly signed by the Proposer.

2. Insurance certificates and additional insured endorsements that fully conform to the Contract’s requirements.

After CITY receives the signed Contracts and insurance documents, City Attorney’s office will review the Contract. Additionally, City Attorney’s office or CITY’s Risk Manager will review the required insurance. If the selected Proposer has not changed any terms of the Contract, and if the insurance conforms to the Contract’s requirements, CITY will sign the Contract and return an original of the Contract to the Proposer.

Letter of Objection; Procedures
A Proposer who believes that any part of this RFP is discriminatory against the Proposer or precludes the Proposer from being given reasonable consideration in the procurement process, must submit a letter clearly stating the specific objections, the areas of concern, 451 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

16 and a proposed method for resolving the objections. The Proposer, or the person who is duly authorized to represent the Proposer, must sign the correspondence.

CITY must receive the original, signed letter of objection and an electronic version via email on or before 5:00 p.m., December 17, 2025 ; CITY will not consider any verbal objection.

The letter of objection must be addressed as follows and delivered to:

Domenica K. Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager City of Glendale, Management Services
613 East Broadway, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91206
(818) 548-4844
[email protected]

Upon CITY’s timely receipt of the objection letter, CITY will review the Proposer’s contention(s). If CITY decides that the RFP― whether in whole or in part― needs revision, CITY will prepare Addenda, as described in Section IIE of this RFP.

452 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

17 EXHIBIT I

SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
CONTRACT No. _________

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDALE
AND
____________________

THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), effective ________________, 20___ (“Effective Date”), is between the City of Glendale (“CITY”), a municipal corporation, and ____________________ (“CONSULTANT”), a [(Name of State) corporation/ partnership/ limited partnership/ limited liability company/ a sole proprietor/ an individual] (collectively, “PARTIES” or individually, “PARTY”).

RECITALS
A. CITY is a public entity organized and existing under its Charter and the State of California’s Constitution.

B. CONSULTANT represents that CONSULTANT is, and will continue to be for this Agreement’s duration, a [(Name of State) corporation in good standing/ partnership/ limited partnership/ limited liability company/ a sole proprietorship/ an individual.] [NOTE:
staff must verify corporate status/ partnership/ LLC and Consultant’s license, if any, and obtain proof.] [ADD, IF APPLICABLE: (which) (who) employs persons who are duly registered or licensed to practice in the State of California.]

C. CONSULTANT possesses the competence, experience, expertise, skill, facilities, equipment, personnel, financial wherewithal, and other resources necessary to perform this Agreement’s tasks in a professional and competent manner.

453 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

18 D. CONSULTANT desires to furnish and perform professional services for CITY, on the terms and conditions described in this Agreement. CONSULTANT has the legal authority to provide, engage in, and carry out the professional services set forth in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

THEREFORE, CITY engages CONSULTANT’s services, and in consideration of the PARTIES’ mutual promises, the PARTIES agree as follows:

1.0 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS

1.1. The Recitals constitute the factual basis upon which CITY and CONSULTANT have entered into this Agreement. CITY and CONSULTANT acknowledge the Recitals’ accuracy and, therefore, incorporate them into this Agreement.

2.0 TERM

[Select one of the following alternatives:]

2.1. [OPTION 1] This Agreement begins on the Effective Date, and continues in effect until completion of the work described in Article 3, unless this Agreement ends sooner according to the terms elsewhere in this document.

2.1. [OPTION 2] This Agreement’s Term is [ # ] [months/ years], beginning on [DATE] and ending on [DATE] , unless this Agreement ends sooner according to the terms elsewhere in this document.
\ 3.0 SERVICES

3.1. Scope of Work. CONSULTANT shall [specify services to be provided] (“the Services”) in accordance with the Scope of Work [ADD, IF APPLICABLE: and Fee Schedule], which is attached as “Exhibit A” to this Agreement 454 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

19 and is incorporated into it by this reference. [NOTE: “Exhibit A” must set forth in detail the nature and extent of services that professional person or firm will render.

Scope of Work should identify specific tasks, list and describe any deliverables, and specify procedures/ criteria for acceptance.]

3.2. Written Authorization.

(A) CONSULTANT shall not make changes in the Scope of Work, perform any additional work, or provide any additional material, without first obtaining written authorization from CITY . If CONSULTANT provides additional services or materials without written authorization, or if CONSULTANT exceeds the Maximum Cost in Paragraph 7.4 of this Agreement, CONSULTANT proceeds at CONSULTANT’s own risk and without payment.

(B) CITY will authorize CONSULTANT to proceed with discrete tasks by issuing written Task Orders. Receipt of a written Task Order, signed by CITY’s Project Manager, is a prerequisite for CONSULTANT to proceed with each task. [ ADD, IF APPLICABLE: Each Task Order will specify a not -to-exceed price and a schedule for completion of the task. CONSULTANT shall not exceed the not-to-exceed price in each Task Order.] In performing each phase or task, CONSULTANT shall not exceed the Maximum Cost in Paragraph 7. 4 of this Agreement. Issuance of a Task Order neither authorizes CONSULTANT to incur expenditures in excess of the Maximum Cost, nor relieves CONSULTANT from its responsibility for completing all of the Services within the Maximum Cost.

3.3. Professional Standard of Care. During this Agreement’s Term:

(A) CONSULTANT and its Subconsultants, subcontractors, employees, and agents (collectively, “CONSULTANT PARTIES”) shall perform all of the Services in this Agreement in an expeditious and professional manner, using professionals properly licensed and duly qualified to perform the Services.

(B) CONSULTANT PARTIES shall perform the work described in this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles, 455 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

20 and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by members of CONSULTANT PARTIES’ profession currently practicing in California. By delivering the completed work, CONSULTANT PARTIES represent and certify that their work conforms to: the requirements of this Agreement; all applicable (federal, state, county, local, CITY) laws, rules, regulations, orders, and procedures; and the professional standard of care in California.

(C) CONSULTANT PARTIES are responsible for making an independent evaluation and judgment of all conditions affecting performance of the work, including without limitation: site conditions; existing facilities; seismic, geologic, soils, hydrologic, geographic, climatic conditions; applicable (federal, state, county, local, CITY) laws, rules, regulations, orders, and procedures; and all other contingencies or design considerations.

Data, calculations, opinions, reports, investigations, or any other informa tion or documents that CITY provides relating to site, local, or other conditions are not warranted or guaranteed, either expressly or implied, by CITY.

(D) When the Scope of Work requires or permits CITY’s review, approval, conditional approval, or disapproval, CONSULTANT acknowledges that CITY’s review, approval, conditional approval, or disapproval:

(1) Is solely for the purposes of administering this Agreement and determining whether CONSULTANT is entitled to payment for its Services;

(2) Is not to be construed as a waiver of any breach, or acceptance by CITY, of any responsibility — professional or otherwise— for the Services or CONSULTANT’s work
product;

(3) Does not relieve CONSULTANT of the responsibility for complying with the standard of performance or professional care; or laws, regulations, or industry standards; and

(4) Does not relieve CONSULTANT from liability for damages arising out of CONSULTANT’s: negligent acts, errors, or omissions; recklessness; willful misconduct; or
noncompliance with industry standards.

456 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

21 (E) Without additional compensation to CONSULTANT and at no cost to CITY, CONSULTANT shall correct or revise all errors, mistakes, or deficiencies in its work product, studies, reports, designs, drawings, specifications, or other services.

4.0 TIME FOR PERFORMANCE

[Select one of the following alternatives:]

4.1. [OPTION 1] CONSULTANT shall complete all of the Services by [DATE ] .

