Agenda packet — Glendora City Council, October 11, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

SPECIAL NOTICE

IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY MESSAGE REGARDING

PARTICIPATION AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

CHANGES AND ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC MEETINGS All Brown Act meetings are subject to COVID-19 infection protocols. As of April 1, 2022, the City Council has determined that meetings will be considered in-person public “Brown Act” meetings for City of Glendora City Council, Board(s) and Commission(s) – for the period of time that the City is allowed to hold remote meetings under the cavalcade of public health orders, an elected or appointed official will have the ability to attend virtually, if needed. Due to the fluidity in which infection protocols are set and changed by Federal, State, and County the City will utilize a more flexible approach, that allows the City to conduct public meetings of the City via teleconferencing, in person and/or hybrid meetings pursuant to AB 361, or as long as the Governors Declaration of Emergency is extended.

Ways to participate?
 In-Person;
 Virtually via Zoom Video Communications;
To participate in the meeting from the comfort of your own home or office download zoom on any phone or computer device and use the following meeting ID# cityofglendora.org/zoom or https://zoom.us/j/9329247224 Want to watch?
All our City Council meetings can be watched live through Internet Streaming at www.cityofglendora.org, and/or through Spectrum cable television Channel 3 and Verizon Channel 31.

Ways to provide public comment?
You may give public comment at the commencement of the meeting when the presiding officer calls for public comment.

Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes, speaking once, on both on- and off-agenda items. If there are public hearings scheduled, individuals will be given an additional opportunity to comment under said items. Please follow along with the meeting via www.cityofglendora.org/citymeetings, GlendoraTV cable channels, or City social media live feeds to ensure you call in at the appropriate time for your item(s). To ensure that the public is able to participate, the city is providing several methods in which the public can submit their comments:

OPTION 1: IN PERSON
Public Comments can be submitted via the Public Comment Card located in the back of the room and/or by the City Clerk desk at the front of the dais. Public Comment Cards should be submitted to the Clerk upon completion and before the closing of Public Comment or Public Hearing. When your name is called, please step to the podium and state your name before beginning your presentation.

OPTION 2: LIVE COMMENTS
Public is invited to participate via Zoom Video Communications by enter meeting ID# cityofglendora.org/zoom or https://zoom.us/j/9329247224. If you wish to address the governing board on any matter posted on the agenda or within subject matter jurisdiction should utilize one of the following protocols:

Utilizing “Raise Your Hand” Feature Utilizing “Chat” Feature Call In Step 1. Virtually “raise your hand”
using zoom,
Step 2. Wait to be called on by the City
Clerk, Step 3. Unmute your audio,
Step 4. Verbalize your comments (less
than 3 minutes)
Step 1. Utilizing “Chat” send a message to
webmaster and let them know which item(s)
you wish to comment on (aka: Public
Comment, Item #?)),
Step 2. Wait to be called on by the City Clerk,
Step 3. Unmute your audio,
Step 4. Verbalize your comments (less than 3
minutes)
Step 1. Dial (669) 900-6833,
Step 2. When prompted, enter the Meeting ID
932 924 7224. Once admitted, you will hear the
meeting live,
Step 3. At the beginning of public comment
and/or the public hearing item you wish to
comment, press Star 9 to request to speak,
Step 4. Once it is your turn, you will hear an
audio command asking you to press Star 6 to
unmute your mic.

OPTION 3: E-MAIL
Public Comments can be submitted via email to [email protected] with the subject “Public Comment – Insert Governing Body and Meeting Date”. Public Comments received will be added to the associated Agenda Packet before 5:00 p.m. each day leading up to meeting (weekends and holidays excluded). Emails received in real time and prior to the commencement of Public Comment Period or Public Hearing and not already incorporated in the agenda will be read out loud (up to 3 minutes).

OPTION 4: MAIL
Public comments may be mailed to 116 E. Foothill Boulevard, Glendora, ATTN: City Clerk’s Department-Public Comment. The City Clerk will read public comments received out loud (up to 3 minutes) into the public record if received before 5 p.m. on the date of the meeting. Otherwise, public comments will be considered late correspondence and incorporated into the meeting minute record.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact the City Clerk’s Department at (626) 914-8210.

Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 1

CITY OF GLENDORA

CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
AGENDA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2022
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 116 E. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
To participate virtually, download zoom on any phone or computer device and use the following meeting ID:
cityofglendora.org/zoom or https://zoom.us/j/9329247224

MAYOR/CHAIR
Karen K. Davis

MAYOR PRO TEM/VICE-CHAIR
Gary Boyer, District 3

COUNCIL/COMMISSIONERS
Michael Allawos
David Fredendall, District 2
Mendell Thompson, District 5

MEETING SCHEDULE
The regular meetings of the city council shall be held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, closed session business will commence at 6:00 p.m., when scheduled, and general business session will commence at 7:00 p.m.

BROWN ACT
Agendas are drafted to accurately state what the legislative body is being asked to consider. The legislative body can take action on “all items” listed on the agenda and be in compliance with the open meeting laws.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The governing body may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future meeting.

COMMUNICATION AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES
To minimize distractions, please be sure all personal communication and electronic devices are turned off or on silent mode.

City Council meetings are also available via live webcast and at any time for replaying through the City's webpage at
cityofglendora.org/citymeetings.

Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 2

CITY OF GLENDORA
City Council, Successor Agency and Housing Authority
AGENDA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2022
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 116 E. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION
7:00 PM GENERAL BUSINESS SESSION
NOTICE IS GIVEN that Closed Session business will commence at 6:00 p.m., when scheduled, and General Business Session will commence at 7:00 p.m.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that to participate virtually, download zoom on any phone or computer device and use the following meeting ID: cityofglendora.org/zoom or https://zoom.us/j/9329247224

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

CLOSED SESSION
The regular meetings of the city council shall be held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, closed session business will commence at 6:00 p.m., when scheduled, and general business session will commence at 7:00 p.m. Closed Session discussions authorized by state law and allow the legislative body to consider/hear any matter which it is authorized by state law to hear or consider in closed session.

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS A closed session will be held, pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 to conduct labor negotiations.

City Negotiators: City Manager Raymond, City Attorney Wynder, Administrative Services Director Ricci, and Assistant City Manager Lopez
Employee Organization: American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Glendora Management Association (GMA), and Glendora Police Management Association (PMA)

2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS A closed session will be held, pursuant to Government Code §54956.8, enable the City Council and Housing Authority to consider negotiations with:

I) Paul Rodriguez, with whom City is negotiating, and to give direction to its negotiator(s) Adam Raymond, Moises Lopez, Jeff Kugel, and Valerie Velasquez regarding that certain real property 1762 Dale Road, APN 8631-013-023. The City’s real property negotiator will seek direction from the City Council regarding the price and terms of payment for the property;
II) Thomas R. McGhuey, Trustee of the Thomas R. McGhuey Trust, with whom City is negotiating, and to give direction to its negotiator(s) Adam Raymond, Moises Lopez, Jeff Kugel, and Valerie Velasquez regarding certain real property APN 8644-014-036. The City’s real property negotiator will seek direction from the City Council regarding the price and terms of payment for the property; and
III) City of Glendora, property owner, to receive information from negotiator(s) Adam Raymond, Moises Lopez, Jeff Kugel, and Valerie Velasquez regarding certain real Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 3
properties APN 8655-007-900, APN 8655-007-901, APN 8655-007-902, and APN 8655- 021-900. The City’s real property negotiator will seek direction from the City Council regarding the disposition of the property.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize, advance, or disparage any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular belief or form of invocation.  Invocation
 Pledge of Allegiance

STUDENT REPORTS - NONE

REORDERING OF AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENT
Three (3) Minute speaking time limit, speaking once, unless upon motion, such time is extended by the legislative body.

Any person may request to address a legislative body during a public meeting. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes, speaking once, on both onand off- agenda items, unless, upon motion, such time is extended by the legislative body. Such statements shall only be allowed during the Public Comment portion of the agenda. If there are any public hearings scheduled, individuals will be given an additional opportunity to comment under said items. Speakers are not permitted to yield their time to another speaker. Public comment is limited to 30 minutes at each meeting, with the ability to extend if the legislative body so chooses by majority vote.

To ensure that the public is able to participate, the City may provide a variety of ways in which the public can submit their comment: in person, virtually, email, phone call, mail and any other method which may become available. Methods of participation may be subject to change during other such times when a State of Emergency, Health Order or State Executive Order limits in-person participation.

3. Public Comments received

MEMBER STATEMENTS/REPORTS

CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY STATEMENTS

SPECIAL ITEMS

4. Glendora City Council to present the Mayor's Trophy to Charter Oak High School Football Team for their 37 to 7 win over Glendora High School

5. Presentation of the Results of the 2022 City of Glendora Community Opinion Survey

6. City Council to present proclamation recognizing October 2022 as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month

7. Overview and update on the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority (ICRMA), the City’s general liability insurance program will be presented by John Nielson, Interim Executive Director

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar will be enacted by one motion without individual discussion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the governing body requests specific item(s) be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered after the Consent Calendar is approved. Anyone wishing to address a Consent Calendar item should do so during the Public Comment Period.

Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 4

8. Affirm minutes from September 27, 2022 City Council Special Meeting, September 27, 2022 Regular Joint City Council, Successor Agency for the former Community Redevelopment Agency, and Housing Authority Meeting
CITY/AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: 1. Affirm the minutes as presented.

9. Award a Contract Agreement to Mackone Development Inc. for Police Department Security Door Replacement Project in the amount of $59,547.18 (Strategic Plan Item 46-IMCIF) CITY RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302(c) of the California Code of Regulations; 2. Award an agreement with Mackone Development Inc. to replace two security doors at Glendora Police Department in the amount of $59,547.18; 3. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the agreement with Mackone Development Inc., including minimal and/or non-substantive changes; 4. Authorize the Administrative Services Director to appropriate $11,161.90 using Fund 321–CIP Fund towards project budget; and, 5. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute any necessary change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% of the original contract amount.

10. Review and affirm disbursements for September 2022 in the amount of $10,428,645.35 CITY/AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: Review and affirm disbursements for September 2022 in the amount of $10,428,645.35

11. Approve the Joint Powers Agreement of Fire Districts Association of California Employment Benefits Authority for Medical Plans for certain Labor Groups (Strategic Plan Item 21-EEDR) CITY RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the Joint Powers Agreement of Fire Districts Association of California Employment Benefits Authority (FDAC - EBA); and, 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the agreement and other related documents including minimal and/or non-substantive changes.

MEMBER AGENDA ITEMS - NONE

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

12. Update on Unscheduled Vacancies on the Water Commission (Office Nos. 3 and 4; Terms Expire: June 30, 2025), Planning Commission (Office No. 4; Term Expire: June 30, 2025), and Business Improvement District Advisory Board (Office No. 3; Term Expire: June 30, 2023) CITY RECOMMENDATION: 1. Provide direction on appointing applicants to fill unscheduled vacancies on the Water Commission (Office Nos. 3 and 4; Terms Expire: June 30, 2025), Planning Commission (Office No. 4; Term Expire: June 30, 2025), and Business Improvement District (B.I.D.) (Office No. 3; Term Expire: June 30, 2023).

NEW BUSINESS - NONE

MEMBER/STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS

ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 5
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the Glendora City Hall bulletin board at the three established posting locations and on the City of Glendora website at www.cityofglendora.org not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Dated: October 3, 2022
Kathleen R. Sessman, MMC
City Clerk/Communications Director
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 6

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The City Council adopted new rules relating to the conduct of public meetings, proceedings, and business in the City of Glendora on February 9, 2021 (Resolution CC 2021-02) and go into effect on April 1, 2021.

LIVE BROADCASTING AND REBROADCASTING
Regular City Council meetings are broadcast live every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month on City Website www.cityofglendora.org, Channel 3 (Cable) & Channel 31 (Verizon) and are replayed Thursday - Sunday the week following the meeting on Channel 3 (Cable) & Channel 31 (Verizon). All broadcasts can be viewed on Cox Communications Local Access Channel 3 and Verizon/Fios Channel 31. City Council meetings are also available via live webcast and at any time for replaying through the City's webpage at cityofglendora.org/citymeetings. For more information, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (626) 914-8210.

MEETING SCHEDULE
Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, closed session business will commence at 6:00 p.m., when scheduled, and general business session will commence at 7:00 p.m. Agendas are available at the following locations:
• City Clerk's Office • Glendora Public Library Government Kiosk and Bulletin Board • Crowther Teen and Family Center Bulletin Board • City's web page at cityofglendora.org/citymeetings

PUBLIC COMMENT/PARTICIPATION
Any person may request to address a legislative body during a public meeting by submitting to the City Clerk a Speakers Request form and stating the topic to be addressed. Speakers Request forms shall be available at the Council Chambers throughout the council meeting.

Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes, speaking once, on both on- and off- agenda items, unless, upon motion, such time is extended by the legislative body. Such statements shall only be allowed during the Public Comment portion of the agenda. If there are any public hearings scheduled, individuals will be given an additional opportunity to comment under said items. Speakers are not permitted to yield their time to another speaker. Public comment is limited to 30 minutes at each meeting, with the ability to extend if the legislative body so chooses by majority vote.

CURFEW
In the absence of a motion duly adopted by majority vote of the City Council, the Presiding Officer may adjourn City Council meetings at 10:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable. This means that under normal circumstance, the City Council will complete action on whatever agenda item is being discussed/debated at 10:30 p.m. after which the Presiding Officer shall adjourn the regularly scheduled meeting to a time certain at which time the meeting shall be reconvened as an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council and action upon the published agenda continue.

STAFF REPORTS
As a general rule, staff reports, or other written documentation are prepared/organized with respect to each item of business listed on the agenda. Meeting agendas and staff reports are available at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled City Council meeting for public inspection at Glendora City Hall, via public kiosks located in the City Clerk’s office and at the Glendora Public Library during regular business hours, and on the City’s website at cityofglendora.org/citymeetings. In addition, meetings can be viewed live at the time posted on the agenda and related staff reports can be opened and viewed simultaneously along with the streaming of the meeting at cityofglendora.org/citymeetings.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the posting of the agenda will be available for public review in the City Clerk''s Office, 116 E. Foothill Boulevard, Glendora, California, during normal business hours. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available for public review at the respective public meeting and via the City’s website at cityofglendora.org/citymeetings.

SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR DISSEMINATION MEETINGS Any member of the public who desires to submit documentation in hard copy form may do so prior to the meeting by emailing their comments and/or information to [email protected]. This information will be disseminated.

CITY SERVICES TO FACILITATE ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS
It is the intention of the City of Glendora to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City of Irvine will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (626) 914-8210 no later than 72 hours prior to the meeting. (28 CFR 34.102.104 ADA TITLE II).

Assisted listening devices are available at the meeting for individuals with hearing impairments. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35. 102-35. 104 ADA Title II) For further information, please contact the office of the City Clerk at (626) 914-8210, or via e-mail at [email protected].

Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 7
Item #5. Page 1
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 8

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item #5. Page 2
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 9
Table of Contents
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Community Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Public Trust & Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Communication & E-Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Drought & Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Ways to Improve Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Community Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Public Trust & Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Perceptions of City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Communication & E-Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Satisfaction: City-Resident Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Satisfaction: Resident-City Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Communication Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Info on Current and Planned Development Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Item #5. Page 3
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 10
Table of Contents
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Attention Paid to Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Drought & Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Drought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Attention Paid to Household Water Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Efforts to Conserve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Item #5. Page 4
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 11
List of Tables
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Rating Glendora by Years in Glendora & Age (Showing % Excellent or Good Among Those With Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 2 Rating Glendora by Household Income & Ethnicity (Showing % Excellent or Good Among Those With Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 3 Changes to Improve Glendora by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 4 Changes to Improve Glendora by Years in Glendora & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 5 Satisfaction With Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 6 Satisfaction With Services by Overall Satisfaction With City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 7 Availability of Housing, Businesses & Amenities in City by Years in Glendora & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Too Little). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 8 Availability of Housing, Businesses & Amenities in City by Age (Showing % Too Little) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 9 Availability of Housing, Businesses & Amenities in City by Gender, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Too Little) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 10 Availability of Housing, Businesses & Amenities in City by Employment Status (Showing % Too Little). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 11 Availability of Housing, Businesses & Amenities in City by Ethnicity (Showing % Too Little) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 12 Spending Priorities by Years in Glendora & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % High & Medium Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 13 Spending Priorities by Age (Showing % High & Medium Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 14 Spending Priorities by Gender, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status (Showing % High & Medium Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 15 Spending Priorities by Ethnicity (Showing % High & Medium Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 16 Agreement With Statements About Glendora Among Those With Opinion by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 17 Opinion of Staff by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 18 Effectiveness of Communication Efforts by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 19 Effectiveness of Communication Efforts by Overall Satisfaction & Age (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 20 Effectiveness of Communication Efforts by Years in Glendora, Child in Hsld & Ethnicity (Showing % Very Effective) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 21 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Item #5. Page 5
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 12
List of Figures
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Rating Glendora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 3 Changes to Improve Glendora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 4 Overall Satisfaction by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Glendora, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Age & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Household Income & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 8 Satisfaction With Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 9 Availability of Housing, Businesses & Amenities in City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 10 Spending Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 11 Desired Community Facility, Amenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 12 Agreement With Statements About Glendora Among Those With Opinion . . . . . . . 26 Figure 13 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 14 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Years in Glendora, Child in Hsld & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 15 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Employment Status, Gender & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 16 Contact With City Staff in Past 12 Months by Household Income & Ethnicity . . . . . 28 Figure 17 Opinion of Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 18 Satisfaction With City-Resident Communication by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 19 Satisfaction With City-Resident Communication by Years in Glendora, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status, Gender & Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 20 Satisfaction With City-Resident Communication by Age & Employment Status . . . . 31 Figure 21 Satisfaction With City-Resident Communication by Household Income & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 22 Satisfaction With Resident-City Communication by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 23 Satisfaction With Resident-City Communication by Years in Glendora, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status, Gender & Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 24 Satisfaction With Resident-City Communication by Age & Employment Status . . . . 33 Figure 25 Satisfaction With Resident-City Communication by Household Income & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 26 Effectiveness of Communication Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 27 Overall Satisfaction With Quality of Development Information Provided by City by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 28 Overall Satisfaction With Quality of Development Information Provided by City by Years in Glendora, Child in Hsld, Overall Satisfaction, Satisfaction With CityResident Communication & Satisfaction With Resident-City Communication . . . . . 36 Figure 29 Overall Satisfaction With Quality of Development Information Provided by City by Age & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 30 Overall Satisfaction With Quality of Development Information Provided by City by Household Income, Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 31 Attentiveness to Issues, Decisions, Activities of City Government by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 32 Attentiveness to Issues, Decisions, Activities of City Government by Years in Glendora, City Staff Contact in Past 12 Months, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 33 Attentiveness to Issues, Decisions, Activities of City Government by Age, Satisfaction With City-Resident Communication & Satisfaction With Resident-City Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 34 Attentiveness to Issues, Decisions, Activities of City Government by Household Income & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Item #5. Page 6
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 13
List of Figures
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Figure 35 California Experiencing a Drought. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 36 California Experiencing a Drought by Years in Glendora, Attentive to Hsld Water Use, Gender, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 37 California Experiencing a Drought by Age & Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 38 California Experiencing a Drought by Household Income & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 39 Attentiveness to Hsld Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 40 Attentiveness to Hsld Water Use by Aware of Drought, Years in Glendora, Gender, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 41 Attentiveness to Hsld Water Use by Age & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 42 Attentiveness to Hsld Water Use by Household Income & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 43 Current Efforts to Conserver Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 44 Current Efforts to Conserver Water by Aware of Drought, Attentive to Hsld Water Use, Gender, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 45 Current Efforts to Conserver Water by Years in Glendora & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 46 Current Efforts to Conserver Water by Household Income & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 47 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Item #5. Page 7
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 14
Introduction
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I NTRODUCTION
Known as the “Pride of the Foothills”, the City of Glendora was founded in 1887 and incorporated in 1911. Since then, Glendora has evolved from a small agricultural city to a thriving city of approximately 51,800 residents1 who are focused on supporting a charming, vibrant, and inclusive community. The City maintains a team of full- and part-time employees to provide a comprehensive suite of services through 11 main departments: City Council, City Attorney, City Manager, City Clerk, Administrative Services, Police, Community Development, Public Works, Library, Information Technology, and Community Services.

To monitor its progress in meeting residents’ needs, the City of Glendora engages residents on a daily basis and receives periodic subjective feedback regarding its performance. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, it is important to recognize that they do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of the community as a whole.

For the most part, informal feedback mechanisms rely on the resident to initiate feedback, which creates a self-selection bias—the City receives feedback only from those residents who are motivated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these residents tend to be either very pleased or very displeased with the service they received, their collective opinions are not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole.

PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current study was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted above and thereby provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services provided by the City. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report provide City Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas including service improvements and enhancements, measuring and tracking internal performance, budgeting, policy, planning, and community engagement.

To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the study was designed to:
• Identify key issues of concern for residents, as well as their perceptions of the City; • Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and their satisfaction with a variety of specific services; • Evaluate perceptions of, and experiences with, local government; • Determine satisfaction with the City’s communication with residents, as well as the opportunities residents have to communicate with the City; • Gather opinions on topics such as communication preferences, land use, spending priorities, drought, and water conservation; and • Collect additional background and demographic data relevant to understanding residents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.

1. Source: California Department of Finance Estimate, January 2022.

Item #5. Page 8
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 15
Introduction
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 This is not the first statistically reliable community survey conducted for the City of Glendora.

Similar studies were conducted by True North in 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2019, and many of the questions included in the 2022 survey were purposely drawn from these prior studies.

Because of the interest in tracking the City’s performance over time, where appropriate the results of the current study are compared with the results of identical questions asked in the prior studies.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 47). In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 571 adults who reside within the City of Glendora. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (telephone, text, and email) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered between July 26 and July 31, 2022, the average interview lasted 17 minutes.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE As discussed above, many of the figures and tables in this report present the results of questions asked in 2022 alongside the results found in the prior surveys for identical questions. In such cases, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statistical significance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion from the last survey to the current survey—as opposed to being due to chance associated with independently selected samples. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differences within response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2022.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in bullet-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report, and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of Glendora for the opportunity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and local knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Glendora. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

Item #5. Page 9
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 16
Introduction
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the opinions, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 400 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

Item #5. Page 10
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 17
Just the Facts
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

J UST THE F ACTS
The following is an outline of the main factual findings from the survey. For the reader’s convenience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in the body of this report. Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report section.

QUALITY OF LIFE
• Glendora residents provided the most positive ratings for the overall quality of life in the City (87% excellent or good) and Glendora as a place to raise a family (84%). Although still positive, residents provided a softer rating for Glendora as a place to retire (61%). • Approximately half (49%) of residents surveyed provided an excellent or good rating for Glendora as a place to shop and dine, while one-third (34%) rated this aspect as fair. Less than half (45%) of residents provided a positive rating for Glendora as a place to work, although just over one-quarter (28%) held no opinion and did not provide a rating. • When residents were asked to indicate the one thing city government could change to make Glendora a better place to live, now and in the future, 18% could not think of any desired changes (13%) or reported that no changes are needed (5%). Among specific changes desired, addressing homeless issues/poverty was mentioned most frequently (22%), followed by improving dining and shopping opportunities (13%), improving public safety and police services (10%), limiting growth and development and preserving Glendora’s smalltown feel (7%), improving streets, roads, and infrastructure (7%), and beautifying the City and its landscaping (5%).

