Montebello City Council
April 10, 2024

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 16 Dedicated: Several years ago, NGF developed a scale to gauge participant engagement with golf.

NGF annual golfer survey research indicates that the number of dedicated golfers has remained steady at 20 million for the past 8 years. Dedicated golfers are responsible for ±95% of rounds played and spending, and engaged golfers are significantly more likely to continue playing.

National Overview Summary – Potential Implications for MGC It is difficult to conclude how the national trends discussed above will affect a particular golf course, as we cannot definitively predict which, if any, of these trends will continue. On balance, however, we believe that a continuation in the growth of beginning golfers, successful activation by golf operators and organizations such as the PGA of America, NGCOA, USGA, and National Golf Foundation of the large cohort of non-golfers that have expressed interest in playing (“latent demand”), and the continued golf course supply correction towards equilibrium should have a positive effect on golf courses.

The pandemic resulted in a significant rise in new and returning golfers, manifesting in fuller tee sheets across the U.S. Still, as we documented above, part of the Covid “dividend” may be waning, and operators will have to be proactive in keeping golfers engaged. A key part of keeping golfers engaged – especially for the critical young adult cohort and those new to the sport – is offering a facility that is welcoming, user-friendly, and actively programmed with player development/ instruction, leagues, outings & tournaments, and specialized events that offer not just the opportunity to learn, but also offer fun and entertainment. These types of activities align with many of the trends NGF is tracking via ongoing research, and the reimagined Montebello GC, including the lighted short course, should align favorably with these trends as well.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 17 Local/Regional Golf Market Analysis
In this section we provide a summary of key “external” factors that have the potential to affect the demand for golf at the reimagined Montebello Golf Course. The overview includes an analysis of basic demographic measures, as well as golf supply and demand indicators, that have the potential to affect the demand for golf, as well as fee/price tolerances and thus the economic performance of golf facilities.

LOCAL MARKET GOLF SUPPLY AND DEMAND OVERVIEW
To assess potential market opportunities for Montebello GC, it is helpful to examine local economic and demographic factors that have the potential to impact demand for rounds, as well as fee tolerances. Below we provide a review of the area’s demographics, as well as an overview of key golf market demand and supply indicators. Specifically, we have examined the 2-, 5-, and 10-mile radial markets around MGC, as well as the 45-minute drivetime and Los Angeles CBSA. This information is derived from ongoing NGF golf participation research, the NGF U.S. Golf Facility Database, and NGF Golf Market Analysis Platform (GolfMAP) (See Appendix B).

Defining the Primary Market Area for MGC
The primary market area for Montebello Golf Course is the geographic area from which we would expect the strong majority of its demand to come from. Several factors determine the trade area for a golf facility. In addition to the quality and price point of the subject facility, the quantity, quality, and nature of competitive facilities in the area, the availability of highway and major thoroughfare infrastructure, traffic patterns, economic and demographic factors, and the propensity for golfers to travel to play golf all play a role in establishing the primary market area for a golf facility.

Based on NGF’s market analysis and consideration of the factors noted above, we expect that the new MGC draws the majority of its customers from within approximately 10 miles, an area that includes eastern Los Angeles, Rosemead, Monterey Park, Alhambra, Commerce, El Monte, Downey, Whittier, Pasadena, and Arcadia. Additional secondary demand will come from beyond this radial, including communities such as Glendale and Altadena to the north and West Covina to the east.

Demographic Profile
➢ As of 2021, there were an estimated 722,000 people residing within 5 miles of MGC, more than 3.13 million within 10 miles, and 12.3 million within 45 minutes drivetime.

The primary 10-mile trade area is projected to lose approximately 48,000 net residents by 2026.
➢ The Caucasian population in the submarkets ranges from about 19% (5-mile) to 34% (45-minute), significantly lower than in the nation overall. Ongoing NGF survey research indicates that participation in golf among white Americans is significantly higher than for other ethnicities, though differences mitigate somewhat as incomes equalize.
➢ Median household income in the 10-mile market, at $67,544, is about 2% lower than the corresponding national figure of $68,897, while MHI for the 45-minute drivetime is about $84,000, or 22% higher than the national median. However, we note that the local income figures are mitigated by the very high cost of living in the Los Angeles

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 18 area. Median ages in the subject markets are in the general range of 37 to 39 years, similar to the national media of 37.7 years. Golf participation and frequency of play are positively correlated with higher income and higher age, though there is attrition at some point among elderly golfers.
➢ The climate for golf is year-round and near ideal in the greater Los Angeles area.

Over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies from 48°F to 85°F and is rarely below 42°F or above 93°F. The warm season lasts about 3 months, from July 1 to September 30, with an average daily high temperature above 81°F. The hottest month of the year in Los Angeles is August, with an average high of 84°F and low of 66°F. The cool / wet season lasts for 4 months, from late November 26 to late March, with an average daily high temperature below 70°F. The coldest month of the year is December, with an average low of 48°F and high of 67°F. Average annual rainfall is about 16 inches, and February has the most wet days, with an average of

5.4 days with at least 0.04 inches of precipitation.

Golf Demand
➢ Golf participation rate: Due to a demographic profile that is not predictive of high golf participation, participation rates in the 2-, 5-, and 10-mile submarkets are 35% to 40% lower than the national golf participation rate of 8.0%. Participation rates in the broader 45-minute drivetime and Los Angeles CBSA markets are only 11% lower and 5% lower, respectively, than the national benchmark. Lower participation rates are mitigated by the very dense urban / suburban population base. ➢ NGF’s proprietary Golf Demand Model indicates 5,400+ golfers within MGC’s 2-mile “fall out of bed” market, 35,000 within 5 miles, about 164,000 within 15 miles, and nearly 700,000 within 45 minutes drivetime.
➢ Rounds played: For the local markets, estimated (facility self-reported + modeled) annual rounds played per 18 holes are ±75,000 in the 10-mile and 45-minute markets, about 2.5 times the national average and among the highest in the nation.

Summary Golf Demand Measures – Local Markets
Montebello GC 2-mile
market
5-mile
market
10-mile
market
45-minute
market
Los Angeles
MSA
Golf Participation Rate 5.2% 4.9% 5.3% 7.1% 7.6%
Part. Rate Index (US = 100) 65 61 66 89 95
Number of Golfers 5,416 33,410 157,297 830,538 935,705
Interested Non-Golfers 5,275 32,526 154,548 821,983 925,014 Est. Rounds per 18 holes 80,830 97,682 118,304 99,863 95,641 Golfers per 18H Index-Public
(US=100) 302 372 449 363 344
➢ People who express an interest in playing golf but have not yet taken it up include former golfers (gave it up), and those who have never tried. The demographic profile of latent demand tends to be more female and younger than the overall population.

Golf-interested non-golfers cite several barriers to entry in golf, including the cost and social aspects (no one to play with). NGF modeling suggests about 164,000 “very interested” non-golfers in the 10-mile primary trade area for MGC.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 19 Golf Facility Supply
➢ There are 21 total golf facilities in MGC’s primary 10-mile market, including 15 public access (14 municipal). The 45-minute drivetime market is home to a remarkable 121 facilities (86 public), including 54 owned by municipalities. The 15 public facilities within 10 miles are about evenly split between ‘standard’ (peak fee $40-$70) and ‘value’ (<$40) price point facilities.
➢ Demand-Supply: The local submarkets and the overall Los Angeles CBSA are vastly undersupplied with golf facilities – especially on the public side - compared to the national benchmark. For example, the 10-mile primary trade area has 4.6 times as many golfers per 18 holes of public golf than the US average, while the CBSA has 4 times as many golfers per public 18HEQ course.
➢ The NGF U.S. Golf Facility Database shows no new golf courses either in planning or under construction in the 45-minute trade area.

LOCAL COMPETITIVE GOLF MARKET
Based on market knowledge, NGF has identified a representative subset of public golf courses that we believe will comprise the primary and secondary competitors to the redeveloped Montebello Golf Course. These were chosen due to proximity and type, though we note that there are few 9-hole regulation public courses in the market. NGF visited key competitors to help establish their price-value proposition, general condition, and amenities in comparison to the envisioned Montebello GC.

While some of the facilities shown in the table below will not be direct competitors to the new MGC, all were considered during NGF’s pricing analysis.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 20 Summary Information – MGC Competitors and/or Facilities used for Fee Analysis Golf Facility Location Type Year
Open
Par/
Slope
Front Tee/
Back Tee
Location
Relative to
Montebello
GC
Architect Tee
Stations
Alhambra GC Alhambra MU-18H 1956 71/115 3,639/5,466 4.0 miles N William F. Bell, ASGCA 39
Altadena GC Altadena MU-9H
Regulation 1939 36/116 2,091/3,039 11.0 miles N William P. Bell, ASGCA 40 Brookside GC Pasadena MU-36H
Regulation 1928 9.5 miles NW 20
C.W. Koiner 18H Reg. 72/133 6,000/7,104 William P. Bell E.O. Nay 18H Reg. 70/121 5,326/6,025 William P. Bell
DeBell GC Burbank
MU-18H
Reg. + 9H
Par-3
1958 71/120 4,946/5,633 15.5 miles
NW
William F. Bell/
William H.

Johnson, ASGCA
21 Eaton Canyon GC Pasadena MU-18H
Regulation 1962 70/113 1,857/2,862 10.0 miles NE
William P. Bell,
ASGCA 20
Harbor Park GC Wilmington MU-9H
Regulation 1957 36/118 2,747/3,148 19.0 miles SW
William P. Bell,
ASGCA 0
Los Amigos GC Downey MU-18H
Regulation 1966 71/118 4,050/6,212 7.0 miles S 24
Monterey Park GC Monterey
Park
MU-9H
Executive 1973 29/ - 1,489 2.5 miles NW 39
Pico Rivera GC Pico Rivera MU-9H
Par-3
1965 29/80 1,339/1,500 4.0 miles E William P. Bell,
ASGCA 15
Recreation Park 9 GC Long
Beach
MU-9H
Executive 1925 29/120 2,100 17.6 miles SW 0
Rio Hondo GC Downey
MU-18H
Regulation 1929 71/125 5,657/6,370 5.0 miles S
John Duncan
Dunn/(R) Jerald
Purkl, ASGCA
32 Santa Anita GC Arcadia MU-18H
Regulation 1935 71/119 4,39 /6,412 9.0 miles NE James Harrison Smith 22
Scholl Canyon G&TC Glendale MU-18H
Executive 1994 60/86 2,400/3,039 10.0 miles NW
William Bell, Jr.,
ASGCA 34
The Lakes at El
Segundo El Segundo MU-10H Executive 1994 -/- 1,060 17.2 Miles SW Martin Hawtree/
Fred Hawtree/(R)
Mike Angus
0 Whittier Narrows GC Rosemead MU-27H
Regulation 1955 3.0 miles NW 30
Mountain/ 9H Reg. 35/ - 2,403/2,728 William P. Bell,
ASGCA
River Course 9H Reg. 36/ - 3,143/3,459 William P. Bell, ASGCA
Pine Course 9H Reg. 36/ - 2,955/3,353 William P. Bell,
ASGCA
*Air miles from subject site, rounded to half-mile; actual driving distances will likely be greater.

Type: DF – Daily Fee; MU – Municipal

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 21 The map below shows the locations of the local public courses listed above that were considered in the pricing analysis for MGC.

Competitive Market Fees and Significant Findings
For our pricing analysis, NGF considered the facilities listed above, with an emphasis on the stand-alone 9-hole regulation length courses - Altadena, Eaton Canyon, and Harbor Park.

Green and cart fee pricing for these facilities is shown in Appendix C Other facilities that were part of the analysis included the 10-hole par-3 Lakes at El Segundo, Whittier Narrows’ 9-hole Mountain course, the City of Long Beach’s Recreation Park 9, and National City Golf Course in San Diego County.

Two regional 9-hole resort courses - Links at Terranea in Palos Verdes (peak 9H riding fee $85; $50 replay) and Ben Brown’s Golf Course at the Ranch Laguna Beach ($75 peak 9H riding) – represent the premium end of the local 9-hole market and were not considered by NGF to be representative comparables for Montebello GC. Finally, we analyzed the rates of some national short courses, including River Oaks GC in Paso Robles and “Little Bell” at Belmont GC in Richmond, VA. The latter is a 6-hole, par-3 course designed to showcase several of A.W.

Tillinghast’s iconic par-3 holes. We also looked at rates for golf courses such as Arlington Lakes GC in Arlington Heights, IL, which features rates for 3- and 6-hole loops.

NGF’s key takeaways from our analysis of the competitive public golf course market that the new Montebello Golf Course will operate in:

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 22 ➢ The mid-tier public access golf market in greater Los Angeles and in MGC’s primary trade area is highly competitive, with a lot of golf courses competing in the same general fee range. In addition to numerous daily fee facilities, many municipal golf courses compete for market share, including the City of L.A. and L.A. County of Los Angeles facilities, as well as muni golf courses owned by the cities of Pasadena, Downey, Alhambra, Burbank and, further south, Anaheim and Long Beach. ➢ There are only a handful of stand-alone 9-hole golf courses in proximity to Montebello.

Chief competitors for the redeveloped MGC will include 9-hole courses Altadena, Eaton Canyon, and Monterey Park (exec.), as well as 18-hole courses Alhambra, Los Amigos, Rio Hondo, Whitter Narrows, and Santa Anita.
➢ Several of the City of Los Angeles 9-hole courses generate extremely high rounds totals. Harbor Park 9 hosted a remarkable 115,000+ rounds in FY22, while Penmar and Roosevelt executive 9H courses also exceeded 100,000 rounds. Closer to home, LA County’s Altadena and Eaton Canyon 9-hole regulation courses generated far fewer rounds, at about 44,000 and 43,000, respectively, in FY 22 (increases of about 45% and 39% over FY19).
➢ Of the regulation 9-hole courses, LA County’s Altadena and Eaton Canyon golf courses charge $22 weekday / $26 weekend for 9 holes and $12/$13 for replays, with $11 per person cart for 9 holes. The City of LA’s Harbor Park GC charges $19/$27, with $8.50/$11 for replay and $8 for 9-hole cart. None of these facilities offer resident discounts.
➢ Non-resident green + cart fees for prime time play on the 18-hole regulation golf courses generally range from $45 to the upper $60s for the majority of area public courses, with Downey’s Rio Hondo GC the highest at $73 for weekend morning play.

The pricing convention in the market shows resident rates discounts offered at some of the municipal golf courses (not LA County or City), and price breaks at twilight and supertwilight. Fees are also higher on weekends and holidays than on weekdays, which is standard in the golf industry. Senior and junior discounts are common, though often with restrictions.
➢ While the majority of the potentially competitive golf courses have older infrastructure and feature maintenance conditions that are commensurate with heavy play, NGF has noted that local municipalities (and their lessees in some cases) have followed the national trend of investing in their golf facilities, and some have also turned to professional management to improve operations. NGF was told that in the last few years prior to closing for renovation, Montebello GC had fallen into disrepair at the same time key competitors were being improved.
➢ The municipal golf courses in this market generally have minimally stocked pro shops and basic food & beverage service. Exceptions include Monterey Park GC, which has a very robust merchandising operations, and the cities of Downey, Burbank, Pasadena, and Alhambra, which offer more expansive food & beverage service. ➢ Some of the profiled golf courses – particularly in the northern part of MGC’s primary trade area – are very scenic. For example, Pasadena’s Brookside GC features striking views of the San Gabriel mountains, while Glendale’s Scholl Canyon GC has mountain vistas as well as panoramic views that reach to the Pacific Ocean and overlook the L.A. basin and San Fernando Valley.
➢ Golf courses offering night golf in the regional market include Monterey Park (last tee time about 8:30, close promptly at 11 pm), Lakes at El Segundo, Arcadia Par 3, and David L. Baker.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 23 Los Angeles County Market
Up until the early part of the 2000s, the greater Los Angeles public golf market had been exceptionally strong, with golf demand and per-course rounds played peaking in the mid- to late-1990s. Public access golf was dominated by municipal golf facilities, most operating at close to full capacity and some (especially L.A. City and L.A. County courses) approaching or exceeding 100,000 rounds per 18 holes. The golf market benefited from extremely high population density, favorable demographics, a great golf climate, and a very low per capita supply of public access golf courses.