4.1. [OPTION 2] CONSULTANT shall perform the Services according to the Project Time Schedule, which is attached as “Exhibit B” to this Agreement and is incorporated into it by this reference. CONSULTANT shall complete all of the Services by [DATE ] .

4.2. If the Project Time Schedule calls for performance of the Services in phases or discrete increments, CONSULTANT shall not proceed from one phase or increment to the next without written authorization from CITY’s Project Manager.

4.3. Force Majeure. If an event or condition constituting a “force majeure”— including, but not limited to, an act of God, labor dispute, civil unrest, epidemic, or natural disaster — prevents or delays a PARTY from performing or fulfilling an obligation under this Agreement, the PARTY is not in Default, under Paragraph 13.1 of this Agreement, of the obligation. A delay beyond a PARTY’s control automatically extends the time, in an amount equal to the period of the delay, for the PARTY to perform the obligation under this Agreement. The PARTIES shall prepare and sign an appropriate document acknowledging any extension of time under this Paragraph.

457 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

22 5.0 PERSONNEL

5.1. Project Management. Each PARTY shall appoint a Project Manager. The Project Managers shall meet [ SET FORTH SPECIFIC TIMES: hourly/ daily/ weekly/ as needed] to coordinate, review, and ensure CONSULTANT’s performance under this Agreement. CITY’s Project Manager will oversee the administration of CONSULTANT’s tasks under this Agreement.

5.2. Key Personnel. CONSULTANT’s project team shall work under the direction of the following key personnel [IDENTIFY CONSULTANT’s KEY PERSONNEL AND TITLE]. [OR STATE: CONSULTANT shall employ the key personnel identified in “Exhibit A.”] CONSULTANT shall minimize changes to its key personnel. CITY may request key personnel changes, and CITY may review and approve key personnel changes proposed by CONSULTANT. CITY wil l not unreasonably withhold approval of key personnel assignments and changes.

5.3. Use of Agents or Assistants. With CITY’s prior written approval, CONSULTANT may employ, engage, or retain the services of persons or entities (“Subconsultants”) that CONSULTANT may deem proper to aid or assist in the proper performance of CONSULTANT’s duties. CITY is an intended beneficiary of all work that the Subconsultants perform for purposes of establishing a duty of care between the Subconsultants and CITY. CONSULTANT is as responsible for the performance of its Subconsultants as it would be if it had rendered the Services itself. All costs of the tasks performed or the expenses incurred by the Subconsultants are chargeable directly to CONSULTANT. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes or creates a contractual relationship between CITY and anyone other than CONSULTANT.

5.4. Independent Contractor.

(A) CONSULTANT understands and acknowledges that CONSULTANT is an independent contractor, not an employee, partner, agent, or principal of CITY . This Agreement does not create a partnership, joint venture, association, or employer-employee relationship between the PARTIES. At its own expense, CONSULTANT is responsible for providing compensation; employment benefits; disability, unemployment, and other insurance; workers’ compensation; training; permits and licenses; and office space for CONSULTANT and for CONSULTANT’s employees and Subconsultants. CONSULTANT has, and shall retain, the right to exercise full control over the employment, direction, 458 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

23 compensation, and discharge of all persons whom CONSULTANT uses in performing the Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide the Services in CONSULTANT’s own manner and method, except as this Agreement specifies.

CONSULTANT shall treat a provision in this Agreement that may appear either to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work, or to exercise a measure of control over the work, as giving CONSULTANT direction only as to the work’s end result.
(B) CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY for any obligation; claim; suit; demand for tax or retirement contribution, including any contribution or payment to the Pu blic Employees Retirement System (PERS); social security; salary or wages; overtime, penalty, or interest payment; or workers’ compensation payment that CITY may be required to make on behalf of CONSULTANT, an employee of CONSULTANT, or any employee of CONSULTANT construed to be an employee of CITY, for the work done under this Agreement.

5.5. Non-Discrimination in Employment. CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or person who is subject to this Agreement because of race, color, religion, religious belief, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, preg nancy, parenthood, medical condition, or physical or mental disability.

5.6. Disability Access Laws.CONSULTANT represents and certifies that the work product, studies, reports, designs, drawings, and specifications that CONSULTANT prepares under this Agreement fully conform to all applicable disability access and design laws, regulations, and standards — including, but not limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 et seq.) and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations— when the Scope of Work requires or calls for compliance with those laws, regulations, or standards.

5.7. Prevailing Wage Laws. Services by persons deemed to be employees of CONSULTANT possibly may be subject to prevailing wages under California Labor Code Sections 1770 -1781. CONSULTANT’s sole responsibility is to comply with those requirements, should they apply. If a dispute based upon the prevailing wage laws occurs, CONSULTANT, at its expense, shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against all liability, 459 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

24 claims, suits, demands, damages, fines, penalties, wages, costs, or expenses pertaining to the prevailing wage laws.

5.8. Workers’ Compensation. CONSULTANT understands and
acknowledges that all persons furnishing services to CITY under this Agreement are, for the purpose of workers’ compensation liability, employees solely of CONSULTANT and not of CITY. In performing the Services or the work under this Agreement, CONSULTANT is liable for providing workers’ compensation benefits to CONSULTANT’s employees, or anyone whom CONSULTANT directly or indirectly hires, employs, or uses. CITY is not responsible for any claims at law or in equity caused by CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with this Paragraph.

6.0 FACILITIES

6.1. CONSULTANT shall provide all facilities necessary to fully perform and complete the Services. If CONSULTANT needs to use a CITY facility, CONSULTANT shall meet and confer with CITY before CONSULTANT begins the work that this Agreement requires, the PARTIES shall agree to any costs chargeable to CONSULTANT, and in an amendment to this Agreement, the PARTIES shall describe the facility’s terms of use and its charges.

6.2. CONSULTANT shall pay for any damage to CITY property, facilities, structures, or streets arising out of CONSULTANT’s use, occupation, operation, or activities in, upon, under, or over any portion of them.

7.0 PAYMENT

7.1. CITY’s payment to CONSULTANT will be based upon CONSULTANT’s Fee Schedule, which is attached as “Exhibit C” to this Agreement and is incorporated into it by this reference. [ NOTE: “Exhibit C” must include a breakdown of the not -to- exceed amount, including hourly rates for project staff, any overtime rates, a list and the rate for any reimbursable expenses, or a statement that costs are included in the hourly rate, and an explanat ion of any mark -ups.] Except as itemized in the Fee Schedule, CONSULTANT shall pay for all expenses, including reimbursable or out - 460 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

25 of-pocket expenses, that CONSULTANT incurs in performing the Services. The Fee Schedule will remain in effect for the Agreement’s Term.

[Select one of the following provisions:]

7.2. Fee. [OPTION 1] CITY shall pay for the Services in a lump sum, which is not to exceed _______ dollars ($_________), upon CONSULTANT’s satisfactory completion of the Services and CONSULTANT’s delivery of the work product.

7.2. Fee. [OPTION 2] CITY shall pay for the Services that CONSULTANT performs in accordance with this Agreement at the hourly rate(s) specified in “Exhibit C,” the TOTAL amount of which is not to exceed _______ dollars ($_________).