CITY SERVICES
• Eight-in-ten (80% of) Glendora residents indicated they were either very (30%) or somewhat (50%) satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Approximately 13% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, and the remaining 7% were unsure or did not provide a response.
• When asked to rate their satisfaction with 16 specific services provided by the City of Glendora, respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide library services (97% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by efforts to provide programs for youth, adults, and seniors (90%), provide police services (89%), provide online access to city services, information, and resources (88%), provide trash collection and recycling services (86%), and maintain parks and recreation areas (84%). • At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were less satisfied with the City’s performance in addressing homelessness (36%), maintaining streets and roads (63%), and managing growth and development (65%).

LAND USE
• More than half of residents indicated that there are currently not enough fine dining restaurants (57% too little) and affordable housing for middle-income families (53%). More than one-third also perceived a deficiency in the amount of entertainment options such as movie houses, music, and arts (45%), public art (38%), affordable housing for low-income families (36%), designated areas for walking and biking (35%), and good-paying jobs and employment opportunities (35%) available in Glendora. Only one building type—commercial offices—had more respondents say there were too many (11%) than too few (6%) in Glendora.

Item #5. Page 11
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 18
Just the Facts
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

COMMUNITY FACILITIES
• When asked to prioritize among a list of nine facilities and amenities that the City could devote resources to in the future, trails and paths for walking and biking was assigned the highest priority (80% high or medium priority), followed by modern library facilities (69%), acquiring land to create additional parks and green spaces (68%), sports fields that can be used for multiple sports such as soccer, football, and rugby (65%), and community gardens for growing food (59%).
• Approximately three-quarters (74%) of respondents couldn’t think of anything specific (61%) or declined to provide a response (13%) when asked to suggest additional community facilities or amenities they deemed a high priority. Among those who offered suggestions, a community theater and event center, sports parks and courts, and improved access to parks, recreation facilities, and school fields were the top specific response categories at 3% each.

PUBLIC TRUST & SERVICE
• More than three-quarters of residents said they trust the City of Glendora (79%) and agreed that the City manages its finances well (77%). Two-thirds agreed that the City is responsive to residents’ needs (69%) and that the City is transparent in how it operates (67%). • Just under two-thirds (66%) of residents indicated that the City treats all residents the same regardless of color, age, income, or identity. Respondents were somewhat less in agreement that the City listens to residents when making important decisions (59%). • Forty percent (40%) of residents indicated they had contact with city staff in the 12 months prior to the interview.
• Residents who had contact with city staff rated staff high on all three dimensions tested, with approximately nine-in-ten rating staff as professional (97%), accessible (95%), and helpful (89%).

COMMUNICATION & E-GOVERNMENT
• Overall, 77% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (17%) or unsure of their opinion (7%).
• Six-in-ten (61% of) respondents said they were satisfied with the opportunities they have to communicate information to the City. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied (18%) or did not provide an opinion (21%).
• Residents cited the City’s website as the most effective method of communicating with them (91% very or somewhat effective), followed by email and electronic newsletters (90%) and a smart phone app that would allow them to communicate with the City, report issues, and receive updates (84%).
• The majority (58%) of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the quantity and quality of development-related information made available by the City, whereas 28% indicated they were dissatisfied and 15% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. • Seventeen percent (17%) of respondents claimed to be very attentive to matters of local government, 44% somewhat attentive, and 30% slightly attentive. Another 8% of respondents confided that they do not pay any attention to the activities of their city government Item #5. Page 12
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 19
Just the Facts
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

DROUGHT & CONSERVATION
• Overall, 87% of Glendora residents were aware that the state is currently experiencing a drought, whereas 5% did not think there is a drought and the remainder (8%) were either unsure or unwilling to share their opinion
• Sixty-three percent (63%) of respondents reported that they are very attentive to their household’s water use, 28% somewhat attentive, and 5% slightly attentive. Another 3% of respondents confided they do not pay any attention to how much water their household uses and 1% were unsure or declined to state
• In terms of their current efforts to conserve water, 48% of respondents indicated that they are already doing everything they can and cannot do any more to conserve water, whereas 46% revealed that they can probably do a little bit more to conserve water and 5% confided they can probably do much more.

Item #5. Page 13
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 20
Conclusions
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

C ONCLUSIONS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of Glendora with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ opinions, satisfaction, and priorities as they relate to services provided by the City. As such, the findings of this study can provide the City with information needed to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas, including service improvements and enhancements, measuring and tracking internal performance, budgeting, and planning. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are based on True North’s interpretations of the results, as well as the firm’s experience conducting similar studies for government agencies throughout the State.

How well is the City performing in meeting the
needs of Glendora residents?
The two years leading up to the 2022 Community Opinion Survey were punctuated by difficult and dramatic events in Glendora. The coronavirus pandemic that arrived in early 2020 has taken lives, threatened livelihoods, and forced dramatic changes in the way residents live, work, socialize, and play. Non-essential businesses were shuttered for weeks or months at a time to curb the spread of COVID-19, and the City’s operations were also adjusted to protect public health and adhere to State and County guidelines. Services that could be effectively moved to an online format were able to continue in that form, whereas other programs and services were modified, curtailed, or canceled to protect the safety of the public and city employees. Many city facilities were also closed periodically to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including City Hall.

Of course, the pandemic was not the only challenge during this period.

The killing of George Floyd in May 2020 during an arrest in Minneapolis sparked outrage, prompted thousands of protests across the nation, and prompted a national discussion about structural racism and calls for social justice reforms. On the economic front, inflation reached a 40-year high earlier this year, supply chain issues persist, and both the cost of housing and the cost of borrowing for a mortgage trended upward. Environmental factors have also conspired to make this a difficult period, as severe drought, heat waves, and wild fires impact many aspects of our lives, such as the cost of utilities, the availability and cost of home insurance, and the quality of the air we breathe.

Against this turbulent backdrop, it isn’t surprising that residents’ opinions about the City’s performance in providing municipal services dipped from pre-pandemic levels. What is surprising is how modest the magnitude of change in opinions was considering the challenging circumstances and that the City had to reinvent how it provides many services during this period. Overall, eight-in-ten respondents (80%) indicated that they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, down just 5% from the level recorded in 2018. Additionally, satisfaction Item #5. Page 14
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 21
Conclusions
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 was widespread among Glendora subgroups, ranging from a low of 74% to a high of 88% (see Overall Satisfaction on page 15).

The high level of satisfaction expressed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s performance in providing most specific services, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to provide library services, provide programs for youth, adults, and seniors, provide police services, provide online access to city services, information, and resources, provide trash collection and recycling services, and maintain parks and recreation areas. Although satisfaction with efforts to maintain parks and recreation areas was strong, the level recorded was statistically lower than 2018 (-8%). However, the study did find a statistically significant increase in resident satisfaction with the City’s efforts to manage growth and development (+11%) during that same time period (see Specific Services on page 17).

The City’s strong performance providing municipal services has also contributed to a high quality of life for residents. Close to nine-in-ten residents (87%) surveyed in 2022 provided excellent or good ratings for the overall quality of life in the City, which was comparable to the most recent surveys conducted prior to the pandemic (2019: 87%, 2018: 89%).

This sentiment was widespread, with at least seven-in-ten respondents within all identified demographic subgroups rating the quality of life in Glendora as excellent or good (see Overall Quality of Life on page 11).

How is the City perceived with respect to
governance?
Although much of the survey focused on residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide specific services, as with other progressive cities Glendora recognizes there is more to good local governance than simply providing satisfactory services. Do residents perceive that the City is accessible and responsive to residents’ needs? Do residents feel that staff serves their needs in a professional manner? How well do residents trust the City, and do they view the City as fiscally responsible? Answers to questions like these are as important as service or policy-related questions in measuring the City’s performance in meeting residents’ needs.

Ratings for City of Glendora staff were extremely positive. Among those who had interacted with staff during the 12 months prior to the survey, approximately nine-in-ten rated staff as professional (97%), accessible (95%), and helpful (89%)—which were each consistent with pre-pandemic levels. Regarding perceptions of local government, the City was rated highest with regard to resident trust (79% of those with an opinion agreed with the statement ‘I trust the City of Glendora’), managing its finances (77%), and being responsive to residents’ needs (69%). Moreover, there were statistically significant increases in agreement for The City manages its finances well (+11%) and The City is transparent in how Item #5. Page 15
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 22
Conclusions
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 it operates (+8%) from 2018 to 2022 (see Public Trust & Service on page 26).

Where should the City
focus its efforts in the
future?
In addition to measuring the City’s current performance, a primary goal of this study is to look forward and identify opportunities to adjust services and/or refine communications strategies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although residents are generally satisfied with the City’s performance, there is always room for improvement. Below we note some of the areas that present the best opportunities in this respect.

Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what city government could do to make Glendora a better place to live (see Ways to Improve Quality of Life on page 13), specific service ratings among satisfied and dissatisfied residents (see Differentiators of Opinion on page 18), and the manner in which residents prioritize potential funding areas for community facilities and amenities (see Community Facilities on page 23), the themes of addressing homeless issues, maintaining streets and roads, managing growth and development, operating in an environmentally-friendly and sustainable way, promoting economic development for a healthy business community, and funding trails and paths for walking and biking stood out as key areas of opportunity and interest for Glendora residents.

With the recommendation that the City focus on these areas, it is equally important to stress that when it comes to improving satisfaction in service areas, the appropriate strategy is often a combination of better communication and actual service improvements. It may be, for example, that many residents are simply not aware of the City’s ongoing infrastructure improvement efforts, or the limits of what a city can do to address homelessness. Choosing the appropriate balance of actual service improvements and efforts to raise awareness on these matters will be a key to maintaining and improving the community’s overall satisfaction in the short- and long-term.

It is also important to keep in mind that although these areas represent opportunities to improve resident satisfaction, the City should not oversteer. Indeed, the main takeaway from this study is that the City does many things very well, and emphasis should be on continuing to perform at that high level. The vast majority of residents are pleased with the City’s efforts to provide services and programs, and have a favorable opinion of the City’s performance in most areas. The top priority for the City should thus be to do what it takes to maintain the high quality of services that it currently provides.

Item #5. Page 16
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 23
Conclusions
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 How well is the City communicating with Glendora residents, and what are some of the
main challenges?
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be overstated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of Glendora’s efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of Glendora’s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, website, and various social media accounts.

Keeping up with the challenge of communicating with residents has been difficult for many public agencies over the past decade. As the number of information sources and channels available to the public have dramatically increased, so too has the diversity in where residents regularly turn for their information. Not only have entirely new channels arisen to become mainstream and nearly ubiquitous (e.g., social media), within these channels there exists a proliferation of alternative services. To add to the challenge, residents’ preferences for information sources are also dynamic, subject to change as new services are made available while others may fade in popularity, making thorough, effective communication a moving target for public agencies.

The present survey provides positive news with respect to city-resident communication. More than three-quarters (77%) of residents said they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means. Six-in-ten (61% of) respondents said they were satisfied with the opportunities they have to communicate information to the City. Although both of these metrics have trended downward since the questions were first asked in 2011 and 2014, respectively, this pattern is consistent with what we have seen in most other cities throughout the state. Notable, however, is that both of these metrics stayed consistent with their pre-pandemic levels. Even among the minority of residents displeased with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services, almost half (48%) said they were satisfied with the City's communication efforts.

Looking forward, the 2022 survey does provide some guidance as to the most effective ways that the City can communicate with residents, as well as how preferred methods of communication may vary based on factors such as age, ethnicity, and satisfaction with the City’s performance (see Communication Preferences on page 33). It is important to recognize that the challenges associated with city-resident communication will continue to change (and may continue to grow) as secondary sources proliferate and technology changes. To stay ahead of the curve, Glendora, like other cities, should periodically conduct a careful review of its communications strategies and budget to ensure that both are evolving accordingly.

Item #5. Page 17
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 24
Quality of Life
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind perceptions about the quality of life in Glendora, as well as what city government could do to improve the quality of life, now and in the future.

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, respondents were asked to rate the City of Glendora on a number of key dimensions—including overall quality of life, as a place to raise a family, and as a place to work—using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, residents provided the most positive ratings for the overall quality of life in the City (87% excellent or good) and Glendora as a place to raise a family (84%). Although still positive, residents provided a softer rating for Glendora as a place to retire (61%).

Approximately half (49%) of residents surveyed provided an excellent or good rating for Glendora as a place to shop and dine, while one-third (34%) rated this aspect as fair. Less than half (45%) of residents provided a positive rating for Glendora as a place to work, although just over one-quarter (28%) held no opinion and did not provide a rating for this dimension.

Question 2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 RATING GLENDORA
Figure 2 on the next page shows residents’ perceptions of the overall quality of life in Glendora by study year. Although quality of life ratings have slowly declined since the first survey was conducted in 2011, it is noteworthy that the 2022 results showed little change from those found in 2019 prior to the pandemic. In other words, despite all of the challenges and turmoil created by the pandemic, residents’ views of the quality of life in Glendora changed little during this period.

29.5 35.2

24.1 14.1

12.8 57.3

49.0 36.9

34.4 31.8

11.2 11.3

22.0 33.9

20.4 4

11.2 7.2
1 1
2 5
3 1

28.2 6.9
1 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
The overall quality of life in Glendora
Glendora as a place to raise a family
Glendora as a place to retire
Glendora as a place to shop and dine
Glendora as a place to work
Q2aQ2b Q2c Q2eQ2d
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Not sure
Item #5. Page 18
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 25
Quality of Life
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY STUDY YEAR
Tables 1 and 2 show how the ratings for each dimension tested in Question 2 varied among subgroups. The numbers shown in the table denote the percentage of respondents in each subgroup that rated a dimension as excellent or good, among those who offered an opinion.

Responses of Not sure and Prefer not to answer were removed for this analysis. Perceptions of the overall quality of life in Glendora were quite positive among all subgroups, with the highest ratings found among new residents (less than 5 years), those 65 years and older, and Caucasians. For Glendora as a place to raise a family, positive ratings were highest among residents 65 years and older and those whose household income was $75K to $99K or $150K to $199K.

Respondents 18 to 24 years of age or 65 and older had more favorable opinions of Glendora as a place to retire than those in between, while Asian-American respondents provided much lower than average ratings for Glendora as a place to work. Finally, it is worth noting that those in the lowest income category (<$50K) were the most likely to give a positive rating for Glendora as a place to shop and dine, whereas those in the highest income category ($200K+) were the least likely.

TABLE 1 RATING GLENDORA BY YEARS IN GLENDORA & AGE (SHOWING % EXCELLENT OR GOOD AMONG THOSE WITH

OPINION)
TABLE 2 RATING GLENDORA BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ETHNICITY (SHOWING % EXCELLENT OR GOOD AMONG THOSE

WITH OPINION)

27.0 40.3 41.3

49.3 50.6

60.3 49.0 49.2

44.3 43.2

11.3 9.0 8.3 5.3 4.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.7

29.5 57.3

11.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2019 2018 2016 2014 2011
Study Year
% Respondents
Not sure
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14
15 or
more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64
65 or
older
Overall quality of life 95.3 87.2 90.3 83.2 81.6 84.6 83.0 86.1 88.0 96.3 Place to raise a family 86.4 89.2 87.9 83.9 83.6 87.9 79.2 81.6 87.8 94.2 Place to retire 77.9 62.6 73.7 60.2 80.6 73.0 61.2 46.9 53.7 80.1 Place to work 66.8 51.5 75.3 61.1 70.6 58.8 55.6 62.1 57.8 69.8 Place to shop and dine 63.3 42.9 55.6 44.1 56.8 60.5 40.0 39.2 45.8 55.7 Years in Glendora (Q1) Age (QD1)
Less than
$50K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$199K
$200K or
more Caucasian Latino
Asian
American
Mixed
or other
Overall quality of life 85.3 87.6 87.0 84.6 92.0 89.7 90.8 82.9 83.0 86.6 Place to raise a family 84.0 86.4 94.5 79.5 92.3 84.4 91.1 81.0 81.3 86.7 Place to retire 58.9 62.0 76.4 61.3 77.5 57.6 67.3 68.1 62.2 64.6 Place to work 61.3 55.2 61.2 63.2 74.7 65.6 65.0 67.9 40.6 65.5 Place to shop and dine 67.3 50.5 48.2 49.4 54.2 33.9 45.7 58.2 43.4 45.6 Household Income (QD7) Ethnicity (QD6)
Item #5. Page 19
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 26
Quality of Life
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 WAYS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE Respondents were next asked to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make Glendora a better place to live, now and in the future. Question 3 was posed in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3 below.

Eighteen percent (18%) of respondents could not think of any desired changes (13%) or reported that no changes are needed (5%), both of which are indicative of a respondent who does not perceive any pressing issues or problems in the City. Among specific changes desired, addressing homeless issues/poverty was mentioned most frequently (22%), followed by improving dining and shopping opportunities (13%), improving public safety and police services (10%), limiting growth and development/preserving Glendora’s small-town feel (7%), improving streets, roads, and infrastructure (7%), and beautifying the City and its landscaping (5%). All other individual categories were mentioned by less than 5% of respondents.

Question 3 If the city government could change one thing to make Glendora a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE GLENDORA

22.2 13.2

12.5 10.0

7.3 7.1

5.3 5.1

4.4 3.2

3.0 2.8

2.7 2.3

2.0 2.0

1.7 3.7

2.9 0 5 10 15 20 25
Address homeless issues, poverty
Improve dining, shopping opportunities
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Improve public safety, police services
Limit growth, development, preserve small town feel
Improve streets, roads, infrastructure
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Beautify city, landscaping
Oppose Metro Line development, extension
Provide more affordable housing
Provide more events, rec activities for all ages
Improve schools, education
Improve, provide more street lighting
Improve downtown area
Improve parking
Improve, provide additional parks, rec facilities
Address water issues
Improve environmental efforts
Improve economy, jobs
% Respondents
Item #5. Page 20
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 27
Quality of Life
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 3 displays the top five response categories by study year, whereas Table 4 shows how responses in 2022 varied by length of residence and age (with the top five in each category highlighted green). Over the past four years, the topic of limiting growth and development has become less salient, dropping from the most important issue to fifth in the list. Meanwhile, addressing homeless issues/poverty, improving public safety/police services, and improving dining and shopping opportunities have all increased in importance.

TABLE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE GLENDORA BY STUDY YEAR
TABLE 4 CHANGES TO IMPROVE GLENDORA BY YEARS IN GLENDORA & AGE 2022 2019 2018 2016 2014 2011
Address
homeless
issues, poverty
Address
homeless
issues, poverty
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Not sure,
cannot think
of anything
Improve
dining,
shopping
opportunities
Not sure,
cannot think
of anything
Not sure,
cannot think
of anything
Improve
streets, roads,
infrastructure
Not sure,
cannot think
of anything
No changes,
everything is
fine
Not sure /
Cannot think
of anything
Improve
streets, roads,
infrastructure
Improve
dining,
shopping
opportunities
Not sure,
cannot think
of anything
No changes,
everything is
fine
Improve
streets, roads
Improve public
safety, police
services
Limit growth,
development,
preserve small
town feel
Improve
streets, roads,
infrastructure
Improve
shopping
opportunities
Improve
streets, roads
Improve
parking
Limit growth,
development,
preserve small
town feel
Improve public
safety, police
services
No changes
needed,
everything is
fine
No changes,
everything is
fine
Improve
environmental
efforts
Improve public
safety
Study Year
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14
15 or
more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64
65 or
older
Address homeless issues, poverty 16.4 24.4 18.8 24.0 16.2 24.4 32.6 24.0 23.7 10.2 Improve dining, shopping opportunities 6.8 22.2 11.0 12.6 5.6 14.0 17.8 19.1 9.8 10.4 Not sure / Cannot think of anything 13.6 12.0 12.3 12.4 19.1 8.2 9.8 11.1 12.8 15.0 Improve public safety, police services 8.6 8.1 18.1 9.1 4.6 7.9 14.1 10.4 13.4 6.3 Limit growth, development, preserve small town feel 0.8 2.3 3.1 12.8 2.6 1.5 5.5 7.9 11.2 12.8 Improve streets, roads, infrastructure 3.1 5.8 11.1 8.0 4.6 0.0 4.3 9.4 8.4 14.6 No changes needed / Everything is fine 8.8 3.6 5.0 4.9 4.3 5.4 2.0 3.0 4.7 10.9 Beautify city, landscaping 5.3 1.4 2.6 6.8 0.0 2.4 5.5 8.3 5.8 4.9 Oppose Metro Line development, extension 1.3 6.5 3.6 4.8 4.6 8.0 5.9 3.9 4.0 0.8 Provide more affordable housing 4.4 6.2 3.7 2.5 6.2 8.8 1.2 1.0 4.8 1.8 Provide more events, rec activities for all ages 1.5 5.9 3.3 2.7 3.8 4.4 2.1 5.1 1.5 3.0 Improve schools, education 1.8 4.3 4.1 2.7 6.1 0.0 4.4 3.9 0.0 4.7 Years in Glendora (Q1) Age (QD1)
Item #5. Page 21
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 28
City Services
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

C ITY S ERVICES
After measuring residents’ perceptions about the quality of life in Glendora and what they would like to see changed, the survey next turned to assessing their opinions about the City’s performance in providing municipal services.

OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Glendora is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.

As shown in Figure 4, eight-in-ten Glendora residents (80%) indicated they were either very (30%) or somewhat (50%) satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Approximately 13% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, and the remaining 7% were unsure or did not provide a response. The percentage of respondents generally satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services declined by 5% between 2018 and 2022, although there was a significant shift among those who reported being very satisfied. It is important to keep in mind, of course, that the 2022 survey was conducted more than two years into an ongoing pandemic that has had widespread impacts on the City’s operations, aggravated certain underlying issues including housing affordability and homelessness, and presented entirely new public health challenges.

Question 4 Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Glendora. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Glendora is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

39.7 43.8

53.5 54.8

45.3 41.7

37.9 35.0

6.7 6.7 3.1 2.7 3.2 1.9 6.5 5.5 4.3 3.7

29.8†

49.8 3.6 4.2

10.2†

1.9 2.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2018 2016 2014 2011
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied
Item #5. Page 22
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 29
City Services
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figures 5 through 7 display the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with the City’s performance by a variety of demographic subgroups. The most striking pattern in the figures is that the levels of satisfaction exhibited by respondents as a whole (see Figure 4 above) were generally echoed across resident subgroups, with satisfaction ranging from a low of 74% to a high of 88%.

FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN GLENDORA, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & GENDER FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE & EMPLOYMENT STATUS

25.9 32.9 27.6

37.4 34.3

25.7 56.4 46.4 52.3

41.2 48.4

51.8 21.9

45.5 24.4
Very
satisfied

45.9 53.4

36.9 62.8
Smwt
satisfied

34.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Yes No Own Rent Male Female Years in Glendora (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Gender (QD2)
% Respondents

32.8 34.8 31.4 25.0 29.3 25.9

33.5 21.4

46.7 50.9

48.2 48.6

48.7 57.3

49.9 64.2
Very
satisfied

28.1 39.8

22.7 21.2
Smwt
satisfied

56.9 39.4

50.9 57.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Full time Part time Student HomemakerRetired Between
jobs
Age (QD1) Employment Status (QD5)
% Respondents
Item #5. Page 23
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 30
City Services
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ETHNICITY SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 4 addressed the City’s overall performance, Question 5 asked respondents to rate their level of satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide 16 specific services. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias. Figure 8 on the next page sorts the list of services according to the percentage of respondents who indicated they were either very or somewhat satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service. For comparison purposes between the services, only respondents who provided an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in the figure. Those who did not have an opinion were removed from this analysis. The percentage of respondents who provided an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) is presented in brackets beside the service label in the figure, while the bars represent the answers of those with an opinion.