The Southern California public golf market and the Los Angeles submarket, like most major golf markets across the U.S., began to decline around 2002 due to a variety of factors, including a significant build up in the supply of public golf courses*, socioeconomic, lifestyle and demographic changes, the September 11 terror attacks, and poor regional and national economic conditions during much of the period since 2000, culminating in the 2007-08 national recession.
*In the Los Angeles MSA (comprises Los Angeles and Orange counties) alone, 150+ new holes of golf – the vast majority public access – were added in the first decade of the millennium. In terms of the broader market, 50+ 18-hole equivalent public access golf courses were added in the seven-county Southern California region between the mid-1990s and 2010. While public golf course inventory grew by about onethird over this time, the population of the seven-county region increased by less than 20%, with much of the growth among populations that have traditionally had very low golf participation rates.

The decade or so subsequent to the recession saw total rounds at SoCal public courses decline about 15% to 20%, though the Los Angeles submarket experienced lower-magnitude decreases, especially among the more popular municipal facilities. And the L.A. area municipal golf courses have experienced a surge in the face of new investment and the pandemic-related golf demand surge that has swept the U.S.

Local Municipal Golf Performance Benchmarking
Below we summarize some performance metrics for municipal golf facilities/systems in the greater Los Angeles area. As we will illustrate below, municipal golf courses and systems in this market can generate very high play levels, revenues and profits. Of course, these outcomes cannot be used to predict financial results for the new Montebello GC due to the number of variables, including differences in course types, locations, maintenance conditions, irrigation sources/costs, operating structure, etc. However, the operating results can give some directional guidance on the strength of the regional municipal golf market and on potential demand for golf. Refer to tables in Appendix D, Exhibits 1, 2, 3 ➢ Local municipal golf facilities are run via a variety of operating structures; none of the ones we profiled are completely self-operated with public employees. For example, the LA County facilities are fully leased, while Alhambra and Burbank are examples of facilities run through third party management contracts. The City of Downey performs golf course maintenance at Rio Hondo GC, while the pro shop and food & beverage are operated by separate concessionaires. The City of Pasadena has a non-traditional management agreement that includes a revenue split with the operator for the pro shop and F&B.
➢ Municipal golf can be very profitable in this market, as proven by the LA County and City of LA systems. Though expenses were unavailable, the City’s 9 facilities generated more than $26 million in green + cart fee revenues alone in FY22. LA County collected nearly $12 million in rent and $3.025 in CIP contributions from its lessees in FY19, with the numbers increasing to $14.35 million and $3.96 million, respectively, in FY22. The City of Long Beach (not profiled here) also generates

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 24 large profits via rents paid by the operators of its five facilities. (More below on City and County systems).
➢ Other highly profitable municipal golf operations include Pasadena’s 36-hole Brookside Golf Course, which produced net income to the City in FY22 of more than $2.2 million on golf operations alone (net concession payment revenue for F&B and pro shop added another $490K). Brookside’s rounds bottomed out at 65,200 per 18 holes in 2009 and play had generally stabilized in the mid-to-upper 70,000s over the last decade (total rounds on the 36 holes of 158,559 in FY22). ➢ The City of Downey, despite a golf course maintenance budget of about $1.8 million, enjoyed $1.8 million in net operating income (before depreciation/ amortization) at Rio Hondo GC in FY22. RHGC saw rounds follow a virtual Bell Curve over the fiveyear FY13 to FY17 period, with ±66,000 round played in both FY13 and FY17, and a bottoming out at about 53,000 rounds in FY15. The facility averaged about 63,000 rounds from FY18 through FY20, before experiencing a tremendous pandemic-related demand surge in FY21 and FY22, with an average of close to 86,000 rounds. A fee increase of $5 was “easily absorbed” in summer 2022. RHGC easily generates the highest green/cart fee revenue per round of the facilities profiled - $48.68 in FY22. ➢ Burbank’s 27-hole DeBell GC, after years of losing money, saw rounds surpass 80,000 (including 12,569 on the par-3 course) and total revenue reach nearly $4.8 million in FY22. Though total expenses were not shared, the finances are now believed to be well into the black. DeBell had averaged more than 70,000 rounds in the early 2010s (including 9-hole Par-3) but experienced a significant decline to about 50,000 in the 2018-2019 period. The City switched from Enterprise Fund to General Fund accounting for golf during FY2017-18 in the face of large deficits. Over the last couple of years, the facility has benefitted from the Covid surge, a new operator in Touchstone Golf, and facility improvements. The City has budgeted $2.2 million in capital improvements over the next several fiscal years, including an irrigation system. ➢ Arcadia Par 3 Golf Course (City of Arcadia) is an example of a successful alternative length golf course, with $1.86 million in revenue and nearly $600,000 in net operating income in FY2021. Monterey Park GC, a 9-hole executive that has a very busy range and huge retail operation, is also believed to be a profitable municipal golf operation. ➢ The City of Los Angeles golf system totals 9 facilities. The Parks Department maintains and operates the golf courses, while food & beverage service at each facility is operated under private concessions. (Formerly, golf carts and driving range were also part of concession agreements). The City courses are among the busiest in the country and have experienced a demand surge during the pandemic period, with average FY22 rounds played at the seven 18-hole regulation course averaging just under 92,000 rounds – levels not seen in two decades. Remarkably, the City’s five 9-hole courses averaged just under 90,000 rounds, with Harbor Park hosting an astonishing 115,531 rounds and Penmar Executive not far behind at more than 113,000 at an average green + cart fee of $15.64.

LA’s average green/cart fee revenue per round was $32.54 on its 18-hole courses in FY22, and $12.58 on its 9-hole tracks.
➢ The Los Angeles County Department of Parks & Recreation’s thirteen 18-hole regulation courses averaged in the upper 90,000s as late as the mid-2000s period, subsequently declining to an average in the ±80,000 range over the decade. NGF obtained rounds played, revenue and rent information for FY19 and FY22. Equalizing for Diamond Bar GC, which was closed for last nine months of FY22, the other 12 regulation 18-hole courses

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 25 averaged about 76,500 in FY19 and 81,800 in FY22, an increase of about 7%. We note that average rounds are suppressed by two outliers – Marshall Canyon with 47,400 rounds in FY19 and 66,000 in FY22, and Victoria GC, with 36,300 and 22,400. Excluding those two golf courses, the average daily rate for the 18-hole County courses ranged from $30.71 at Whittier Narrows to just under $40 at Los Verdes, with most falling in the range of the midto-upper $30s.

Los Angeles Golf Market - Summary
The greater Los Angeles golf market has had its ups and downs over last 2+ decades but remains one of the strongest markets in the country, with average rounds played on the L.A.

City and County of L.A. courses the highest NGF has observed. Most recently, the pandemicrelated demand surge that began after facilities reopened in Spring 2020 has resulted in a significant increase in rounds played for Montebello GC (prior to its closing) and among its competitive set.

Southern California and the Los Angeles submarket are among the most undersupplied market in country; for example, the Los Angeles CBSA has about 3.5 times as many golfers per 18 total holes and 4 times as many golfers per 18 public golf holes than the nation overall. Looking forward, as Baby Boomers continue to retire, the population continues to grow, and golf course supply contracts further (or at least does not grow), activity levels in this market should remain robust, especially if some of the pandemic surge proves to be “sticky” and facilities continue to invest in improvements.

Of course, are municipal golf courses also face challenges, with many of the older facilities facing large-scale capital needs. Additionally, for those municipalities that self-operate all or some of the golf course facets (operations, maintenance, food & beverage) with public employees, the cost of labor, as well as other inputs, is quite high. Finally, the high cost of irrigation water, especially for those facilities without a source of reclaimed water, is a constraint to maximizing facility financial results, while the availability of water may prove to be an existential threat for some golf courses in the future.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 26 Montebello Golf Course – Fee
Recommendations
In this section, NGF provides a recommended initial green & cart fee framework for the new Montebello Golf Course, redeveloped as a 9-hole regulation + 6-hole par-3 course, based on our market analysis and experience.

METHODOLOGY
We begin by noting that it is difficult to develop a fee structure when there are several unknowns related to the product that will ultimately be brought to market. In the case of Montebello GC, we don’t know precisely the quality and attributes of the redeveloped golf course(s), and there is additional uncertainty around a key support amenity – the golf clubhouse. Additionally, the level of market acceptance of a revamped golf course among its former core patrons, especially after a downsizing, is unknown (some contingents of golfers prefer to play 18 different golf holes).

Having said that, for the purposes of this analysis we have assumed MGC will be a high-quality golf facility that will be well-maintained and expertly managed. Our main frame of reference in identifying market-appropriate fees and pricing conventions (e.g., three common price “breaks” during the day) for the regulation 9-hole course has been the robust mid-tier of the local public access golf market, including numerous municipal courses as discussed earlier in the report.

For the 6-hole, lighted short course and for night golf, there exist far fewer examples, meaning setting initial rates is “part art, part science”. NGF examined fees for area 9-hole short courses, including night-lit courses such as Monterey Park, Lakes at El Segundo, Arcadia Par 3, and David L. Baker. Finally, we researched alternative length facilities located outside the market, including Belmont GC (“Little Bell”) in Richmond, VA, Arlington Lakes GC in Illinois (pricing for 3- and 6-hole loops), 6H River Oaks GC in Paso Robles, and 3s Greensville in South Carolina.

NGF has presented a general pricing framework that is intended as a starting reference point for the new Montebello Golf Course. We believe the recommended structure is market-appropriate; however, in practicality, the City and its new operator will likely have to undergo a learning curve and be reactive to demand patterns as they become established in order to take advantage of pricing power when it is there and, conversely, to practice yield management by discounting rack rates when appropriate and to reduce spoilage in inventory.

Finally, a key directive from the city was to keep the fee structure relatively simple, greatly reducing the many dozens of categories that we observed through examination of a summary printout from the former course’s POS system. We believe the structure below achieves that goal, while also adhering to some public policy guidelines from the City regarding discounts for residents, seniors, and juniors.

RECOMMENDED FEE STRUCTURE
Based on our market analysis and the framework and inputs considered, the table below reflects NGF’s initial fee guidelines (2023 dollars) for the new Montebello Golf Course. (Note:
fees rounded to nearest $0.50, so discounts referred to will not be exact).

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 27 Montebello Golf Course - Recommended Initial Fee Framework Resident
Weekday
M-F
Resident
Weekend SaSu/ Holiday
Non-Res.

Weekday
M-F
Non-Res.

Weekend
Sa-Su/
Holiday Notes
Walking Rates - 9-Hole Course
Adult / Public 9H Prime Time $19.50 $23.00 $23.00 $27.00 ~15% Res. Disc.

Adult / Public 9H Mid-day / Twilight $16.00 $20.00 $18.00 $22.00 ~10% Res. Disc.

Adult / Public 9H Supertwilight $11.50 $13.50 $11.50 $13.50 Same for all Senior (65+) 9H - Prime Time $16.00 n/a $16.00 n/a Same as midday rate; public policy decision re weekends
Senior (65+) 9H - Mid-day / Twilight $14.00 $17.00 $14.00 $17.00 ~15% discount Junior (17 and under) 9H $6 to $8 $6 to $8 $6 to $8 $6 to $8 Public policy decision Replay $11.50 $14.00 $14.00 $16.00 ~60% of 1st 9H
Replay - Senior $10.50 $12.00 $12.00 $13.00
Par-3 Course
(walking only):

Perhaps offer Res. Discounts
on monthly unlimited plans
6-Hole Rate - Adult $15.00 $16.00 $15.00 $16.00
9-Hole Rate - Adult $20.00 $21.00 $20.00 $21.00
Jun. rates - ~25% discount;
Public policy - maybe lower
age
(10 and under)
6-Hole Rate - Junior $11.00 $13.50 $13.50 $13.50 $11.25 9-Hole Rate - Junior $15.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $15.00 Cart Fees (pp, shared cart)
9 Holes $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00
Replay $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00
Supertwilight $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00
Push cart $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Imputed 18H Riding Fee*
(Adult prime time) $48.00 $54.00 $54.00 $60.00
9H Riding Fee
(Adult prime time) $30.50 $34.00 $34.00 $38.00
Former MGC 18H Riding Fee $33.00 $38.00 $45.00 $55.00
*Likely lower if originally booked as an 18-hole round.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 28 Consideration of Dynamic Pricing
Based on the goal to run MGC “as a business”, NGF recommends that the City discuss with its management partner the potential utilization of dynamic pricing for the new MGC (Downey’s Rio Hondo GC and Glendale’s Scholl Canyon are just a couple of local municipal courses that use dynamic pricing to some degree). Under this scenario, City Council would still approve minimum and maximum green fee parameters each year.

Rates would be adjusted based on demand, availability and other variables, such as weather and course conditions. Green fee pricing is determined by thorough analysis of specific metrics, what competitors are doing, daily utilization rates, etc.) More sophisticated application of dynamic pricing takes into account online traffic analytics, website page views, online booking rates, and utilization rates across different play categories (e.g., walk-in, call-in, league, outing, loyalty program, membership).

Other General Recommendations / Considerations
Following are some general notes, considerations, and recommendations for the City relative to the initial pricing structure at MGC:
➢ While we have presented 9-hole and 9-hole replay rates, we were told that the architects intend to have the course play like an 18-hole course by having two pin locations on every hole. In any event, the new operator will need to determine how to manage the tee sheets; if demand for 18-hole rounds is deemed sufficient, they may consider selling only 18-hole rounds during certain times when demand is sufficient (this would require closing the tee sheet to 9-hole rounds for a certain period). An additional consideration for the City and operator will be whether to offer 4-hole loop rates on the Regulation 9. ➢ NGF recommends a single senior rate for residents and non-residents for all but the prime time and replay categories.
➢ The Par-3 9-hole rate (after dusk) is similar to the weekday, prime time 9-hole rate on the regulation course. NGF’s reasoning for this was that the lighted night golf would be more entertainment-oriented and appealing to families. For example, Lakes at El Segundo offers resident rates only before 7 pm, as night time golf is in higher demand. ➢ Tournament / outing rates should not be subject to negotiations or special deals (reportedly a problem at the former MGC). Rio Hondo is an example of a local municipal course that has pre-set tournament fees and does not stray outside of them. ➢ While we have presented weekday rates as Monday through Thursday, demand patterns in the first year of operation may suggest that Fridays should have their own rates (such as at Whittier Narrows’ Mountain course) or be included with weekends. ➢ We recommend selling Senior and Resident ID cards for a nominal annual fee of ±$25.

This is fairly common practice among municipal courses in this market. Examples include the City of Monterey Park resident card - $25; City of L.A. Resident card - $25; City of Burbank Senior card - $25; and L.A. County Senior card for $30 (weekday play only - standby only between 7 am and 9 am). This practice also facilitates having different online booking portals depending on player type. Alternatively, pro shop staff can ask for identification confirming resident / senior status. (Lakes at El Segundo asks for driver’s license with ES address, or utility bill with ES address that matches license). ➢ We note that times will vary for twilight / supertwilight. For example, the City of L.A. courses show twilight at 1 pm in January, 2 pm beginning in March, 3 pm beginning in May, going back to 2 pm in September, and so forth.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 29 ➢ Other programs to be considered by City and its management partner:
• Youth on Course https://youthoncourse.org/
• The First Tee https://firsttee.org/
• Loyalty program such as Monterey Park’s $25 Players Card or Burbank’s $50 Canyon Club
• An “advantage” Resident ID card for a significantly higher annual fee that confers additional benefits, such as discounts and a 14-day advance tee time privilege
• Monthly unlimited and/or multi-play cards for Par-3 course

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 30 Montebello Golf Course – Five-Year
Financial Projections
NGF Consulting has created a pro forma cash flow model for the first full five years of operation of the reimagined Montebello Golf Course, assuming on-site management and maintenance provided by a professional third-party golf management company. Additional assumptions utilized in crafting the pro cash flow model are shown below.