7.2. Fee. [OPTION 3] CITY shall pay for the Services in [IF PAYMENTS ARE IN INTERVALS, SPECIFY A PERIOD (e.g., monthly/ quarterly) OR SPECIFY A QUANTITY (e.g., two/ three/ five)] installments, the TOTAL amount of which is not to exceed _______ dollars ($_________). Each installment will be payable upon satisfactory completion, in CITY’s determination, of the work in each phase identified below, and in an amount proportionate to the work CONSULTANT performed or completed within each phase:

Phase: Description: Amount:

I – [Example: Construction Documents]
$_________
II – [Example: Bid Documents
$_________
III – [Example: Construction Support]
$_________
IV – [Example: Project ‘s Closeout]
$_________
461 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

26 TOTAL $_________

7.3. If CITY requires additional work not included in this Agreement, CONSULTANT and CITY shall negotiate the additional work, mutually agree on the amount of additional compensation, and memorialize the terms in either a separate written contract or an amendment to this Agreement.

7.4. Maximum Cost. CONSULTANT expressly acknowledges that the total cost to complete all tasks set forth in “Exhibit A” must not exceed ___________________________________ dollars ($__________) (“Maximum Cost”).

When CONSULTANT has billed 75% of the Maximum Cost, CONSULTANT shall provide written notice to CITY’s Project Manager that CONSULTANT has expended 75% of the Maximum Cost.

7.5. Taxes. CONSULTANT shall pay all applicable (federal, state, county, local, CITY) excise, sales, consumer use, possessory interest, or other similar taxes required by law that are levied upon this Agreement or upon CONSULTANT’s services under this Agreement.

7.6. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit an original, itemized invoice to CITY for approval, before receiving compensation. CONSULTANT shall submit the invoice at no more than monthly intervals. All invoices must include a summary of total costs, description of the Services performed, a brief itemization of costs associated with each task or phase, and the total phase or project costs to date.

8.0 AUDIT BY CITY

8.1. During this Agreement’s Term and for a period of four (4) years after the expiration, cancellation, or termination of this Agreement, or any extension of it, CONSULTANT shall:

(A) Keep and maintain, in their original form, all records, books, papers, or documents related to CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement; and 462 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

27 (B) Permit CITY or its authorized representatives, at all reasonable times, to have access to, examine, audit, excerpt, copy, photocopy, photograph, or transcribe all records, books, papers, or documents related to CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement i ncluding, but not limited to: direct and indirect charges, and detailed documentation, for work CONSULTANT has performed or will perform under this Agreement.

9.0 DATA, RECORDS, PROPRIETARY RIGHTS

9.1. Copies of Data. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with copies or originals of all data that CONSULTANT generates, uses, collects, or stores in relation to all work associated with this Agreement. Data that CONSULTANT generates, uses, collects, stores, or provides must be in a form acceptable to, and agreed upon by, CITY .

9.2. Ownership and Use.

(A) Unless CITY states otherwise in writing, each document— including, but not limited to, each report, draft, record, drawing, or specification (collectively, “work product”)— that CONSULTANT prepares, reproduces, or causes its preparation or reproduction for this Agreement is CITY’s exclusive property.

(B) CONSULTANT acknowledges that its use of the work product is limited to the purposes contemplated by the Scope of Work. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the work product’s application to, or suitability for use in, circumstances not contemplated by the Scope of Work.

9.3. Intellectual Property.

(A) If CONSULTANT uses or incorporates patented, trademarked, or copyrighted work, ideas, or products— in whole or in part — into CONSULTANT’s work product, CONSULTANT represents that:
463 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

28 (1) CONSULTANT holds the patent, trademark, or copyright to the work, idea, or product; or

(2) CONSULTANT is licensed to use the patented, trademarked, or copyrighted work, idea, or product.

(B) Unless CITY states otherwise in writing, all proprietary rights or intellectual property rights, including copyrights, that arise from creation of the work under this Agreement vest in CITY . CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to proprietary rights and intellectual property rights, including copyrights, in favor of CITY .

(C) CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY , its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against all liability, claims, suits, demands, damages, royalties, fines, penalties, costs, or expenses arising out of or alleging any infringement or misappropriation of a patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or other intellectual property right or proprietary right.

9.4. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT shall not use any information that it obtains from performing the Services for any purpose other than for fulfillment of CONSULTANT’s Scope of Work. Without CITY’s prior written authorization, CONSULTANT shall not disclose or publish — or authorize, permit, or allow others to disclose or publish— data, drawings, designs, specifications, reports, or other information relating to the Services or the work that CITY assigns to CONSULTANT or to which CONSULTANT has access.

9.5. Public Records Act.

(A) CONSULTANT acknowledges that this Agreement is a public record.

This Agreement, its Exhibits, and all documents produced under this Agreement are subject to the California Public Records Act ( Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.), including its exemptions. CONSULTANT acknowledges that CITY has no obligation to notify CONSULTANT when a request for records is received.

464 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

29 (B) CONSULTANT shall identify in advance all records, or portions of them, that CONSULTANT believes are exempt from production under the Public Records Act.

(1) CONSULTANT may, when notified by CITY of the request, seek protection from disclosure by timely applying for relief in a court of competent jurisdiction; or

(2) CITY may either decline to produce the requested information, or redact portions of the documents and produce the redacted records.

(D) If CONSULTANT fails to identify one or more protectable documents, in CITY’s sole discretion, and without its being in breach of this Agreement or its incurring liability to CONSULTANT, CITY may produce the records — in whole, in part, or redacted— or may decline to produce them.
(E) CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY , its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against all liability, claims, suits, demands, damages, fines, penalties, costs, or expenses arising out of or alleging CITY’s refusal to publicly disclose one or more records that CONSULTANT identifies as protectable, or asserts is protectable.

10.0 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

10.1. Conflict of Interest. CONSULTANT represents and certifies that:

(A) CONSULTANT’s personnel are not currently officers, agents, employees, representatives, or elected officials of CITY; 465 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

30 (B) CONSULTANT will not employ or hire a CITY officer, agent, employee, representative, or elected official during this Agreement’s Term;

(C) CITY’s officers, agents, employees, representatives, and elected officials do not, and will not, have any direct or indirect financial interest in this Agreement; and
(D) During this Agreement’s Term, CONSULTANT will inform CITY about any possible conflict of interest that may arise as a result of any change in circumstances.

10.2. Campaign Contributions.

(A) CONSULTANT and its Subconsultants shall fully comply with Glendale Municipal Code Section 1.10.060, which places limitations on CONSULTANT’s and its Subconsultants’ ability to make campaign contributions to certain elected City officials or candidates for elected City office. Specifically, Section 1.10.060 prohibits:

(1) A consultant (including a subconsultant)― who has a contract with the City of Glendale, Glendale Successor Agency, or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, Successor Agency, or Housing Authority― from making a contribution to a City Council member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer, when the contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more, or a combination or series of contracts having a value of $50,000 or more; and

(2) A City Council member, Successor Agency member, or Housing Authority member from voting on a contract in which a
consultant (or a subconsultant) has provided a campaign contribution.

466 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

31 (B) CONSULTANT acknowledges that even if the Maximum Cost in Paragraph 7.4 of this Agreement is less than $50,000, CONSULTANT still may be subject to the campaign contribution limitations in Municipal Code Section 1.10.060, when:

(1) CONSULTANT and CITY amend the Scope of Work in this Agreement which increases the Maximum Cost to equal
or exceed $50,000; or

(2) CITY , Glendale Successor Agency, or the Housing Authority awards CONSULTANT another contract which has a total
anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more, or awards CONSULTANT a combination or series of contracts which have a value of $50,000 or more.

(1) CONSULTANT has read and fully understands the provisions of Municipal Code Section 1.10.060;

(2) CONSULTANT will not: (a) make a prohibited campaign contribution to an individual holding CITY elective office; or (b) otherwise violate Municipal Code Section 1.10.060; and

(3) CONSULTANT shall timely complete, return, and update one or more disclosure or reporting forms that CITY provides.