At the top of the list, respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide library services (97% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by efforts to provide programs for youth, adults, and seniors (90%), provide police services (89%), provide online access to city services, information, and resources (88%), provide trash collection and recycling services (86%), and maintain parks and recreation areas (84%). At the other end of the spectrum, respondents were less satisfied with the City’s performance in addressing homelessness (36%), maintaining streets and roads (63%), and managing growth and development (65%).

When compared with the 2018 survey results (see Table 5), two services tested in both studies experienced statistically significant changes in satisfaction. Specifically, there was an increase in resident satisfaction with the City’s efforts to manage growth and development (+11%) and a decline in efforts to maintain parks and recreation areas (-8%).

27.7 26.4 26.1

33.4 39.3

24.4 60.5

52.6 54.2 46.3

42.7 52.2
Very
satisfied

29.3 31.6 36.2 36.4
Smwt
satisfied

49.4 45.8

48.5 41.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
$50K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$199K
$200K or
more
Caucasian Latino Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Household Income (QD7) Ethnicity (QD6)
% Respondents
Item #5. Page 24
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 31
City Services
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 5 For each of the services I read, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the city is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city's efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 8 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
TABLE 5 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION Table 6 on the next page displays how the level of satisfaction with each specific service tested in Question 5 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 15). The table divides residents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service

59.4 44.7

46.9 38.1

50.0 41.1

28.0 29.2

24.3 28.3

27.8 27.3

23.4 20.2

23.1 12.2

37.9 45.3

41.7 50.2

36.3 43.0

52.3 50.8

48.9 44.1

43.1 42.9

45.6 44.9

39.8 23.8

7.6 7.3

10.0 8.2

12.8 15.9

13.9 23.2

23.7 22.9

29.9 4.0

5.5 6.0

7.9 11.3

14.3 34.1
3 21.6

17.8 19.9
20 0
2 2

3.1 3.9

5.3 9.8

9.2 9.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Provide library services [87%]
Provide programs for youth, adults and seniors [86%]
Provide police services [95%]
Provide online access to city services, information, and resources [89%] Provide trash collection and recycling services [97%]
Maintain parks and recreation areas [97%]
Prepare the City for emergencies [74%]
Operate in an environmentally-friendly, sustainable way [81%] Promote economic development for a healthy business community [77%] Manage traffic in the City [97%]
Provide diversity, inclusion within city events, services, policies [74%] Preserve and protect open space [88%]
Provide cultural and performing arts [78%]
Manage growth and development [89%]
Maintain streets and roads [99%]
Address homelessness [92%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 2022 2018 2016
Manage growth and development 65.0 54.5 55.2 +10.6†
Preserve and protect open space 70.2 65.6 66.4 +4.6
Promote economic development for a healthy business community 73.2 69.9 75.9 +3.2 Provide trash collection and recycling services 86.4 84.6 92.7 +1.8 Provide library services 97.3 96.4 95.6 +1.0
Provide police services 88.7 88.6 92.7 +0.0
Manage traffic in the City 72.4 73.2 71.3 -0.7
Provide programs for youth, adults and seniors 90.1 91.6 92.6 -1.5 Maintain streets and roads 62.9 64.9 64.0 -2.0
Provide cultural and performing arts 69.0 72.4 82.3 -3.5 Prepare the City for emergencies 80.2 84.8 87.4 -4.5
Maintain parks and recreation areas 84.1 91.8 92.7 -7.7† Address homelessness 36.0 N/A N/A N/A
Provide diversity, inclusion within city events, services, policies 71.0 N/A N/A N/A Provide online access to city services, information, and resources 88.3 N/A N/A N/A Operate in an environmentally-friendly, sustainable way 80.1 N/A N/A N/A Change in
Satisfaction
2018 to 2022
Study Year
Item #5. Page 25
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 32
City Services
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 tested in Question 5 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.

When compared with their counterparts, residents satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing city services were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide each of the services tested in Question 5. That said, the greatest specific differentiators of opinion between satisfied and dissatisfied residents were found with respect to the City’s efforts to maintain streets and roads, manage growth and development, operate in an environmentally-friendly and sustainable way, and promote economic development for a healthy business community.

At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide library services, provide for diversity and inclusion within city events, services, and policies, provide trash and recycling services, and provide cultural and performing arts.

TABLE 6 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or
somewhat
satisfied
Very or
somewhat
dissatisfied
Maintain streets and roads 68.8 31.7 37.1
Manage growth and development 69.9 37.8 32.2
Operate in an environmentally-friendly, sustainable way 84.6 52.7 31.9 Promote economic development for a healthy business community 78.1 46.8 31.3 Preserve and protect open space 75.2 45.8 29.4
Maintain parks and recreation areas 89.8 63.1 26.7
Provide police services 93.3 66.6 26.6
Provide programs for youth, adults and seniors 94.0 67.7 26.3 Prepare the City for emergencies 84.4 59.8 24.6
Provide online access to city services, information, and resources 91.2 68.1 23.2 Address homelessness 40.9 18.4 22.5
Manage traffic in the City 76.7 55.5 21.2
Provide cultural and performing arts 72.9 55.4 17.5
Provide trash collection and recycling services 89.0 71.9 17.2 Provide diversity, inclusion within city events, services, policies 74.3 57.2 17.1 Provide library services 98.0 93.0 5.0
Satisfaction With
% Respondents Satisfied With
Each Service
Difference
Between
Groups For
Each Service
Item #5. Page 26
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 33
Land Use
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

L AND U SE
The survey next turned to assessing residents’ opinions related to housing, land use, and the types of businesses and community amenities available in Glendora. Respondents were presented with the items shown on the left of Figure 9 and asked—for each one—whether there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little in Glendora.

Question 6 As I read the following list of items, please tell me whether you feel there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little of this item in the City of Glendora.

FIGURE 9 AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING, BUSINESSES & AMENITIES IN CITY As expected, residents expressed quite different opinions depending on the type of housing, business, land use, or community amenity being considered. More than half of residents indicated that there are currently not enough fine dining restaurants (57% too little) and affordable housing for middle-income families (53%). More than one-third also perceived a deficiency in the amount of entertainment options such as movie houses, music, and arts (45%), public art (38%), affordable housing for low-income families (36%), designated areas for walking and biking (35%), and good-paying jobs and employment opportunities (35%) available in Glendora.

Although the most common response for the remaining items was that the current amount is about right, there was still a tendency to view too little rather than too much of a particular type of development among those who felt the balance was not right. Only one building type—commercial offices—had more respondents say there were too many (11%) than too few (6%) in Glendora.

57.1 52.8

45.0 38.0

36.4 35.3

34.8 27.5

24.3 23.3

20.2 19.8

15.1 13.1

6.4 41.9

44.2 53.4

61.0 50.0

61.7 64.8

65.9 73.5

73.8 76.1

71.4 81.0

76.7 82.4
3 1
2 1

6.5 2
3 4

8.9 4

10.2 11.2
3 13.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fine dining restaurants
Affordable housing for middle-income families
Entertainment options such as movie houses, music, and arts Public art
Affordable housing for low-income families
Designated areas for walking and biking
Good-paying jobs and employment opportunities
Smaller, boutique retail stores
Spaces where the community can gather and socialize
Parks and natural open spaces
Retirement communities
Public transit options
Sports fields and sports courts
Big box retail stores
Commercial offices
Q6hQ6a Q6d Q6lQ6bQ6kQ6iQ6fQ6cQ6mQ6oQ6jQ6nQ6eQ6g
% Respondents
Too little About right Too much
Item #5. Page 27
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 34
Land Use
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 For the interested reader, tables 7-11 show how the percentage of residents who perceived too little of each type of development in Glendora varied by demographic groups. To ease comparisons, the five housing, business, and land use types with the highest percentage of respondents indicating there are too few in Glendora are highlighted in green for each subgroup.

TABLE 7 AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING, BUSINESSES & AMENITIES IN CITY BY YEARS IN GLENDORA & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % TOO LITTLE)
TABLE 8 AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING, BUSINESSES & AMENITIES IN CITY BY AGE (SHOWING % TOO LITTLE) TABLE 9 AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING, BUSINESSES & AMENITIES IN CITY BY GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % TOO LITTLE)
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied Fine dining restaurants 46.9 57.0 52.9 62.0 54.7 62.4
Affordable housing for middle-income families 60.6 61.7 38.7 48.8 51.5 51.6 Entertainment options (movie houses, music, and arts) 45.3 48.0 32.9 47.3 42.8 55.2 Public art 44.6 39.7 29.0 36.8 38.0 34.4
Affordable housing for low-income families 42.2 38.5 29.8 34.0 35.8 32.2 Designated areas for walking and biking 37.7 39.6 20.8 36.7 33.6 43.5 Good-paying jobs and employment opportunities 33.8 38.0 31.5 34.5 30.9 50.5 Smaller, boutique retail stores 29.5 28.1 16.4 29.7 23.9 48.4 Spaces where the community can gather and socialize 21.2 29.4 15.8 25.9 22.2 33.6 Parks and natural open spaces 14.5 23.1 18.0 28.0 20.3 32.4 Retirement communities 15.6 18.5 13.2 24.0 19.6 24.6
Public transit options 20.6 26.3 23.1 15.5 19.6 22.6
Sports fields and sports courts 24.5 16.4 13.1 11.5 12.9 29.0 Big box retail stores 14.9 15.6 8.1 12.8 12.2 16.1
Commercial offices 4.4 7.4 7.2 6.4 6.4 7.5
Years in Glendora (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Fine dining restaurants 31.7 44.6 54.1 67.6 61.1 66.9
Affordable housing for middle-income families 66.5 53.9 52.1 52.8 50.2 47.2 Entertainment options (movie houses, music, and arts) 48.9 40.6 41.7 50.3 46.8 43.5 Public art 46.8 41.5 35.5 44.7 40.2 26.5
Affordable housing for low-income families 70.4 53.6 27.3 25.1 26.8 31.5 Designated areas for walking and biking 29.3 34.2 31.7 45.9 39.2 29.6 Good-paying jobs and employment opportunities 41.6 48.4 36.3 33.4 36.2 19.4 Smaller, boutique retail stores 29.7 26.8 23.0 36.3 31.4 19.4 Spaces where the community can gather and socialize 28.4 25.2 25.1 26.9 24.7 18.2 Parks and natural open spaces 25.3 19.1 21.8 21.8 30.9 21.1 Retirement communities 10.2 15.3 10.9 18.9 27.8 31.2
Public transit options 35.3 26.1 15.3 20.4 14.5 14.5
Sports fields and sports courts 9.3 19.4 24.5 17.2 13.4 5.9 Big box retail stores 11.7 11.8 14.0 15.9 14.1 11.0
Commercial offices 5.9 5.1 6.2 6.6 7.5 7.0
Age (QD1)
Male Female Yes No Own Rent
Fine dining restaurants 54.6 57.4 57.1 56.9 64.7 44.1
Affordable housing for middle-income families 42.8 61.4 54.4 50.9 43.7 70.7 Entertainment options (movie houses, music, and arts) 42.1 46.6 45.7 45.1 45.8 43.0 Public art 32.4 42.0 39.6 37.1 35.2 41.6
Affordable housing for low-income families 31.7 40.3 34.0 37.8 24.3 57.0 Designated areas for walking and biking 30.5 39.2 34.0 35.3 36.7 30.7 Good-paying jobs and employment opportunities 35.0 34.6 36.4 34.7 30.2 43.6 Smaller, boutique retail stores 27.5 26.6 26.1 26.8 30.8 17.2 Spaces where the community can gather and socialize 20.4 26.9 26.3 23.0 23.7 22.0 Parks and natural open spaces 19.7 25.6 23.4 21.9 22.3 24.3 Retirement communities 15.1 24.4 12.5 24.7 20.2 20.2
Public transit options 21.2 18.9 17.8 21.1 18.4 19.5
Sports fields and sports courts 15.8 14.4 23.9 10.2 17.0 10.8 Big box retail stores 11.3 14.5 16.8 11.6 13.9 10.1
Commercial offices 10.2 3.1 9.2 5.0 7.9 2.5
Gender (QD2) Child in Hsld (QD3)
Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
Item #5. Page 28
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 35
Land Use
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 TABLE 10 AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING, BUSINESSES & AMENITIES IN CITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS (SHOWING % TOO

LITTLE)
TABLE 11 AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING, BUSINESSES & AMENITIES IN CITY BY ETHNICITY (SHOWING % TOO LITTLE) Full time Part time Student Home-maker Retired Between jobs Fine dining restaurants 54.7 53.8 34.7 62.9 67.3 41.8
Affordable housing for middle-income families 54.5 57.0 57.7 43.7 40.2 64.2 Entertainment options (movie houses, music, and arts) 46.0 46.3 56.3 47.4 35.5 35.2 Public art 41.2 34.2 50.1 40.5 22.5 71.0
Affordable housing for low-income families 38.7 40.1 62.3 29.5 19.6 59.8 Designated areas for walking and biking 36.8 33.1 24.3 42.8 27.2 51.2 Good-paying jobs and employment opportunities 38.6 36.5 40.2 22.3 17.8 69.2 Smaller, boutique retail stores 29.4 23.1 16.2 48.4 20.0 0.0 Spaces where the community can gather and socialize 24.3 23.7 16.8 38.2 15.6 46.3 Parks and natural open spaces 23.3 21.6 15.2 22.5 20.0 40.4 Retirement communities 18.5 14.3 11.5 24.2 26.0 41.1
Public transit options 19.7 12.4 40.1 12.3 16.1 57.5
Sports fields and sports courts 18.5 9.3 13.3 28.7 3.3 0.0 Big box retail stores 13.1 14.6 11.2 17.0 10.1 8.5
Commercial offices 6.7 5.0 3.1 2.9 5.8 0.0
Employment Status (QD5)
Caucasian Latino
Asian
American
Mixed
or other
Fine dining restaurants 62.3 49.1 58.0 49.0
Affordable housing for middle-income families 48.1 60.5 41.3 54.6 Entertainment options (movie houses, music, and arts) 41.6 45.8 52.5 51.1 Public art 36.5 38.6 37.0 45.0
Affordable housing for low-income families 30.5 45.1 25.9 47.1 Designated areas for walking and biking 35.2 29.4 45.4 39.4 Good-paying jobs and employment opportunities 31.1 36.9 37.2 35.0 Smaller, boutique retail stores 23.8 28.4 36.8 27.0
Spaces where the community can gather and socialize 21.9 22.9 29.6 32.9 Parks and natural open spaces 23.7 16.9 31.6 27.7
Retirement communities 23.7 16.3 18.6 15.7
Public transit options 18.2 16.7 29.9 23.2
Sports fields and sports courts 11.1 19.6 21.5 7.2
Big box retail stores 9.4 16.9 19.5 8.7
Commercial offices 6.0 4.7 14.2 5.0
Ethnicity (QD6)
Item #5. Page 29
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 36
Community Facilities
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

C OMMUNITY F ACILITIES
It is often the case that residents’ desires for community facilities exceed a city’s financial resources. In such cases, a city must prioritize projects based on a variety of factors, including the preferences and needs of residents.

Question 7 was designed to provide the City of Glendora with a reliable measure of how residents as a whole prioritize a variety of projects and improvements to which the City could allocate resources in the future. The format of the question was straightforward: after informing respondents that the City does not have the financial resources to fund all facilities and amenities that may be desired by residents, respondents were asked whether each project shown in Figure 10 should be a high, medium, or low priority for future city spending—or if the City should not spend money on the project at all.

Question 7 The City of Glendora has the resources to provide some of the facilities and amenities desired by residents. However, because it can't fund every project, the City must set priorities. As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

FIGURE 10 SPENDING PRIORITIES
The facilities and amenities are sorted in Figure 10 by the percentage of respondents who indicated that an item was a high or medium priority for future city spending. Among the items tested, trails and paths for walking and biking was assigned the highest priority (80% high or medium priority), followed by modern library facilities (69%), acquiring land to create additional parks and green spaces (68%), sports fields that can be used for multiple sports such as soccer, football, and rugby (65%), and community gardens for growing food (59%).

37.7 28.0

30.3 23.4

27.4 7.9

10.6 5.8

6.1 42.0

40.7 37.2

41.7 31.6

39.3 33.1

28.5 21.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Trails and paths for walking and biking
Modern library facilities
Acquire land to create additional parks and green spaces Sports fields that can be used for multiple sports
such as soccer, football, and rugby
Community gardens for growing food
Meeting spaces that can host larger groups and community events Bike park and pump track
Skate park
Dedicated pickleball courts
Q7h Q7g Q7e Q7d Q7i Q7f Q7b Q7a Q7c
% Respondents
High priority Medium priority
Item #5. Page 30
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 37
Community Facilities
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 For the interested reader, the tables below provide the percentage of respondents who considered a facility or amenity at least a medium priority by their length of residence, overall satisfaction with the City’s performance, age, gender, presence of a child in the home, home ownership status, and ethnicity, with the top three priorities within each subgroup highlighted green to aid comparisons. As shown in the tables, trails and paths for walking and biking was a top priority for every subgroup. Community gardens for growing food, which ranked fifth overall, was in the top three for new residents, those 18 to 24 years of age, and renters.

TABLE 12 SPENDING PRIORITIES BY YEARS IN GLENDORA & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % HIGH & MEDIUM

PRIORITY)
TABLE 13 SPENDING PRIORITIES BY AGE (SHOWING % HIGH & MEDIUM PRIORITY) TABLE 14 SPENDING PRIORITIES BY GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % HIGH &

MEDIUM PRIORITY)
TABLE 15 SPENDING PRIORITIES BY ETHNICITY (SHOWING % HIGH & MEDIUM PRIORITY) Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied Trails and paths for walking and biking 86.8 81.7 83.0 76.3 81.1 73.7 Modern library facilities 66.5 70.9 70.0 68.0 70.3 63.8 Acquire land to create additional parks and green spaces 69.1 72.5 70.2 64.3 69.5 55.7 Sports fields for multiple sports such as soccer, football, and rugby 76.3 61.7 67.5 61.4 66.2 59.0 Community gardens for growing food 74.1 52.6 68.5 53.7 60.3 48.5 Meeting spaces that can host larger groups and community events 52.7 44.5 53.6 45.1 50.5 32.6 Bike park and pump track 51.3 43.9 40.4 42.2 44.0 45.1
Skate park 42.2 31.1 38.9 31.4 34.7 31.8
Dedicated pickleball courts 27.3 30.3 31.7 25.7 27.8 26.8 Years in Glendora (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Trails and paths for walking and biking 83.3 84.0 82.8 81.0 77.7 72.4 Modern library facilities 75.6 72.4 68.7 71.9 65.4 62.1 Acquire land to create additional parks and green spaces 76.4 79.5 72.2 69.2 59.7 56.1 Sports fields for multiple sports such as soccer, football, and rugby 62.2 76.4 65.8 68.1 56.5 60.2 Community gardens for growing food 82.9 73.5 62.7 53.5 52.2 45.5 Meeting spaces that can host larger groups and community events 64.1 54.7 45.7 37.8 42.2 46.4 Bike park and pump track 59.6 48.5 33.9 53.3 42.1 35.5
Skate park 44.9 51.7 29.7 31.1 25.8 29.9
Dedicated pickleball courts 23.4 30.9 28.7 31.1 22.0 27.7 Age (QD1)
Male Female Yes No Own Rent
Trails and paths for walking and biking 77.2 81.7 83.3 78.8 79.7 76.9 Modern library facilities 65.9 70.3 70.8 68.2 68.3 67.6 Acquire land to create additional parks and green spaces 68.4 66.1 70.9 66.0 67.8 64.3 Sports fields for multiple sports such as soccer, football, and rugby 66.3 63.4 71.3 62.2 66.3 61.3 Community gardens for growing food 50.7 65.6 61.7 58.0 54.3 67.8 Meeting spaces that can host larger groups and community events 49.0 46.0 49.9 46.9 44.0 52.1 Bike park and pump track 46.6 40.8 44.7 43.3 41.9 44.7
Skate park 36.7 31.9 36.2 34.7 30.7 41.2
Dedicated pickleball courts 28.7 27.2 31.4 25.9 29.8 25.0 Gender (QD2) Child in Hsld (QD3)
Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
Caucasian Latino
Asian
American
Mixed
or other
Trails and paths for walking and biking 79.8 78.1 83.6 82.3 Modern library facilities 65.7 71.3 65.5 77.5
Acquire land to create additional parks and green spaces 65.5 69.2 70.0 75.9 Sports fields for multiple sports such as soccer, football, and rugby 63.3 71.2 64.4 54.5 Community gardens for growing food 53.4 64.0 56.0 75.5
Meeting spaces that can host larger groups and community events 41.7 50.9 47.6 61.0 Bike park and pump track 41.3 46.0 45.1 53.5
Skate park 31.2 41.5 24.1 45.6
Dedicated pickleball courts 29.8 24.5 33.6 24.4
Ethnicity (QD6)
Item #5. Page 31
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 38
Community Facilities
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 As a follow-up to Question 7, respondents were asked to suggest a community facility or amenity not previously mentioned that they considered a high priority for future city spending. Question 8 was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any item that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 11.

Approximately three-quarters (74%) of respondents couldn’t think of anything specific (61%) or declined to provide a response (13%). Among those who offered suggestions, responses were so varied that no single category collectively captured more than 3% of respondents. A community theater and event center, sports parks and courts, and improved access to parks, recreation facilities, and school fields were the top specific response categories at 3% each.

Question 8 Is there a community facility or amenity that I didn't mention that you think should be a high priority for future city spending?
FIGURE 11 DESIRED COMMUNITY FACILITY, AMENITY

60.8 13.4

3.1 2.9

2.5 1.8

1.5 1.4

1.4 1.3

1.2 1.1

1.0 0.9

0.9 0.8

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

1.4 1.2

0.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
No additional high priorities
Prefer not to answer
Community theater, event center
Sport parks, courts
Improve access to parks, rec facilities, school fields
Address homeless issues
Senior / Adult Center
Youth center, clubs
Dog park
High-end dining and shopping
More bike lanes, walking trails
Low-income housing
Improve security, more police presence
Improve infrastructure
Art center
Improve, provide recycling programs, services
Water park
Mental health services
Improve, provide more public transit
Community, public pool
Provide more entertainment for all ages
Improve, provide more street lighting
Library improvements
Limit growth, development
Farmers market
Improve old structures, empty facilities
Improve schools
% Respondents
Item #5. Page 32
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 39
Public Trust & Service
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

P UBLIC T RUST & S ERVICE
Although much of the survey focused on quality of life and residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide specific services, like other progressive cities Glendora recognizes there is more to good local governance than simply providing satisfactory services. Do residents perceive that the City is accessible and responsive to residents’ needs? Do residents feel that staff serves their needs in a professional manner? How well do residents trust the City, and do they view the City as fiscally responsible? Answers to questions like these are as important as service or policyrelated questions in measuring the City’s performance in meeting residents’ needs. Accordingly, they were the focus of the next section of the survey.

PERCEPTIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT The first question in this series was designed to profile respondents’ perceptions of city government on a variety of dimensions, including fiscal responsibility and responsiveness. For each of the six statements shown on the left of Figure 12, respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement, or if they had no opinion. The percentages shown are among those who provided an opinion.