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
➢ MGC will offer a high-quality product (as described in architects’ narrative earlier in report) with excellent maintenance and broad appeal to multiple customer segments, including beginners, avid golfers, juniors, seniors, young adults (millennials/Gen Z), as well as families and non-golfers due to the availability of the short course and putting course for night play.
➢ The facility will be heavily programmed with events, tournaments/outings, contests, stay and play with on-site hotels, etc. A direct salesperson will be employed by the management entity to solicit outings, events, group play, etc. from the regional market, and to establish relationships with chambers of commerce / visitor bureaus, and other area hotels (e.g., concierge programs), etc.
➢ The MGC project will be vigorously marketed, especially in the run-up to opening and during the first 12 to 18 months of operation in order to stimulate trial and awareness; activities will include a Grand Re-Opening event.
➢ There will be no substantive changes to golf market supply-demand dynamics prior to MGC reopening, or during its first five years of operation. Rounds projections assume continued strong demand levels for golf that resulted from the Covid-19 pandemic beginning in Spring 2020. For MGC itself, we assume that a strong percentage of former customers (especially regular groups) will return, despite the reduction in holes from the former 18-hole course.
➢ There will be a permanent clubhouse open shortly after the time the golf course opens in early 2024. Though the scale of the food & beverage operation is not yet determined, we have assumed that there will be service commensurate with bar & grill type operations common to high-quality municipal golf facilities. We also assume there will be food & beverage service for both daytime and night-time golf (including outings and other events).
➢ The clubhouse will include a pro shop that offers a variety of soft and hard goods for sale, with emphasis on impulse items such as balls, gloves, and tees, as well as some logoed apparel (e.g., hats and shirts).
➢ The overall regional and national economy stabilizes, with expense inflation beginning to temper to a more normalized level in 2024 and over the subsequent four years of operation. There will be no substantive changes to the area economy that would materially affect demand for golf.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 31

ACTIVITY, REVENUE AND EXPENSE ASSUMPTIONS
Following are NGF’s assumptions related to rounds played, revenues and expenses for Montebello Golf Course, for the first five full years of operation after reopening. Figures are presented in 2023 dollars. Annual inflation for revenue inputs is assumed at 2.25%, while expenses are projected to grow at a 2.75% annual rate. As the NGF Consulting projections are estimates of future results, all figures have been rounded to the nearest $100.

Activity Levels and Revenues
➢ 9-Hole Regulation Course Rounds Played - based on the expected quality of the golf course, recent past history of rounds (defined as starts) played at Montebello GC, and our analysis of the market, including regional averages for municipal golf courses, NGF projects total paid rounds of 48,000 in the first full year of operation, growing to a stabilized level of play of 70,000 rounds by Year 3. ➢ Overall, we have modeled rounds across various subcategories that will ultimately break down as follows (does not add to 100% because of overlapping subcategories):
• 70% non-resident play
• 35% senior play
• 60% prime time / 25% mid-day/twilight / 15% late afternoon/super twilight • Replay percentage is about 27.5% of non-Junior 9-hole rounds, and about 50% of prime time (morning) 9-hole rounds. (Ultimately, the management company may decide to book as 18-hole rounds, rather than 9-hole plus replay).
➢ Par-3 Course Rounds Played - based on our analysis of the market, the expected quality of the product, and experience, NGF projects total paid rounds of 12,000 in the first full year of operation, growing to a stabilized level of play of 18,000 rounds by Year 3.
➢ 9-Hole Regulation Course Average (Blended) Rates – NGF has calculated average (blended) walking green fee revenue per round across several main categories as shown below; the main categories each comprise several subcategories (for example, Resident 9-Hole rounds include prime time, midday/twilight, and super twilight). Year 1 average rates are shown, and nominal increases in increments of half dollars or few dollars would be implemented each year, or every other year. Tournament rounds are embedded in the Resident and Non-Resident categories.
• Resident 9-Hole - $18.00
• Non-resident 9-Hole - $22.00
• Seniors - $16.00
• Juniors - $7.00
• Replay - $13.00
➢ Par-3 Course Average Rate – average green fee revenue per round in Year 1 is projected to be $15.50 in Year 1. This average daily rate (ADR) or blended rate reflects a weighted average of 6-hole and 9-hole rounds, across both Junior and Adult categories.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 32 ➢ Other average Year 1 revenues per round projected by NGF:
• Average (blended) power cart fee revenue is $9, assuming 60% ridership on rounds played on the 9-hole course.
• Merchandise sales per round projected at $3.00.
• “Other” revenue (e.g., push cart rentals, club rentals) is projected at $1.00 per round.
➢ Food & beverage – the extent of food & beverage service that will be available for the golf venues is uncertain as of this writing, but NGF has assumed at least basic grill-type service that is common at municipal golf courses. This would include standard “pub fare” such as hot dogs, hamburgers, a variety of other hot and cold sandwiches, side/appetizer items such as french fries, cole slaw, potato salad, premade grab & go items, soft drinks, and alcoholic beverages. NGF has assumed gross food & beverage revenue per round of $6 per total round in year 1. Rent to the City is equal to 10% of gross revenues generated from the golf courses.

Cost of Sales and Operating Expenses
➢ Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) – the COGS percentage for merchandise is held steady at 70% for the 5-year period, reflecting NGF survey research and recent experience with public golf course P&Ls.
➢ Not included in Operating Expenses: Administration costs from General Fund; City salaries; depreciation; costs related to maintenance equipment; debt service. ➢ Operating Expenses (all growing annually at 2.75% through Year 5):
▪ Estimated Year 1 Golf Course Maintenance Expense (labor and non-labor) is projected at $800,000. Equipment lease costs are not included. ▪ Estimated Year 1 Operations Expense, which includes items such as golf operations, outside services, marketing/ promotion, materials & supplies, cart lease (~$80,000 annually), utilities, and fixed costs, is estimated to be $450,000. ▪ Year 1 Utilities Expense is estimated at $225,000 based on actual experience with the former Montebello Golf Course.
▪ Based on actual annual cost in FY22 with the former18-hole MGC and accounting for reduced maintainable acreage and 100% use of reclaimed water, Year 1 Irrigation Expense in Year 1 is estimated to be $450,000. ▪ An annual Management Fee of $75,000 has been assumed, growing at 3% annually for the 5-year duration of the model. This number is assumed to include both guaranteed minimum and incentive components and equates to approximately 4% of gross stabilized revenue.
▪ A Capital Reserve Fund for future repairs/replacement is funded at 3% of Gross Margin / Adjusted Gross Revenue.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 33 ESTIMATED FUTURE PERFORMANCE (YEAR 1 – YEAR 5)
NGF Consulting has utilized these assumptions to create the cash flow statement in the following exhibit. Each category of revenue has been listed separately.

Montebello Golf Course
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Golf Revenue
Daily Green Fees - Reg. 9H $810,000 $1,016,900 $1,213,000 $1,240,300 $1,268,200 Cart Fees 259,200 331,300 395,200 404,100 413,200
Daily Green Fees - Short Course 186,000 253,600 291,700 298,300 305,000 Pro Shop Merchandise 180,000 233,100 276,000 282,200 288,600 F&B Concession 36,000 46,600 55,200 56,400 57,700
Other 60,000 77,700 92,000 94,100 96,200
Total Revenue $1,531,200 $1,959,200 $2,323,100 $2,375,400 $2,428,900 Less Cost of Sales: (COS)
Pro Shop Merchandise $126,000 $163,200 $193,200 $197,500 $202,000 Total COS $126,000 $163,200 $193,200 $197,500 $202,000
Gross Margin $1,405,200 $1,796,000 $2,129,900 $2,177,900 $2,226,900 Expenses
Golf Course Maintenance $800,000 $822,000 $844,600 $867,800 $891,700 Golf Operations / Admin. 450,000 462,400 475,100 488,200 501,600 Utilities 225,000 231,200 237,600 244,100 250,800
Irrigation Expense 450,000 462,400 475,100 488,200 501,600 Management Fee 75,000 77,100 79,200 81,400 83,600
Total Expenses $2,000,000 $2,055,100 $2,111,600 $2,169,700 $2,229,300 Operating Income ($594,800) ($259,100) $18,300 $8,200 ($2,400) Capital Reserve 42,200 53,900 63,900 65,300 66,800
Net Income after Cap. Reserve ($637,000) ($313,000) ($45,600) ($57,100) ($69,200) Paid Rounds Played - Reg 9H Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Resident 9-Hole 4,800 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
Non-Resident 9-Hole 14,400 15,000 17,500 17,500 17,500
Senior 13,200 19,500 22,750 22,750 22,750
Junior 1,200 1,500 1,750 1,750 1,750
Replay 14,400 18,000 21,000 21,000 21,000
Total - 9-Hole Course 48,000 60,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Short Course 12,000 16,000 18,000 18,000 18,000
Total Paid Rounds 60,000 76,000 88,000 88,000 88,000
Cart Rounds 28,800 36,000 42,000 42,000 42,000
Revenue Inflation 2.25%
Expense Inflation 2.75%

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 34 INPUTS Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Resident 9-Hole $18.00 $18.41 $18.82 $19.24 $19.68
Non-Resident 9-Hole $22.00 $22.50 $23.00 $23.52 $24.05
Senior $16.00 $16.36 $16.73 $17.10 $17.49
Junior $7.00 $7.16 $7.32 $7.48 $7.65
Replay $13.00 $13.29 $13.59 $13.90 $14.21
Short Course $15.50 $15.85 $16.21 $16.57 $16.94
Avg Cart Fee $9.00 $9.20 $9.41 $9.62 $9.84
Avg Pro Shop $3.00 $3.07 $3.14 $3.21 $3.28
Food & Beverage (Gross) $6.00 $6.14 $6.27 $6.41 $6.56
Avg other $1.00 $1.02 $1.05 $1.07 $1.09
Avg. Green + Cart Rate (Reg. 9H) $22.28 $22.47 $22.97 $23.49 $24.02 Average revenue per round $25.52 $25.78 $26.40 $26.99 $27.60 Cash Flow Results – Montebello Golf Course (Year 1 – Year 5) The NGF Consulting preliminary cash flow projection shows that MGC – operating under the proposed program – will generate about $1.53 million in total gross operating revenue in Year 1, growing to $2.43 million by Year 5. Based on expense estimates prepared by NGF Consulting, we project that MGC will produce an Operating Loss of (±$595,000) in Year 1, improving to around break-even when operations stabilize by Year 3. These figures are before an annual capital reserve line item that is equivalent to 3% of gross margin / adjusted gross revenue.

In terms of average green + cart fee revenue per round (i.e., “blended rate” or “average daily rate”), the year 1 average for the redeveloped Montebello Golf Course (9-hole regulation course) is $22.28. For context, LA County’s 9-hole regulation courses - Altadena and Eaton Canyon – were at $20.34 and $20.94 ADR, respectively, in FY22, while the City of LA’s Harbor Park generated $15.64 ADR on its 115,000+ rounds in FY22.

Conditions that could Result in Outperformance / Exceeding NGF Projections NGF is confident that the revenue projections can be achieved if the golf facility comes to market as currently proposed. The activity and revenue projections are intended to be conservative in nature so that we can help the City make decisions based on realistic expectations, and also because there is no directly similar golf product (i.e., 9-hole regulation + 6-hole Par-3) in the local market on which to draw comparison. Finally, it is not practical to accurately project the degree to which former MGC’s customers will return to play there after the reduction to 9 regulation holes.

As such, with expert management, a strong marketing and direct selling approach, and aboveaverage maintenance, the facility could certainly exceed NGF projections on one or more of these input variables: rounds played on the Par-3 course; average rate for Par-3 golf course; number of plays of mini golf; average fee for mini golf; utilization percentage for technology bays; and, food & beverage revenues (golf and/or non-golf related). Of course, we must acknowledge that operating expenses could also be higher than projected, as we are seeing in 2022 with aggressive inflation in labor expense and other input costs.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 35 MGC SENSITIVITY SCENARIO – FASTER RAMP UP AND HIGHER ADR As noted, it is quite possible that MGC performance may exceed that projected in NGF’s base scenario. The cash flow statement in the following exhibit presents a positive “sensitivity” scenario, with the following two variables changed (all other inputs are same as base model):
➢ Rounds Played – the ramp-up to stabilized demand occurs faster; for example, year 1 rounds played for the 9-hole course in the sensitivity model are 54,000, as opposed to 48,000 in the base scenario, and year 1 rounds for the short course are 13,000, compared to 12,000 under the base model.
➢ Average Daily Green + Cart Fee Revenue per Round (Regulation 9H) - the average green & cart fee revenue per round for year 1 on the 9-hole regulation course is 10% higher than in the base model.

Cash Flow Results – MGC Sensitivity Scenario – Faster Ramp Up and Higher ADR The NGF Consulting preliminary cash flow projection for MGC under the sensitivity scenario shows $1.83 million in total gross operating revenue in Year 1, growing to about $2.6 million by Year 5. Based on expense estimates prepared by NGF Consulting, we project that MGC will produce an Operating Loss of (±$307,900) in Year 1, improving to a positive income of ±$179,000 when operations stabilize by Year 3. These figures are before the annual capital reserve line item that is equivalent to 3% of gross margin / adjusted gross revenue. For comparison, the stabilized net operating income before capital reserve projected under the base scenario was close to break-even at stabilization.

Montebello Golf Course
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Golf Revenue
Daily Green & Cart Fees - Reg. 9H $1,323,100 $1,581,900 $1,769,000 $1,808,800 $1,849,500 Daily Green Fees - Short Course 201,500 253,600 291,700 298,300 305,000 Pro Shop Merchandise 201,000 245,400 276,000 282,200 288,600 F&B Concession 40,200 49,100 55,200 56,400 57,700
Other 67,000 81,800 92,000 94,100 96,200
Total Revenue $1,832,800 $2,211,800 $2,483,900 $2,539,800 $2,597,000 Less Cost of Sales: (COS)
Pro Shop Merchandise $140,700 $171,800 $193,200 $197,500 $202,000 Total COS $140,700 $171,800 $193,200 $197,500 $202,000
Gross Margin $1,692,100 $2,040,000 $2,290,700 $2,342,300 $2,395,000 Expenses
Golf Course Maintenance $800,000 $822,000 $844,600 $867,800 $891,700 Golf Operations / Admin. 450,000 462,400 475,100 488,200 501,600 Utilities 225,000 231,200 237,600 244,100 250,800
Irrigation Expense 450,000 462,400 475,100 488,200 501,600 Management Fee 75,000 77,100 79,200 81,400 83,600
Total Expenses $2,000,000 $2,055,100 $2,111,600 $2,169,700 $2,229,300 Operating Income ($307,900) ($15,100) $179,100 $172,600 $165,700

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 36 Capital Reserve 50,800 61,200 68,700 70,300 71,900
Net Income after Cap. Reserve ($358,700) ($76,300) $110,400 $102,300 $93,800 Paid Rounds Played Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Regulation 9-Hole 54,000 64,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
Short Course 13,000 16,000 18,000 18,000 18,000
Total Paid Rounds 67,000 80,000 88,000 88,000 88,000
Revenue Inflation 2.25%
Expense Inflation 2.75%
INPUTS Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Reg. 9-H Ave. Green & Cart Fee $24.50 $24.72 $25.27 $25.84 $26.42 Short Course Ave. Green Fee $15.50 $15.85 $16.21 $16.57 $16.94 Avg Pro Shop $3.00 $3.07 $3.14 $3.21 $3.28
Food & Beverage (Gross) $6.00 $6.14 $6.27 $6.41 $6.56
Avg other $1.00 $1.02 $1.05 $1.07 $1.09
Avg. Green + Cart Rate (Reg. 9H) $24.50 $24.72 $25.27 $25.84 $26.42 Average revenue per round $27.36 $27.65 $28.23 $28.86 $29.51 Limiting Conditions
It is important to project a golf facility’s likely performance in such a way as to help the Owner make financial decisions based on realistic expectations. It is obviously possible that either more or fewer golf rounds will be sold, that other revenue centers will not reach the levels projected, and/or that operating expenses end up higher than projected. NGF Consulting is confident that our revenue projections can be achieved at the revamped Montebello Golf Course. However, from a practical standpoint, those managing the facility will need to respond to variable market conditions as well as unforeseen changes that may occur between the preparation of these estimates in early 2023 and the date the golf course reopens late this year or in 2024. Because these conditions are more likely to change over time, NGF has limited its projections to the first five full years of MGC operation. NGF estimates of performance for MGC could change should, for example, any of the following conditions occur:

Stronger Performance Weaker Performance
Decline in quality of competitive courses Improved quality of key competitors Positive regional publicity Insufficient acceptance of 9-hole vs. 18- hole course Decline in quality of competitive courses Quality and/or service of MGC not to expectations Continued surge in golf demand Decline in golf participation Excellent yearly weather conditions Poor weather / regional economic recession

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 37 Appendices
Appendix A – National Rounds Played Report
Appendix B – Demographic, Local Golf Market Supply and Demand Appendix C – Fee Comparisons – Local Market
Appendix D – Performance Benchmarking – Regional Municipal Golf Courses

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 38 APPENDIX A – NATIONAL ROUNDS PLAYED REPORT

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 39

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 40

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 41

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 42

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 43

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 44 APPENDIX B – DEMOGRAPHICS, LOCAL MARKET GOLF SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Montebello Golf Course
2-Miles 5-Miles 10-Miles 45-Min Drive Los Angeles MSA U.S.