11.0 INSURANCE

11.1. When CONSULTANT signs and delivers this Agreement to CITY, and during this Agreement’s Term, CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with insurance forms that fully meet the requirements of— and contain provisions entirely consistent with— all of the 467 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

32 “Insurance Requirements,” which are attached as “Exhibit D” (D -1 to D -___) to this Agreement and are incorporated into it by this reference.

11.2. This Agreement’s insurance provisions:

(A) Are separate and independent from the indemnification and defense provisions in Article 12 of the Agreement; and

(B) Do not limit, in any way, the applicability, scope, or obligations of the indemnification and defense provisions in Article 12 of the Agreement.

12.0 INDEMNITY

12.1. To the maximum extent permitted by law — including, but not limited to, California Civil Code Section 2778 — CONSULTANT, its employees, agents, Subconsultants, and persons whom CONSULTANT employs or hires (individually and collectively, “CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR”) shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY , its officers, agents, employees, and representatives (individually and collectively, “CITY INDEMNITEE”) from and against a “ liability” [as defined in Subparagraph (A) below], or an “expense” [as defined in Subparagraph (B) below], or both, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to an act, error, or omission of a CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR:

(A) “Liability” means claims, suits, actions, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, decrees, awards, settlements, liens, losses, damages, injuries, or liability of any kind, whether the liability is:

(1) Actual or alleged;

(2) In contract or in tort; or

468 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

33 (3) For bodily injury (including accidental death), personal injury, advertising injury, or property damage.

(B) “Expense” means fees, costs, sums, penalties, fines, charges, or expenses of any kind, including, but not limited to:

(1) Attorney’s fees;

(2) Costs of an investigation, litigation, arbitration, mediation, administrative or regulatory proceeding, or appeal;
(3) Fees of an accountant, expert witness, consultant, or other professional; or

(4) Pre or post: judgment interest or settlement interest.

12.2. Under this Article, CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s defense and indemnification obligations:

(A) Apply to a liability, or an expense, or both, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the actual or alleged passive negligence of a CITY INDEMNITEE; but (B) Do not apply to a liability, or an expense, or both, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of a CITY INDEMNITEE.

12.3. To the extent that CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s insurance policy provides an upfront defense to CITY , CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s obligation to defend a CITY INDEMNITEE under this Article:

(A) Means that CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR shall provide and pay for legal counsel, acceptable to CITY, for the CITY INDEMNITEE;

469 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

34 (B) Occurs when a claim, suit, complaint, pleading, or action against a CITY INDEMNITEE arises out of, pertains to, relates to, or asserts an act, error, or omission of CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR; and

(C) Arises r egardless of whether a claim, suit, complaint, pleading, or action specifically names or identifies CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR.

12.4. Paragraph 12.3 does not limit or extinguish CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s obligation to reimburse a CITY INDEMNITEE for the costs of defending the CITY INDEMNITEE against a liability, or an expense, or both. A CITY INDEMNITEE’s right to recover defense costs and attorney’s fees under this Article does not require, and is not contingent upon, the CITY INDEMNITEE’s first:

(A) Requesting that CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR provide a defense to the CITY INDEMNITEE; or

(B) Obtaining CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s consent to the CITY INDEMNITEE’s tender of defense.

12.5. If CONSULTANT subcontracts all or any portion of the Services under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a written agreement from each Subconsultant, who must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY INDEMNITEE under the terms in this Article.

12.6. CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY will remain in effect and will be binding upon CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR whether the liability, or the expense, or both, accrues — or is discovered— before or after this Agreement’s expiration, cancellation, or termination.

12.7. Except for Paragraph 12.3, this Article’s indemnification and defense provisions are separate and independent from the insurance provisions in Article 11. In addition, the indemnification and defense provisions in this Article:

470 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

35 (A) Are neither limited to nor capped at the coverage amounts specified under the insurance provisions in Article 11; and

(B) Do not limit, in any way, the applicability, scope, or obligations of the insurance provisions in Article 11.

13.0 DEFAULT, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION

13.1. Default. Default under this Agreement occurs upon any one or more of the following events:

(A) CONSULTANT refuses or fails— whether partially, fully, temporarily, or otherwise— to:

(1) Provide or maintain enough properly trained personnel, or licensed personnel, or both, to perform the Services that this Agreement requires;

(2) Pay for, obtain, maintain, or renew the insurance policies or coverages that this Agreement requires;

(3) Comply with indemnification, defense, or hold harmless provisions that this Agreement requires; or

(B) CONSULTANT, or its personnel, or both — whether partially, fully, temporarily, or otherwise:

(1) Disregards or violates a law, ordinance, rule, procedure, regulation, directive, or order;
471 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

36 (2) Refuses or fails to pay for, obtain, maintain, or renew requisite licenses;

(3) Refuses or fails to observe, perform, or fulfill a covenant, condition, obligation, term, or provision of this Agreement;

(4) Commits an unlawful, false, fraudulent, dishonest, deceptive, or dangerous act while performing the Services under this Agreement; or

(1) Or another party for or on behalf of CONSULTANT: institutes proceedings under any bankruptcy, reorganization, receivership or other insolvency; or assigns or transfers assets to its creditors;

(2) Delegates— whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or otherwise— its duties or obligations under this Agreement, without notifying CITY , or without CITY’s written authorization;

(3) Assigns, transfers, pledges, hypothecates, grants, or encumbers— whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or
otherwise— this Agreement or any interest in it, without notifying CITY, or without CITY’s written authorization;

(4) Or one of its partners, directors, officers, or general managers, or a person who exercises managerial authority on
CONSULTANT’s behalf, is convicted under state or federal law, during this Agreement’s Term, of embezzlement, theft, fraud, forgery, bribery , deceptive or unlawful business practices, perjury, falsifying or destroying records or evidence, 472 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

37 receiving stolen property, or other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty; or

(D) Any other justifiable cause or reason, as reasonably determined by the City Manager, or a designee.

13.2. Notice of Default. If CITY deems that CONSULTANT is in Default, or that CONSULTANT has failed in any other respect to perform satisfactorily the Services specified in this Agreement, CITY may give written notice to CONSULTANT specifying the Default(s) that CONSULTANT shall remedy within [SELECT: 5/ 10/ 14/ 30] days after receiving the notice. The Notice of Default will set forth one or more bases for any dissatisfaction and may suggest corrective measures.

13.3. Remedies upon Default. Within [SELECT THE SAME NUMBER IN PARAGRAPH 13.2 ABOVE: 5/ 10/ 14/ 30] days after receiving CITY’s Notice of Default, if CONSULTANT refuses or fails to remedy the Default(s), or if CONSULTANT does not commence steps to remedy the Default(s) to CITY’s reasonable satisfaction, CITY may exercise any one or more of the following remedies:

(A) CITY may, in whole or in part and for any length of time, immediately suspend this Agreement until such time as CONSULTANT has corrected the Default;

(B) CITY may provide for the Services either through its own forces or from another consultant, and may withhold any money due (or may become owing to) CONSULTANT for a task related to the claimed Default;

(C) CITY may withhold all moneys, or a sum of money, due CONSULTANT under this Agreement, which in CITY’s sole determination, are sufficient to secure CONSULTANT’s performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement;

(D) CITY may immediately terminate the Agreement;

473 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

38 (E) CITY may exercise any legal remedy, or equitable remedy, or both, including, but not limited to, filing and action in court:

(1) Seeking CONSULTANT’s specific performance of all or any part of this Agreement; or

(2) Recovering damages for CONSULTANT’s Default, breach, or violation of this Agreement; or

(F) CITY may pursue any other available, lawful right, remedy, or action.