More than three-quarters of residents said they trust the City of Glendora (79%) and agreed that the City manages its finances well (77%). Two-thirds agreed that the City is responsive to residents’ needs (69%) and that the City is transparent in how it operates (67%). Just under two-thirds (66%) of residents indicated that the City treats all residents the same regardless of color, age, income, or identity, with strong agreement at 31%—the highest of the six statements tested.

Respondents were less in agreement that the City listens to residents when making important decisions (59%). Table 16 on the next page displays the level of agreement with each statement for the current study and the 2018 study, and shows that there were statistically significant increases in agreement for two statements: The City manages its finances well (+11%) and The City is transparent in how it operates (+8%).

Question 9 Next, I'm going to read you a series of statements about the City of Glendora. For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Here is the (first/ next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 12 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT GLENDORA AMONG THOSE WITH OPINION

25.5 22.0

18.0 17.4

31.0 15.8

53.4 55.0

50.9 49.7

34.9 43.5

13.8 15.7

22.5 21.9

20.4 28.1

7.2 7.3

8.6 13.7

12.7 11.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
I trust the City of Glendora
The City manages its finances well
The City is responsive to residents’ needs
The City is transparent in how it operates
The City treats all residents the same regardless of color, age, income, or identity
The City listens to residents when making important decisions Q9d Q9b Q9a Q9eQ9fQ9c
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Strongly agree Smwt agree Smwt disagree Strongly disagree Item #5. Page 33
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 40
Public Trust & Service
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 TABLE 16 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS ABOUT GLENDORA AMONG THOSE WITH OPINION BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

CITY STAFF Residents were next asked if they had been in contact with City of Glendora staff in the past 12 months. Figure 13 provides the findings of this question and shows that 40% of residents indicated they had contact with city staff in the 12 months prior to the interview, which is consistent with the percentage from each previous study. Figures 14 through 16 on the next page show how contact with city staff in the past 12 months differed by a variety of demographics. Compared with their subgroup counterparts, residents with a child in the household, those 35 to 54 years of age, respondents employed full-time, home-makers, and retirees, home owners, and residents with a household income of at least $100K were more likely to have been in contact with city staff in the past year.

Question 10 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff from the City of Glendora? FIGURE 13 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR 2022 2018 2016
The City manages its finances well 77.0 66.2 74.4 +10.7† The City is transparent in how it operates 67.1 58.8 62.9 +8.2† The City listens to residents when making important decisions 59.2 57.4 58.1 +1.9 The City is responsive to residents’ needs 68.9 70.0 75.5 -1.0 I trust the City of Glendora 78.9 80.5 77.1 -1.6
The City treats all residents the same regardless of color, age, income, or identity 65.9 N/A N/A N/A Change in
Agreement
2018 to 2022
Study Year

42.4 42.7 41.7 41.8

53.6 54.4 58.2 57.5

4.0 Yes, contact

40.4 No, contact

54.6 Not sure 2.9 0.7

4.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2018 2016 2014 2011
Study Year
% Respondents
Item #5. Page 34
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 41
Public Trust & Service
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 FIGURE 14 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN GLENDORA, CHILD IN HSLD & AGE FIGURE 15 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS, GENDER & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
FIGURE 16 CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ETHNICITY

44.5 37.7

24.5 27.8

49.2 50.9

39.8 40.8 39.4 41.7 43.1

39.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
more
Yes No 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
Years in Glendora (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Age (QD1)
% Respondents With City
Contact in Past 12 Months

42.0 23.8

39.0 41.6

44.9 31.5

43.2 29.5

32.7 41.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Full time Part time Student Home- maker Retired Between jobs
Male Female Own Rent
Employment Status (QD5) Gender (QD2) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
% Respondents With City
Contact in Past 12 Months

47.4 48.6

41.1 40.5

36.8 34.0

45.4 31.1

36.0 34.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Less than
$50K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$199K
$200K or
more
Caucasian Latino Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Household Income (QD7) Ethnicity (QD6)
% Respondents With City
Contact in Past 12 Months
Item #5. Page 35
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 42
Public Trust & Service
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Respondents who had contact with city staff in the past 12 months were asked to rate city staff on three dimensions: professionalism, accessibility, and helpfulness. Respondents rated staff high on all three dimensions tested, with approximately nine-in-ten rating staff as professional (97%), accessible (95%), and helpful (89%). There were no statistically significant changes in how residents rated staff between 2018 and 2022 (see Table 17).

Question 11 In your opinion, was the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all _____.

FIGURE 17 OPINION OF STAFF
TABLE 17 OPINION OF STAFF BY STUDY YEAR

68.8 53.8 56.6

28.4 40.2 32.2

11.2 2.9 6.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Professional Accessible Helpful
Q11 Perception of city staff . . .
% Respondents With Staff
Contact in Past 12 Months
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
2022 2018 2016
Helpful 88.8 90.0 87.7 -1.3
Accessible 94.0 95.2 93.9 -1.2
Professional 97.1 94.6 93.4 +2.5
Change in % Very
+ Somewhat
2018 to 2022
Study Year
Item #5. Page 36
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 43
Communication & E-Government
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 C OMMUNICATION & E-G OVERNMENT The importance of communication between a city and its residents cannot be overstated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to its residents and vice-versa. This study is just one example of Glendora’s efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand residents’ concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of Glendora’s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, emails, timely press releases, social media, and its website. In this section, we present the results of several communication-related questions.

SATISFACTION: CITY-RESIDENT COMMUNICATION Question 12 of the survey asked residents to report their satisfaction with the City's efforts to share information with its residents. Overall, 77% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means.

The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (17%) or unsure of their opinion (7%). Satisfaction remained statistically consistent from 2018 to 2022 (Figure 18).

Question 12 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to share information with you through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? FIGURE 18 SATISFACTION WITH CITY-RESIDENT COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR Figures 19 to 21 on the next page display how opinions about the City’s efforts to communicate with residents varied by demographic subgroups. Satisfaction with the City’s communication efforts was widespread, with at least 70% of respondents in all but one subgroup reporting that they were either very or somewhat satisfied. As might be expected, residents dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services were the least satisfied with the City’s communication efforts.

47.3 45.9

35.9 37.9

11.6 9.3 11.5 8.7

3.6 3.8 3.1 3.8 5.9 5.7 4.6 2.5 2.8

44.7 29.6 31.6 37.1

46.2 46.9

12.9 7.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2018 2016 2014 2011
Study Year
% Respondents
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied
Item #5. Page 37
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 44
Communication & E-Government
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 FIGURE 19 SATISFACTION WITH CITY-RESIDENT COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN GLENDORA, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & OVERALL SATISFACTION FIGURE 20 SATISFACTION WITH CITY-RESIDENT COMMUNICATION BY AGE & EMPLOYMENT STATUS FIGURE 21 SATISFACTION WITH CITY-RESIDENT COMMUNICATION BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ETHNICITY

30.5 30.2 29.9 30.3 26.6 32.2 33.7

11.4 47.5 47.1 47.2 44.6 52.0 42.8

49.3 36.7
Very
satisfied

36.2 25.6

41.0 25.6
Smwt
satisfied

47.4 49.1

39.5 47.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Yes No Own Rent Male Female Satisfied Dissatisfied Years in Glendora (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Gender (QD2) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents

27.7 31.2 29.4 36.2 34.1

25.2 31.5 24.6

45.8 45.1 46.7

43.0 56.0

62.3 42.8 51.4

26.4 23.7
Very 41.0
satisfied

27.4 50.4 49.3

37.2 Smwt
satisfied

57.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Full time Part time Student HomemakerRetired Between jobs
Age (QD1) Employment Status (QD5)
% Respondents

27.7 23.7 28.2 32.4

23.5 38.3

57.4 48.5

49.8 44.4

51.3 36.5
Very
satisfied

29.1 28.1

42.3 35.6
Smwt
satisfied

42.6 49.3

42.5 42.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
$50K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$199K
$200K or
more
Caucasian Latino Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Household Income (QD7) Ethnicity (QD6)
% Respondents
Item #5. Page 38
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 45
Communication & E-Government
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 SATISFACTION: RESIDENT-CITY COMMUNICATION Residents were next asked about their satisfaction with the opportunities they have to communicate information to the City of Glendora. As shown in Figure 22, 61% of respondents said they were satisfied with the opportunities they have to communicate with the City. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied (18%) or did not provide an opinion (21%). Although satisfaction with City-resident communication has generally declined since 2014, there were no statistically significant changes between 2018 and 2022. For the interested reader, figures 23 through 25 display how responses to this question varied by demographic subgroups (among those with an opinion).

Question 13 Now let me ask about communication in the other direction. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the opportunities you have to communicate information to the City of Glendora? FIGURE 22 SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENT-CITY COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 23 SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENT-CITY COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN GLENDORA, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & OVERALL SATISFACTION

24.3 25.7

36.6 39.7 41.1

39.0 14.6 13.2

5.0 2.2 9.0

4.7 15.3 17.0

10.2 2.4 1.1

20.1 40.7

14.0 4.4

18.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2018 2016 2014
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

23.5 27.7 25.1 27.9 24.5 26.0 28.7

7.5 50.8

51.6 53.6 43.6 51.4 51.4

54.2 37.5

19.0 34.5

22.4 Very
satisfied

37.6 52.8

51.2 54.9
Smwt
satisfied

44.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Yes No Own Rent Male Female Satisfied Dissatisfied Years in Glendora (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Gender (QD2) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Item #5. Page 39
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 46
Communication & E-Government
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 FIGURE 24 SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENT-CITY COMMUNICATION BY AGE & EMPLOYMENT STATUS FIGURE 25 SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENT-CITY COMMUNICATION BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ETHNICITY COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES The next communication-related question presented respondents with each of the methods shown on the left of Figure 26 and simply asked—for each—whether it would be an effective way for the City to communicate with them. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias. Overall, respondents cited the City’s website as the most effective method (91% very or somewhat effective), followed by email and electronic newsletters (90%) and a smart phone app that would allow them to communicate with the City, report issues, and receive updates (84%). When compared with the other methods tested, respondents perceived the telephone (53%) and town-hall style meetings (71%) as less effective ways for the City to communicate with them.

14.0 34.7

25.7 28.5

18.8 21.4

30.5 16.3

57.6 49.2

47.5 51.9 67.2

72.8 50.8

67.3 Very
satisfied

22.2 34.1

19.4 25.7
Smwt
satisfied

44.8 43.9

54.7 54.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Full time Part time Student HomemakerRetired Between jobs
Age (QD1) Employment Status (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

31.7 24.4 24.8 27.5 24.0 28.3

58.2 54.5 55.0 51.0

48.8 37.5

30.0 22.6 22.1
Very
satisfied

28.6 47.3

53.3 41.7
Smwt
satisfied

53.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
$50K
$50K to $74K $75K to $99K $100K to
$149K
$150K to
$199K
$200K or
more
Caucasian Latino Asian
American
Mixed or other
Household Income (QD7) Ethnicity (QD6)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Item #5. Page 40
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 47
Communication & E-Government
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Question 14 As I read the following ways that the City can communicate with residents, I'd like to know if you think they would be a very effective, somewhat effective, or not at all effective way for the City to communicate with you. FIGURE 26 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION EFFORTS Table 18 on the next page displays the percentage of respondents that considered each of the communication methods as very effective by study year. Although there were no statistically significant changes in the percentage very effective from 2018 to 2022, there were statistically significant increases in the percentage of residents who cited text messages (+9%), email and electronic newsletters (+5%), the City’s website (+5%), and direct mail (+5%) as somewhat or very effective ways for the City to communicate with them. TABLE 18 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION EFFORTS BY STUDY YEAR The next two tables display the percentage of respondents that perceived each proposed communication method as very effective by their overall satisfaction with the City’s performance, age, years in Glendora, presence of a child in the home, and ethnicity. To aid comparisons, the top three most effective methods cited by each subgroup are highlighted green.

45.2 48.4

54.6 40.0

46.0 39.6

20.1 18.8

45.8 42.0

29.4 43.1

36.2 38.0

51.2 34.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
City website
Email & electronic newsletters
Smart phone application to communicate with the City,
report issues, and receive updates
Materials mailed directly to your house
Text messages
Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram & Nextdoor Town-hall style meetings
Telephone
Q14d Q14a Q14c Q14e Q14g Q14b Q14h Q14f
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective
2022 2018
Text messages 46.0 40.9 +5.1
Telephone 18.8 16.0 +2.8
Email & electronic newsletters 48.4 46.4 +2.0
Materials mailed directly to your house 40.0 38.2 +1.8
Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram & Nextdoor 39.6 39.9 -0.3 City website 45.2 46.3 -1.1
Smart phone app to communicate with City 54.6 57.8 -3.2 Town-hall style meetings 20.1 24.5 -4.4
Study Year
Change in % Very
Effective
2018 to 2022
Item #5. Page 41
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 48
Communication & E-Government
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 TABLE 19 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION EFFORTS BY OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE (SHOWING % VERY EFFECTIVE) TABLE 20 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION EFFORTS BY YEARS IN GLENDORA, CHILD IN HSLD & ETHNICITY (SHOWING % VERY EFFECTIVE)
INFO ON CURRENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS In response to interest expressed by residents in 2014, the City of Glendora began distributing additional information to residents regarding current and planned local development projects. Question 15 of the 2022 survey asked residents if they are generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of information made available by the City on this topic. Overall, the majority (58%) of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the quantity and quality of development-related information made available by the City, whereas 28% indicated they were dissatisfied and 15% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. The percentages remained statistically consistent with the 2018 results for this question (see Figure 27 on the next page).

When compared with their respective counterparts, residents who have lived in Glendora 10 to 14 years, those without a child in the home, those generally satisfied with city-resident communication in both directions and the City’s overall performance providing municipal services, residents under 35 years of age, students and those between jobs, residents with a household income between $75K and $199K per year, those who described their ethnicity as mixed/other, and renters were the subgroups most likely to report being satisfied with the quality and quantity of development information made available by the City (see figures 28 to 30).

Satisfied Dissatisfied 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Smart phone app to communicate with City 56.4 43.2 68.6 65.6 62.4 59.3 44.3 39.8 Email & electronic newsletters 49.3 46.6 43.8 53.9 49.0 48.0 47.4 46.9 Text messages 46.4 42.9 56.4 57.8 49.9 51.3 37.6 33.1
City website 47.6 27.8 39.2 53.1 46.5 46.3 43.9 41.9
Materials mailed directly to your house 42.1 40.2 34.0 52.8 30.7 33.4 33.4 50.9 Social media sites 40.8 28.6 59.1 56.6 44.4 44.6 29.0 17.5 Town-hall style meetings 20.9 23.7 25.7 14.3 18.7 22.6 22.6 20.5 Telephone 20.3 14.0 31.1 24.3 15.4 13.6 15.6 19.1
Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Age (QD1)
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14
15 or
more Yes No Caucasian Latino
Asian
American
Mixed
or other
Smart phone app to communicate with City 60.7 53.7 59.1 52.1 57.5 54.4 51.8 59.4 47.5 58.1 Email & electronic newsletters 61.3 49.4 54.7 42.2 54.1 45.8 47.2 54.7 41.9 41.1 Text messages 48.4 42.5 58.5 43.6 49.4 45.1 43.5 49.7 45.2 47.8 City website 60.3 44.3 42.3 41.4 48.7 43.5 41.6 53.9 42.4 32.8 Materials mailed directly to your house 40.6 46.3 37.2 37.9 38.6 40.3 35.4 49.9 43.5 24.9 Social media sites 54.2 34.3 39.6 36.9 45.9 36.4 32.7 50.0 39.8 36.7 Town-hall style meetings 25.1 16.3 21.2 19.7 20.0 20.3 16.6 22.2 20.0 23.6 Telephone 27.3 19.5 22.1 14.7 17.4 20.0 14.0 28.3 14.2 20.2 Years in Glendora (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Ethnicity (QD6) Item #5. Page 42
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 49
Communication & E-Government
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Question 15 Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of information made available by the City regarding current and planned local development projects? FIGURE 27 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 28 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY BY YEARS IN GLENDORA, CHILD IN HSLD, OVERALL SATISFACTION, SATISFACTION WITH CITY-RESIDENT COMMUNICATION & SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENT-CITY COMMUNICATION

14.8 15.6

40.4 40.5

22.1 22.2

8.3 9.4 12.5

14.1 13.0 9.0

16.1 41.4

19.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2018 2016
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied

16.0 21.7 21.8

7.2 22.9

2.5 26.2

6.1 48.4

48.5 51.9

27.9 55.1

20.3 53.4

22.8 Very
satisfied

31.3 14.3

32.1 12.6
Smwt
satisfied

38.3 52.4

47.4 51.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 55 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Yes No Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Years in Glendora (Q1) Child in Hsld (QD3) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Satisfaction With
City-Resident Com
(Q12)
Satisfaction With
Resident-City Com
(Q13)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Item #5. Page 43
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 50
Communication & E-Government
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 FIGURE 29 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY BY AGE & EMPLOYMENT STATUS FIGURE 30 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME, ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS ATTENTION PAID TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT The final question in this section asked respondents to rate how attentive they are to the issues, decisions, and activities of local city government using a scale of very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive. Statistically consistent with the last survey, 17% of respondents claimed to be very attentive to matters of local government, 44% somewhat attentive, and 30% slightly attentive.

Another 8% of respondents confided that they do not pay any attention to the activities of their city government (see Figure 31 on the next page). For the interested reader, figures 32 to 34 display how attentiveness to local government differed across a variety of demographic subgroups.

11.5 17.7 19.0 23.0 28.3 21.8 18.0 11.9

47.5 50.3 46.9 45.7

56.1 49.3 51.7 67.1

12.0 18.7
Very 34.0
satisfied

20.1 43.0 57.9
Smwt 41.3
satisfied

56.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Full time Part time Student HomemakerRetired Between
jobs
Age (QD1) Employment Status (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion

11.0 10.9 15.6

25.7 20.2

9.2 15.6

27.3 67.9

45.7 51.9

44.4 44.4 64.8 50.0

43.3 Very
satisfied

25.1 27.0 22.1 22.7
Smwt
satisfied

41.5 31.1

52.0 55.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
$50K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$199K
$200K or
more
Caucasian Latino Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Own Rent
Household Income (QD7) Ethnicity (QD6) Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Item #5. Page 44
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 51
Communication & E-Government
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Question 16 How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions and activities of your City government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive? FIGURE 31 ATTENTIVENESS TO ISSUES, DECISIONS, ACTIVITIES OF CITY GOVERNMENT BY STUDY YEAR FIGURE 32 ATTENTIVENESS TO ISSUES, DECISIONS, ACTIVITIES OF CITY GOVERNMENT BY YEARS IN GLENDORA, CITY STAFF CONTACT IN PAST 12 MONTHS, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS

15.9 10.3 14.2 15.3

44.1 48.9 43.4

50.3 29.2 30.8

25.1 10.4 11.1 8.8
Very
attentive

17.0 Somewhat
attentive

44.2 Slightly
attentive

29.7 28.9
Not at all
attentive

8.1 9.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2018 2016 2014 2011
Study Year
% Respondents

22.1 13.9 18.8 15.6 18.7 14.0

47.7 41.8

43.6 44.9

45.5 46.5
Very
attentive

14.6 14.3

21.0 17.6
Smwt
attentive

51.0 39.7

37.6 45.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Yes No Yes No Own Rent Years in Glendora (Q1) City Staff Contact in Past
12 Months (Q10)
Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status
(QD4)
% Respondents
Item #5. Page 45
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 52
Communication & E-Government
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 FIGURE 33 ATTENTIVENESS TO ISSUES, DECISIONS, ACTIVITIES OF CITY GOVERNMENT BY AGE, SATISFACTION WITH CITY-RESIDENT COMMUNICATION & SATISFACTION WITH RESIDENT-CITY COMMUNICATION FIGURE 34 ATTENTIVENESS TO ISSUES, DECISIONS, ACTIVITIES OF CITY GOVERNMENT BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ETHNICITY

18.6 20.5 18.0 18.0 22.1

14.0 41.6

46.6 48.7

33.5 48.1

43.7 Very
attentive

10.9 16.8 14.9 17.8
Smwt
attentive

34.2 39.5 44.6

52.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Satisfied Dis-satisfied Satisfied Dis-satisfied Age (QD1) Satisfaction With CityResident Com (Q12)Satisfaction With ResidentCity Com (Q13) % Respondents

16.3 29.2

17.0 17.6 23.0

2.1 56.1 35.8

46.0 48.5

31.4 38.0
Very
attentive

15.7 3.8

25.3 15.5
Smwt
attentive

36.6 36.8

47.0 45.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Less than
$50K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$199K
$200K or
more
Caucasian Latino Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Household Income (QD7) Ethnicity (QD6)
% Respondents
Item #5. Page 46
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 53
Drought & Conservation
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

D ROUGHT & C ONSERVATION
After several years of average and above-average rainfall, more than 97% of areas in California are once again in a severe drought, and 60% are classified as extreme drought by the National Drought Mitigation Center in coordination with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).2 The last section of the report presents the findings of questions related to drought awareness and water conservation.

DROUGHT Understanding that public recognition of the drought is a key step to taking actions to use water more efficiently, Question 17 simply asked respondents whether or not they think California is experiencing a drought. Overall, 87% of residents were aware that the state is currently experiencing a drought, whereas 5% did not think there is a drought and the remainder (8%) were either unsure or unwilling to share their opinion (Figure 35).

Question 17 Is California currently experiencing a drought - or are you not sure? FIGURE 35 CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCING A DROUGHT
Figures 36-38 show how awareness of the drought gripping California varied across resident subgroups. With the exception of residents who do not pay much attention to their households’ water use, at least eight-in-ten residents in every subgroup exhibited drought awareness.

2. Source: https://www.drought.gov/states/california, August 5, 2022.

No drought

4.5 Yes there is a
drought

87.7 Not sure

5.6 Prefer not to
answer

2.2 Item #5. Page 47
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 54
Drought & Conservation
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 FIGURE 36 CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCING A DROUGHT BY YEARS IN GLENDORA, ATTENTIVE TO HSLD WATER USE, GENDER,

CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
FIGURE 37 CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCING A DROUGHT BY AGE & EMPLOYMENT FIGURE 38 CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCING A DROUGHT BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ETHNICITY

90.8 89.9

62.1 85.5

89.7 87.4 87.1 89.8 89.4 87.9 88.8 85.9 87.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
more
Very Somewhat Slightly,
not at all
Male Female Yes No Own Rent
Years in Glendora (Q1) Attentive to Hsld Water Use
(Q18)
Gender (QD2) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
% Respondents Aware of Drought

89.2 92.1

87.5 87.1

83.0 80.3

92.9 84.3 85.6 89.0

84.7 88.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Full time Part time Student HomemakerRetired Between jobs
Age (QD1) Employment Status (QD5)
% Respondents Aware of Drought

84.5 87.3 89.5 87.9 85.8 83.3 82.7

89.4 94.9

89.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
$50K
$50K to $74K $75K to $99K $100K to
$149K
$150K to
$199K
$200K or
more
Caucasian Latino Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Household Income (QD7) Ethnicity (QD6)
% Respondents Aware of Drought
Item #5. Page 48
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 55
Drought & Conservation
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 ATTENTION PAID TO HOUSEHOLD WATER USE Respondents were next asked to rate how attentive they are to the amount of water their household uses. Overall, 63% of respondents reported that they are very attentive to their household’s water use, 28% somewhat attentive, and 5% slightly attentive. Another 3% of respondents confided they do not pay any attention to how much water their household uses and 1% were unsure or declined to state (Figure 39).