Summary Demographics
Population 2000 Census 110,440 729,588 3,054,351 11,623,620 12,365,319 281,399,034 Population 2010 Census 110,452 722,572 3,081,243 11,987,825 12,828,838 308,745,538 CAGR 2000-2010 0.00% -0.10% 0.09% 0.31% 0.37% 0.93%
Population 2021 110,469 721,996 3,131,843 12,322,651 12,971,238 332,475,723 CAGR 2010-2021 0.00% -0.01% 0.15% 0.25% 0.10% 0.68%
Population 2026 Projected 107,775 703,779 3,084,706 12,214,630 12,955,056 341,925,683 CAGR 2021-2026 -0.49% -0.51% -0.30% -0.18% -0.02% 0.56% Median HH Income (2021) $65,204 $63,329 $67,544 $84,057 $82,191 $68,897 Median Age (2021) 39.7 37.7 36.6 38.0 37.2 37.7
Ethnicity
White 21.1% 19.1% 22.8% 33.6% 36.3% 61.2%
African American 1.2% 1.4% 5.2% 6.7% 7.2% 12.6%
Asian 21.0% 22.0% 16.6% 17.3% 17.7% 6.7%
All Other 56.5% 57.3% 55.3% 42.1% 38.5% 19.2%
Hispanic Population
Hispanic 70.0% 69.4% 65.1% 47.6% 44.9% 18.8%
Not Hispanic 30.0% 30.6% 34.9% 52.4% 55.1% 81.2%
CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate
2-Miles 5-Miles 10-Miles 45-Min Drive Los Angeles MSA U.S.

Golf Demand Indicators
Total Households 34,349 206,072 945,654 4,127,439 4,444,735 127,187,517 Number of Golfing Households 2,693 15,697 79,580 460,374 523,684 18,189,055 Seasonal Golfing Households 0 2 60 912 1,930 332,083
Current Interested Non-Golfers 5,568 34,970 163,966 699,331 752,458 17,837,009 Golfer Participation Rate 5.20% 4.90% 5.30% 7.10% 7.60% 8.00% Number of Golfers 5,416 33,410 157,297 830,538 935,705 25,111,439 Number of Projected Golfers 5,275 32,526 154,548 821,983 925,014 25,900,423 Projected Annual Growth Rate -0.50% -0.50% -0.30% -0.20% -0.20% 0.60% Rounds Potential (resident golfers) 80,830 488,412 2,306,931 12,732,571 14,489,576 402,432,680 Estimated Course Rounds
(in-market supply) 95,794 431,026 1,453,553 9,538,296 11,123,207 398,677,053 Demand Indices
Golfer Participation Rate 65 61 66 89 95 100
Seasonal Golfing Households 0 0 2 8 17 100
Current Interested Non-Golfers 94 90 98 106 108 100
Rounds Potential per capita
(resident golfers) 60 56 61 85 92 100
Est. Course Rounds per capita
(in-market supply) 72 50 39 65 71 100

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 45 2-Miles 5-Miles 10-Miles 45-Min Drive Los Angeles MSA U.S.

Golf Supply
Golf Facilities
Total 1 6 21 128 155 13,885
Public 1 5 15 86 100 10,241
Public: Daily Fee 0 0 1 32 45 7,695
Public: Municipal 1 5 14 54 55 2,546
Private 0 1 6 42 55 3,644
Public Golf Facilities by Price Point
Premium (>$70) 0 0 0 17 24 1,763
Standard ($40-$70) 1 3 8 41 44 4,163
Value (<$40) 0 2 7 28 32 4,315
Golf Holes
Total 18 90 351 2295 2727 235,899
Public 18 81 252 1548 1719 168,849
Public: Daily Fee 0 0 36 630 783 126,612
Public: Municipal 18 81 216 918 936 42,237
Private 0 9 99 747 1008 67,050
Non-Regulation (Executive & Par-3) 0 27 108 486 567 18,405 Net Change*
Net Change in Holes past 5 years 0 0 -9 -117 -81 -13,293 Percentage Total Holes Past 5 Yrs 0.0% 0.0% -2.6% -5.1% -3.0% -5.6% Net Change in Holes past 10 Years 0 0 -9 -162 -117 -26,523 Percentage Total Holes Past 10 Yrs 0.0% 0.0% -2.6% -7.1% -4.3% -11.2% *Numbers may include courses under construction and temporarily closed at the end of the year.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 46 2-Miles 5-Miles 10-Miles 45-Min Drive Los Angeles MSA U.S.

Supply-Demand Ratios
Population per 18 Holes
Total 110,469 144,399 160,607 96,648 85,619 25,369
Public 110,469 160,444 223,703 143,287 135,824 35,443
Public: Daily Fee 0 0 1,565,921 352,076 298,189 47,267
Public: Municipal 110,469 160,444 260,987 241,621 249,447 141,690 Private 0 1,443,992 569,426 296,931 231,629 89,255
Premium (>$70) 0 0 0 631,931 480,416 159,232
Standard ($40-$70) 110,469 206,285 329,668 248,942 259,425 76,493 Value (<$40) 0 721,996 695,965 724,862 701,148 112,857
Golfers per 18 Holes
Total 5,416 6,682 8,067 6,514 6,176 1,916
Public 5,416 7,425 11,235 9,657 9,798 2,677
Public: Daily Fee 0 0 78,648 23,730 21,510 3,570
Public: Municipal 5,416 7,425 13,108 16,285 17,994 10,702 Private 0 66,821 28,599 20,013 16,709 6,741
Premium (>$70) 0 0 0 42,592 34,656 12,027
Standard ($40-$70) 5,416 9,546 16,558 16,779 18,714 5,777 Value (<$40) 0 33,410 34,955 48,855 50,579 8,524
Population Indices (National 100)
Total 465 607 676 406 360 100
Public 343 498 694 445 422 100
Private 0 1591 627 327 255 100
Premium (>$70) 0 0 0 343 261 100
Standard ($40-$70) 139 259 414 313 326 100
Value (<$40) 0 942 908 946 915 100
Golfers Indices (National = 100)
Total 302 372 449 363 344 100
Public 223 305 462 397 403 100
Private 0 975 417 292 244 100
Premium (>$70) 0 0 0 306 249 100
Standard ($40-$70) 90 159 276 279 311 100
Value (<$40) 0 577 604 844 874 100
Rounds per 18 Holes
Rounds Potential
(resident golfers) 80,830 97,682 118,304 99,863 95,641 30,707 Estimated Course Rounds
(in-market supply) 95,794 86,205 74,541 74,810 73,421 30,707

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 47 APPENDIX C – FEE COMPARISON – LOCAL MARKET
Unless otherwise indicated, the fees shown reflect non-discounted ‘rack’ rates. Twilight rates vary by time of the year.

Exhibit 1 – Green and Cart Fees – Market 18H+ Golf Facilities Golf Course
Montebello
GC
Alhambra
GC
Arcadia Par
3 GC
Brookside -
C.W. Koiner
Brookside -
E.O. Nay
DeBell GC
(cart
included) LA County*
Rio Hondo
GC
Weekday Walking Rates
Weekday Resident 18 $20.00 $23.50 Avail. - n/a $41.00 $33.00 Weekday Non-resident 18 $32.00 $30.00 $20.00 $38.00 $35.00 $47.00 $34 - $42 $45.00 Weekday Resident 9 $14.00 $21.00
Weekday Non-resident 9 $21.00 $21.50 $22 - $23 $27.00
Weekday Twilight Resident $14.00 Avail. - n/a $21.00
Weekday Non-resident Twilight $21.00 $21.50 $12.00 $25.00 $25.00 $30.00 $16 -$27 $27.00 Weekday Super Twilight Resident Avail. - n/a NA
Weekday Non-resident Super Twilight $15.00 $18.00 $18.00 $20.00 $11 -$21 NA Weekend Walking Rates
Weekend Resident 18 $25.00 $30.00 Avail. - n/a $51.00 $44.00 Weekend Non-resident 18 $42.00 $38.50 $25.00 $53.00 $51.00 $57.00 $39 - $48.50 $57.00 Weekend Resident 9 $16.00 $26.00
Weekend Non-resident 9 $26.00 $22.50 $26 - $28 $32.00
Weekend Twilight Resident $16.00 Avail. - n/a $26.00
Weekend Non-resident Twilight $26.00 $22.50 $12.00 $32.00 $32.00 $40.00 $20 - $31 $32.00 Weekend Super Twilight Resident Avail. - n/a NA
Weekend Non-resident Super Twilight $16.00 $22.00 $22.00 $25.00 $14 - $24 NA

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 48 Senior/Junior Rates Wkdays
only
Wkday/
Wkend
Wkday/
Wkend Wkdays only Wkdaysonly
Wkday/
Wkend Wkdays only Wkdays only
Resident Senior 18 $13.00 $19 - $22.50 $22.00
Non-resident Senior 18 $22.00 $17/$30 $14/$25 $23.00 $23.00 $35.00 $30.00 Resident Senior 9 $14.25-$16.50
Non-resident Senior 9
Resident Juniors Free/$20 $22.00
Non-resident Juniors $5.00 $1/$1 $10/$10 $8/$25 9H: $5/$5 18H:
$5/$8 $30.00
Cart Fees (per person, shared cart)
18 Holes $13.00 $16.00 $18.00 $18.00 $15.50 $15/$16
9 Holes $11.00 $11.50 $9.75 - $11
Twilight Cart $11.00 $13.50 $15.00 $15.00 $12.50 - $13 $13.00 Super Twilight Cart $11.50 $12.00 $12.00 $13.00
* LA County Courses green fee ranges include Eaton Canyon GC, Los Amigos GC, Santa Anita GC, Whittier Narrows GC. Senior must purchase an LA County Card to get senior rates.

NA = Program not offered; N/A = Info not advertised
Fees shown do not reflect any loyalty program/Player's Card rates, if applicable.

If resident rates left blank, no resident discounts offered Scholl Canyon - City of Glendale - dynamic pricing $14 to $37 walking; cart $11-$12

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 49 Exhibit 2 – Green and Cart Fees - Area 9-Hole Golf Courses Golf Course
Altadena
GC
Debell GC
(9H Par-3)
Eaton
Canyon
Harbor
Park GC
Lakes at El
Segundo*
Monterey
Park GC
Pico Rivera
GC
Recreation
Park 9 GC
Whittier
Narrows
(Mountain 9H)
Weekday Walking Rates MonThurs Mon-Thurs Mon-Thurs/Fri Resident 9 $15.00 $14.00 $9.00 $14.00
Non-resident 9 $22.00 $6.00 $22.00 $19.00 $25.00 $15 before 4pm $12.00 $20.50 $22.00/$23.00
Resident Twilight $11.00
Non-resident Twilight $16.00 $16.00 $12.00 $17 after 4pm $13.00 $18.00/$19.00 Resident Super Twilight $11.00
Non-resident Super Twilight $11.00 $11.00 NA $13.00 $14.00/$14.00 Senior $15.00 $4.00 $15.00 $12.00 $19.00 $12/$15
(4 pm) $7.00
$9.75/$7.50
(12 pm);
Res. Only
$14.25/NA
Senior (after 12 PM) $11.50 $11.50 $9.50 $8.00 $13.00/NA Junior $5.00 $3
(Res. Free) $5.00 $6.00 $17.00 $10/$13(4 pm) $6.00 $7.50 (Res. Only) $5.00/$5.00
Junior (1 hour after Twilight) $1.00 $1.00
Replay - Resident $8.00 $9.75
Replay Non-resident $12.00 $12.00 $8.50 $10/$13
(4 pm) $5/$6 (5 pm) $9.75
Replay Senior $4.00 $4.00 $5.00
Replay Junior $1.00 $1.00
Weekend Walking Rates FridaySun
Resident 9 $18.00 $14.00 $11.00 $17.25
Non-resident 9 $26.00 $8.00 $26.00 $27.00 $32.00 $15.00 $14.00 $23.75 $26.00 Resident Twilight $11.00
Non-resident Twilight $20.00 $20.00 $15.00 $13.00 $22.00 Resident Super Twilight $13.00

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 50 Non-resident Super Twilight $14.00 $14.00 $15.25 $16.00 Senior NA $8.00 NA NA $32.00 $12/$16
(res./n/r) NA NA
Senior (after 12 PM) NA NA $17.00 NA NA
Junior $5.00 $8.00 $5.00 $10.00 $22.00 $9/$13
(res./n/r) $6.00 $10.75 (Res.) $5.00
Junior (1 hour after Twilight) N/A NA
Replay - Resident $10.00 $10.00 $12.00
Replay Non-resident $13.00 $13.00 $11.00 $14.00 $12.00
Replay Senior NA NA
Replay Junior $1.00 $1.00
Cart Fees
9 Holes $11.00 $11.00 $8.00 $10.00 $10.25
* The Lakes is 10 holes.

NA = Program not offered; N/A = Info not advertised

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 51 APPENDIX D – PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING - REGIONAL MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSES Exhibit 1 – Single-Facility Systems
City of Alhambra City of Downey City of Pasadena City of Burbank City of Pico
Rivera
City of
Arcadia
FY 2019 FY 2022 FY 2022 FY 2022 FY 2022 FY 2021
Facility Type 18H - Muni 18H - Muni 36H - Muni 27H - Muni 18H Par-3 - Muni
18H Par-3 -
Muni
Total Rounds Played 51,266 86,645 158,559 80,553 66,642 Total Revenues $1,182,023 $4,507,874 $6,830,449 $4,766,440 $847,876 $1,855,856 Green/Cart Revenue $4,217,807 $6,072,275 $2,378,708 $989,847 Total Operations Exp.
(incl. COS; excl. depreciation)
$1,107,437 $2,712,584 $4,620,720 $1,227,538 $1,259,153
Net Operating Income $74,586 $1,795,290 $2,209,728 -$379,662 $596,703 Total Revenue per Round $52.03 $43.08 $59.17 $27.85
Green/Cart Rev. per Rd. $48.68 $38.30 $29.53 $14.85
Other:

Estimated Annual Irrigation Cost $150,000 $308,000 $1,064,273 $350,000 $56,000 Acreage 91 97 21
Management Structure: Self-operated +
concession at
time; now private
mgmt.