13.4. Termination for Convenience. Independent of the remedies provided in Paragraph 13.3, CITY may elect to terminate this Agreement at any time upon [SELECT: 10/ 14/ 30 ] days’ prior written notice. Upon termination, CONSULTANT shall receive compensation only for that work which CONSULTANT had satisfactorily completed to the termination date. CITY shall not pay CONSULTANT for de-mobilization, takedown, disengagement, wind-down, or other costs incurred arising out of this Agreement’s termination.

14.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS

14.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the PARTIES. This Agreement supersedes all prior and contemporaneous communications, negotiations, understandings, promises and agreements, either oral or written. Neither CONSULTANT n or CITY has made any promises or representations, other than those contained in this Agreement or those implied by law. The PARTIES may modify this Agreement, or any part of it, by a written amendment with CITY’s and CONSULTANT’s signature.

14.2. Interpretation. This Agreement is the product of negotiation and compromise by both PARTIES. Every provision in this Agreement must be interpreted as though the PARTIES equally participated in its drafting. Therefore, despite the provisions in California Civil Code Section 1654, if this Agreement’s language is uncertain, the Agreement must not be construed against the PARTY causing the uncertainty to exist. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, this Agreement will take precedence over any cover page or attachments. If a conflict occurs between a provision 474 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

39 in this Agreement and a provision in an attachment, the following order of precedence applies, with the terms and conditions in the document higher on the list governing over those lower on the list:

(1) The Agreement.
(2) Exhibit D (Insurance Requirements).
(3) Exhibit B (Project Time Schedule).
(4) Exhibit A (Scope of Work).
(5) Exhibit C (Fee Schedule).

14.3. Headings. All headings or captions in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only. They are not intended to define or limit the scope of any term, condition, or provision.

14.4. Governing Law; Jurisdiction.

(A) California’s laws govern this Agreement’s construction and interpretation regardless of the laws that might otherwise apply under applicable principles of conflicts of law or choice of law.

(B) If CONSULTANT or CITY brings a lawsuit to enforce or interpret one or more provisions of this Agreement, jurisdiction is in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, California, or where otherwise appropriate, in the United States District Court, C entral District of California. CONSULTANT and CITY acknowledge that the Agreement was negotiated, entered into, and executed — and the Services are performed— in the City of Glendale, California.

(C) Unless this Agreement provides otherwise, any reference to laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations include their later amendments, modifications, and successor legislation.

475 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

40 14.5. Waiver of Breach. If either PARTY fails to require the other to perform any term in this Agreement, that failure does not prevent the PARTY from later enforcing that term, or any other term. If either PARTY waives the other’s breach of a term, that waiver is not treated as waiving a later breach of the term. A waiver of a term is valid only if it is in writing and signed by the PARTY waiving it. This Agreement’s duties and obligations:
(A) Are cumulative (rather than alternative) and are in addition to (rather than a limitation on) any option, right, power, remedy, or privilege; and

(B) Are not exhausted by a PARTY’s exercise of any one of them.

14.6. Attorney’s Fees. If CITY or CONSULTANT brings an action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret one or more provisions of this Agreement, the “prevailing party” is entitled to “reasonable attorney’s fees” in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled. A “prevailing party” has the same meaning as that term is defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032(a)(4). “Reasonable attorney’s fees” of the City Attorney’s office means the fees regularly charged by private attorneys who:
(A) Practice in a law firm located in Los Angeles County; and

(B) Have an equivalent number of years of professional experience in the subject matter area of the law for which the City Attorney’s services were rendered.

14.7. Further Assurances. Upon CITY’s request at any time, CONSULTANT shall promptly:

(A) Take further necessary action; and

(B) Sign, acknowledge, and deliver all additional documents as may be reasonable, necessary, or appropriate to carry out this Agreement’s intent, purpose, and terms.

14.8. Assignment.
476 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

41 (A) This Agreement does not give any rights or benefits to anyone, other than to CITY and CONSULTANT. All duties, obligations, and responsibilities under this Agreement are for the sole and exclusive benefit of CITY and CONSULTANT, and are not for the benefit of another person, entity, or organization. Without CITY’s prior written authorization, CONSULTANT shall not do any one or more of the following:

(1) Assign or transfer a right or interest — whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or otherwise— in this Agreement; or

(2) Delegate a duty or obligation owed — whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or otherwise— under this Agreement.

(B) Any actual or attempted assignment of rights or delegation of duties by CONSULTANT, without CITY’s prior written authorization, is wholly void and totally ineffective for all purposes; and does not postpone, delay, alter, extinguish, or terminate CONSULTANT’s duties, obligations, or responsibilities under this Agreement.

(C) If CITY consents to an assignment of rights, or a delegation of duties, or both, CONSULTANT’s assignee or legal representative shall agree in writing to personally assume, perform, and to be bound unconditionally by the covenants, obligations, terms, and conditions in this Agreement.

14.9. Successors and Assigns. Subject to the provisions in Paragraph

14.8, this Agreement is binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the respective PARTIES.

14.10. Time is of the Essence.

(A) Except when this Agreement states otherwise, time is of the essence in this Agreement. CONSULTANT acknowledges that this Agreement’s time limits and deadlines are reasonable for CONSULTANT’s performing the Services under this Agreement.
477 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

42 (B) Unless this Agreement specifies otherwise, any reference to “day” or “days” means calendar and not business days. If the last day for giving notice or performing an act under this Agreement falls on a weekend, a legal holiday listed in either Glendale Municipal Code Section 3.08.010 or California’s Government Code, or a day when City Hall is closed, the period is extended to and including the next day that CITY is open for business. A reference to the time of day refers to local time for Glendale, California.

14.11. Recycled Paper. CONSULTANT shall endeavor to submit all reports, correspondence, and documents related to this Agreement on recycled paper.

14.12. Notices.

(A) The PARTIES shall submit in writing all notices and correspondence that this Agreement requires or permits, and shall use the following delivery method:

(1) Personal delivery;

(2) U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid;

(3) “Certified” U.S. mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested;

(4) Facsimile; or

(5) Email.

(B) All written notices or correspondence done in the manner described in Subparagraph (A) above with the street address or place, facsimile number, or email address listed in Subparagraph (C) below will be presumed “given” to a PARTY on whichever date occurs earliest:
478 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

43 (1) The date of personal delivery;

(2) The third (3rd) business day following deposit in the U.S. mail, when sent by “first class” mail;

(3) The date on which the PARTY or its agent either signed the return receipt or refused to accept delivery, as noted on the return receipt or other U.S. Postal Service form, when sent by “certified” mail; or

(4) The date of transmission, when sent by facsimile or email.

(C) CITY and CONSULTANT designate the following contact person, street address or place, telephone number, and facsimile number or email address for giving notice:

CITY: City of Glendale
Dept.:

Glendale, CA 9120
Attn:

Tel. No.:

Fax. No.:

Email:

CONSULTANT:

479 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

44 Attn:

Tel. No.:

Fax. No.:

Email:

(D) At any time, by providing written notice to the other PARTY , CITY or CONSULTANT may change the contact information listed in Subparagraph (C) above.

14.13. Survival. This Paragraph and the obligations set forth in Paragraphs

5.4, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 7.5, 8.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5,

12.6, 12.7, 13.3, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, and 14.12 survive this Agreement’s expiration, cancellation, or termination.

14.14. Severability. The invalidity, in whole or in part, of any term of this Agreement will not affect this Agreement’s remaining terms.

14.15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which is an original, but all of which constitutes one and the same document. The PARTIES shall sign a sufficient number of counterparts, so that each PARTY will receive a fully executed original of this Agreement.