Question 18 In general, how much attention do you pay to the amount of water your household uses? Would you say you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or do you not pay attention to your water use?
FIGURE 39 ATTENTIVENESS TO HSLD WATER USE
Figures 40 to 42 show how attentiveness to
household water use varied by a host of demographic traits. Although most subgroups expressed a high level of attentiveness, it is
worth noting that respondents who indicated
that California is not experiencing a drought or
were unsure, those who described their ethnicity as mixed/other, and students were the most likely to confide that they do not pay any
attention to their households’ water use.

FIGURE 40 ATTENTIVENESS TO HSLD WATER USE BY AWARE OF DROUGHT, YEARS IN GLENDORA, GENDER, CHILD IN

HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
Prefer not to
answer

0.8 Don’t pay
attention

2.8 Slightly
attentive

5.2 Very attentive

63.0 Somewhat
attentive

28.3 63.4 64.4 64.3 62.9

53.7 70.4 65.6 59.5

29.0 21.2

32.6 33.0 27.6 25.7 25.2 31.0

38.1 22.3 28.6

28.0 18.0

3.4 5.3 6.8 6.9 4.8 7.9

1.9 10.9 3.1 3.8 3.0 3.5 2.2 3.4 1.9 1.8 4.6

65.3 50.0

63.0 60.9

3.7 3.0 3.9 5.5 4.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes No / Not
sure
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
more
Male Female Yes No Own Rent
Aware of Drought
(Q17)
Years in Glendora (Q1) Gender (QD2) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Don’t pay
attention
Slightly
attentive
Somewhat
attentive
Very
attentive
Item #5. Page 49
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 56
Drought & Conservation
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 FIGURE 41 ATTENTIVENESS TO HSLD WATER USE BY AGE & EMPLOYMENT STATUS FIGURE 42 ATTENTIVENESS TO HSLD WATER USE BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ETHNICITY EFFORTS TO CONSERVE In terms of their current efforts to conserve water, 48% of respondents indicated that they are already doing everything they can and cannot do any more to conserve water, whereas 46% revealed that they can probably do a little bit more to conserve water and 5% confided they can probably do much more. The remainder of respondents (1%) preferred not to answer the question (Figure 43 on next page).

Figures 44-46 show respondents’ self assessment of how much more they could do to conserve water (among those who provided an opinion) by subgroups. Compared with their counterparts, respondents who were aware of the state drought, those who were not very attentive to their households’ water use, residents 18 to 24 years of age, and those who described their ethnicity as mixed/other were the most likely to indicate that they could do more to conserve water.

70.1 74.9

64.2 58.0

48.2 58.5

72.2 54.9

42.8 17.2

42.6 28.5 24.6 21.4

27.6 33.6

35.7 41.5

22.9 14.6

11.1 4.8 8.3

3.7 4.9 5.0

7.7 0.0 4.1

30.5 4.3 5.2 3.5 3.6 1.5 3.3 3.5 8.4

65.9 45.6

72.9 41.8

2.1 3.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Full time Part time Student HomemakerRetired Between
jobs
Age (QD1) Employment Status (QD5)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Don’t pay
attention
Slightly
attentive
Somewhat
attentive
Very
attentive

61.5 61.1 65.7 63.9

54.8 50.4

28.5 29.9 33.8

19.7 30.2 29.3 24.2 32.8

35.8 32.1

6.2 6.3 8.2

3.1 7.3

2.4 5.7

6.0 5.0 1.2 2.3 2.7 6.4 2.8 3.7

11.5 60.3 62.6 57.6

72.1 6.3 5.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
$50K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$199K
$200K or
more
Caucasian Latino Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Household Income (QD7) Ethnicity (QD6)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Don’t pay
attention
Slightly
attentive
Somewhat
attentive
Very
attentive
Item #5. Page 50
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 57
Drought & Conservation
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Question 19 Which of the following statements best describes your current efforts to conserve water: _____?
FIGURE 43 CURRENT EFFORTS TO CONSERVER WATER
FIGURE 44 CURRENT EFFORTS TO CONSERVER WATER BY AWARE OF DROUGHT, ATTENTIVE TO HSLD WATER USE,

GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
FIGURE 45 CURRENT EFFORTS TO CONSERVER WATER BY YEARS IN GLENDORA & AGE Can do a little
more

45.8 Can't do any
more

47.6 Can do much
more

5.4 Prefer not to
answer

1.2 32.2

48.4 48.5 48.0 47.6 50.2 46.6

48.6 25.4 39.0

64.6 40.6

44.1 48.1 48.5 45.9 46.3

43.5 5.2 8.8 3.0

27.2 7.5 3.5 3.4 6.4 3.5 9.9

30.2 58.0 65.8

46.2 5.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes No / Not
sure
Very Somewhat Slightly,
not at all
Male Female Yes No Own Rent
Aware of Drought
(Q17)
Attentive to Hsld Water Use (Q18) Gender (QD2) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Can do
much more
Can do a
little more
Can't do
any more

29.4 42.2 46.7

54.6 47.2

56.6 45.0 53.6

37.8 46.2

49.8 51.3 47.3

44.3 49.3

40.6 5.7 4.3 7.4

20.8 6.5 5.9 1.1 3.6 2.8

49.3 42.0

54.8 48.5

5.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Glendora (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Can do
much more
Can do a
little more
Can't do
any more
Item #5. Page 51
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 58
Drought & Conservation
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 FIGURE 46 CURRENT EFFORTS TO CONSERVER WATER BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ETHNICITY

50.0 42.9 45.0 51.5 53.3

38.3 46.8

38.8 42.6

52.5 50.0

52.0 48.2

46.5 40.9

51.9 8.0 7.5 3.2 5.2 6.8 1.9 5.8 9.8

40.3 53.6 54.2

45.2 7.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
$50K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K to
$199K
$200K or
more
Caucasian Latino Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Household Income (QD7) Ethnicity (QD6)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Can do
much more
Can do a
little more
Can't do
any more
Item #5. Page 52
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 59
Background & Demographics
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS Table 21 presents the demographic information collected during the survey. The primary motivation for collecting the background and demographic information was to provide a better insight into how the results of the substantive questions of the survey vary by demographic characteristics, and ensure that the resulting sample matched the profile of Glendora’s adult population on key characteristics. TABLE 21 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
2022 2019 2018 2016 2014 2011
Total Respondents 571 883 608 622 400 400
Years in Glendora (Q1)
Less than 5 17.4 20.1 17.1 16.4 13.9 15.3
5 to 9 19.7 14.9 12.3 11.3 15.6 17.4
10 to 14 13.3 10.8 10.9 8.8 14.4 12.9
15 or more 49.2 53.8 59.7 63.2 56.0 53.7
Prefer not to answer 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.5
Age (QD1)
18 to 24 9.1 11.5 14.9 14.5 13.5 12.4
25 to 34 17.5 14.8 16.2 14.2 12.8 13.4
35 to 44 17.1 15.6 15.1 14.6 15.8 16.6
45 to 54 17.0 20.4 19.8 17.7 20.3 18.6
55 to 64 17.9 17.6 16.1 17.1 15.5 18.1
65 or older 19.6 20.1 17.8 21.4 16.4 17.9
Prefer not to answer 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.5 5.5 3.0
Child in Household (QD3)
Yes 35.8 35.7 35.3 32.1 37.0 39.0
No 60.7 60.2 62.5 66.9 61.4 59.0
Prefer not to answer 3.5 4.0 2.3 1.0 1.6 2.0
Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Own 64.0 69.5 75.3 74.2 71.2 75.1
Rent 26.3 24.1 22.7 22.2 25.6 21.2
Prefer not to answer 9.7 6.4 2.1 3.6 3.1 3.7
Employment Status (QD5)
Full time 56.8 57.9 54.1 46.8 45.0 42.5
Part time 9.6 7.2 10.1 8.9 12.0 10.9
Student 4.6 6.5 7.9 10.2 9.1 8.4
Home- maker 4.7 4.0 4.9 6.1 5.6 5.5
Retired 18.2 19.2 18.1 22.3 21.1 21.9
Between jobs 1.6 0.8 1.4 2.1 4.4 8.0
Prefer not to answer 4.3 4.3 3.4 3.5 2.8 2.7
Ethnicity (QD6)
Caucasian 46.5 N/A 53.2 N/A N/A N/A
Latino 31.6 N/A 27.5 N/A N/A N/A
Asian American 12.1 N/A 9.0 N/A N/A N/A
Mixed or other 6.5 N/A 5.3 N/A N/A N/A
Prefer not to answer 3.3 N/A 5.0 N/A N/A N/A
Household Income (QD7)
Less than $50K 15.8 N/A 18.1 N/A N/A N/A
$50K to $74K 15.2 N/A 21.9 N/A N/A N/A
$75K to $99K 13.1 N/A 16.5 N/A N/A N/A
$100K to $149K 17.0 N/A 17.0 N/A N/A N/A
$150K to $199K 12.4 N/A 8.3 N/A N/A N/A
$200K or more 16.0 N/A 9.1 N/A N/A N/A
Prefer not to answer 10.5 N/A 9.1 N/A N/A N/A
Gender
Male 46.3 48.8 47.4 53.0 49.7 50.2
Female 51.4 48.0 51.1 45.4 50.3 49.8
Prefer not to answer 2.2 3.2 1.5 1.6 0.0 0.0
Study Year
Item #5. Page 53
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 60
Methodology
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

M ETHODOLOGY
The following section outlines the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Glendora to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who had been in contact with city staff in the past 12 months (Question 10) were asked to rate aspects of staff’s performance (Question 11). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 50) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

Many of the questions asked in the 2022 survey were tracked directly from prior surveys to allow the City to assess its performance reliably over time.

PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into households in the City prior to formally beginning the survey.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of Glendora households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in Glendora had the opportunity to be selected to participate in the survey. Once selected at random, contact information was appended to each record including email addresses and telephone numbers for adult residents. Individuals were subsequently recruited to participate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods. Using a combination of email and text invitations, sampled residents were initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each individual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only Glendora residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed only one time per passcode. An email reminder notice was also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. Following a period of online data collection, True North placed telephone calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of sampled residents that had yet to participate in the online survey or for whom only telephone contact information was available.

Telephone interviews averaged 17 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those Item #5. Page 54
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 61
Methodology
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 hours would bias the sample. A total of 571 completed surveys were gathered online and by telephone between July 26 and July 31, 2022.

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to estimate the opinions of all adult residents of the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 571 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 39,372 adult residents3 had been interviewed.

Figure 47 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 4.1% for questions answered by all 571 respondents.

FIGURE 47 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by demographic characteristics such as length of residence and age of the respondent. Figure 47 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and

3. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Sample of 571
Adult Residents
± 4.1%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
Item #5. Page 55
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 62
Methodology
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample by key demographic variables according to Census estimates.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question.

Item #5. Page 56
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 63
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 1
City of Glendora
Community Opinion Survey
Final Toplines (n=571)
August 2022
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to: _____. Hi, my name is _____ and I’m calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Glendora. The City is conducting a survey of residents about important issues in Glendora and would like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If needed: TNR is an independent public opinion research firm. We’ve been hired by the City to design and conduct the survey.

Section 2: Quality of Life
I’d like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of Glendora.

Q1 How long have you lived in Glendora?
1 Less than 1 year 3%
2 1 to 4 years 15%
3 5 to 9 years 20%
4 10 to 14 years 13%
5 15 years or longer 49%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Ask A First, then Randomize B-E
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Not Sure
Prefer not to
answer
A The overall quality of life in Glendora 29% 57% 11% 1% 0% 0% 0% B Glendora as a place to raise a family 35% 49% 11% 1% 1% 2% 0% C Glendora as a place to retire 24% 37% 22% 7% 3% 6% 0% D Glendora as a place to work 13% 32% 20% 4% 2% 25% 3%
E Glendora as a place to shop and dine 14% 34% 34% 11% 5% 1% 0% Item #5. Page 57
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 64
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Glendora Community Opinion Survey August 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 2
Q3
If the city government could change one thing to make Glendora a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Address homeless issues, poverty 22%
Improve dining, shopping opportunities 13%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 12%
Improve public safety, police services 10%
Improve street, roads, infrastructure 7%
Limit growth, development, preserve small
town feel 7%
Beautify city, landscaping 5%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 5%
Provide more affordable housing 4%
Oppose Metro Line development, extension 4%
Improve parking 3%
Provide more events, rec activities for all
ages
3%
Improve schools, education 3%
Improve, provide more street lighting 3%
Improve downtown area 3%
Improve, provide additional parks, rec
facilities 2%
Address water issues 2%
Improve environmental efforts 2%
Improve economy, jobs 2%
Section 3: City Services
Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Glendora.

Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Glendora is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 30%
2 Somewhat satisfied 50%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 10%
4 Very dissatisfied 3%
98 Not sure 7%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Item #5. Page 58
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 65
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Glendora Community Opinion Survey August 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 3
Q5
For each of the services I read, I’d like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the city is doing to provide the service.

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city’s efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If ‘satisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Provide police services 45% 40% 7% 4% 4% 1%
B Prepare the City for emergencies 21% 39% 12% 3% 25% 1% C Maintain streets and roads 23% 39% 23% 14% 1% 0%
D Manage traffic in the city 28% 43% 17% 10% 3% 0%
E Provide library services 52% 33% 2% 0% 12% 0%
F Provide trash collection and recycling
services 48% 35% 8% 5% 3% 0%
G Promote economic development for a
healthy business community 19% 37% 17% 4% 22% 2%
H Manage growth and development 18% 40% 21% 10% 11% 1%
I Provide programs for youth, adults and
seniors 38% 39% 7% 2% 14% 0%
J Maintain parks and recreation areas 40% 42% 12% 3% 3% 0% K Provide cultural and performing arts 18% 36% 18% 6% 21% 1% L Preserve and protect open space 24% 38% 18% 9% 11% 1% M Address homelessness 11% 22% 28% 32% 7% 0%
N Provide for diversity and inclusion within
City events, services, and policies 21% 32% 15% 7% 22% 4% O Provide online access to City services,
information, and resources 34% 45% 9% 2% 11% 0%
P Operate in an environmentally-friendly,
sustainable way 24% 41% 11% 5% 18% 1%
Section 4: Land Use
Q6 As I read the following list of items, please tell me whether you feel there is currently too much, about the right amount, or too little of this item in the City of Glendora.

Randomize
Too Much
About
Right
Too Little
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Affordable housing for middle- income
families 3% 31% 52% 13% 1%
B Affordable housing for low- income
families 13% 24% 36% 25% 2%
Item #5. Page 59
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 66
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Glendora Community Opinion Survey August 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 4
C Spaces where the community can gather
and socialize 2% 64% 24% 9% 0%
D Entertainment options such as movie
houses, music, and arts 2% 49% 45% 5% 0%
E Big box retail stores 10% 72% 13% 4% 0%
F Smaller, boutique retail stores 7% 58% 27% 8% 0%
G Commercial offices 11% 62% 6% 20% 1%
H Fine dining restaurants 1% 37% 57% 5% 0%
I Good-paying jobs and employment
opportunities 0% 31% 35% 34% 1%
J Public transit options 9% 56% 20% 15% 0%
K Designated areas for walking and biking 3% 57% 35% 5% 0% L Public art 1% 37% 38% 24% 1%
M Parks and natural open spaces 3% 71% 23% 3% 0%
N Sports fields and sports courts 4% 71% 15% 10% 0%
O Retirement communities 4% 45% 20% 30% 0%
Section 5: Community Facilities
The City of Glendora has the resources to provide some of the facilities and amenities desired by residents. However, because it can’t fund every project, the City must set priorities.

Q7
As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so.

Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

Randomize
High
Priority
Medium
Priority
Low
Priority
Should not
spend
money
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Skate park 6% 28% 44% 17% 5% 0%
B Bike park and pump track 11% 33% 36% 13% 7% 0%
C Dedicated pickleball courts 6% 22% 40% 22% 9% 0%
D Sports fields that can be used for multiple
sports such as soccer, football, and rugby 23% 42% 24% 7% 4% 0% E Acquire land to create additional parks and
green spaces
30% 37% 22% 7% 4% 0%
F Meeting spaces that can host larger groups
and community events 8% 39% 36% 11% 6% 0%
G Modern library facilities 28% 41% 21% 4% 5% 0%
H Trails and paths for walking and biking 38% 42% 16% 3% 2% 0% I Community gardens for growing food 27% 32% 25% 12% 4% 0% Item #5. Page 60
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 67
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Glendora Community Opinion Survey August 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 5
Q8
Is there a community facility or amenity that I didn’t mention that you think should be a high priority for future city spending? If yes, ask: Please describe it to me. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

No additional high priorities 61%
Prefer not to answer 13%
Sport parks, courts 3%
Community theater, event center 3%
Improve access to parks, rec facilities,
including school fields 3%
Senior / Adult Center 2%
Address homeless issues 2%
Community, public pool 1%
High-end dining and shopping 1%
Dog park 1%
Water park 1%
Low-income housing 1%
Mental health services 1%
More bike lanes, walking trails 1%
Art center 1%
Library improvements 1%
Improve infrastructure 1%
Farmers market 1%
Improve security, more police presence 1%
Youth center, clubs 1%
Improve, provide more public transit 1%
Improve, provide more street lighting 1%
Provide more entertainment for all ages 1%
Improve, provide recycling programs,
services 1%
Improve old structures, empty facilities 1%
Limit growth, development 1%
Improve schools 1%
Item #5. Page 61
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 68
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Glendora Community Opinion Survey August 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 6
Section 6: Public Trust & Service
Q9
Next, I’m going to read you a series of statements about the City of Glendora. For each, I’d like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Randomize
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A The City is responsive to residents’ needs 15% 41% 18% 7% 18% 1% B The City manages its finances well 14% 35% 10% 5% 35% 1% C The City listens to residents when making
important decisions 12% 33% 21% 10% 24% 1%
D I trust the City of Glendora 22% 47% 12% 6% 11% 1%
E The City is transparent in how it operates 13% 36% 16% 8% 26% 1% F The City treats all residents the same
regardless of color, age, income, or identity 24% 28% 16% 11% 20% 1% Q10 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with staff from the City of Glendora? 1 Yes 40% Ask Q11
2 No 55% Skip to Q12
98 Not sure 4% Skip to Q12
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q12
Q11 In your opinion, was the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all _____.

Read one item at a time, continue until all items are read.

Randomize
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Helpful 56% 32% 11% 0% 0%
B Professional 68% 28% 3% 0% 0%
C Accessible 53% 40% 6% 0% 1%
Item #5. Page 62
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 69
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Glendora Community Opinion Survey August 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 7
Section 7: Communication & e- Government
Q12
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to share information with you through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 30%
2 Somewhat satisfied 47%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 13%
4 Very dissatisfied 4%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q13
Now let me ask about communication in the other direction. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the opportunities you have to communicate information to the City of Glendora? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
1 Very satisfied 20%
2 Somewhat satisfied 41%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 14%
4 Very dissatisfied 4%
98 Not sure 18%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Q14
As I read the following ways that the City can communicate with residents, I’d like to know if you think they would be a very effective, somewhat effective, or not at all effective way for the City to communicate with you.

Randomize
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure /
Prefer not
to answer
A E-mail & Electronic Newsletters 48% 42% 7% 2%
B Social Media sites such as Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram & Nextdoor 40% 38% 16% 6%
C
A Smart Phone application that would allow
you to communicate with the City, report
issues, and receive updates
55% 29% 9% 7%
D City website 45% 46% 7% 2%
E Materials mailed directly to your house 40% 43% 15% 2% F Telephone 19% 34% 41% 6%
G Text messages 46% 36% 12% 6%
H Town-hall style meetings 20% 51% 21% 7%
Item #5. Page 63
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 70
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Glendora Community Opinion Survey August 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 8
Q15
Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of information made available by the City regarding current and planned local development projects? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
1 Very satisfied 16%
2 Somewhat satisfied 41%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 19%
4 Very dissatisfied 8%
98 Not sure 14%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q16
How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions and activities of your City government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
1 Very attentive 17%
2 Somewhat attentive 44%
3 Slightly attentive 30%
4 Not at all attentive 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Section 8: Drought & Conservation
Q17 Is California currently experiencing a drought – or are you not sure? 1 Yes, there is a drought 88%
2 No 5%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Q18
In general, how much attention do you pay to the amount of water your household uses? Would you say you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or do you not pay attention to your water use?
1 Very attentive 63%
2 Somewhat attentive 28%
3 Slightly attentive 5%
4 I don’t pay attention 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Item #5. Page 64
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 71
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Glendora Community Opinion Survey August 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 9
Q19 Which of the following statements best describes your current efforts to conserve water: _____? Read in order.
1 I am already doing everything I can, I
can’t do any more to conserve water 48%
2 I can probably do a little bit more to
conserve water 46%
3 I can probably do much more to
conserve water 5%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Section 9: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 In what year were you born? Year recoded into age groups shown below. 18 to 24 9%
25 to 34 17%
35 to 44 17%
45 to 54 17%
55 to 64 18%
65 or older 20%
Prefer not to answer 2%
D2 What is your gender?
1 Male 46%
2 Female 51%
3 Non-binary 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
D3 Do you have one or more children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 36%
2 No 61%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
Item #5. Page 65
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 72
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Glendora Community Opinion Survey August 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 10
D4 Do you own or rent your residence in Glendora?
1 Own 64%
2 Rent 26%
3 Live rent free with friends/relatives 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
D5
Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you in-between jobs right now?
1 Employed full-time 57%
2 Employed part-time 10%
3 Student 5%
4 Homemaker 5%
5 Retired 18%
6 In-between jobs 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
D6 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates.
1 Caucasian/White 46%
2 Latino/Hispanic 32%
3 African-American/Black 2%
4 Native American Indian or Alaskan
Native <1%
5 Asian -- Korean, Japanese, Chinese,
Vietnamese, Filipino or other Asian 12%
6 Pacific Islander <1%
7 Mixed Heritage 3%
8 Other <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Item #5. Page 66
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 73
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Glendora True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Glendora Community Opinion Survey August 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 11
D7
This next question is for statistical purposes only. As I read the following income categories, please stop me when I reach the category that best represents your household’s total annual income before taxes.
1 Less than $50,000 16%
2 $50,000 to $74,999 15%
3 $75,000 to $99,999 13%
4 $100,000 to $149,999 17%
5 $150,000 to $199,999 12%
6 $200,000 or more 16%
99 Prefer not to answer 10%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of Glendora.

Item #5. Page 67
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 74
10/3/2022

COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY

CONDUCTED FOR THE

CITY OF GLENDORA

PRESENTED BY
TIMOTHY MCLARNEY PH.D.