Separate concessions:

City gets 96% green
and 95% carts
Mgmt. agreement + rev.
split on F&B, pro shop
Mgmt. agreement +
net rev. incentive +
alcohol profits
City Mtce. +
concession
Mgmt.
agreement +
split on
EBITDA
General Notes:

Revenue figures shown represent gross to City
City of Pasadena - Revenues shown are for golf operations only; additional rev. incl. lease payments of $326K for F&B and $127K for Pro Shop concessions Other expenses incl. $927K for Overhead
City of Burbank - rounds total includes 12,569 rounds from 9H Par-3 course; formerly operated under lease; Golf enterprise fund was disbanded in FY18 City of Pico Rivera - Golf Fund received $3 million advance from Gen. Fund

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 52 Exhibit 2 –Los Angeles County Golf Rounds & Revenue - Fiscal Years 2019 & 2022 The table below shows rounds and green/cart fee revenues for the Los Angeles County municipal golf system courses for FY19 and FY22.
18 Hole Championship Golf
Course
2018/2019
Rounds
Green Fee &
Cart
Revenue
GF&C
Revenue
per Round
2021/2022
Rounds
Green Fee &
Cart
Revenue
GF&C
Revenue
per Round
Alondra Golf Course, Reg. (18) 77,401 $2,228,739 $28.79 87,560 $3,386,730 $38.68 Diamond Bar Golf Course
(closed Oct-June; rounds not
recorded) 81,170 $2,069,287 $25.49 22,500 $445,422
Knollwood Golf Course 79,046 $2,075,863 $26.26 79,310 $2,964,573 $37.38 La Mirada Golf Course 99,080 $2,376,000 $23.98 106,414 $3,363,688 $31.61 Lakewood Golf Course 90,758 $2,729,536 $30.07 93,438 $3,582,877 $38.34 Los Amigos Golf Course 76,812 $2,155,020 $28.06 86,035 $3,180,025 $36.96 Los Verdes Golf Course 104,880 $3,518,656 $33.55 102,841 $4,093,899 $39.81 Marshall Canyon Golf Course 47,413 $1,328,307 $28.02 66,258 $2,426,196 $36.62 Mountain Meadows Golf Course 78,604 $2,286,485 $29.09 89,387 $3,469,289 $38.81 Santa Anita Golf Course 72,507 $2,127,879 $29.35 95,036 $3,589,642 $37.77 Victoria Golf Course 36,335 $815,883 $22.45 22,440 $432,349 $19.27 Washington Golf Course 79,823 $1,995,626 $25.00 80,593 $2,907,784 $36.08 Whittier Narrows Golf Course 105,000 $2,287,794 $30.20 109,259 $3,355,184 $30.71 Total 999,576 $27,995,074 1,004,403 $37,197,656
Total Rounds minus Diamond Bar 918,406 981,903
Average per 18 Holes (minus DB) 76,534 81,825 6.9%
Executive Course
El Cariso Golf Course Total 33,427 $873,610.26 $26.13 32,492 $974,962 $30.00 Regulation 9 Hole
Altadena Golf Course 31,709 $530,020 $16.72 43,896 $892,883 $20.34 Eaton Canyon Golf Course 29,021 $516,670 $17.80 42,730 $894,603 $20.94 Whittier Narrows GC (Mtn. 9) 29,253 Included above under WN 36,668 Included
above
Total 89,983 $1,046,691 123,294 $1,787,485
Totals: 1,181,869 $29,915,375 1,271,480 $39,960,104

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Montebello GC – Montebello, CA – 53 Exhibit 3 – City of Los Angeles Golf Rounds & Revenue - Fiscal Year 2022 The table below shows rounds and green/cart fee revenues for the City of Los Angeles municipal golf system courses for FY22.

City of Los Angeles Golf Rounds & Revenue - Fiscal Year 2022 Griffith Park
(Wilson & Harding)
Sepulveda
(Encino & Balboa) Rancho Park Hansen Dam Woodley Lakes
Green Fees $4,727,189 $4,310,643 $2,457,388 $2,028,240 $1,959,144 Cart Fees $1,407,870 $1,368,143 $723,664 $1,029,138 $915,024 Rounds 182,675 177,710 101,551 92,547 88,577
Per Round $33.58 $31.96 $31.32 $33.04 $32.45
Harbor Park
9 Hole Regulation
Penmar
9 Hole Executive
Roosevelt
9 Hole
Executive
Rancho Park
9 Hole Par-3
Los Feliz
9 Hole Par-3
Green Fees $1,560,719 $1,530,880 $1,404,775 $533,859 $356,111 Cart Fees $246,288 $3,966
Rounds 115,531 113,231 107,433 63,909 47,892
Per Round $15.64 $13.55 $13.08 $8.35 $7.44
TOTALS:

Rounds Played 1,091,056
Green Fees $20,868,948
Cart Fees $5,694,093
Green + Cart per Round (all) $24.35
Rounds per 18H Reg. 91,866
Rounds per 9H (all) 89,599
Green + Cart per Rd. (18H) $32.54
Green + Cart per Rd. (9H) $12.58

ITEM # 13

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: Kimberly Guillen, Senior Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD AND CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024
DATE: April 10, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Approve Resolution No. 24-16 calling for the holding of a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the election of certain officers as required by the provisions of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities; and

2. Approve Resolution No. 24-17 requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to render full services to the City relating to a General Municipal Election to be held and conducted on Tuesday, November 5, 2024; and

3. Approve Resolution No. 24-18 requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, with other Los Angeles County and State of California elections to be held on the date pursuant to § 10403 of the Elections Code; and

4. Approve Resolution No. 24-19 adopting regulations for candidates for elective office pertaining to candidate statements submitted to the voters at an election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024; and

5. Approve Resolution No. 24-20 providing for a procedure for determining by lot a tie among candidates at the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election in accordance with Elections Code Section 15651.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The actual cost of the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election is uncertain.

Historically, budgets are prepared which provide an estimated cost, since the actual cost

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

is unknown until after the election is completed and an invoice is received from the County of Los Angeles. Over the last three fiscal years, the actual cost of elections has been:
$126,271, $107,563, and $202,962 (Fiscal Years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2022-23.) The Fiscal Year 2024-25 proposed budget will include $200,000 for the November 2024 election. Based on prior year data, this appears to be a reasonable estimate of final costs.

City Clerk Staff will work closely with the County Registrar-Recorder to properly account for all municipal election results.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024, a General Municipal Election is scheduled to be held for two (2) City Council District seats and one (1) City Clerk seat in the City of Montebello.

Those persons elected to Districts No. 2 and 4 will serve a four (4) year term expiring in November 2028. The person elected for City Clerk will serve a four (4) year term expiring in November 2028.

State law suggests Monday, June 17, 2024, as the last day to approve Resolutions related to the November 5, 2024, election. Presented for City Council review and approval are a series of Resolutions which will have the effect of calling the election, requesting election-related services from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder County Clerk Elections Division, setting forth regulations for candidates’ statements, and providing a procedure for determining by lot a tie among candidates at the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election pursuant to § 15651 of the Elections Code.

Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act, Los Angeles County is required to make voting material available in English, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Tagalog and Vietnamese. Materials in each of these required languages will be made available upon request. In addition, the sample ballot will contain instructions on how voting information in the required languages can be obtained via telephone at no cost to the voter. The demographics of Montebello also require that the Voter’s Pamphlet be translated and printed in Spanish and English.

If a candidate chooses to have a Candidate’s Statement in the sample ballot, the candidate will be required to pay for printing of the statement in English and have the option of printing the Candidate Statement in any other language. There will be a separate charge for the translation and printing.

With approval of the items presented with this staff report, Election Code requirements will be satisfied. Pursuant to the schedule of election events prepared by the County Elections Department, the candidate filing period will open Monday, July 15, 2024, and will close Friday, August 9, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. If an incumbent fails to file by Friday, August 9, 2024, the filing period will be extended to Wednesday, August 14, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. The Secretary of State’s office will conduct the randomized alphabet drawing on Thursday, August 15, 2024, to determine the order of names on the City’s ballot.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

N/A

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

ANALYSIS:

N/A
SUMMARY:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the five (5) resolutions required to comply with the Elections Code and Los Angeles County operational schedule with regard to the upcoming November 2024 election.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A - Reso No. 24-16 - Call Election

2. Attachment B - Reso No. 24-17 - Rendering Services to County

3. Attachment C - Reso No. 24-18 - County Consolidation

4. Attachment D - Reso No. 24-19 - Candidate Statements

5. Attachment E - Reso No. 24-20 - Tie Vote
NEXT STEPS:

N/A

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 24-16

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A

GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 5, 2024, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS

REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES

RECITALS
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the election of Municipal Officers.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Montebello, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing two (2) Members of the City Council, one (1) from District 2 and one (1) from District 4 and one (1) City Clerk at-large. City Council seats for Districts 2 and 4 and the City Clerk will be placed on the ballot for four (4) year terms, set to expire in 2028.

SECTION 2. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law.

SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

SECTION 4. That the polls for the election shall open at seven (7) o’clock a.m. of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight (8) o’clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed pursuant to Election Code §10242, except as provided in § 14212, 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California.

SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

SECTION 6. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

RESOLUTION NO. 24-16

SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

SECTION 8. The City Council authorizes the City Clerk to administer said election and all reasonable and actual election expenses shall be paid by the City upon presentation of a properly submitted bill.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2024.
_______________________________
Scarlet Peralta, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-16 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 10th day of April 2024 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

DATE:

Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 24-17

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO RENDER

FULL SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A

GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 5, 2024

RECITALS
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Montebello, California, (the “City”) on Tuesday, November 5, 2024; and WHEREAS, in the course of conduct of the election it is necessary for the City to request services of the County; and
WHEREAS, all necessary expenses in performing these services shall be paid by the City of Montebello.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That pursuant to the provisions of § 10002 of the Elections Code of the State of California, this City Council requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to permit the County Elections Department to provide full election services.

SECTION 2. That the City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill.

SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is directed to forward without delay to the Board of Supervisors and to the County Elections Department, each a certified copy of this resolution.

SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2024.
_______________________________
Scarlet Peralta, Mayor

RESOLUTION NO. 24-17

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-17 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 10th day of April 2024 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

DATE:

Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 24-18

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO

CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2024, WITH THE STATEWIDE

GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO
§ 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Montebello, California, called a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the purpose of the election of two (2) Members of the City Council through a By-District process and one (1) City Clerk at-large.

WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the State General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the elections be the same, and that County Elections Department of the County of Los Angeles canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the Election be held in all respects as if there were only one Election.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of §10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the purpose of the election of two (2) Members of the City Council and one (1) City Clerk in the following Council Districts for the terms specified:

District 2: 4-year term.

District 4: 4-year term.

City Clerk: 4-year term.

SECTION 2. That the County Elections Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the Statewide Election.

RESOLUTION NO. 24-18

SECTION 3. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County Elections Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.

SECTION 4. That the City of Montebello, recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs.

SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the County Elections Department of the County of Los Angeles.

SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. [Signatures on the following page]

RESOLUTION NO. 24-18

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF APRIL 2024.
_______________________________
Scarlet Peralta, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-18 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 10th day of April 2024 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

DATE:

Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION NO. 24-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR
CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES’

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5,
2024

RECITALS
WHEREAS, § 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the governing body of any local agency adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidates’ statement.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. That pursuant to §13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at an Election to be held in the City of Montebello (“City”) on November 8, 2024, may prepare a candidate’s statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. The statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than two hundred (200) words of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. The statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations.

The statement shall be filed in electronic form, on a flash drive provided by the City, in the office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate’s nomination papers are filed. The statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period.

SECTION 2. FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY
A. Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act, candidates’ statements will be translated into all languages required by the County of Los Angeles (“County”). The County is required to translate candidate’s statements into the following languages: Spanish and Simple Chinese.

B. The County will print and mail voter information guides and candidates’ statements to all voters in Spanish. The County will make the voter information guides and candidates’ statements in the required languages available at all polling places, on the County’s website, and in the Election Official’s office.

SECTION 3. PAYMENT
A. Translations:

RESOLUTION NO. 24-19

1. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidates’ statements into any required foreign language as specified in (A) and (B) of Section 2 above pursuant to Federal and/or State law.

2. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidates’ statement into any foreign language that is not required as specified in (A) and (B) of Section 2 above, pursuant to Federal and/or State law, but is requested as an option by the candidate.

B. Printing:

1. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidates’ statement in English in the main voter pamphlet.

2. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidates statement in a foreign language required in (A) of Section 2 above, in the main voter pamphlet.

3. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidates statement in a foreign language required by (A) of Section 2 above, in the facsimile pamphlet.

The City Clerk shall estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the Candidate’s Statements filed pursuant to this section, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended, and require each candidate filing a statement to pay in advance to the local agency his or her estimated pro rata share as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voter’s pamphlet. In the event the estimated payment is required, the estimate is just an approximation of the actual cost that varies from one election to another election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the City Clerk is not bound by the estimate and may, on a pro rata basis, bill the candidate for additional actual expense or refund any excess paid depending on the final actual costs. In the event of underpayment, the Clerk may require the candidate to pay the balance of the cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the Clerk shall prorate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid within thirty (30) days of the election.

SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. No candidate will be permitted to include additional material in the voter information guide package.

SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate’s representative with a copy of this resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued.

SECTION 6. That all previous resolutions establishing Council policy on payment for candidates’ statements are repealed.

SECTION 7. That this resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on November 8, 2022 and shall then be repealed.

SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

RESOLUTION NO. 24-19

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2024.
_______________________________
Scarlet Peralta, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-19 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 10th day of April 2024 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

DATE:

Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT E
RESOLUTION NO. 24-20

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR A PROCEDURE

FOR DETERMINING BY LOT A TIE AMONG CANDIDATES AT THE
NOVEMBER 5, 2024, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 15651

RECITALS
WHEREAS, § 15651 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council to determine the means and manner in which a tie vote is to be resolved in the event that two or more persons receive an equal and the highest number of votes (“tie votes”) for an office to be voted upon in a city; WHEREAS, § 15651 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the tie vote shall be resolved in one of the following ways:
a) By Lot: The City Clerk, serving as the Elections Official pursuant to Elections Code § 320, or his or her designee, shall summon the candidates who have received the tie votes, whether upon the canvass of the returns or upon recount by a court, to appear before the City Council at a time to be designated by the City Council. The City Clerk shall at that time and place resolve the tie votes by lot (defined below).
b) By Special Election: The legislative body may resolve a tie vote by the conduct of a special runoff election involving those candidates who receive an equal number of votes. A special runoff election shall be held only if the legislative body adopts provisions of § 15651 (b) of the Elections Code prior to the conduct of the election resulting in the tie vote. All future elections conducted by that body shall be resolved likewise, unless the legislative body later repeals the order for the conduct of a special runoff election.

WHEREAS, the City Council desires that any tie vote resulting from the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election be resolved by lot.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That pursuant to § 15651 of the Elections Code of the State of California, if any two or more persons receive an equal and the highest number of votes for an office to be voted for within the City, the tie votes shall be resolved by lot. “By lot” means, by deciding the matter through implementing a method of chance, in order to afford each candidate receiving tie votes a fair opportunity at election.

RESOLUTION NO. 24-20

SECTION 2. That the City Council has the authority to resolve tie votes by lot, by implementing various methods of chance, including, but not limited to, a coin toss, generation of random number, or drawing of names. In the interest of maintaining decorum, fairness and transparency, the method implemented for resolving tie votes in the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election shall be the drawing of names, in accordance with the following procedure:

The City Clerk shall type the name of each candidate who has tied for office on a separate, but identical piece of paper, which shall be folded and deposited into a container and mixed so that the pieces of paper become indistinguishable. The City Clerk, or his or her designee, shall then draw from the container as many pieces of paper as there are seats on the City Council to be filled by the candidates who have tied. The candidate(s) whose name(s) appear(s) upon the drawn piece(s) of paper shall be deemed elected.

SECTION 3. That this resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, and shall be repealed upon the City Council’s declaration of election results.

SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. [Signatures on the following page]

RESOLUTION NO. 24-20

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2024.
_______________________________
Scarlet Peralta, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO )
I, Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-20 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Montebello, signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 10th day of April 2024 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Montebello, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of said City which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.