14.16. Digital Signatures. The PARTIES deem a copy of this Agreement, or any amendment to it, that bears a digital signature as having the same legal effect, for all purposes, as delivery of a signed original of this Agreement or the amendment, and each digital signature will have the same legal force and effect as a handwritten signature.

14.17. Representations – Authority. The PARTIES represent that:

480 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

45 (A) They have read this Agreement, fully understand its contents, and have received a copy of it;

(B) Through their duly authorized representative, they are authorized to sign this Agreement, and they are bound by its terms; and

Executed at Glendale, California.

CITY OF GLENDALE:

By Date:
(Name)
(Title)

CONSULTANT:

By Date:
(Name)
(Title)

481 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

46 APPROVED AS TO FORM

NAME:

TITLE:

SIGNATURE:

DATE:

EXHIBIT LIST

“Exhibit A”: Scope of Work
(__ pages)

“Exhibit B”: Project Time Schedule
(__ pages)

“Exhibit C”: Fee Schedule
(__ pages)

“Exhibit D”: Insurance Requirements
(__ pages)

482 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

47 EXHIBIT D-1

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

“PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY” INSURANCE

1.1 Without limiting CONSULTANT’s liability and at its sole expense, CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain a Professional Liability insurance policy.

1.2 The Professional Liability policy must:

(A) Include “ errors and omissions ” coverage or “ malpractice” coverage;

(B) Afford “practice specific” or “project specific” coverage;

(C) Provide limits of liability in an amount not less than:
(1) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per claim; and
(2) TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) in the aggregate;

(D) Cover a claim or claims arising out of the performance of professional services by:
(1) CONSULTANT;

(2) CONSULTANT’s Subconsultant(s);

(3) Anyone whom CONSULTANT or its Subconsultant(s) directly or indirectly employs or uses; or

(4) Anyone whose acts CONSULTANT or its Subconsultant(s) may be liable; and

(E) Provide coverage for:
(1) The duration of this Agreement; and

(2) At least three (3) years after the Project’s completion:

483 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

48 (a) CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain an endorsement that adds an “extended reporting period”
(“ERP”) or a “discovery” feature — to allow CITY to
report a claim— for a period of not less than three (3) years following the initial policy’s expiratio n, or
following CITY’s recordation of its “notice of
completion” for the Project, whichever date is later.

The endorsement for the ERP or discovery feature
must provide identical policy limits, and meet the
conditions, described in subparagraphs 1.2 (A) through
(D) above; or
(b) CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain
successive renewal or replacement policies (with “prior acts” coverage), for a period of three (3) years following the initial policy’s expiration, or following CITY’s
recordation of its “notice of completion” for the Project, whichever date is later. Each policy must have a
“retroactive date” that coincides with, or is earlier than, this Agreement’s Effective Date. Additionally, each
policy must provide identical policy limits, and meet
the conditions , described in subparagraphs 1.2 (A)
through (D) above.

1.3 All ERP or discovery endorsements, renewal policies, and replacement coverage policies are subject to CITY’s review and approval, in its sole discretion.

1.4 CONSULTANT shall pay the full amount of all deductibles and any self - insured retention per claim for coverage under the Professional Liability insurance policy. 484 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

49 EXHIBIT D-2

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

“WORKERS’ COMPENSATION” INSURANCE

1.1 At its own expense, CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain— and shall require each of its Subconsultants to obtain and maintain— for the duration of this Agreement:

(A) Complete Workers’ Compensation insurance, meeting or exceeding the coverages and amounts that California law requires; and

(B) Employer’s Liability insurance in an amount not less than:

(1) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease;

(2) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per employee for
bodily injury or disease; and

(3) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) policy limit.

1.2 CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a “certificate of insurance” and a subrogation endorsement, “Waiver of Our Right to Recover From Others”— on forms satisfactory to the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager, and signed by the insurance carrier or its authorized representative— which fully meet the requirements of, and contain provisions entirely consistent with, this Agreement’s workers’ compensation insurance requirements.

1.3 CITY shall not be liable to CONSULTANT’s personnel, or anyone CONSULTANT directly or indirectly employs or uses, for a claim at law or in equity arising out of CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with this Agreement’s workers’ compensation insurance requirements.
485 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

50 EXHIBIT D-3

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

“COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY” OR “BUSINESSOWNERS
LIABILITY” INSURANCE

1.1 At its own expense, CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain— and shall require each of its Subconsultants to obtain and maintain— a “Commercial General Liability” or a “Businessowners Liability” insurance policy on an occurrence basis to fully protect CONSULTANT and CITY from claims and suits for bodily injury, personal and advertising injury, property damage, and medical payments. The policy must add the City of Glendale and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives (collectively, “CITY AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES”) as additional insureds.

1.2 Coverage afforded to CITY AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES must be at least as broad as that afforded to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has higher limits than the limits specified in these insurance requirements, or has additional broader coverage, or has both, the insurer shall make available the higher limits and broader coverage to CITY AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES. The insurance must be written for the limits of liability specified below:

(A) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence, or the full per occurrence limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater― for bodily injury (including accidental death) to any one person;

(B) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence, or the full per occurrence limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater― for personal and advertising injury to any one person;

(C) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence, or the full per occurrence limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater― for property damage; and

(D) TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) general aggregate limit, or the full aggregate limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater.

1.3 The liability insurance must include all major divisions of coverage and must cover:

486 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

51 (A) Premises Operations (including Explosion, Collapse, and Underground [“X,C,U”] coverages as applicable);

(B) Independent Contractors’ Protective Liability;

(C) Products and Completed Operations (maintain same limits as above until five (5) years after: recordation of the Notice of Completion or final close-out of the Agreement);

(D) Personal and Advertising Injury (with Employer’s Liability Exclusion deleted);

(E) Contractual Liability; and

(F) Broad Form Property Damage.

1.4 CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a “certificate of insurance” and an “additional insured endorsement”— on forms satisfactory to the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager, and signed by the insurance carrier or its authorized representative— which fully meet the requirements of, and contain provisions entirely consistent with, all of the Insurance Requirements.

1.5 The “certificate of insurance” and an “additional insured endorsement” must state:

“The City of Glendale, and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives are included as additional insureds under the policy(s). This insurance is primary to all other insurance of the City. The City’s insurance, or self-insurance, or both, will apply in excess of— and will not contribute with— this insurance. This insurance applies separately to each insured or additional insured who is seeking coverage, or against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought. The issuing company shall mail thirty (30) days advance notice to the City for any policy cancellation, termination, non-renewal, or reduction in coverage.”
487 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

52 EXHIBIT D-4

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

“BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE” LIABILITY INSURANCE

1.1 At its own expense, CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain— and shall require each of its Subconsultants to obtain and maintain— a “Business Automobile” insurance policy on an occurrence basis to fully protect CONSULTANT and CITY from claims and suits for bodily injury, property damage, and medical payments. The policy must add the City of Glendale and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives as additional insureds.

1.2 The insurance must not be written for less than the limits of liability specified below or required by law, whichever coverage amount is greater:

(A) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury (including accidental death) to any one person; and

(B) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence for property damage; or

1.3 The liability insurance must include all major divisions of coverage and must cover all vehicles, whether rented, leased, hired, scheduled, owned or non-owned.

1.4 CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a “certificate of insurance” and an “additional insured endorsement”— on forms satisfactory to the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager, and signed by the insurance carrier or its authorized representative — which fully meet the requirements of, and contain provisions entirely consistent with, all of the Insurance Requirements.