Item #5. Page 68
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 75
2 oIdentify important issues
oMeasure satisfaction with City services overall, as well as in specific service areas
oExplore satisfaction with communication between City
and residents
oEvaluate perceptions of and experience with local
government and City staff
oGather opinions on select topics including land use,
spending priorities, drought, and conservation
oTrack changes over time

PURPOSE OF STUDY
Item #5. Page 69
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 76
3 oStratified Random Sample: 571 randomly selected
adult residents
oRecruiting: Email, text and telephone
oData Collection: Mixed-Method approach
oOnline & telephone
o17-minute average interview length
oConducted July 26th to July 31st, 2022
oMargin of Error: ± 4.1%

METHODOLOGY
Item #5. Page 70
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 77
4 RATING GLENDORA
Item #5. Page 71
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 78
5 QUALITY OF LIFE

BY STUDY YEAR
Item #5. Page 72
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 79
6 CHANGES TO IMPROVE GLENDORA
Item #5. Page 73
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 80
7 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
Item #5. Page 74
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 81
8 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES

BY STUDY YEAR
Item #5. Page 75
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 82
9 SATISFACTION WITH SPECIFIC SERVICES
Item #5. Page 76
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 83
10 AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING, BUSINESSES &

AMENITIES IN CITY
Item #5. Page 77
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 84
11 SPENDING PRIORITIES
Item #5. Page 78
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 85
12 RATINGS OF CITY STAFF
Item #5. Page 79
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 86
13 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS
Item #5. Page 80
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 87
14 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION
Item #5. Page 81
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 88
15 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION

BY STUDY YEAR
Item #5. Page 82
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 89
16 COMMUNICATION METHODS
Item #5. Page 83
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 90
17 CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCING A DROUGHT?
Item #5. Page 84
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 91
18 ATTENTIVENESS TO HOUSEHOLD WATER USE
Item #5. Page 85
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 92
19 CURRENT EFFORTS TO CONSERVE WATER
Item #5. Page 86
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 93
20 Residents are generally satisfied with Glendora
o Overall quality of life and as a place to raise a family o City’s performance in providing municipal services
o Customer service provided by City staff
Performance strengths
o Library services
o Programs for youth, adults, and seniors
o Police services
o Online access to services, information, and resources o Trash collection & recycling
o Maintenance of parks & recreation areas
Opportunities areas:
o Addressing homelessness
o Improving local dining, shopping, and entertainment opportunities o Maintaining streets, roads & infrastructure
o Managing growth & development
o Facilitating affordable housing
o Keeping City clean/graffiti free
o City-resident communication

KEY CONCLUSIONS
Item #5. Page 87
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 94
Item #6. Page 1
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 95

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Davis called the special meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority of the City of Glendora to order at 5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Council/Commissioners present: Michael Allawos, David Fredendall, Mendell Thompson, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chair Gary Boyer via Zoom, Mayor/Chair Karen Davis Council/Commissioners Member Absent: None
Staff members present: City Manager/Executive Director Adam Raymond, City/Agency Attorney Wynder, Assistant City Manager Moises Lopez, Administrative Services Director/Treasurer Marie Ricci, City Clerk/Communications Director Kathleen R. Sessman, Community Development Director Jeff Kugel, Public Works Director Alison Sweet, Police Chief/Sergeant at Arms Matt Egan, Housing and Community Development Manager Valerie Velasquez, Risk Management Manager Belinda Ochoa, Digital Media Specialist Craig Gill, Senior Digital Media Specialist Greg Morton, City Clerk Specialist Lorena Cordova, and Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager Elvia Dominguez

CLOSED SESSION
City/Agency Attorney Wynder read the agendized Closed Session title into the record as follows:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
A closed session will be held, pursuant to Government Code § 54956.99 (d)(1), to confer with legal counsel regarding one (1) matter of pending litigation to which the City is a party. The title of such litigation is as follows: CARRASCO v. CITY OF GLENDORA, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:21-CV-05965-MWF-ASx.

2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS A closed session will be held, pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 to conduct labor negotiations.

City Negotiators: City Manager Raymond, City Attorney Wynder, Administrative Services Director Ricci, and Assistant City Manager Lopez Employee Organization: American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Glendora Management Association (GMA), and Glendora Police Management Association (PMA)

3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS A closed session will be held, pursuant to Government Code §54956.8, enable the City Council and Housing Authority to consider negotiations with:

I) Paul Rodriguez, with whom City is negotiating, and to give direction to its negotiator(s) City of Glendora Minutes
Special Meeting
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
City Hall Council Chamber
116 E. Foothill Boulevard
Virtually via Zoom ID 9329247224
Item #8. Page 1
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 96
Minutes Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Page 2 of 2
Special Meeting City Council and Housing Authority
Adam Raymond, Moises Lopez, Jeff Kugel, and Valerie Velasquez regarding that certain real property 1762 Dale Road, APN 8631-013-023. The City’s real property negotiator will seek direction from the City Council regarding the price and terms of payment for the property; II) Thomas R. McGhuey, Trustee of the Thomas R. McGhuey Trust, with whom City is negotiating, and to give direction to its negotiator(s) Adam Raymond, Moises Lopez, Jeff Kugel, and Valerie Velasquez regarding certain real property APN 8644-014-036. The City’s real property negotiator will seek direction from the City Council regarding the price and terms of payment for the property; and
III) City of Glendora, property owner, to receive information from negotiator(s) Adam Raymond, Moises Lopez, Jeff Kugel, and Valerie Velasquez regarding certain real properties APN 8655-007-900, APN 8655-007-901, APN 8655-007-902, and APN 8655-021-900. The City’s real property negotiator will seek direction from the City Council regarding the disposition of the property.

Mayor/Chair Davis invited public comment and inquired if any requests had been received. There were no written correspondence and/or requests received, therefore, Mayor/Chair Davis convened the meeting into Closed Session at 5:02 p.m.

Mayor/Chair Davis adjourned Closed Session and reconvened the meeting back into Open Session at 7:02 p.m. with all members present and requested that City/Agency Attorney Wynder report out of Closed Session.

City/Agency Attorney Wynder stated that Closed Session was held to discuss three (3) items and reported the following actions: Item #1) A privileged and confidential briefing was given, the City Attorney’s office was apprised that the parties have reached a tentative settlement subject to review and approval by the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority, which will occur at a later date, and will report back to City Council once action is taken; Item #2) A privileged and confidential briefing was given, City Council unanimously gave further negotiating authority and direction; and Item #3) The City Council and Housing Authority met in Closed Session to discuss several properties. There was a privileged and confidential briefing and: for property APN 8631-013-023, direction was given to the City Council, Council Member Allawos did not support direction given, and Mayor Pro Tem Boyer abstained. For property APN 8644-014-036, negotiating authority was given, Council Member Allawos not in support, and Mayor Pro Tem Boyer abstained. And for the San Jose site property APN 8655-007-900, APN 8655-007-901, APN 8655-007-902, and APN 8655-021-900, other authority was granted to staff on a 3 to 1 vote with Council Member Allawos not in support, and Mayor Pro Tem Boyer abstained.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor/Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.

Kathleen R. Sessman, MMC
City Clerk/Communication Director
Minutes were approved on __________________ by the City of Glendora City Council.

Item #8. Page 2
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 97

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Davis called the meeting of the City Council, Successor Agency to the former Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), and Housing Authority of the City of Glendora to order at 7:05 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Council/Commissioners present: Michael Allawos, David Fredendall, Mendell L. Thompson, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chair Gary Boyer and Mayor/Chair Karen K. Davis Council/Commissioners absent: None
Staff Members present: City Manager/Executive Director Adam Raymond, City/Agency Attorney William Wynder, Assistant City Manager Moises Lopez, Police Chief/Sargant at Arms Matt Egan, Police Captain Matt Williams Public Works Director Alison Sweet, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer Marie Ricci (via Zoom), Community Development Director Jeff Kugel, Community Services Director John Aguirre, Library Director Janet Stone (via Zoom), Information Technology Director Sam Robbin (via Zoom) Assistant Finance Director Kyle Johnson, Transportation Manager Steven Mateer, Riska Management Manager Belinda Ochoa, Housing and Economic Manager Valerie Velasquez, Senior Management Analyst Andrea Ampig, Management Analyst Vanessa Mikhail, Digital Media Specialist Craig Gill, Senior Digital Media Specialist Greg Morton, City Clerk Specialist Lorena Cordova and Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager Elvia Dominguez

CLOSED SESSION
There were no closed session items.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Invocation was led by Pastor Ike Graham of Foothill Christian Church.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Whitcomb Principal Ron Letourneau.

STUDENT REPORTS

1. High School Student Representative Report
Student reports were conducted by Glendora High School Student Representative Lavena Chen, Charter Oak High School Student Representative Viviana Salazar, St. Lucy Priory High School Student Representative Olivia Rizk, and Whitcomb High School Student Representative Desiree Pimentel.

City of Glendora Minutes
Regular Joint Meeting
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
City Hall Council Chamber
116 E. Foothill Boulevard
Virtually via Zoom ID 9329247224
Item #8. Page 3
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 98
Minutes Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Page 2 of 7
City Council Meeting City Council, Successor Agency and Housing Authority

REORDERING OF AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no requests to reorder of and additions to the agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENT

2. Public Comments received
Mayor/Chair Davis opened the public comment period. Written correspondence and/or requests to provide comments were received from the following: Dennis Willut, and Loanne Morrow.

There were no additional requests received; therefore, Mayor/Chair Davis closed the public comment period.

MEMBER STATEMENTS/REPORTS
Council Member/Commissioner Thompson welcome the High School Student Representatives; commented on the Homecoming parade this past Friday; and gave a Goldline update.

Council Member/Commissioner Allawos reported on his attendance last Thursday at Athens Glendora Day and commented on the success of the Library’s Battle of the Books.

Council Member/Commissioner Fredendall echoed comments on the Homecoming parade.

Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chair Boyer commented on Los Angeles County lifting the mask mandate for public transportation; gave a Foothill Transit update; and gave a water drought update.

CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY STATEMENTS
There were no statements or reports given.

SPECIAL ITEMS

3. Quarterly Capital Improvement Program Update (Strategic Plan Item 8-IFFS, 10-IFSS, 46- IMCIF, 48-IMCIF, 49-IMCIF, 50-IMCIF, 52-IMCIF, 53-IMCIF, 54-IMCIF) Presentation and PowerPoint was presented by Public Works Director Sweet.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

4. Proposition 218 Majority Protest Public Hearing for Proposed Increase in Solid Waste Rates Mayor/Chair Davis read the title into the record and opened the Public Hearing.

Staff report and PowerPoint was presented by Senior Management Analyst Ampig.

Item #8. Page 4
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 99
Minutes Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Page 3 of 7
City Council Meeting City Council, Successor Agency and Housing Authority Mayor Davis invited public testimony and inquired if any requests had been received. Written correspondence and/or requests to give public testimony were given by the following: Robert Jones, Richard DiBacco, Norma Fernandez, John Kaddis, Joe Daniele, Gloria Hackett, Brook Johnson, Adriane Mozzini, Tam A, Jayshree Sampat, Scott Morgan, Tim, John Rotunni, Anthony Reardon, Brad Case, Jon Dowdle, and Angela Saggie.

There were no other written correspondence and/or requests to give public testimony; therefore, Mayor Davis closed the Public Hearing.

City Council discussion included an overview of the State mandated requirement for refuse collection; average cost increase for residents; response to testimony regarding size and maximum allowed bins per household; clarification that for the 157 locations where there may be difficulty in getting bins to the street, Athens will coordinate how to provide service to those residents; clarification that no loss of jobs occurred due to the change in service; process for bulky item and tree trimming pick up process; options to also receive bear cans/barrel upon request; previous public notices and meeting held to discuss the proposed service and rate changes; and Athens planned public outreach efforts to residents for roll out of new services.

There were no additional questions or comments; therefore, Mayor Davis closed the Public Hearing and requested the City Clerk tabulate any protests received and announce the results.

Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager Dominguez announced that a total of 51 protests were received, of which 47 were verified votes with 4 unverified. An assessed protest of .34% protest was received, which did not meet the required majority protest. The city has met each requirement of Proposition 218, and applicable laws associated with respect to the proposed assessment. Since no majority protest exists, staff requested a motion from the City Council to adopt the proposed refuse rate as they were noticed to all residential ratepayers by adopting City Council Resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDORA TO APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL AND

COMMERCIAL WASTE SOLID WASTE REFUSE COLLECTION CHARGES AND NEW RATES FOR FOLLOWING PROPOSITION 218 NOTICED MAJORITY PROTEST HEARING.” A motion was made by David J. Fredendall, seconded by Gary Boyer, to 1. Adopt a City Council Resolution CC 2022-54 entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GLENDORA TO APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE SOLID WASTE REFUSE COLLECTION CHARGES AND NEW RATES FOR FOLLOWING PROPOSITION 218 NOTICED MAJORITY PROTEST HEARING.”
An oral roll call vote was conducted, and the motion carried 5 - 0 as follows: AYES: Michael Allawos, David J. Fredendall, Mendell Thompson, Gary Boyer, Karen K. Davis; NOES: (None); ABSENT: (None); ABSTAIN: (None).

CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Michael Allawos, seconded by David J. Fredendall, to approve Consent Calendar Items 5 - 10 as presented affirming the actions appropriate to each item.

An oral roll call vote was conducted, and the motion carried 5 - 0 as follows: AYES: Michael Allawos, David J. Fredendall, Mendell Thompson, Gary Boyer, Karen K. Davis; NOES: (None); ABSENT: (None); ABSTAIN: (None).

Item #8. Page 5
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 100
Minutes Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Page 4 of 7
City Council Meeting City Council, Successor Agency and Housing Authority

5. Affirm minutes from September 7, 2022 City Council Special Meeting, September 9, 2022 City Council Special Meeting, and September 13, 2022 Regular Joint City Council, Successor Agency for the former Community Redevelopment Agency, and Housing Authority Meeting The City Council, Successor Agency and Housing Authority affirmed the minutes as presented.

6. City of Glendora and Glendora Successor Agency Investment Report for August 2022 The City Council received and filed the Monthly Investment Activity Report for August 2022.

7. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the 2021-2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
The City Council 1. Approved submittal of the City of Glendora's FY 2021-2022 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) accomplishments to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and, 2. Authorized the City Manager to submit the report to HUD.

8. Notice of Completion for Cullen Avenue Water and Street Improvements Between Foothill Boulevard and Bennett Avenue - Plan Nos. 1317 and 1329
The City Council 1. Accepted the completion of Cullen Avenue Water and Street Improvements Between Foothill Boulevard and Bennett Avenue - Plan Nos. 1317 and 1329 by Gentry Brothers, Inc.; and, 2. Authorized the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion for recordation.

9. Consideration of a Resolution allowing for the continued use of "In-Person Hybrid Approach" for City of Glendora Brown Act Public Meetings September 30, 2022 through October 29, 2022, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act and Assembly Bill No. 361 The City Council 1. Adopted City Council Resolution CC 2022-55 entitled, “A

RESOLUTION RE-RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM ON MARCH 4, 2020, AND WHEN APPLICABLE REAUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF GLENDORA FOR THE 30-DAY PERIOD BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 THROUGH OCTOBER 29, 2022 PURSUANT TO THE RALPH M.

BROWN ACT AND ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 361.”

10. Approve Amendment No. 3 to the Memorandum of Agreement with San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments for an Expansion to the Existing Regional Food Recovery Program in an Amount Not-To-Exceed $30,000
The City Council 1. Approved Amendment No. 3 to the Memorandum of Agreement with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments for an expansion to the existing Regional Food Recovery Program in an amount not to exceed $30,000; 2. Authorized the City Manager or his designee to execute the MOA including minimal and/or non-substantive changes; and, 3.

Authorized the supplemental appropriations and increase to estimated revenue for the proposed amendment and the award of the CalRecycle Grant award of $73,664.

Item #8. Page 6
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 101
Minutes Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Page 5 of 7
City Council Meeting City Council, Successor Agency and Housing Authority

MEMBER AGENDA ITEMS - NONE

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE

NEW BUSINESS

11. Approval of Alternative Commute Program Policy Update (Strategic Plan Item 16-EEDR) RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve amendments to and update of the citywide Alternative Commute (Altcom) Program; and, 2. Authorize the supplemental budget appropriations in the amount of $4,000 to the Air Quality Improvement Fund (Fund 215).

Staff report and PowerPoint was presented by Management Analyst Mikhail.

City Council discussion included current employee usage of the Alternative Commuter Program; funding source for the program; possible incentives to increase participation; and expected outcomes for the program.

A motion was made by Michael Allawos, seconded by David J. Fredendall, to 1. Approve amendments to and update of the citywide Alternative Commute (Altcom) Program; and, 2. Authorize the supplemental budget appropriations in the amount of $4,000 to the Air Quality Improvement Fund (Fund 215).

12. Adoption of a City Council Resolution establishing and funding a Section 115 Trust for PostEmployment Benefits RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a City Council Resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE

ADOPTION OF THE PUBLIC AGENCIES POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TRUST ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES (PARS)”; 2. Adopt the Post-Employment Benefits Management Policy; and 3. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to be the City’s Plan Administrator and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to establish the Section 115 Trust.

Staff report and PowerPoint was presented by Assistant Finance Director Johnson.

City Council discussion included an overview of post-employment benefit management plan; historic approach to the City's pension liability; performance of the pension obligation bonds saving $24 million; overview of the Post-Employment Benefits Management policy objective; clarification that the trust can only be used for pension or OPEB costs; and reason for choosing PARS rather than CalPERS to manage the trust.

A motion was made by Michael Allawos, seconded by Mendell Thompson, to 1. Adopt City Council Resolution CC 2022-56 entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Item #8. Page 7
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 102
Minutes Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Page 6 of 7
City Council Meeting City Council, Successor Agency and Housing Authority

GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE PUBLIC AGENCIES

POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TRUST ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES (PARS)”; 2. Adopt the Post-Employment Benefits Management Policy; and 3. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to be the City’s Plan Administrator and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to establish the Section 115 Trust.

13. 2022 Holiday Season and Discussion of Cancellation and/or Possible Rescheduling of City Council Regular Joint Meetings
RECOMMENDATION: Review and provide direction on what, if any, City Council meeting(s) should be cancelled due to the holiday season.

Staff report and PowerPoint was presented by City Clerk Specialist Cordova.

City Council discussion included collective support of going dark and a desire to have City Council to have the 2nd meetings of November, December and July dark as well as the 1st meeting in August removed from the schedule.

Mayor Pro Tem Boyer motioned for an alternate option to have the City Council regularly schedule meetings updated to reflect that the Glendora City Council will go dark and cancel their second meeting in November, December and July, as well as their first meeting in August.

A motion was made by Gary Boyer, seconded by David J. Fredendall, approve the proposed alternate option to have the City Council regularly schedule of meetings updated to reflect that the Glendora City Council will go dark and cancel their second meeting in November, December and July, as well as their first meeting in August.

MEMBER/STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Council Member Allawos announced a community meeting regarding the La Colina development being held Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. opposite the Fairmont Cemetery at 351 Shorey Drive in Glendora.

Mayor Pro Tem Boyer thanked residents that participated in the meeting.

City Manager Raymond announced the Ad-Hoc Antique Streetlight Citizens Committee meetings this Thursday Night at the Crowther Teen and Family Center.

Police Chief Egan announced the October third is Walk to School Day and advised residents to be mindful of pedestrians; and upcoming Police events related to breast cancer awareness month for October and invited the public to participate.

Item #8. Page 8
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 103
Minutes Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Page 7 of 7
City Council Meeting City Council, Successor Agency and Housing Authority Mayor Davis reminded City Council to wear Pink at the October meeting for Breast Cancer Awareness month.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor/Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m.

Kathleen R. Sessman, MMC
City Clerk/Communication Director
Minutes were approved on __________________ by the City Council of the City of Glendora, with the City of Glendora acting as the Successor Agency to the Glendora Community Redevelopment Agency per ABx1 26, codified at Health & Safety Code §34173(a).

Item #8. Page 9
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 104

STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2022
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DISTRICT(S): 3
SUBJECT: AWARD A CONTRACT AGREEMENT TO MACKONE DEVELOPMENT INC. FOR SECURITY DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT CITY OF GLENDORA – POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,547.18 (STRATEGIC PLAN ITEM 46-IMCIF)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Adopt a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302(c) of the California Code of Regulations;

2. Award an agreement with Mackone Development Inc. to replace two security doors at Glendora Police Department in the amount of $59,547.18;

3. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the agreement with Mackone Development Inc., including minimal and/or non-substantive changes;

4. Authorize the Administrative Services Director to appropriate $11,161.90 using Fund 321–CIP Fund towards project budget; and

5. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute any necessary change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% of the original contract amount.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As a participating agency of the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing organization, the City of Glendora can utilize Sourcewell agreements under applicable State and Local regulations.

Mackone Development Inc. (MDI) currently holds a competitively bid indefinite-quantity construction (IQC) agreement for the CA- Region 8 – General Building with Sourcewell. Sourcewell contracts with Gordian to administer and facilitate the use of these types of agreements under what Sourcewell terms their ezIQC® program. The City pays no fees to and does not contract directly with Gordian as part of these liaison services.

Staff procured a proposal from MDI to replace security doors at the Police Station for a total amount of $59,547.18 (Attachment B). Staff recommends that City Council award a contract agreement to MDI in this amount (Attachment C), adopt a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the California Code of Regulations (Attachment A), and authorize identified staff to execute the agreement and any necessary change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% of the original contract amount.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / PREVIOUS ACTIONS
Per California Government Code §6502 regarding Joint Powers Agreements, “if authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies, two or more public agencies by agreement may jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties, including, but not limited to, the authority to levy a fee, assessment, or tax, even though one or more of the contracting agencies may be located outside this state.”
Item #9. Page 1
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 105
Staff Report Page 2 of 3
Per Glendora Municipal Code (GMC) Section 2.40.050(4), “Purchases made at contract prices awarded by federal or state governments or by any political subdivision thereof or pursuant to a cooperative purchasing agreement” are exempt from GMC Sections 2.40.070 and 2.40.080 regarding informal purchasing and formal contract procedures, respectively.

As a participating agency of Sourcewell (Member ID#94382), Glendora can legally utilize Sourcewell agreements. MDI was awarded a competitively bid IQC agreement for the CA- Region 8- General Building with Sourcewell on January 28, 2022 (Attachment D), with an initial term of 1-yr, and 3 additional 1-yr term renewal options. The current contract is active through Feb 1, 2023. Sourcewell contracts with Gordian to administer and facilitate the use of these types of agreements under what Sourcewell terms their ezIQC® program. The City pays no fees to and does not contract directly with Gordian as part of these liaison services.

DISCUSSION
The security doors at the Police station are outdated and in need of updating. There are currently two security doors at the station, one at the front lobby area and the other at the rear of the station. The current doors do not provide the level of security that is required at the Police Station. The Police Department is most vulnerable in the areas that have direct public access. Installing a reasonable level of ballistic glass protection and hardening the infrastructure and doorways will give the station offices the time to react to get themselves out of harm way.

As a result, staff recommends having the two security doors replaced. After discussing the project with Gordian, they confirmed that it was a project suitable for the ezIQC® program and connected staff with MDI as the vendor to provide a proposal. Staff conducted site visits with representatives from both Gordian and MDI, reviewed the scope of necessary work, and discussed what they needed to include in their proposal.

MDI’s proposal of $59,547.18 includes the replacement of two security doors with bullet-resistant glass.

The glasses are tinted and 1-1/4” thick with ASTM 1233 Level V Ballistic Resistant, which is a level 3 bullet resistant that can withstand a minimum of three shots of 0.44 Magnum handgun rounds. The project also upgraded the door frame to a level 3 heavy-duty bullet-resistant aluminum tube frame. Their extremely high level of impact resistance also makes them an ideal solution for active threats, forced entry protection, blast damage mitigation, and storm damage mitigation.

Due to the nature of this project, the staff is respectfully requesting that a 10% ($5,954.72) of Contingency be added to the contract in the event that unforeseen conditions arise during construction.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this project was included in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 adopted budget in the CIP Fund 321.

Available funding for this project is $54,340.00, which is insufficient for this project. A budget appropriation from CIP Fund 321 is required for this project.