DATE:

Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk

ITEM # 14

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: Cesar Roldan, Director
SUBJECT: APPROVE EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF

GOVERNMENTS AND THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO TO FUND STATE

COMPLIANCE MEASURES WITH THE UPPER LOS ANGELES RIVER

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP AND THE COORDINATED

INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER

SYSTEMS PERMIT
DATE: April 10, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) to fund the overages associated with the Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit’s compliance measures of the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group and the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP); and

2. Amend the Fiscal Year 2023-24 budget by increasing appropriations by $23,785 in Account No. 229-30-315-6040.10 (Measure W, Public Works, Stormwater, Outside Contracts); and,

3. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Montebello is a member of the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group.

The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit identifies the City as an MS4 permittee responsible for compliance with the Permit’s requirements pertaining to

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

the City’s jurisdictional area in the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Area (ULAR WMG) and the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP).

The City executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (Attachment A) and agreed to cooperatively share and fully fund the costs of the implementation of the CIMP and WMP and agreed to have the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) invoice and collect funds to cover the costs of implementation.

The SGVCOG will invoice the City in an amount not exceeding $23,785. The City shall pay the invoice within sixty (60) days of receipt of the invoice from SGVCOG. Staff recommends amending the Fiscal Year 2023-24 budget by increasing appropriations by $23,785 in Account No. 229-30-315-6040.10 (Measure W, Public Works Stormwater, Other Contract Services) to pay this invoice.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board) have classified the Greater Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) as a large MS4 pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 122.26(b)(4) and a major facility pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.2.

Montebello is part of the 84 cities in conjunction with the County of Los Angeles that must adhere to the current MS4 Permit requirements to improve water quality in the region.

Due to Montebello’s contribution of urban runoff into the Upper Los Angeles River, Montebello must share in the environmental responsibility to uphold the MS4 via the formation of the Watershed Management Group.

The SGVCOG is a regional government planning agency in the San Gabriel Valley.

SGVCOG is a joint powers authority consisting of 31 incorporated cities, unincorporated communities in Los Angeles County Supervisorial Districts 1, and 5, and three San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water Districts (San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Three Valleys Municipal Water District, and Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District). The WMG entered into a MOA with the SGVCOG to oversee the effort imposed by the Regional Board to implement the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP). A fare share contribution was established and due to several factors, there is an overage of $23,785 that must be paid in agreement with the original MOA executed by the City on April 12, 2018. Payment of this overage allows the City to be in compliance with the MS4 permit and applicable State requirements on the environmental health of the region's waters.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

N/A
ANALYSIS:

N/A

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

SUMMARY:

Upon approval by the City Council, Staff will coordinate with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) for the invoicing and funds collection. In addition, the recommended actions will amend the Fiscal Year 2023-24 budget, increasing appropriations by $23,785 in Account No. 229-30-315-6040.10 (Measure W, Public Works, Stormwater, Outside Contracts).

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A - Memorandum of Agreement ULAR April 12, 2018

2. Attachment B - Memorandum of Agreement SGVCOG
NEXT STEPS:

N/A

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA, THE CITY OF

BURBANK, THE CITY OF CALABASAS, THE CITY OF GLENDALE, THE CITY

OF HIDDEN HILLS, THE CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE, THE CITY OF

MONTEBELLO, THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, THE CITY OF PASADENA, THE

CITY OF ROSEMEAD, THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, THE CITY OF SAN

GABRIEL, THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE, THE

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, LOS ANGELES

COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND

THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING FOR IMPLEMENTING

THE COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM (CIMP) AND

ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (EWMP) FOR THE UPPER

LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), made and entered into as of the date of the last signature set forth below by and between The SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SGVCOG), a California Joint Powers Authority, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (CITY), a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF BURBANK, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF CALABASAS, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF GLENDALE, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF PASADENA, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, a municipal corporation, LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (LACFCD), a body corporate and politic, and the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (COUNTY), a political subdivision of the State of California. Collectively, these entities shall be known herein as PARTIES or individually as PARTY.

WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, for the purpose of this MOA, the term PARTIES shall mean the Cities of Los Angeles, Alhambra, Burbank, Calabasas, Glendale, Hidden Hills, La Canada Flintridge, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Temple City, Los Angeles

ATTACHMENT A

County Flood Control Districts (LACFCD), and the County of Los Angeles (COUNTYt and the term CITY shall mean only the City of Los Angeles; and the term SGVCOG shall mean the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board), have classified the Greater Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) as a large MS4 pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.26(b)(4) and a major facility pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.2; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Board has adopted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS4 Permit Order No. R4-2012-0175 (MS4 Permit); and WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit became effective on December 28, 2012, and requires that the LACFCD, the COUNTY, and 84 of the 88 cities (excluding Avalon, Long Beach, Palmdale, and Lancaster) within the County comply with the prescribed elements of the MS4 Permit; and
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit identified the PARTIES as MS4 permittees responsible for compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements pertaining to the PARTIES' collective jurisdictional area in the Upper Los Angeles Watershed Management Area as identified in Exhibit E of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES elected voluntarily to collaborate on the development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) and a Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) in accordance with the MS4 Permit for a portion of the Upper Los Angeles Watershed Management Area as identified in Exhibit E of this MOA to comply with all applicable monitoring requirements of the MS4 Permit; and WHEREAS, the EWMP was submitted to the Regional Board by the PARTIES on June 25, 2015, and was approved by the Regional Board on April 20, 2016; and WHEREAS, the CIMP was submitted to the Regional Board by the PARTIES on June 26, 2014 and was approved by the Regional Board on November 18, 2015; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed for the CITY to perform and coordinate the MONITORING SERVICES of the CIMP and the EWMP-RELATED TASKS on the PARTIES' behalf, and the PARTIES have agreed to pay the CITY for their services as indicated in Tables 1-4 of Exhibit A and Tables 1-10 of Exhibit B, respectively, of this MOA; and

WHEREAS, the CITY retains the right to outsource some or all of the elements of the MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS, at a cost not to exceed those shown in Tables 1-4 of Exhibit A and Tables 1-1 O of Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES desire to have the SGVCOG: (a) invoice and collect funds from each of the PARTIES to cover the costs of MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS and pay the CITY; (b) administer this MOA; and (c) negotiate, enter into agreements with, and collect funds from individual NPDES permit holders for cost-sharing of MONITORING SERVICES; and (d) negotiate, enter into agreements with consultant(s) to execute services to uphold the SERVICES and TASKS of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed that the total cost for this MOA shall not exceed $6,758,892 as shown in Table 1 of Exhibit C; and.

WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed to cooperatively share and fully fund the estimated costs of the implementation of the CIMP and EWMP based on the Distributed Cost contained in Tables 1-4 of Exhibit A and Tables 1-1 O of Exhibit B, respectively, of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree that each shall assume full and independent responsibility for ensuring its own compliance with the MS4 Permit despite the collaborative approach of the MOA; and
WHEREAS, individual NPDES permit holders that are not PARTIES may wish to participate in the MONITORING SERVICES for individual permit compliance; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES contemplate allowing such individual NPDES permit holders to participate in the MONITORING SERVICES without being a party to this MOA, in order to minimize the costs of preparing and implementing the CIMP to each of the PARTIES; and
WHEREAS, the SGVCOG agrees to enter into individual separate agreements with such individual NPDES permit holders (which shall not become parties to this MOA) for MONITORING SERVICES cost-sharing purposes only; and WHEREAS, if other individual NPDES permit holders participate in the cost sharing relating to the MONITORING SERVICES, the PARTIES contemplate that the invoicing table in Exhibit C will be modified as appropriate and each PARTY's proportional payment obligation reduced accordingly to reflect other individual NPDES permit holders' payments.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the PARTIES, and of the promises contained in this MOA, the PARTIES, and SGVCOG agree as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and fully incorporated into this MOA.

Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOA is to cooperatively fund the MONITORING SERVICES and TASKS of the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Area Group CIMP and EWMP and to authorize the SGVCOG to administer the cost sharing.

Section 3. Cooperation. The PARTIES and the SGVCOG shall fully cooperate with one another to attain the purposes of this MOA.

Section 4. Voluntary. The PARTIES have voluntarily entered into this MOA for the implementation of the MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS and authorize the SGVCOG to administer the cost-sharing.

Section 5. Term. This MOA shall become effective on the date the last PARTY executes this MOA and shall remain in effect for five (5) years from the effective date or until June 30th, 2023, or whichever is later. The MOA may be extended, through an executed amendment, for an additional three (3) years.

Section 6. Commitment. Once effective, all cooperating PARTIES and the SGVCOG agree to uphold the promises contained in this MOA for the duration of the agreed upon term.

Section 7. THE PARTIES AND SGVCOG AGREE:
a. Monitoring Services. The CITY will perform the MONITORING SERVICES to support the PARTIES' submittal of the MS4 Permit Annual Report. The CITY reserves the right to modify this MOA, through a written amendment to be approved by all PARTIES, when conditions, such as, but not limited to, expansion of CIMP requirements, additional EWMP-RELATED TASKS impact annual costs.
b. Reporting. The PARTIES authorize the CITY to prepare and submit semi-annual and annual analytical monitoring reports to the Regional Board as described in the CIMP as well as electronic files if requested by the Regional Board. The CITY shall distribute the semi-annual and annual reports to the PARTIES fifteen (15) businesses days prior to submittal to the Regional Board. The PARTIES may

review the monitoring report and submit comments to the CITY prior to its submittal to the Regional Board.
c. Invoicing. The SGVCOG will invoice all PARTIES, except the CITY, in annual amounts not exceeding the invoice amounts shown in Table 1 of Exhibit C.

SGVCOG will pay the CITY, the difference between the funds collected and the sum of administrative costs, the CITY's portion of shared costs for MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS. The annual invoices will be issued in May of each calendar year in anticipation of the expected monitoring cost for the next fiscal year. The CITY shall provide SGVCOG an accounting of the MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS completed during each annual payment term by October 31 st of the following year. Contingency and other funds shall be retained by SGVCOG to be used at the discretion of the PARTIES. The PARTIES will form a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) subcommittee to verify the accounting, monitoring and other work completed and the amount of the invoices before the SGVCOG remits payment back to the CITY.
d. Additional Studies. The PARTIES agree that preparing grant applications, and/or conducting watershed-wide special studies, monitoring with other watershed groups, conducting other collaborative activities for the purpose of complying with the MS4 Permit may be funded by the Parties subject to the terms of this MOA, provided that there are available excess contract funds or contingency funds available to fund these activities. Prior to the performance of any such activities, all PARTIES must provide written approval of the activities and revise Tables 1-4 of Exhibit A and Tables 1-10 of Exhibit B showing which PARTIES will be funding the activities and in what amounts.
a. Contracting. The PARTIES contemplate allowing other individual NPDES permit holders to participate in the MONITORING SERVICES without being a party to this MOA, in order to minimize the costs of preparing and implementing the CIMP to each of the PARTIES. In the event that another NPDES permit holder wants to participate in the MONITORING SERVICES, the SGVCOG may enter into an individual separate agreement with such individual NPDES permit holder (which shall not become a party to this MOA) for MONITORING SERVICES cost sharing purposes. If other individual NPDES permit holders participate in the cost sharing relating to the MONITORING SERVICES, the invoicing tables in Exhibit C shall be modified as appropriate and each PARTIES' proportional payment obligation reduced accordingly to reflect other individual NPDES permit holders' payments.

Section 8. Payment.
a. Annual Payment. Each PARTY shall pay the SGVCOG for its proportional share of the estimated cost for MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED

TASKS including SGVCOG's fees as shown in Table 4 of Exhibit A and Table 3 of Exhibit B, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the invoice from the SGVCOG.

The SGVCOG will remit payment to the CITY within sixty (60) days of receipt of payments from the other PARTIES, noting any delinquent payments that remain due after deducting the SGVCOG's administrative fixed fee as set forth in Table 4 of Exhibit A and Table 3 of Exhibit B and twelve hundred and thirty dollars ($1,230) per individual permittee agreement. The invoicing amounts presented in Exhibit C have been agreed upon by the PARTIES and are subject to change, through a written amendment, to address unforeseen challenges. b. Program Management Fee. The costs of MONITORING SERVICES in Exhibit A and EWMP-RELATED TASKS in Exhibit B include a Program Management Fee for facilitation of this MOA by the SGVCOG in the combined amount of $100,000 per year as shown in Table 4 of Exhibit A and Table 3 of Exhibit B. c. Contingency. The CITY and the SGVCOG will notify the PARTIES if actual expenditures for MONITORING SERVICES and/or EWMP-RELATED TASKS are anticipated to exceed the cost estimates contained in Exhibit A and B. Inasmuch, the MONITORING SERVICES may be adaptable to sampling events during an event that may preclude the CITY from notifying the PARTIES, and the CITY may incur cost greater than the contract estimates contained in Exhibit A. The PARTIES agree to pay the CITY (through SGVCOG) for their proportional share of these additional expenditures at an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of their proportional annual cost as shown in Table 1 of Exhibit C. Any costs which exceed this ten percent (10%) contingency will require an amendment to this MOA. These funds will be held by SGVCOG until such time as they are needed. d. Reconciliation of this MOA. Any unexpended funds held by SGVCOG at the termination of this MOA will be refunded or credited to the PARTIES by the SGVCOG, as requested in writing by each PARTY and in accordance with the distributed cost formula set forth in Tables 1 of Exhibit C or PARTIES may elect to roll-over unexpended funds to cover monitoring expenses in the subsequent MOA. At the end of the MOA, the SGVCOG will provide the PARTIES with an accounting of actual expenditures within ninety (90) days. e. Late Payment Penalty. Any payment that is not received within sixty (60) days following receipt of the invoice from SGVCOG shall be subject to interest on the original amount from the date that the payment first became due. The interest rate shall be equal to the Prime Rate in effect when the payment first became due plus one percent (1 %) for any payment that is made within one (1) to thirty (30) days after the due date. The Prime Rate in effect when the payment first became due plus five percent (5%) shall apply to any payment that is made within thirty one (31) to sixty (60) days after the due date. The Prime Rate in

effect when the payment first became due plus ten percent (10%) shall apply to any payment that is made more than sixty (60) days past the due date. The rates, shall nevertheless, not exceed the maximum allowed by law. f. Delinquent Payments. A payment is considered to be delinquent one hundred and eighty (180) days after receipt of the invoice from the SGVCOG. The following procedure may be implemented to attain payments from the delinquent PARTY or PARTIES: 1) verbally contact/meet with the manager(s) from the delinquent PARTY or PARTIES; 2) submit a formal letter to the delinquent PARTY or PARTIES from SGVCOG counsel; and 3) notify the Regional Board that the delinquent PARTY or PARTIES are no longer a participating member of the GIMP or EWMP. If the PARTY or PARTIES remain delinquent after the above procedures, then that PARTY's participation in this MOA will be deemed terminated, and the remaining PARTIES' cost share allocation shall be adjusted in accordance with the cost allocation formula in Exhibit C.

Section 9. THE PARTIES FURTHER AGREE:
a. Documentation. The PARTIES agree to provide at no cost to the City all requested information and documentation in their possession that is deemed necessary by the PARTIES to perform the MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS.
b. Access. Each PARTY shall allow the City or its contractor reasonable access and entry to-on an as- needed basis during the term of this MOA-certain facilities and structures owned, operated, or controlled by the PARTY, which access and entry are necessary for the CITY or its contractor to perform MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS (FACILITIES). The FACILITIES shall include but not be limited to the PARTY's storm drains, channels, catch basins, and similar, provided, however, that prior to entering any of the PARTIES FACILITIES, the CITY shall provide seventy-two (72) hours advance written notice of entry to the applicable PARTY, or in the cases where seventy-two (72) hours' advance written notice is not possible, such as in cases of unforeseen wet weather, CITY or its contractor shall provide written notice to the applicable PARTY as early as reasonably possible. LACFCD, being a member of this MOA, agrees to provide the CITY or its contractor a "no-fee" Access Permit to its FACILITIES. This Access Permit does not cover any fees that may be required for Construction Permits for the installation of permanent monitoring equipment. The CITY shall secure any required necessary permits prior to entry.
c. Each PARTY agrees that due to certain monitoring activities, such as toxicity testing, the total cost of this MOA is not inclusive of those activities that may be required to successfully complete the analyses. Thus, the PARTIES agree to

fund the required additional work when the CITY notifies them that the activity has taken place. The PARTIES agree to pay the CITY (through the SGVCOG) for their proportional share of these additional expenditures at an amount not to exceed their proportional annual cost plus the ten percent (10%) contingency as shown in Exhibit A. No PARTY will be obligated to pay for additional expenditures which exceed this amount absent an amendment to this MOA. d. Reporting. The CITY shall distribute the semi-annual and annual reports to the PARTIES fifteen (15) business days prior to its intended date of submittal to the Regional Board. The PARTIES may review the reports and submitted comments to the CITY prior to its submittal to the Regional Board. The CITY has control of the submittal but shall discuss the PARTIES' comments as they apply to the report.