1.5 The “certificate of insurance” and an “additional insured endorsement” must state:
488 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

53 “The City of Glendale, and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives are included as additional insureds under the policy(s). This insurance is primary to all other insurance of the City. The City’s insurance, or self-insurance, or both, will apply in excess of— and will not contribute with— this insurance. This insurance applies separately to each insured or additional insured who is seeking coverage, or against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought. The issuing company shall mail thirty (30) days advance notice to the City for any policy cancellation, termination, non-renewal, or reduction in coverage.”
489 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

54 EXHIBIT D-5

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1.1 At all times, the insurance company issuing the policy must meet all three of these requirements:

(A) It must be “admitted” insurer by the State of California Department of Insurance or must be listed on the California Department of Insurance’s “List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers” (“LASLI”);

(B) It must be domiciled within, and organized under the laws of, a State of the United States; and

1.2 If the Agreement requires any of the foregoing insurance coverages to remain in force after the Final Payment, and if they are reasonably available, CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY— with the final Application for Payment— all certificates and additional insured endorsements evidencing the coverages’ continuation.

1.3 A deductible or self -insured retention is subject to CITY’s review and approval, in its sole discretion. The insurance company or its authorized representative must state either on the insurance certificate or in a separate correspondence:

(A) The amount of the deductible, or self-insured retention, or both;

(B) Whether a limit of insurance has been lowered by any pending or paid claim; and

1.4 Despite any conflicting or contrary provision in CONSULTANT’s insurance policy:
490 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

55 (A) If CONSULTANT’s insurance company adds CITY, and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives (collectively, “its representatives”) as additional insureds, then for all acts, errors, or omissions of CITY, or its representatives, or both, that insurer shall:

(1) Pay those sums that CITY, or its representatives, or both, become legally obligated to pay as damages; and

(2) Defend— and pay the costs of defending — CITY, or its representatives, or both;

(B) CONSULTANT’s insurance is primary;

(C) Other insurance (whether primary, excess, contingent or self - insurance, or any other basis) available to CITY, or its representatives, or both, is excess over CONSULTANT’s insurance;

(D) CITY’s insurance, or self -insurance, or both, will not contribute with CONSULTANT’s insurance policy;

(E) CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT’s insurance company waive — and shall not exercise — any right of recovery or subrogation that CONSULTANT or the insurer may have against CITY, or its representatives, or both;

(F) CONSULTANT’s insurance policy applies separately to each insured or additional insured who is seeking coverage, or against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except that the naming of multiple insureds will not increase an insurance company’s limits of liability;

(G) CONSULTANT’s insurance policy applies to a claim or suit brought by an additional insured against a Named Insured or other insured, arising out of bodily injury, personal injury, advertising injury, or property damage; and

(H) CITY is not liable for a premium payment or another expense under CONSULTANT’s policy.

1.5 At any time during the duration of this Agreement, CITY may do any one or more of the following:

(A) Review this Agreement’s insurance coverage requirements; or 491 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

56 (B) Require that CONSULTANT:
(1) Obtain, pay for, and maintain more or less insurance depending on CITY’s assessment of any one or more of the following factors:
(a) CITY’s risk of liability or exposure arising out of, or in any way connected with, the services of
CONSULTANT under this Agreement;
(b) The nature or number of accidents, claims, or lawsuits arising out of, or in any way connected with, the
services of CONSULTANT under this Agreement; or
(c) The availability, or affordability, or both, of increased liability insurance coverage;
(2) Reduce or eliminate a deductible or self -insured retention as it applies to CITY; or
(3) Obtain, pay for, and maintain a bond (as a replacement for an insurance coverage) from a California corporate surety, guaranteeing payment to CITY for liability, or costs, or both, that CITY incurs during CITY’s investigation, administration, or defense of a claim or a suit arising out of this Agreement.

1.6 CONSULTANT shall maintain the insurance policy without interruption, from the Project’s commencement date to the Final Payment date, or until a date that CITY specifies for any coverage that CONSULTANT must maintain after the Final Payment.

1.7 CONSULTANT’s insurance company or self -insurance administrator shall mail CITY written notice at least thirty (30) days in advance of the policy’s or the self - insurance program’s cancellation, termination, non-renewal, or reduction in coverage.

1.8 CONSULTANT shall not allow any insurance to expire, cancel, terminate, lapse, or non -renew. Twenty -one (21) days before its insurance policy’s expiration, cancellation, termination, or non-renewal, CONSULTANT shall deliver to CITY evidence of the require d coverage as proof that CONSULTANT’s insurance policy has been renewed or replaced with another insurance policy which, during the duration of this Agreement, meets all of this Agreement’s insurance requirements. 492 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

57 1.9 At any time, upon CITY’s request, CONSULTANT shall furnish satisfactory proof of each type of insurance coverage required— including a certified copy of the insurance policy or policies; certificates, endorsements, renewals, or replacements; and documents comprising CONSULTANT’s self-insurance program— all in a form and content acceptable to the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager.

1.10 If CONSULTANT hires, employs, or uses a Subconsultant to perform work, services, operations, or activities on CONSULTANT’s behalf, CONSULTANT shall ensure that the Subconsultant:

(A) Meets, and fully complies with, this Agreement’s insurance requirements;

(B) Delivers to CITY— for its review, or approval, or both— all insurance policies, certificates, and endorsements that this Agreement requires; and

(C) Furnishes CITY, at any time upon its request, with a complete copy of the Subconsultant’s insurance policy or policies for CITY’s review, or approval, or both.

1.11 CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with an insurance provision in this Agreement constitutes a breach upon which CITY may immediately terminate or suspend CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement, or invoke another remedy that this Agreement or the law allows. At its discretion, CITY may obtain or renew the insurance, and CITY may pay all or part of the premiums. Upon demand, CONSULTANT shall repay CITY for all sums or monies that CITY paid to obtain, renew, or reinstate the insurance, or CITY may offset the cost of the premium against any sums or monies that CITY may owe CONSULTANT.

493 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

58 EXHIBIT D-6

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

CONSULTANT’S SUBMITTAL OF CERTIFICATES AND

ENDORSEMENTS

1.1 CONSULTANT shall have its insurance carrier(s) or self-insurance administrator(s) complete and execute the following insurance documents, unless an exception below applies. When CONSULTANT signs and delivers the Agreement to CITY, CONSULTANT also shall deliver:

(A) A “certificate of insurance” for each required liability insurance coverage;

(B) An additional insured endorsement for Commercial General Liability coverage or Businessowners Liability coverage and Automobile Liability coverage , unless this Agreement does not require CONSULTANT to obtain and maintain Commercial General Liability coverage, Businessowners Liability coverage, or Automobile Liability coverage;

(C) A “certificate of insurance” for Workers’ Compensation insurance; or If CONSULTANT is self-insured for workers’ compensation, a copy of the “Certificate of Consent to Self -insure” from the State of California; or
If CONSULTANT is lawfully exempt from workers’ compensation laws, an “Affirmation of Exemption from Labor Code §3700” form;

(D) A subrogation endorsement, “Waiver of Our Right to Recover From Others,” for Workers’ Compensation coverage; and

(E) A complete copy of CONSULTANT’s Professional Liability insurance policy, including all forms and endorsements attached to it.

494 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

59 1.2 CITY will neither sign this Agreement nor issue a “Notice to Proceed” until the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager has reviewed and approved the insurance documents. CITY’s decision as to the acceptability of all insurance documents is final.

Unless CONSULTANT obtains CITY’s written approval, CITY will not permit or allow a substitution of an insurance policy, or a change in a certificate’s or an endorsement’s form and content, or both.