PD – Security Door Replacement- Plan 1294
FY 2022-2023, F321 CIP Fund $ 54,340.00
Total Fund Requested ($ 59,547.18)
Requested Contingency - 10% ($ 5,954.72)
Total Project Anticipated Expenditures ($ 65,501.90)
Budget Appropriation $ 11,161.90

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act provisions pursuant to Section 15302(c). The Notice of Categorical Exemption is attached for City Council as Attachment A.

Item #9. Page 2
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 106
Staff Report Page 3 of 3
Prepared By Dinh Anh Mai, Associate Civil Engineer
Concurs With Not Applicable
Reviewed By Alison Sweet, Public Works Director
Certified to Availability of Funds Marie Ricci, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer Approved By Adam Raymond, City Manager
Legal Review William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CEQA Review Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Notice of Exemption
B. MDI Proposal
C. Glendora-MDI Agreement
D. Sourcewell-MDI Indefinite Quantity Construction Agreement Item #9. Page 3
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 107
rvp7/3/97

CITY OF GLENDORA
116 East Foothill Boulevard, Glendora, California 91741

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Project Title: PD Security Door Replacement, Plan No 1294 Project Location: Police Station– City of Glendora
Project Sponsor: City of Glendora Public Works Department Mailing Address: 116 East Foothill Boulevard, Glendora CA 91741 General Plan Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning Designation: CCAP T-5 Village Core
Project Description: The project involves replacing security doors within Police Station located at 150 S Glendora Ave, Glendora, CA91741.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include low density residential, civic/institutional.

The Community Development Director recommends the following exempt status / findings:

Ministerial (Sec. 15073)
Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071(a))
Emergency Project (Sec. 15071(b) and (c))
Categorical Exemption
Type: Class 2- Replacement or Reconstruction
Section: 15302(c)
Statutory Exemption. Code Number:

Reasons why project is exempt: The project only replaces existing chlorine metering pumps within the facilities without any expansion.

Date:

Jeff Kugel, Community Development Director
The above recommended exempt status and findings were adopted by the following body:

City of Glendora City Council on June 28, 2022
Date:

Michael Mai, Associate Civil Engineer (626) 914-8257
Item #9. Page 4
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 108

PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Item #9. Page 5
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 109
Work Order Signature Document
EZIQC Contract No.: CA-R8-GB07-123021-MDI
Glendora - Security Door Replacement at Police Station
New Work Order
108016.00
Modify an Existing Work Order
Work Order Title:

Work Order Number.: Work Order Date:

X
08/22/2022
Contractor Name:

Contact:

Phone:

Contact:

Phone:

Matt Dugan
213-252-9506
Owner Name: City of Glendora
Michael Mai
(626) 914-8257
Mackone Development, Inc.

Work to be Performed
Work to be performed as per the Final Detailed Scope of Work Attached and as per the terms and conditions of Sourcewell EZIQC Contract No CA-R8-GB07-123021-MDI.

Brief Work Order Description:

Will not apply: Liquidated Damages Will apply:

Estimated Completion Date:

Time of Performance Estimated Start Date:

X
Work Order Firm Fixed Price: $59,547.18
Owner Purchase Order Number:

Approvals
City of Glendora Date Mackone Development, Inc. Date

2.00

Page 1 of 1 ends

8/22/2022
Work Order Signature Document
Item #9. Page 6
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 110

3.00 Detailed Scope of Work
To: Matt Dugan From: Michael Mai
Mackone Development, Inc. CALIFORNIA - City of Glendora 2244 Beverly Blvd. 116 E. Foothill Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90057 Glendora, CA 91741
213-252-9506 (626) 914-8257
Work Order Number:

Date Printed: August 22, 2022
108016.00
Work Order Title: Glendora - Security Door Replacement at Police Station Brief Scope:

Preliminary Revised X Final
The following items detail the scope of work as discussed at the site. All requirements necessary to accomplish the items set forth below shall be considered part of this scope of work.

Furnish and Replace/ Install: (2) storefront openings with doors and hardware in dark bronze aluminum, Level 3 framing and glazing. Hardware includes Von Dupren QEL rim panic wire loop, Power supply and LCN 4040XP Closure. Heavy duty continuous hinge, Threshold and Sweeps. Glass to be tinted. Rear entry door upper Glass section to be framed in, stucco on exterior, Drywall on interior Primed and Painted. Disconnect and reconnect existing access system to both doors.

Qualifications: Existing access system may not work with new door hardware & may need additional modifications.

Subject to the terms and conditions of JOC Contract CA-R8-GB07-123021-MDI.

Mackone Development, Inc. Date
City of Glendora Date

Page 1 of 1 ends

8/22/2022
Scope of Work
Item #9. Page 7
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 111

4.00 Contractor's Price Proposal - Summary
Owner PO #:

Glendora - Security Door Replacement at Police Station
108016.00
CA-R8-GB07-123021-MDI IQC Master Contract #:

Work Order #:

Title:

Re:

Date: August 22, 2022
Proposal Value:

Contractor: Mackone Development, Inc.
$59,547.18
Section - 01: General Requirements $6,516.33
Section - 08: Openings $49,263.04
Section - 09: Finishes $2,392.98
Section - 28: Electronic Safety and Security $1,374.83
Proposal Total
Thisl total represents the correct total for the proposal. Any discrepancy between line totals, sub-totals and the proposal total is due to rounding.
$59,547.18
The Percentage of NPP on this Proposal: %

Page 1 of 1 ends

8/22/2022
Contractor's Price Proposal - Summary
Item #9. Page 8
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 112

5.00 Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Glendora - Security Door Replacement at Police Station
108016.00
CA-R8-GB07-123021-MDI IQC Master Contract #:

Work Order #:

Owner PO #:

Title:

Re:

Date: August 22, 2022
Proposal Value:

Contractor: Mackone Development, Inc.
$59,547.18
Labor Equip. Material (Excludes)
Sect. Item Mod. UOM Description Line Total
Section - 01
01 22 16 00 0002 Reimbursable FeesReimbursable Fees will be paid to the contractor for eligible costs as directed by Owner. Insert the appropriate quantity to adjust the base cost to the actual Reimbursable Fee. If there are multiple Reimbursable Fees, list each one separately and add a comment in the "note" block to identify the Reimbursable Fee (e.g. sidewalk closure, road cut, various permits, extended warranty, expedited shipping costs, etc.). A copy of each receipt shall be submitted with the Price Proposal.
1 EA $1,281.84
Installation x x = 1,281.84
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total
1,165.31 1.00 1.1000
Bond 2%
01 22 20 00 0010 ElectricianFor tasks not included in the Construction Task Catalog® and as directed by owner only.
2 HR $2,175.26
Installation x x = 2,175.26
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

16.00 104.58 1.3000
Carefully disconnect existing door access system for reconnection 01 22 20 00 0010 ElectricianFor tasks not included in the Construction Task Catalog® and as directed by owner only.
3 HR $2,175.26
Installation x x = 2,175.26
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

16.00 104.58 1.3000
Integrate existing door access system to new doors
01 74 19 00 0016 40 CY Dumpster (5 Ton) "Construction Debris"Includes delivery of dumpster, rental cost, pick-up cost, hauling, and disposal fee. Non-hazardous material. 4 EA $883.97
Installation x x = 883.97
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

1.00 679.98 1.3000
Construction Debris
Subtotal for Section - 01 $6,516.33
Section - 08
08 42 13 00 0007 3'-6" x 7' x 1-3/4" Wide Stile, Aluminum Framed Entrance DoorsIncluding Glazing, Trim And Hardware
5 EA $16,060.54
Installation x x = 14,294.41
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

2.00 5,497.85 1.3000
Demolition 2.00 x
679.28 x 1.3000 = 1,766.13
Door assembly
6 08 42 13 00 0007 0491 MOD For 8' High Door, Add $669.67 Installation x x = 669.67
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

1.00 515.13 1.3000
08 43 13 00 0024 8' High, With Two Horizontal Mullions, 1-3/4" x 4-1/2" Frame, Vertical Mullions 4' On Center, Aluminum Storefront Framing Assembly
7 SF $1,979.12
Installation x x = 1,979.12
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

55.00 27.68 1.3000
Door sidelight lobby

Page 1 of 4 ends

8/22/2022
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Item #9. Page 9
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 113
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 108016.00
Glendora - Security Door Replacement at Police Station
Section - 08
08 43 13 00 0025 9' High, With Two Horizontal Mullions, 1-3/4" x 4-1/2" Frame, Vertical Mullions 4' On Center, Aluminum Storefront Framing Assembly
8 SF $1,164.35
Installation x x = 1,164.35
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

35.00 25.59 1.3000
Door Sidelight Rear entry
9 08 87 13 00 0004 SF Tinted, Abrasion Resistant, Solar Control Window Film (3M Scotchtint™) $816.82 Installation x x = 816.82
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

44.00 14.28 1.3000
Window tint
08 88 53 00 0039 1-1/4" Nominal Thickness, Ballistic Or Forced Entry Resistant1 1/4" is the overall nominal thickness. (GE-Lexgard MP-1000) forced entry resistance:

H.P. White TP-0500.01, level V (Step 42) or ASTM 1233 class V (step 40) ballistic resistance: UL 752, level 3-super high powered small arms (.44 Magnum handgun).
10 SF $19,368.49
Installation x x = 19,368.49
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

44.00 338.61 1.3000
Ballistic Polycarbonate level 3
11 08 88 53 00 0039 0280 MOD For Glass Removal And Preparing Opening For New Glazing, Add $9,204.05 Installation x x = 9,204.05
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

44.00 160.91 1.3000
Subtotal for Section - 08 $49,263.04
Section - 09
09 22 16 13 0015 3-5/8" Width, 16" On Center, 18 Gauge, Non Load Bearing, Non Structural, Galvanized Steel Stud Framing With Tracks And Runners
12 SF $354.25
Installation x x = 354.25
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 5.45 1.3000
13 09 22 16 13 0015 0010 MOD For Up To 100, Add $92.95
Installation x x = 92.95
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 1.43 1.3000
09 22 36 23 0005 3.4 LB/SY, Installed On Studs Or Furred Walls, Flat Diamond, Expanded Metal Lath
14 SF $167.05
Installation x x = 167.05
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 2.57 1.3000
For stucco infill Rear Door
15 09 22 36 23 0005 0018 MOD For Paper Backed Lath, Add $3.90 Installation x x = 3.90
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 0.06 1.3000
16 09 22 36 23 0005 0019 MOD For Up To 100, Add $41.60
Installation x x = 41.60
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 0.64 1.3000
17 09 23 13 00 0002 LF Galvanized Expanded Flange Casing Bead For Plaster Applications $117.33 Installation x x = 117.33
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

25.00 3.61 1.3000
For stucco infill Rear Door
18 09 23 13 00 0009 LF Galvanized "L" Trim For Plaster Applications $128.05 Installation x x = 128.05
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

25.00 3.94 1.3000
For stucco infill Rear Door

Page 2 of 4 ends

8/22/2022
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Item #9. Page 10
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 114
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 108016.00
Glendora - Security Door Replacement at Police Station
Section - 09
19 09 23 13 00 0009 0023 MOD For Zinc Instead Of Galvanized, Add $58.50 Installation x x = 58.50
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

25.00 1.80 1.3000
09 24 23 00 0002 Scratch/Brown/Finish, Three Coat Troweled StuccoExcludes lath and felt.

Interior or exterior, one side.
20 SF $553.15
Installation x x = 553.15
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 8.51 1.3000
For stucco infill Rear Door
21 09 24 23 00 0002 0031 MOD For Color Added To Finish Coat, Add $9.75 Installation x x = 9.75
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 0.15 1.3000
22 09 24 23 00 0002 0036 MOD For Up To 100, Add $239.20 Installation x x = 239.20
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 3.68 1.3000
23 09 29 10 00 0009 SF 5/8" Type X Fire Rated Gypsum Board $107.90 Installation x x = 107.90
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 1.66 1.3000
For stucco infill Rear Door
24 09 29 10 00 0009 0053 MOD For Up To 128, Add $18.85
Installation x x = 18.85
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

25.00 0.58 1.3000
25 09 29 10 00 0038 SF Up To 10' High, Walls, Tape, Spackle And Finish Gypsum Board $40.30 Installation x x = 40.30
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 0.62 1.3000
For stucco infill Rear Door
26 09 29 10 00 0038 0042 MOD For Up To 128, Add $15.60
Installation x x = 15.60
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 0.24 1.3000
27 09 29 10 00 0038 0048 MOD For ASTM C840 Level 5 High Quality Finish, Add $29.90 Installation x x = 29.90
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 0.46 1.3000
28 09 91 13 00 0095 SF 1 Coat Primer, Brush/Roller Work, Paint Exterior Stucco Walls $54.60 Installation x x = 54.60
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 0.84 1.3000
For stucco infill Rear Door
29 09 91 13 00 0095 0201 MOD For Up To 100, Add $34.45
Installation x x = 34.45
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 0.53 1.3000
30 09 91 13 00 0097 SF 2 Coats Paint, Brush/Roller Work, Paint Exterior Stucco Walls $115.05 Installation x x = 115.05
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 1.77 1.3000
For stucco infill Rear Door
31 09 91 13 00 0097 0201 MOD For Up To 100, Add $71.50
Installation x x = 71.50
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 1.10 1.3000

Page 3 of 4 ends

8/22/2022
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Item #9. Page 11
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 115
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail Continues..

Work Order Title:

Work Order Number: 108016.00
Glendora - Security Door Replacement at Police Station
Section - 09
32 09 91 23 00 0067 SF 1 Coat Primer, Brush/Roller Work, Paint Interior Plaster/Drywall Walls $38.35 Installation x x = 38.35
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 0.59 1.3000
For stucco infill Rear Door
33 09 91 23 00 0067 0281 MOD For Up To 100, Add $23.40
Installation x x = 23.40
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 0.36 1.3000
34 09 91 23 00 0069 SF 2 Coats Paint, Brush/Roller Work, Paint Interior Plaster/Drywall Walls $77.35 Installation x x = 77.35
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

50.00 1.19 1.3000
For stucco infill Rear Door
Subtotal for Section - 09 $2,392.98
Section - 28
28 16 11 00 0138 6 Volt DC, 12 Volt DC, Or 24 Volt DC, At 4 Amperes, Power Supply/Charger (Altronix SMP-5)
35 EA $1,374.83
Installation x x = 1,374.83
Quantity Unit Price Factor Total

2.00 528.78 1.3000
Door Contact Strike release
Subtotal for Section - 28 $1,374.83
Proposal Total
This total represents the correct total for the proposal. Any discrepancy between line totals, sub-totals and the proposal total is due to rounding.
$59,547.18
The Percentage of NPP on this Proposal: %

Page 4 of 4 ends

8/22/2022
Contractor's Price Proposal - Detail
Item #9. Page 12
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 116

PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT
By and Between

CITY OF GLENDORA
and
MACKONE DEVELOPMENT INC.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 13
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 117
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 1

AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDORA AND
MACKONE DEVELOPMENT INC.

THIS AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of __________ , 2022 by and between the City of Glendora, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and MACKONE DEVELOPMENT INC., a California Corporation (“Contractor”). City and Contractor may be referred to, individually or collectively, as “Party” or “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.

B. Contractor, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the City to perform those services.

C. Pursuant to the City of Glendora Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement.

D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Contractor for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.

OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1. WORK OF CONTRACTOR

1.1 Scope of Work.

In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide those services specified in the “Scope of Work” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Contractor represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the work required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein.

Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Contractor covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 14
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 118
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 2

1.2 Bid Documents.

The Scope of Work shall include the “General Provisions” and “Special Provisions” in the bid documents for the project entitled Police Department – Security Door Replacement Plan No. 1294 including any documents or exhibits referenced therein (collectively, “bid documents”), all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of the bid documents and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.

1.3 Compliance with Law.

Contractor shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered.

1.4 Compliance with California Labor Law.
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that the work to be performed under this Agreement is a “public work” as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages to the extent required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Contractor acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post a copy of the same at each job site where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor. (d) Payroll Records. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 15
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 119
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 3
(e) Apprentices. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.

Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program.

Within sixty (60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of its subcontractors shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Contractor acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Contractor or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one and one-half (1½) times the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers’ Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Contractor certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.”
Contractor’s Authorized Initials _______________
Tai J . Yang
President
(i) Contractor’s Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor who will perform work under this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for such subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance, including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 16
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 120
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 4
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.

1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.

Contractor shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits, registrations, and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Contractor shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Contractor’s performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.

1.6 Familiarity with Work.
(a) By executing this Agreement, Contractor warrants that Contractor (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of work to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Contractor warrants that Contractor has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder.
(b) Contractor shall promptly, and before the following conditions are disturbed, notify the City, in writing, of any: (i) material Contractor believes may be hazardous waste as defined in Section 25117 of the Health & Safety Code required to be removed to a Class I, II, or III disposal site in accordance with existing law; (ii) subsurface, unknown or latent conditions, materially different from those indicated; or (iii) unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this Agreement, and will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder.
(c) City shall promptly investigate the conditions, and if it finds that the conditions do materially differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and cause a decrease or increase in Contractor's cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work, shall issue a change order per Section 1.10 of this Agreement.
(d) In the event that a dispute arises between City and Contractor whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or increase in Contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, Contractor shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date set, but shall proceed with all work to be performed under the Agreement. Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided either by contract or by law, which pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the contracting parties.
(e) City will compensate Contractor to the extent required by Government Code Section 4215 by issuing a change order per Section 1.10 of this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 17
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 121
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 5

1.7 Protection and Care of Work and Materials.

The Contractor shall adopt reasonable methods, including providing and maintaining storage facilities, during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as caused by City’s own negligence. Stored materials shall be reasonably accessible for inspection. Contractor shall not, without City’s consent, assign, sell, mortgage, hypothecate, or remove equipment or materials which have been installed or delivered and which may be necessary for the completion of the work.

1.8 Warranty.

Contractor warrants all work under the Agreement (which for purposes of this Section shall be deemed to include unauthorized work which has not been removed and any non-conforming materials incorporated into the work) to be of good quality and free from any defective or faulty material and workmanship. Contractor agrees that for a period of one year (or the period of time specified elsewhere in the Agreement or in any guarantee or warranty provided by any manufacturer or supplier of equipment or materials incorporated into the work, whichever is later) after the date of final acceptance, Contractor shall within ten (10) days after being notified in writing by the City of any defect in the work or non-conformance of the work to the Agreement, commence and prosecute with due diligence all work necessary to fulfill the terms of the warranty at its sole cost and expense. Contractor shall act as soon as requested by the City in response to an emergency. In addition, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair, remove and replace any portions of the work (or work of other contractors) damaged by its defective work or which becomes damaged in the course of repairing or replacing defective work. For any work so corrected, Contractor's obligation hereunder to correct defective work shall be reinstated for an additional one year period, commencing with the date of acceptance of such corrected work.

Contractor shall perform such tests as the City may require to verify that any corrective actions, including, without limitation, redesign, repairs, and replacements comply with the requirements of the Agreement. All costs associated with such corrective actions and testing, including the removal, replacement, and reinstitution of equipment and materials necessary to gain access, shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. All warranties and guarantees of subcontractors, suppliers and manufacturers with respect to any portion of the work, whether express or implied, are deemed to be obtained by Contractor for the benefit of the City, regardless of whether or not such warranties and guarantees have been transferred or assigned to the City by separate agreement and Contractor agrees to enforce such warranties and guarantees, if necessary, on behalf of the City. In the event that Contractor fails to perform its obligations under this Section, or under any other warranty or guaranty under this Agreement, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City, the City shall have the right to correct and replace any defective or non-conforming work and any work damaged by such work or the replacement or correction thereof at Contractor's sole expense.

Contractor shall be obligated to fully reimburse the City for any expenses incurred hereunder upon demand.

1.9 Further Responsibilities of Parties.

Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 18
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 122
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 6
of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of the other.

1.10 Additional Work and Change Orders.
(a) City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Work or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written change order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Contractor, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Contractor (“Change Order”). All Change Orders must be signed by the Contractor and Contract Officer prior to commencing the extra work thereunder.
(b) Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or any increase in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty (180) days; and does not materially affect the Work and which are not detrimental to the Work or to the interest of the City, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. (c) Any adjustment in the Contract Sum for a Change Order must be in accordance with the rates set forth in the Schedule of Compensation in Exhibit “C”. If the rates in the Schedule of Compensation do not cover the type of work in the Change Order, the cost of such work shall not exceed an amount agreed upon in writing and signed by Contractor and Contract Officer. If the cost of the Change Order cannot be agreed upon, the City will pay for actual work of the Change Order completed, to the satisfaction of the City, as follows:
(i) Labor: the cost of labor shall be the actual cost for wages of workers and subcontractors performing the work for the Change Order at the time such work is done. The use of labor classifications that would increase the cost of such work shall not be permitted.
(ii) Materials and Equipment: the cost of materials and equipment shall be at cost to Contractor or lowest current price which such materials and equipment are reasonably available at the time the work is done, whichever is lower. (iii) If the cost of the extra work cannot be agreed upon, the Contractor must provide a daily report that includes invoices for labor, materials and equipment costs for the work under the Change Order. The daily report must include: list of names of workers, classifications, and hours worked; description and list of quantities of materials used; type of equipment, size, identification number, and hours of operation, including loading and transportation, if applicable; description of other City authorized services and expenditures in such detail as the City may require. Failure to submit a daily report by the close of the next working day may, at the City’s sole and absolute discretion, waive the Contractor’s rights for that day. (d) It is expressly understood by Contractor that the provisions of this Section 1.10 shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Work. Contractor hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Work may be more costly or time consuming than Contractor anticipates and that Contractor DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 19
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 123
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 7
shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other contractors. (e) No claim for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed.

1.11 Special Requirements.

Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.

ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.

2.1 Contract Sum.

Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Contractor the amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed $59,547.18 (Fifty-Nine Thousands, Five Hundred Forty-Seven Dollars Eighteen Cents) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.10.

2.2 Method of Compensation.

The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services less the contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Contractor’s rates as specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained and (c) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.

2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.

Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Contractor at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.

Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If Contractor is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Contractor shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.

2.4 Invoices.

Each month Contractor shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Contractor is DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 20
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 124
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 8
certifying compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall contain all information specified in Exhibit “C”, and shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories.

Contractor shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.

City shall, as soon as practicable, independently review each invoice submitted by the Contractor to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Contractor which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will cause Contractor to be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of Contractor’s correct and undisputed invoice; however, Contractor acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event that City does not cause Contractor to be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted invoice, Contractor shall be entitled to the payment of interest to the extent allowed under Public Contract Code Section 20104.50. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Contractor, not later than seven (7) days after receipt by the City, for correction and resubmission. Returned invoices shall be accompanied by a document setting forth in writing the reasons why the payment request was rejected. Review and payment by the City of any invoice provided by the Contractor shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.

2.5 Waiver.

Payment to Contractor for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Contractor.

ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE

3.1 Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

3.2 Schedule of Performance.

Contractor shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Contractor, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.

3.3 Force Majeure.

The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 21
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 125
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 9
litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Contractor shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Contractor be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Contractor’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.

3.4 Inspection and Final Acceptance.

City may inspect and accept or reject any of Contractor’s work under this Agreement, either during performance or when completed. City shall reject or finally accept Contractor’s work within forty-five (45) days after submitted to City. City shall accept work by a timely written acceptance, otherwise work shall be deemed to have been rejected. City’s acceptance shall be conclusive as to such work except with respect to latent defects, fraud and such gross mistakes as to amount to fraud. Acceptance of any work by City shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, Articles 1 and 5, pertaining to warranty and indemnification and insurance, respectively.