Section 10. Indemnification
a. Each PARTY and the SGVCOG shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless each other PARTY, including its special districts, elected and appointed officers, employees, agents, attorneys, and designated volunteers from and against any and all liability, including, but not limited to, demands, claims, actions, fees, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees), arising from or connected with the respective acts of each PARTY arising from or related to this MOA; provided, however, that no PARTY shall indemnify another PARTY for that PARTY'S own negligence or willful misconduct.
b. In light of the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California imposing certain tort liability jointly upon public entities solely by reason of such entities being parties to an agreement (as defined in Section 895 of said Code), each of the PARTIES hereto, pursuant to the authorization contained in Section 895.4 and 895.6 of said Code, shall assume the full liability imposed upon it or any of its officers, agents, or employees, by law for injury caused by any act or omission occurring in the performance of this MOA to the same extent such liability would be imposed in the absence of Section 895.2 of said Code. To achieve the above stated purpose, each PARTY indemnifies, defends, and holds harmless each other PARTY for any liability, cost, or expense that may be imposed upon such other PARTY solely by virtue of said Section 895.2. The provisions of Section 2778 of the California Civil Code are made a part hereof as if incorporated herein.

Section 11 . Termination
a. Any PARTY including the SGVCOG may withdraw from this MOA for any reason, in whole or part, by giving the other PARTIES and the Regional Board thirty (30) days written notice thereof. Withdrawing PARTIES shall remain wholly

responsible for their share of the costs of MONITORING SERVICES and EWMPRELATED TASKS for the extent of the effective term of this MOA. Each PARTY shall also be responsible for the payment of its own fines, penalties or costs incurred as a result of the non-performance of the CIMP and/or EWMP. Upon withdrawal by the SGVCOG, the PARTIES shall meet and confer to designate an alternate organization to accept the SGVCOG's responsibilities under this MOA. b. The SGVCOG shall notify in writing all PARTIES within fourteen (14) days of receiving written notice from any PARTY that intends to terminate this MOA. c. If a PARTY fails to comply with any of the terms or conditions of this MOA, that PARTY shall forfeit its rights to the work completed through this MOA, but no such forfeiture shall occur unless and until the defaulting PARTY has first been given notice of its default and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged default.
d. EQUIPMENT Ownership - Devices such as, automatic sampling stations inclusive of a cabinet, sampling equipment, ancillary devices, power supplies (EQUIPMENT) may be installed to implement the CIMP. Any PARTY voluntarily terminating membership will not be entitled to a refund for the portion of the share paid to acquire and to operate the EQUIPMENT nor for the remaining value of the EQUIPMENT, if any. The operational life of such EQUIPMENT is approximately seven years, and after which it may be obsolete or may require major remodel or replacement of electrical and mechanical components costing equivalent to a purchase of a new EQUIPMENT. The remaining PARTIES agree to own, operate and maintain and or replace the EQUIPMENT.

Section 12. General Provisions
a. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports relating to this MOA, and any request, demand, statement, or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the representatives of the PARTIES and/or SGVCOG at the addresses set forth in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PARTIES and SBCCOG shall promptly notify each other of any change of contact information, including personnel changes, provided in Exhibit D. Written notice shall include notice delivered via e-mail or fax. A notice shall be deemed to have been received on (a) the date of delivery, if delivered by hand during regular business hours, or by confirmed facsimile or by e-mail; or (b) on the third (3rd) business day following mailing by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) to the addresses set forth in Exhibit D.

b. Administration. For the purposes of this MOA, the PARTIES and SGVCOG hereby designate as their respective representatives the persons named in Exhibit D. The designated representatives, or their respective designees, shall administer the terms and conditions of this MOA on behalf of their respective entities. Each of the persons signing below on behalf of a PARTY or the SGVCOG represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to sign this MOA on behalf of such entity.
c. Relationship of the Parties. The parties to this MOA are, and shall at all times remain as to each other, wholly independent entities. No party to this MOA shall have power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of any other party unless expressly provided to the contrary by this MOA. No employee, agent, or officer of a party shall be deemed for any purpose whatsoever to be an agent, employee, or officer of another party.
d. Binding Effect. This MOA shall be binding upon, and shall be to the benefit of the respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each party to this MOA; provided, however, no party may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOA without the prior written consent of the other parties. e. Amendment. The terms and provisions of this MOA may not be amended, modified, or waived, except by an instrument in writing signed by all nondelinquent PARTIES and the SGVCOG. Such amendments may be executed by those individuals listed in Exhibit D or by a responsible individual as determined by each PARTY.
f. Law to Govern. This MOA is governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event of litigation related to this MOA, venue in the state trial courts shall lie exclusively in the County of Los Angeles.
g. No Presumption in Drafting. The parties to this MOA agree that the general rule that an MOA is to be interpreted against the party drafting it, or causing it to be prepared shall not apply.
h. Severability. If any provision of this MOA shall be determined by any court to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOA shall not be affected, and this MOA shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOA. i. Entire Agreement. This MOA constitutes the entire agreement of the parties to this MOA with respect to the subject matter hereof.

j. Waiver. Waiver by any party to this MOA of any term, condition, or covenant of this MOA shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant.

Waiver by any party to this MOA of any breach of the provisions of this MOA shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this MOA. k. Counterparts. This MOA may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts shall have been delivered to all parties to this MOA.

I. All parties to this MOA have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this MOA. Accordingly, this MOA shall be construed according to its fair language. Any ambiguities shall be resolved in a collaborative manner by the PARTIES and SGVCOG and shall be rectified by amending this MOA as described in Section 12(e) ..

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES and SBCCOG hereto have caused this MOA to be executed by their duly authorized representatives and affixed as of the date of signature of the PARTIES:

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
~ Mark Pest ella, Director of
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mary C. Wickham
County Counsel
By
Date
Date

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
By
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mary C. Wickham
County Counsel
By

Date
Date

CITY OF ALHAMBRA
By_-+-~ ----14'---.L........Jt&<----->,,+-
S
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

By _ _,__-1-~....::..,,....c:c...,;....:..----++---
La
Ci
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Byj&klk
City Attorney

Date

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
ATTEST:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael N. Feuer
City Attorney
Adena M. Hopenstand
Deputy City Attorney

THE CITY OF BURBANK
Dated: ~t\\ \] 120\5 CITY OF BURBANK
'
ATTEST:

CITY OF CALABASAS
ATTEST:

Maricela Hernand z, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Scott Howard,
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
City Attorney

CITY OF CALABASAS
Fred Gaines, ~ By f_J2_,\~

CITY OF GLENDALE
Dated: --~...___: /rJ'--q--+/-'--; _g __
ATTEST:

APPROVED AS TO F

CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS

CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS
, City Clerk
ttorney

CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
Dated: ------1~'----,:5!,__~_t ___ _ CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE ATTEST:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mark Steres, City Attorney

THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO
Dated: A/\1-./1{ ----+-,--I,'---'---- --- CITY OF MONTEB9'f/,Lo By ~ / ~
AndrewTasmant, Acting City Manager
ATTEST:
~ ityC!erk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Date:_ ~_ / _?_/ _!</} __
ATTEST:

Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk
APPROVED M: l
By: ---+--=--------,,f-------,-
u(
\----
~
Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney
J

CITY OF PASADENA
Dated: __ 7-_ .,,_f_]_ ... f_l __ _
ATTEST:

Mark
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Brad L. Fuller, Assistant City Attorney

CITY OF PASADENA
By
~tev. Mermell, City Manager
JULIE A.GUTIERREZ
Assistant City Manager

CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Dated: /(tt 1,z 9, 2 ol f? J I
ATTEST:

Erick
.n&
a Herna
~
ndez
~, City --
Clerk
TO FORM:
ichman, City Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP

CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Gloria Molleda, City Manager

CITY OF SAN FERNANDO
Dated: _________ _ CITY OF SAN FERNANDO
f. By---=-----+-------.H-- __,+-- Alexander P. Meyerhoff, ATTEST:

Elena G. Chavez, City Clef

CITY OF SAN GABRIEL
Dated: June 19, 2018 CITY OF SAN GABRIEL
By _ _____; ~ _________ _
Mark Lazzaretto, City Manager
ATTEST:

Sharon F. Clark, Chief City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ko~ ~*~JlS t Lcf{i:5N

CITY OF SAN MARINO
Dated: _5+-f _l ~--+--l Y ___ _
ATTEST:

Marcella Marlowe, City Manager
Attorney

ATTACHMENT 1-27

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
By
J
ATTEST:

Rose JGarez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Quinn Barrow, City Attorney

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Dated: 5 l l1 hfo ---------- CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
ATTEST:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
eresa L. Highsmit , City Attorney

CITY OF THE TEMPLE CITY
Date: { - I (p - -z_o I g CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
ATTEST:

Pegg[:~,:~
Eric S. Vail, City Attorney

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Date:
--------
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Kimberly H Barlow
Counsel for the SGVCOG
By:~Q}2_A.J1~
~ Creter, Executive Director

EXHIBIT A
Upper Los Angeles River Enhanced Watershed Management Area CIMP Implementation Costs Table 1. Exhibit A Distribution of Total Estimated Cost for Implementing the ULAR CIMP.

Agency Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 LACFCO $41,269 $57,360 $34,536 $34,556 $51,127 $218,848 City of Los Angeles $448,136 $637,212 $373,145 $373,145 $580,367 $2,412,005 County of Los Angeles $110,198 $132,588 $94,952 $95,161 $116,540 $549,439 City of Alhambra $11,184 $10,053 $10,053 $10,053 $10,053 $51,398 City of Burbank $25,406 $42,837 $22,837 $22,837 $54,168 $168,086 City of Calabasas $23,640 $70,648 $8,245 $8,245 $8,245 $119,023 City of Glendale $44,852 $71,702 $40,317 $40,317 $88,532 $285,720 City of Hidden Hills $5,496 $15,915 $1,978 $1,978 $1,978 $27,345 City of La Canada Flintridge $12,673 $14,057 $11,392 $11,392 $15,314 $64,827 City of Montebello $12,265 $11,025 $11,025 $11,025 $11,025 $56,365 City of Monterey Park $11,338 $10,192 $10,192 $10,192 $10,192 $52,105 City of Pasadena $33,902 $30,693 $30,474 $30,474 $30,857 $156,399 City of Rosemead $7,581 $6,815 $6,815 $6,815 $6,815 $34,840 City of San Fernando $3,475 $4,623 $3,124 $3,124 $5,359 $19,705 City of San Gabriel $6,056 $5,444 $5,444 $5,444 $5,444 $27,832 City of San Marino $5,518 $4,960 $4,960 $4,960 $4,960 $25,357 City of South El Monte $11,484 $11,271 $11,431 $11,594 $11,760 $57,541 City of South Pasadena $5,006 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $23,005 City of Temple City $5,900 $5,303 $5,303 $5,303 $5,303 $27,113

Total Estimated Cost of CIMP $825,379 $1,147,199 $690,722 $691,114 $1,022,538 $4,376,952 Note:

1. The Total Estimated Cost for each agency is the sum of General Monitoring Costs (refer to Table 2, Exhibit A) plus the costs for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (refer to Table 3aj, Exhibit A), Legg Lake Receiving Water Monitoring. and SGVCOG annual fee.

Table 2. Exhibit A Distribution of General Monitoring Costs.

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year CIMP Component Total 18·19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Receiving Water Monitoring $273,744 $273,744 $273,744 $273,744 $273,744 $1,368,720 Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $80,009 $80,009 $80,009 $80,009 $80,009 $400,044 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (NSWO costs are distributed according to sub-watershed) Data Management {15%) $53,063 $53,063 $53,063 $53,063 $53,063 $265,315 Capital Expenses $96,906 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $180,906 Operation & Maintenance Expenses $9,414 $9,414 $9,414 $9,414 $9,414 $47,072 Contracted Services: Annual Report, Data Tools, On-call support $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $450,000 Program Management (5%) $30,157 $26,362 $26,362 $26,362 $26,362 $135,603 General M onitoring Costs (Sub-Total) $633,293 $553,592 $553,592 $553,592 $553,592 $2,847,659 Contingency {10%) $63,329 $55,359 $55,359 $55,359 $55,359 $284,766 Annual Escalation {0%, 2%, 2%, 2%, 2%) $0 $12,179 $12,179 $12,179 $12,179 $48,716 General Monitoring Costs (Total) $696,622 $621,130 $621,130 $621,130 $621,130 $3,181,141 Agency Land Area % of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18·19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 LACFCD (5%) $34,831 $31,056 $31,056 $31,056 $31,056 $159,057 City of Los Angeles 181,288.00 58.53% $387,319 $345,345 $345,345 $345,345 $345,345 $1,768,699 County of Los Angeles 41,048.07 13.25% $87,698 $78,195 $78,195 $78,195 $78,195 $400,477 City of Alhambra 4,884.31 1.58% $10,435 $9,304 $9,304 $9,304 $9,304 $47,653 City of Burbank 11,095.20 3.58% $23,705 $21,136 $21,136 $21,136 $21,136 $108,248 Cit y of Calabasas 4,005.68 1.29% $8,558 $7,631 $7,631 $7,631 $7,631 $39,081 City of Glendale 19,587.50 6.32% $41,848 $37,313 $37,313 $37,313 $37,313 $191,101 City of Hidden Hills 961.03 0.31% $2,053 $1,831 $1,831 $1,831 $1,831 $9,376 City of La Canada Flintridge 5,534.46 1.79% $11,824 $10,543 $10,543 $10,543 $10,543 $53,996

City of Montebello 5,356.38 1.73% $11,444 $10,204 $10,204 $10,204 $10,204 $52,258 City of Monterey Park 4,951.51 1.60% $10,579 $9,432 $9,432 $9,432 $9,432 $48,308 City of Pasadena 14,805.30 4.78% $31,631 $28,203 $28,203 $28,203 $28,203 $144,445 City of Rosemead 3,310.87 1.07% $7,074 $6,307 $6,307 $6,307 $6,307 $32,302 City of San Fernando 1,517.64 0.49% $3,242 $2,891 $2,891 $2,891 $2,891 $14,807 City of San Gabriel 2,644.87 0.85% $5,651 $5,038 $5,038 $5,038 $5,038 $25,804 City of San Marino 2,409.64 0.78% $5,148 $4,590 $4,590 $4,590 $4,590 $23,509 City of South El Monte 1,594.16 0.51% $3,406 $3,037 $3,037 $3,037 $3,037 $15,553 City of South Pasadena 2,186.20 0.71% $4,671 $4,165 $4,165 $4,165 $4,165 $21,329 City of Temple City 2,576.50 0.83% $5,505 $4,908 $4,908 $4,908 $4,908 $25,137 Total 309,757.32 100% $696,622 $621,130 $621,130 $621,130 $621,130 $3,181,141 Note:

1. General Monitoring Costs include all required monitoring elements in the GIMP. except for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring and Receiving water monitoring in Echo Par!< Lake, Lake Calabasas, and Legg Lake.

2. The areas owned by Caltrans, State Parl<s, and U.S. Government have been excluded from the total area of the Upper Los Angeles River watershed.

3. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the General Monitoring Costs, which is subtracted before the costs are distributed among the other Parties.

4. Area (acres) determined by GIS analysis as shown in Exhibit C.

5. Agency Percent Area= (Agency Area/ Total Area) x 100%

6. Distributed Cost to each Party = ((Total of General Monitoring Costs - LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area]/ 100%.