INSURANCE OBLIGATION IS SEPARATE FROM INDEMNITY OBLIGATION

2.1 This Agreement’s insurance provisions:

(A) Are separate and independent from the indemnification and defense provisions in Article 12 of the Agreement; and

(B) Do not limit, in any way, the applicability, scope, or obligations of the indemnification and defense provisions in Article 12 of the Agreement.

495 of 499

CITY OF GLENDALE, CA

STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

60 PROPOSAL FORM
(FOLLOWS)

496 of 499

1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 1 CPPG and Glendale Recent Successes CPPG lobbyist, Kyra Ross, has been successfully advocating for the City of Glendale for the last decade. She fought for changes to protect Glendale’s redevelopment funds, backfill funding for utility arrears post-COVID and millions in state budget allocations. She has assisted the City in procuring over $125,000,000 since 2015. Successful legislative advocacy requires strong coalition building, a keen political acumen and expertise in the field as well as connections with both individual legislative offices and committees. Our powerhouse team of legislative, policy, funding and technical experts is well-positioned with extensive networks in the Capitol and a stellar record of legislative successes. A few of these successes are noted below: SB 1177 (Portantino, 2022) Burbank Glendale Pasadena Regional Housing Trust- Chaptered In early 2022, the cities of Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena recognized the need for funding assistance for families in the tri-city region with extremely low, very low, low, and moderate incomes and homeless individuals. The acute shortage of affordable housing in the Arroyo Verdugo region combined with insufficient funding to bring all of the housing projects in the pipeline to completion created the need for an additional funding option. The three cities sponsored SB 1177 (Portantino) that allowed the cities to enter into a joint powers agreement to create and operate the trust to fund housing in the region. In addition to the enacting legislation, a budget appropriation of $23 million was successfully obtained through the budget process. CPPG lobbyist, Kyra Ross, was the lead lobbyist on the bill, drafting bill background documents, talking points, and other materials for the author and committee offices. Additionally, she coordinated and led all lobbying meetings in the Capitol with policy committee consultants, policy committee members and their staff as well as meetings with the Governor’s office on both the bill and appropriation. All three city clients were kept up to date through weekly email updates, bi-weekly calls with city staff as well as calls and emails as needed within 24-hours of any action on the bills. Impressively, the bill had no “no” votes throughout the process and was signed by the Governor. In June 2024, the Burbank Glendale Pasadena Regional Housing Trust issued its first award, a capital construction grant paving the way for a pioneering, multipurpose Homeless Solutions Center in Burbank. CPPG lobbyists have also protected city clients, including the City of Glendale from legislation that would be detrimental to both the City and Glendale Water and Power. SB 445 (Wiener) 2025 High Speed Rail- Halted In 2025, Senator Wiener introduced a bill that proposed to drastically alter existing approval and coordination processes by imposing highly prescriptive and impractical timeframes that do not reflect the complexity of infrastructure coordination, environmental review, and public engagement necessary for responsible project delivery. The author sought to address deadlines in the permitting process by imposing deadlines on local governments, publicly owned utilities, special districts, privately owned utilities and telecommunications companies to comply with the permitting process. If the state agency does not get the local agency permits because of these delays, they are 497 of 499

1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 2 empowered to just begin construction. The legislation would have also limited local governments from requiring concessions unrelated to the project as a requirement for receiving a permit. In June 2025, the bill was amended to only apply to the High Speed Rail Authority and those local agencies in the path of High Speed Rail tracks focused primarily on Investor Owned Utilities and Publicly Owned Utilities, including Glendale Water and Power. CPPG lobbyists engaged with the California Municipal Utilities Association, the League of California Cities, and the Association of California Water Agencies to lobby the legislative members highlighting the numerous issues of concern in the bill including the ability to manage public infrastructure, ensure worker and public safety, and coordinate with all critical infrastructure sectors. Notably, because the bill was in the Assembly and being heard in the Assembly Utility Committee which Assemblymember Schultz is a member, CPPG lobbyists met with Assemblymember Schultz on the bill on several occasions, noting the specific impacts to the City of Glendale. Assemblymember Schultz spoke out in opposition to the bill in committee as a direct result of CPPG lobbyist interactions. In August, in response to the large and growing coalition of Cities, Utilities and others in strong opposition to the bill, the bill was held by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, halting its progress in 2025. CPPG lobbyists both communicated client concerns directly to the legislative delegation on numerous occasions through letters submitted to the legislative portal, direct meetings with the legislators and their staff and through coalition efforts. Clients were kept up to date through bi-weekly meetings, weekly written updates and calls and emails as needed within 24-hours of any action on the bills. SB 423 (Gonzalez) Housing: real property transfer taxes: affordability covenants In the final days of the 2025 legislative session, SB 423 was “gut and amended” to include language that would have prohibited cities from imposing a real estate transfer tax on certain newly constructed residential and commercial properties. The proposal would have barred transfer taxes for 15 years following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for multifamily and commercial developments and for five years on single-family homes rebuilt after a disaster. Another version of the proposal extended these restrictions to document transfer taxes, posing significant fiscal impacts for local governments statewide. CPPG mobilized immediately, working directly with city clients to quantify potential revenue losses and prepare city-specific impact analyses. Our team also coordinated with each city’s legislative delegation, the League of California Cities, and external partners such as the California Professional Firefighters, amplifying statewide opposition and elevating the issue politically. 498 of 499

1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 1 City of Glendale Recent Funding Successes Since 2015, CPPG lobbyist Kyra Ross has assisted the City of Glendale in procuring over $125,000,000. Below is a list of recent successes along with City funding that she has assisted with. • In 2022 EJA coordinated and led the effort to create the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Regional Housing Trust (SB 1177) and the $23 million budget allocation for seed dollars. • In 2021 and 2022 EJA worked successfully with CMUA and other publicly owned utilities to secure funding for electricity and water arrears. In 2021, GWP received $6.2 million in 2021 and additional funding in 2022. • In 2022, EJA successfully lobbied for an additional $6 million in funding for the city library from the state budget. • In 2021, EJA successfully assisted the City in securing $1 million from the state budget for a mental health and drug intervention pilot project. City of Glendale and Glendale Water & Power Funding Since 2015 • 2023 $933,000 in State budget funding for Fremont Park Renovation • 2023 $1,000,000 in State budget funding for the expansion of Glendale’s technology hub • 2022 $1,700,000 in State budget funding for POU utility arrears to cover electric and water customer non-payment (CAPP 2.0) • 2022 $5,000,000 in State budget Active Transportation funds for Verdugo wash • 2022 $23,000,000 in State budget funding for Tri-City Housing Trust Fund (split by Burbank, Glendale & Pasadena) • 2022 $34,000,000 TICRP Caltrans funding for Beeline electrification • 2022 $6,095,000 in State budget funding for the City Library • 2022 $1,100,000 in State budget Active Transportation funds for Wildfire Prevention Infrastructure • 2021 $6,200,000 in State budget funding for POU utility arrears to cover electric and water customer non-payment (CAPP) • 2021 $1,000,000 in State budget funding for the Lark Musical Society Cultural Annex • 2021 $1,000,000 in State budget funding for mental health and drug intervention pilot program • 2019 $5,000,000 in State budget funding for the Armenian American Museum • 2019 $1,000,000 in State budget funding for the Technology Acceleration Program • 2017 $20,000,000 in State Park Bond Act funding for bike pedestrian path • 2016 $1,000,000 in State budget funding for the Armenian American Museum • 2015 $45,000,000 Re-Instatement of Redevelopment Funds with interest 499 of 499

Glendale City CouncilFebruary 3, 2026

Glendale City Council
February 3, 2026