3.5 Term.

Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one (1) years from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”).

ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK

4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Contractor.

The following principals of Contractor (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Contractor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:

Tai J. Yang, President
Matt Dugan, Vice President
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing Principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.

Therefore, the Principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder.

All personnel of Contractor, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Contractor without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Contractor shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Contractor’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 22
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 126
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 10
the services required under this Agreement. Contractor shall notify City of any changes in Contractor’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance.

4.2 Status of Contractor.

Contractor shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Contractor or any of Contractor’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Contractor, nor any of Contractor’s officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Contractor expressly waives any claim Contractor may have to any such rights.

4.3 Contract Officer.

The Contract Officer shall be Alison Sweet, Public Works Director orsuch person as may be designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Contractor shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.

4.4 Independent Contractor.

Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Contractor, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Contractor’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. Contractor shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Contractor in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with Contractor.

4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.

The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Contractor, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Contractor shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. All subcontractors shall obtain, at its or Contractor’s expense, such licenses, permits, registrations and approvals (including from the City) as may be required by law for the performance of any services or work under this DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 23
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 127
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 11
Agreement. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Contractor, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Contractor or any surety of Contractor of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.

ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE, INDEMNIFICATION AND BONDS

5.1 Insurance Coverages.

Without limiting Contractor’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of any services under this Agreement, Contractor shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Contractor shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, $4,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Contractor shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Contractor arising out of or in connection with Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. (c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Contractor shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and Contractor agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement. (d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Contractor shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein. (f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 24
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 128
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 12

5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Contractor shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder by Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. (c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Contractor shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Contractor or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Contractor payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement. (e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Contractor or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Contractor hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subcontractors.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 25
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 129
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 13
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Contractor agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage.
(j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. (l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Contractor’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions. (m) Pass through clause. Contractor agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Contractor, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Contractor. Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Contractor agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. (n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Contractor ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Contractor, the City and Contractor may renegotiate Contractor’s compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by City.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 26
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 130
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 14
(p) Timely notice of claims. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Contractor’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.
(q) Additional insurance. Contractor shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.

5.3 Indemnification.

To the full extent permitted by law, Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims or liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Contractor is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Contractor’s or indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Contractor’s or indemnitors’ negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Contractor will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Contractor will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Contractor hereunder; and Contractor agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Contractor for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work, operation or activities of Contractor hereunder, Contractor agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

In addition, Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from, any and all claims and liabilities for any infringement of patent rights, copyrights or trademark on any person or persons in consequence of the use by the Indemnified Parties of articles to be supplied by Contractor under this Agreement, and of which the Contractor is not the patentee or assignee or has not the lawful right to sell the same.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 27
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 131
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 15
Contractor shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Contractor shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Contractor in the performance of professional services and work hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City’s negligence, except that design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Contractor and shall survive termination of this Agreement.

5.4 Notification of Third-Party Claims.

City shall timely notify Contractor of the receipt of any third-party claim relating to the work under this Agreement. City shall be entitled to recover from Contractor its reasonable costs incurred in providing such notification.

5.5 Performance and Labor Bonds.

Concurrently with execution of this Agreement Contractor shall deliver to the City, the following:
(a) A performance bond in the amount of the Contract Sum of this Agreement, in the form provided by the City Clerk, which secures the faithful performance of this Agreement.
(b) A labor and materials bond in the amount of the Contract Sum of this Agreement, in the form provided by the City Clerk, which secures the payment of all persons furnishing labor and/or materials in connection with the work under this Agreement.

Both the performance and labors bonds required under this Section 5.5 shall contain the original notarized signature of an authorized officer of the surety and affixed thereto shall be a certified and current copy of his power of attorney. The bond shall be unconditional and remain in force during the entire term of the Agreement and shall be null and void only if the Contractor promptly and faithfully performs all terms and conditions of this Agreement and pays all labor and materials for work and services under this Agreement.

5.6 Sufficiency of Insurer or Surety.

Insurance and bonds required by this Agreement shall be satisfactory only if issued by companies qualified to do business in California, rated “A” or better in the most recent edition of Best’s Rating Guide, The Key Rating Guide or in the Federal Register, and only if they are of a financial category Class VII or better, unless such requirements are waived by the Risk Manager of the City (“Risk Manager”) due to unique circumstances. If this Agreement continues for more than 3 years duration, or in the event the Risk Manager determines that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement creates an increased or decreased risk of loss to the City, the Contractor agrees that the minimum limits of the insurance policies and the performance bond DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 28
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 132
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 16
required by Section 5.5 may be changed accordingly upon receipt of written notice from the Risk Manager.

5.7 Substitution of Securities.

Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300, substitution of eligible equivalent securities for any funds withheld to ensure performance under this Agreement may be permitted at the request and sole expense of the Contractor. Alternatively, the Contractor may, pursuant to an escrow agreement in a form prescribed by Public Contract Code Section 22300, request payment of retentions funds earned directly to the escrow agent at the sole expense of the Contractor.

5.8 Release of Securities.

City shall release the Performance and Labor Bonds when the following have occurred:
(a) Contractor has made a written request for release and provided evidence of satisfaction of all other requirements under Article 5 of this Agreement; (b) the Work has been accepted; and
(c) after passage of the time within which lien claims are required to be made pursuant to applicable laws; if lien claims have been timely filed, City shall hold the Labor Bond until such claims have been resolved, Contractor has provided statutory bond, or otherwise as required by applicable law.

ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION

6.1 Records.

Contractor shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies, certified and accurate copies of payroll records in compliance with all applicable laws, or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of 3 years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Contractor’s business, custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Contractor’s successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall fully cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 29
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 133
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 17

6.2 Reports.

Contractor shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Contractor hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Contractor agrees that if Contractor becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if Contractor is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Contractor shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Contractor is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.

6.3 Ownership of Documents.

All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Contractor shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Contractor will be at the City’s sole risk and without liability to Contractor, and Contractor’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Contractor may retain copies of such documents for its own use.

Contractor shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Contractor fails to secure such assignment, Contractor shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Contractor with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City.

6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) information gained or work product produced by Contractor in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Contractor. Contractor shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Contractor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 30
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 134
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 18
(c) If Contractor, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Contractor, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Contractor for any damages, costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Contractor’s conduct. (d) Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Contractor or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION

7.1 California Law.

This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Contractor covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

7.2 Disputes.
(a) Default; Cure. In the event that Contractor is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Contractor of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Contractor may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Contractor is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall proceed with payment on the invoices only when the default is cured. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Contractor does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article.

Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Contractor’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
(b) Dispute Resolution. This contract is subject to the provisions of Article 1.5 (commencing at Section 20104) of Division 2, Part 3 of the California Public Contract Code regarding the resolution of public works claims of less than $375,000. Article 1.5 mandates certain procedures for the filing of claims and supporting documentation by the Contractor, for the response to such claims by the City, for a mandatory meet and confer conference upon the request DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 31
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 135
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 19
of the Contractor, for mandatory non-binding mediation in the event litigation is commenced, and for mandatory judicial arbitration upon the failure to resolve the dispute through mediation. This Agreement hereby incorporates the provisions of Article 1.5 as though fully set forth herein.

7.3 Retention of Funds.

Contractor hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Contractor (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Contractor’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Contractor’s obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Contractor, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Contractor to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.

7.4 Waiver.

Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.

Acceptance by City of any work or services by Contractor shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.

Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.

Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.

7.6 Legal Action.

In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Contractor shall file a claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 32
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 136
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 20

7.7 Liquidated Damages.

Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of this Agreement would be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of this Agreement, the Contractor and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the sum of $1,000.00 (One Thousand Dollars) as liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the performance of any service required hereunder, as specified in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”). The City may withhold from any monies payable on account of services performed by the Contractor any accrued liquidated damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 4215, Contractor shall not be assessed liquidated damages for delay in completion of the project when such delay was caused by the failure of the public agency or owner of the utility to provide for removal or relocation of utility facilities.

7.8 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.

This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to Contractor, except that where termination is due to the fault of the Contractor, the period of notice may be such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Contractor reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the period of notice may be such shorter time as the Contractor may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Contractor shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Contractor has initiated termination, the Contractor shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Contractor has initiated termination, the Contractor shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.

7.9 Termination for Default of Contractor.

If termination is due to the failure of the Contractor to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Contractor shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Contractor for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.

7.10 Attorneys’ Fees.

If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 33
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 137
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 21
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment.

7.11 Unfair Business Practices Claims.

In entering into this Agreement, Contractor offers and agrees to assign to the City all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2, (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials related to this Agreement. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the City renders final payment to the Contractor without further acknowledgment of the Parties.

ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION

8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.

No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Contractor, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Contractor or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

8.2 Conflict of Interest.

Contractor covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Contractor’s performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Contractor agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.

No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which effects his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Contractor warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.

8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.

Contractor covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 34
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 138
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 22
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or other protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or other protected class.

8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.

Contractor hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Contractor so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Contractor hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by City.

ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

9.1 Notices.

Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Glendora, 116 E. Foothill Blvd., Glendora, California 91741-3380, and in the case of the Contractor, to the person at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing.

Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section. All correspondence relating to this Agreement shall be serialized consecutively.

9.2 Interpretation.

The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.

9.3 Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.

9.4 Integration; Amendment.

This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 35
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 139
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 23
Contractor and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.

9.5 Severability.

In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.

9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.

No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of “financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be “remote” or “noninterests” pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Contractor warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.

Contractor further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Contractor is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of no force or effect.

Contractor’s Authorized Initials __________________
Tai J. Yang
President

9.7 Corporate Authority.

The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 36
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 140
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 24
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 37
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 141
Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No
1294 25
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written.

CITY:

City of Glendora, a municipal corporation
Adam Raymond
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CERTIFY AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder
City Attorney
Marie Ricci
Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer
ATTEST:

Kathleen R. Sessman
City Clerk/Communications Director
CONTRACTOR:

MACKONE DEVELOPMENT INC.

Name: Tai J. Yang
Title: President
Email Address: [email protected]
Name: Matt Dugan
Title: Vice President
Email Address: [email protected]
Address: 2244 Beverly Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90057
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Sep 21, 2022 | 11:46 AM PDT
Sep 21, 2022 | 11:53 AM PDT
Item #9. Page 38
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 142
01240.0001/535311.1 A-1
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF WORK
I. Contractor shall perform all of the work and comply with all of the specifications and requirements in the “General Provisions” and “Special Provisions” included in the bid documents for the project entitled Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No. 1294, including any documents or exhibits referenced therein.

II. Brief description of the work to be performed:

Furnish and Replace/ Install: (2) storefront openings with doors and hardware in dark bronze aluminum, Level 3 framing and glazing. Hardware includes Von Dupren QEL rim panic wire loop, Power supply and LCN 4040XP Closure. Heavy duty continuous hinge, threshold and sweeps. Glass to be tinted. Rear entry door upper Glass section to be framed in, stucco on exterior, Drywall on interior Primed and Painted. Disconnect and reconnect the existing access system to both doors.

III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the work, Contractor will keep the City apprised of the status of performance by delivering the following status reports:

A. Weekly Progress Report
B. Weekly Updated (2-week ahead) work schedule
IV. All work is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Contractor without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by City.

V. Contractor shall provide safe and continuous passage for pedestrian and vehicular traffic in accordance with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH), latest edition.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 39
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 143
01240.0001/535311.1 B-1
EXHIBIT “B”

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
Added text is indicated in bold italics, deleted text is indicated in strikethrough. [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 40
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 144
01240.0001/535311.1 C-1
EXHIBIT “C”

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Contractor shall perform all work at the rates on the Bid Sheet submitted as part of Contractor’s Proposal, and listed below:

II. A retention of five percent (5%) shall be held from each payment as a contract retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of services.

III. Within the budgeted amounts for each item on the Bid Sheet, and with the approval of the Contract Officer, funds may be shifted from one item’s subbudget to another so long as the Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Work is approved per Section 1.10.

IV. The City will compensate Contractor for the Services performed upon submission of a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:

A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the hourly rate.

B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.

C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting documentation.

D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and travel properly charged to the Services.

V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum, as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.

VI. The Contractor’s detailed price proposal is attached as Exhibit C-1.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 41
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 145
01240.0001/535311.1 C-2
EXHIBIT “C-1”
CONTRACTOR’S PRICE PROPOSAL DETAILS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 42
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 146
01240.0001/535311.1 C-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 43
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 147
01240.0001/535311.1 C-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 44
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 148
01240.0001/535311.1 C-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 45
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 149
01240.0001/535311.1 D-1
EXHIBIT “D”

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Contractor shall perform all work timely in accordance with the following schedule:

Following the award of the contract, City’s Contract Officer will issue a written notice to proceed which shall include a designation of the “days to perform” the scope of work in Exhibit “A,” the “deadline date” by which the scope of work must be completed, and identify such report(s) or other work product the Contractor shall deliver during the performance of the scope of work in Exhibit “A.”
Description Days to Perform Deadline Date
A. All Work 7 Working Days TBD
II. Contractor shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the following dates.

A. TBD upon award of the project
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with Section 3.2.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 46
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 150
01240.0001/535311.1 D-1

PERFORMANCE BOND
WHEREAS, the CITY OF GLENDORA, (“City”), has awarded to MACKONE DEVELOPMENT INC., as Contractor (“Principal”), a Contract for the work entitled and described as follows: Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No. 1294; WHEREAS, the Contractor is required under the terms of said Contract to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of the Contract;
NOW, THEREFORE, we the undersigned Contractor and Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the sum of $59,547.18 (Fifty-Nine Thousands, Five Hundred FortySeven Dollars Eighteen Cents), this amount being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total Contract price, lawful money of the United States of America, for payment of which sum well and truly be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. In case suit is brought upon this bond, the Surety will pay a reasonable attorney’s fee to the City in an amount to be fixed by the court.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if the hereby bound Contractor, or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns, shall in all things stand and abide by, well and truly keep and perform all undertakings, terms, covenants, conditions, and agreements in the said Contract and any alteration thereof, made as therein provided, all within the time and in the manner designated and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

FURTHER, the said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or modification of the Contract Documents or of the work to be performed thereunder shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of such change, extension of time, alteration, or modification of the Contract Documents or of the work to be performed thereunder.

Executed on 20___.

PRINCIPAL
(Seal if Corporation) By
Title
(Attach Acknowledgment of Authorized Representative of Principal) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 47
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 151
01240.0001/535311.1 D-2
Any claims under this bond may be addressed to:
(name and address of Surety)
(name and address of Surety's agent for service
of
process in California, if different from above)
(telephone number of Surety's agent in
California)
(Attach Acknowledgment)
SURETY
By
(Attorney-in-Fact)
APPROVED:
(Attorney for CITY)
NOTICE:

No substitution or revision to this bond form will be accepted. Sureties must be authorized to do business in and have an agent for service of process in California. Certified copy of Power of Attorney must be attached.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 48
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 152
01240.0001/535311.1

PAYMENT BOND
(Labor and Material Bond)
WHEREAS, the CITY OF GLENDORA, (“City”), has awarded to MACKONE DEVELOPMENT INC., as Contractor (“Principal”), a Contract for the work entitled and described as follows: Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No. 1294; WHEREAS, said Contractor is required to furnish a bond in conjunction with said Contract, to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, material men, and other persons as provided by law;
NOW, THEREFORE, we the undersigned Contractor and Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the sum of $59,547.18 (Fifty-Nine Thousands, Five Hundred FortySeven Dollars Eighteen Cents), this amount being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total Contract price, lawful money of the United States of America, for payment of which sum well and truly be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. In case suit is brought upon this bond, the Surety will pay a reasonable attorney’s fee to the City in an amount to be fixed by the court.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if said Contractor, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, or subcontractor fails to pay: (1) for any work, materials, services, provisions, provender, or other supplies, or for the use of implements of machinery, used in, upon, for, or about the performance of the work to be done, or for any work or labor thereon of any kind; (2) for work performed by any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 9100; (3) for any amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the contract; and/or (4) for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the Contractor and/or its subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to such work and labor, then the Surety herein will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, otherwise the above obligation shall be void.

This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 9100 so as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon the bond. Moreover, if the City or any entity or person entitled to file stop payment notices is required to engage the services of an attorney in connection with the enforcement of this bond, each shall be liable for the reasonable attorney's fees incurred, with or without suit, in addition to the above sum.

Said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or modification of the Contract Documents or of the work to be performed thereunder shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of such change, extension of time, alteration, or modification of the Contract Documents or of the work to be performed thereunder.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 49
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 153
01240.0001/535311.1
Executed on , 20____.

PRINCIPAL
(Seal if Corporation) By
Title
(Attach Acknowledgment of Authorized Representative of Principal) Any claims under this bond may be addressed to:
(name and address of Surety)
(name and address of Surety's agent for service
of process in California, if different from above)
(telephone number of Surety's agent in
California)
(Attach Acknowledgment)
SURETY
By
(Attorney-in-Fact)
APPROVED:
(Attorney for CITY)
NOTICE:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 50
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 154
01240.0001/535311.1

WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Description of Contract: City of Glendora
Project: Police Department – Security Door Replacement, Plan No. 1294
Type of Insurance: Workers' Compensation and
Employers' Liability Insurance
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following policy has been issued by the below-stated company in conformance with the requirements of Article 5 of the Contract and is in force at this time, and is in a form approved by the Insurance Commissioner.

The Company will give at least 30 days' written notice to the City and Engineer/Architect prior to any cancellation of said policy.

POLICY NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE LIMITS OF LIABILITY
Workers' Compensation:

Statutory Limits Under the Laws
of the State of California
Employers' Liability:
$_________________ Each Accident
$_________________ Disease - Policy Limit
$_________________ Disease - Each Employee
Named Insured (Contractor) Insurance Company
Street Number Street Number
City and State City and State
By
(Company Representative)
(SEE NOTICE ON NEXT PAGE)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 51
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 155
01240.0001/535311.1
Insurance Company Agent for Service
of Process in California:

Name
Agency
Street Number
City and State
Telephone Number
This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. This certificate does not amend, extend, or alter the coverage afforded by the policy listed herein.

This is to certify that the policy has been issued to the named insured for the policy period indicated, notwithstanding any requirement, term, or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate may be issued or may pertain, the insurance afforded by the policy described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions, and conditions of such policy.

NOTICE:

No substitution or revision to the above certificate form will be accepted. If the insurance called for is provided by more than one insurance company, a separate certificate in the exact above form shall be provided for each insurance company.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 52
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 156
01240.0001/535311.1

ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT

COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY
Name and address of named insured (“Named Insured”)
Name and address of Insurance Company (“Company”)
General description of agreement(s), permit(s), license(s), and/or activity(ies) insured Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the “Policy”) or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows:

1. The
(“Public Agency”), its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the “Additional Insureds”) under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. The Additional Insureds have no liability for the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy.

2. The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be primary insurance, and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy.

3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the Company's liability.

4. Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy. All such claims shall be covered as third-party claims, i.e., in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company's limits of liability as provided under the policy.

5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained in or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or permit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds.

6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to Public Agency, by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date thereof. In the event of Company's failure to comply with this notice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement.

7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 53
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 157
01240.0001/535311.1
to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds.

8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance.

9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to Public Agency at:

City Manager, City of Glendora, 116 E. Foothill Blvd., Glendora, California 91741-3380.

10. Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, agreements, or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached.

TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF

THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES FROM/TO LIABILITY

11. Scheduled items or locations are to be identified on an attached sheet. The following inclusions relate to the above coverages. Includes:
□ Contractual Liability □ Explosion Hazard
□ Owners/Landlords/Tenants □ Collapse Hazard
□ Manufacturers/Contractors □ Underground Property Damage □ Products/Completed Operations □ Pollution Liability
□ Broad Form Property Damage □ Liquor Liability
□ Extended Bodily Injury □
□ Broad Form Comprehensive □
General Liability Endorsement □

12. A □ deductible or □ self-insured retention (check one) of $ applies to all coverage(s) except:
(if none, so state). The deductible is applicable □ per claim or □ per occurrence (check one).

13. This is an □ occurrence or □ claims made policy (check one).

14. This endorsement is effective on at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number .
(signatures on following page)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 54
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 158
01240.0001/535311.1
I, (print name), hereby
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company.

Executed , 20
Signature of Authorized Representative
(Original signature only; no facsimile signature
Telephone No.: ( ) or initialed signature accepted)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 55
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 159
01240.0001/535311.1

ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Name and address of named insured (“Named Insured”)
Name and address of Insurance Company (“Company”)
General description of agreement(s), permit(s), license(s), and/or activity(ies) insured Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the “Policy”) or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows:

5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or permit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds.

6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to Public Agency, by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date thereto. In the event of Company's failure to comply with this notice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement.

7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 56
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 160
01240.0001/535311.1
to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds.

8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance.

9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to Public Agency at:

City Manager
City of Glendora
116 E. Foothill Blvd.

Glendora, California 91741-3380

TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF

THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES FROM/TO LIABILITY

11. Scheduled items or locations are to be identified on an attached sheet. The following inclusions relate to the above coverages. Includes:
□ Any Automobiles □ Truckers Coverage
□ All Owned Automobiles □ Motor Carrier Act
□ Non-owned Automobiles □ Bus Regulatory Reform Act
□ Hired Automobiles □ Public Livery Coverage
□ Scheduled Automobiles □
□ Garage Coverage □

12. A □ deductible or □ self-insured retention (check one) of $ applies to all coverage(s) except: (if none, so state). The deductible is applicable □ per claim or □ per occurrence (check one).

13. This is an □ occurrence or □ claims made policy (check one).

14. This endorsement is effective on at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number .
(signatures on following page)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 57
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 161
01240.0001/535311.1
I, (print name), hereby
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company.

Executed , 20
Signature of Authorized Representative
(Original signature only; no facsimile signature
Telephone No.: ( ) or initialed signature accepted)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 58
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 162
01240.0001/535311.1

ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT

EXCESS LIABILITY
Name and address of named insured (“Named Insured”)
Name and address of Insurance Company (“Company”)
General description of agreement(s), permit(s), license(s), and/or activity(ies) insured Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the “Policy”) or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows:

3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the Company's liability.

6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to Public Agency, by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date thereto. In the event of Company's failure to comply with this notice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement.

7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 59
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 163
01240.0001/535311.1

8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance.

9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to Public Agency at:

City Manager
City of Glendora
116 E. Foothill Blvd.

Glendora, California 91741-3380

TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF

THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES FROM/TO LIABILITY
□ Following Form
□ Umbrella Liability
□

11. Applicable underlying coverages:

INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. AMOUNT

12. The following inclusions, exclusions, extensions or specific provisions relate to the above coverages:

13. A □ deductible or □ self-insured retention (check one) of $ applies to all coverage(s) except:
(if none, so state). The deductible is applicable □ per claim or □ per occurrence (check one).

14. This is an □ occurrence or □ claims made policy (check one).

15. This endorsement is effective on at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number .

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 60
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 164
01240.0001/535311.1
(signatures on following page)
I, (print name), hereby
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company.

Executed , 20
Signature of Authorized Representative
(Original signature only; no facsimile signature
Telephone No.: ( ) or initialed signature accepted)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3390219A-436B-435B-B7CF-E2CACC7C3F0C Item #9. Page 61
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022 / Packet Page #: 165
Rev. 4/2021 Sourcewell IFB #CA-123021
Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity Construction Contracts in the State of California

Page 1 ends

Glendora City CouncilOctober 11, 2022

Glendora City Council
October 11, 2022