Table 3A Exhibit A Distribution of Costs for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring in Aliso Canyon Wash Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (ACW) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $13,784 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,784 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monito ring $0 $58,132 $0 $0 $0 $58,132 Data Management (15%) $2,068 $8,720 $0 $0 $0 $10,788
Program Manageme nt (5%) $793 $3,343 $0 $0 $0 $4,135
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $16,645 $70,195 $0 $0 $0 $86,839 Co ntingency (10%) $1,664 $7,019 $0 $0 $0 $8,684
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,544 $0 $0 $0 $1,544 Aliso Canyon Wash (Total) $18,309 $78,759 $0 $0 $0 $97,068

Land Area % of Area
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) $915 $3,938 $0 $0 $0 $4,853
City of Los Angeles 11,604.43 86.31% $15,013 $64,581 $0 $0 $0 $79,594 County of Los Angeles 1,839.94 13.69% $2,380 $10,240 $0 $0 $0 $12,620 ACW (Total) 13,444.37 100% $18,309 $78,759 $0 $0 $0 $97,068 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties. 2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary = [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs - LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area] / 100% Table 3B Exhibit A (McCoy Canyon)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (McCoy Canyon) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $8,971 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,971 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $37,937 $0 $0 $0 $37,937 Data Management (15%) $1,346 $5,691 $0 $0 $0 $7,036
Program Management (5%) $516 $2,181 $0 $0 $0 $2,697
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $10,833 $45,809 $0 $0 $0 $56,642 Contingency {10%) $1,083 $4,581 $0 $0 $0 $5,664
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,008 $0 $0 $0 $1,008 McCoy Canyon (Total) $11,916 $51,397 $0 $63,314
Agency Land Area
% of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) $596 $2,570 $0 $0 $0 $3,166
City of Los Angeles 161.26 5.28% $597 $2,576 $0 $0 $0 $3,174 County of Los Angeles 237.07 7.76% $878 $3,788 $0 $0 $0 $4,666 City of Calabasas 1,820.64 59.57% $6,744 $29,089 $0 $0 $0 $35,833 City of Hidden Hills 837.12 27.39% $3,101 $13,375 $0 $0 $0 $16,476 McCoy Canyon (Total) 3,056.09 100% $11,916 $51,397 $0 $0 $0 $63,314 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Tolal Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.

2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs - LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area] I 100% Table 3C Exhibit A (Dry Canyon)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Dry Canyon) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $8,971 $0 $0 $0 $0
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $37,937 $0 $0 $0
Data Management (15%) $1,346 $5,691 $0 $0 $0
Program Management (5%) $516 $2,181 $0 $0 $0
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $10,833 $45,809 $0 $0 $0
Contingency (10%) $1,083 $4,581 $0 $0 $0
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,008 $0 $0 $0
Dry Canyon (Total) $11,916 $51,397 $0 $0 $0
Agency Land Area
% of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) $596 $2,570 $0 $0 $0
City of Los Angeles 746.31 25.07% $2,838 $12,241 $0 $0 $0 County of Los Angeles 199.50 6.70% $759 $3,272 $0 $0 $0 City of Calabasas 2,031.13 68.23% $7,724 $33,314 $0 $0 $0 Dry Canyon (Total) 2,976.94 100% $11,916 $51,397 $0 $0 $0 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.

2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs - LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area] I 100% Table 3D Exhibit A (Bell Creek)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Bell Creek) Fiscal Year 18-19

Fiscal Year
19-20
Fiscal Year
20-21
Fiscal Year
21-22
Fiscal Year
22-23
Total
$8,971
$37,937
$7,036
$2,697
$56,642
$5,664
$1,008
$63,314
Total
$3,166
$15,079
$4,031
$41,038
$63,314
Total

Inventory and 6 screening Events $13,389 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,389 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $37,937 $0 $0 $0 $37,937 Data Management (15%) $2,008 $5,691 $0 $0 $0 $7,699
Program Management (5%) $770 $2,181 $0 $0 $0 $2,951
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $16,167 $45,809 $0 $0 $0 $61,976 Contingency (10%) $1,617 $4,581 $0 $0 $0 $6,198
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,008 $0 $0 $0 $1,008 Bell Creek (Total) $17,784 $51,397 $0 $0 $0 $69,181
Agency land Area % of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 LACFCD (5%) $889 $2,570 $0 $0 $0 $3,459
City of Los Angeles 9,281.64 86.24% $14,569 $42,107 $0 $0 $0 $56,676 County of Los Angeles 1,357.60 12.61% $2,131 $6,159 $0 $0 $0 $8,290 City of Hidden Hills 123.92 1.15% $195 $562 $0 $0 $0 $757 Bell Creek (Total) 10,763.16 100% $17,784 $51,397 $0 $0 $0 $69,181 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost. which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.

2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs - LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area] / 100% Table 3E Exhibit A {Segment C)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Segment C) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 Inventory and 6 screening Event s $0 $28,360 $0 $0 $0 $28,360 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,024 $0 Data M anagement (15%) $0 $4,254 $0 $0 $7,354 $4,254
Program Management (5%) $0 $1,631 $0 $0 $2,819 $1,631
M onito ring Cost Sub-Total $0 $34,244 $0 $0 $59,197 $34,244 Contingency (10%) $0 $3,424 $0 $0 $5,920 $3,424
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,302 $0
Segment C (Total) $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $66,419 $104,087

Agency Land Area % of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 LACFCD (5%) $0 $1,883 $0 $0 $3,321 $5,204
City of Los Angeles 23,633.48 69.45% $0 $24,853 $0 $0 $43,821 $68,674 County of Los Angeles 300.53 0.88% $0 $316 $0 $0 $557 $873 City of Burbank 3,401.83 10.00% $0 $3,577 $0 $0 $6,308 $9,885 City of Glendale 6,496.20 19.09% $0 $6,831 $0 $0 $12,045 $18,877 City of Pasadena 197.70 0.58% $0 $208 $0 $0 $367 $574
Segment C (Total) 34,029.74 100% $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $66,419 $104,087 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties. 2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= !(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs - LAC FD 5%) x Agency Percent Area] / 100% Table 3F Exhibit A (Verdugo Wash)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Verdugo Wash) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $0 $28,360 $0 $0 $0 $28,360 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,916 $0 Data Management (15%) $0 $4,254 $0 $0 $6,137 $4,254
Program Management (5%) $0 $1,631 $0 $0 $2,353 $1,631
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $0 $34,244 $0 $0 $49,406 $34,244 Contingency (10%) $0 $3,424 $0 $0 $4,941 $3,424
Annual Escalat ion (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,087 $0
Verdugo Wash(Total) $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $55,434 $93,102
Agency Land Area
% of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) $0 $1,883 $0 $0 $2,772 $4,655
City of Los Angeles 1,276.17 6.68% $0 $2,389 $0 $0 $3,515 $5,904

County of Los Angeles 3,671.20 19.20% $0 $6,872 $0 $0 $10,113 $16,985 City of La Canada Flintridge 1,424.01 7.45% $0 $2,665 $0 $0 $3,923 $6,588 City of Glendale 12,740.31 66.64% $0 $23,848 $0 $0 $35,095 $58,942 City of Pasadena 6.08 0.03% $0 $11 $0 $0 $17 $28
Verdugo Wash (Total) 19,117.77 100% $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $55,434 $93,102 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties. 2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary = l(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs - LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area] / 100% Table 3G Exhibit A (Burbank Western Channel)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (BWC) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $0 $28,360 $0 $0 $0 $28,360 Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,363 $0 Data Management (15%) $0 $4,254 $0 $0 $6,355 $4,254
Program Management (5%) $0 $1,631 $0 $0 $2,436 $1,631
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $0 $34,244 $0 $0 $51,154 $34,244 Contingency (10%) $0 $3,424 $0 $0 $5,115 $3,424
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,125 $0
Burbank Western Channel (Total) $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $57,395 $95,063 Agency
Land Area % of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) $0 $1,883 $0 $0 $2,870 $4,753
City of Los Angeles 8,749.20 52.19% $0 $18,676 $0 $0 $28,457 $47,133 City of Burbank 7,693.45 45.89% $0 $16,423 $0 $0 $25,023 $41,445 City of Glendale 321.42 1.92% $0 $686 $0 $0 $1,045 $1,732 Burbank Western Channel (Total) 16,764.07 100% $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $57,395 $95,063 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.

2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary = [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs - LAC FD 5%) x Agency Percent Area] / 100%

Table 3H Exhibit A (Tujunga Wash)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Tujunga Wash) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $0 $28,360 $0 $0 $0
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,435
Data Management (15%) $0 $4,254 $0 $0 $6,215
Program Management (5%) $0 $1,631 $0 $0 $2,382
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $0 $34,244 $0 $0 $50,032
Cont ingency (10%) $0 $3,424 $0 $0 $5,003
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,101
Total $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $56,136
Agency Land Area % of Area
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) $0 $1,883 $0 $0 $2,807
City of Los Angeles 32,491.56 89.72% $0 $32,108 $0 $0 $47,849 County of Los Angeles 2,183.42 6.03% $0 $2,158 $0 $0 $3,215 City of Glendale 20.25 0.06% $0 $20 $0 $0 $30
City of San Fernando 1,517.65 4.19% $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $2,235 Tujunga Wash (Total) 36,212.88 100% $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $56,136 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.

2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary = [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs - LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area] / 100% Table 31 Exhibit A (Segment D)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Segment D)
Inventory and 6 screening Events
Fiscal Year
18-19
$0

Fiscal Year
19-20
$28,360
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
20-21 21-22
$0 $0
Fiscal Year
22-23
$0
Total
$28,360
$0
$4,254
$1,631
$34,244
$3,424
$0
$93,805
Total
$4,690
$79,957
$5,373
$50
$3,735
$93,805
Total
$28,360

Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,657 $0 Data M anagement (15%) $0 $4,254 $0 $0 $4,899 $4,254
Program Management (5%) $0 $1,631 so so $1,878 $1,631
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $0 $34,244 $0 so $39,433 $34,244 Contingency (10%) $0 $3,424 $0 $0 $3,943 $3,424
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $868 $0
Total $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $44,244 $81,913
Agency Land Area
% of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) so $1,883 so $0 $2,212 S4,096
City of Los Angeles 23,079.17 100.00% so S35,785 so $0 $42,032 $77,817 Segment D (Total) 23,079.17 100% $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $44,244 $81,913 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.

2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs - LAC FD 5%) x Agency Percent Area]/ 100% Table 3J Exhibit A (Bull Creek)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Bull Creek) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $0 $26,778 $0 $0 $0 $26,778 Non-Stormwater Out fall Monitoring $0 so so so $37,937 so Data Management (15%) so $4,017 $0 $0 $5,691 $4,017
Program Management (5%) so Sl,540 $0 so $2,181 $1,540
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $0 $32,334 $0 $0 $45,809 $32,334 Contingency (10%) $0 $3,233 so so $4,581 S3,233
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,008 $0
Total $0 $35,568 $0 $0 $51,397 $86,965
Agency Land Area
% of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23

LACFCD (5%) $0 $1,778 $0 $0 $2,570 $4,348
City of Los Angeles 10,822.34 85.09% $0 $28,752 $0 $0 $41,548 $70,299 Co unty of Los Angeles 1,896.24 14.91% $0 $5,038 $0 $0 $7,280 $12,318 Bull Creek (Total) 12,718.58 100% $0 $35,568 $0 $0 $51,397 $86,965 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible tor 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.

2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs - LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area]/ 100% Table 3K Exhibit A (Legg Lake)
Legg Lake Receiving Water Monitoring Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Receiving Water M o nitoring $14,178 $14,178 $14,178 $14,178 $14,178 $42,533 Data Management (15%) $2,127 $2,127 $2,127 $2,127 $2,127 $6,380 Program M anagement (5%) $815 $815 $815 $815 $815 $2,446 Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $17,120 $17,120 $17,120 $17,120 $17,120 $51,359 Cont ingency (10%) $1,712 $1,712 $1,712 $1,712 $1,712 $5,136 Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%, 2%, 2%) $0 $377 $384 $392 $400 $761 Legg Lake (Total) $18,831 $19,208 $19,592 $19,984 $20,384 $98,000 Agency Land Area
% of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) $942 $960 $980 $999 $1,019 $2,882
Count y of Los Angeles 2,044.68 56.21% $10,056 $10,258 $10,463 $10,672 $10,885 $30,777 South El Monte 1,592.68 43.79% $7,833 $7,990 $8,150 $8,313 $8,479 $23,973 Legg Lake (Total) 3,637.35 100% $18,831 $19,208 $19,592 $19,984 $20,384 $98,000 Note:

1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.

2. Distributed Cost to each Party within Lake = [(Total of Lake Monitoring Costs - LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area] / 100%

Table 4. San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Fee
Land Area % of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Agency Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 LACFCD (5%) 5.00% $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $12,500 City of Los Angeles 181,288.00 58.53% $27,800 $27,800 $27,800 $27,800 $27,800 $138,999 County of Los Angeles 41,048.07 13.25% $6,295 $6,295 $6,295 $6,295 $6,295 $31,473 City of Alhambra 4,884.31 1.58% $749 $749 $749 $749 $749 $3,745 City of Burbank 11,095.20 3.58% $1,701 $1,701 $1,701 $1,701 $1,701 $8,507 City of Calabasas 4,005.68 1.29% $614 $614 $614 $614 $614 $3,071 City of Glendale 19,587.50 6.32% $3,004 $3,004 $3,004 $3,004 $3,004 $15,018 City of Hidden Hills 961.03 0.31% $147 $147 $147 $147 $147 $737 City of La Canada Flintridge 5,534.46 1.79% $849 $849 $849 $849 $849 $4,243 City of Montebello 5,356.38 1.73% $821 $821 $821 $821 $821 $4,107 City of Monterey Park 4,951.51 1.60% $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $3,796 City of Pasadena 14,805.30 4.78% $2,270 $2,270 $2,270 $2,270 $2,270 $11,352 City of Rosemead 3,310.87 1.07% $508 $508 $508 $508 $508 $2,539 City of San Fernando 1,517.64 0.49% $233 $233 $233 $233 $233 $1,164 City of San Gabriel 2,644.87 0.85% $406 $406 $406 $406 $406 $2,028 City of San Marino 2,409.64 0.78% $370 $370 $370 $370 $370 $1,848 City of South El Monte 1,594.16 0.51% $244 $244 $244 $244 $244 $1,222 City of South Pasadena 2,186.20 0.71% $335 $335 $335 $335 $335 $1,676 City of Temple City 2,576.50 0.83% $395 $395 $395 $395 $395 $1,975 Total 309,757.32 1.00 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 Note:

1. Total cost of SGVCOG Fees is $50,000 per year.

2. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.

EXHIBIT B
Upper Los Angeles River Enhanced Watershed Management Area EWMP Implementation Costs Table 1. Distribution of Total Cost for Implementing ULAR EWMP Associated Tasks CITY % Drainage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 SYR Total City of Los Angeles 58.53% $219,177 $166,120 $312,775 $416,958 $221,723 $1 ,336,752 Alhambra 1.58% $5,916 $4,484 $6,735 $4,867 $5,985 $27,987 Burbank 3.58% $13,409 $10,163 $15,265 $33,182 $13,564 $85,583 Calabasas 1.29% $5,254 $3,662 $45,435 $3,975 $4,887 $63,213 Glendale 6.32% $23,627 $17,943 $26,949 $98,628 $23,947 $191 ,139 Hidden Hills 0.31% $4,303 $882 $10,237 $957 $ 1,176 $17,555 La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $6,704 $5,082 $7,632 $5,5 16 $6,782 $31 ,717 Montebello 1.73% $6,478 $4,910 $7,375 $5,329 $6,553 $30,646 Monterey Park 1.60% $5,994 $4,544 $6,824 $4,932 $6,064 $28,357 Pasadena 4.78% $17,897 $13,564 $20,375 $14,758 $18,105 $84,698 Rosemead 1.07% $5,034 $3,034 $4,559 $3,294 $4,051 $19,971 San Fernando 0.49% $4,474 $1 ,390 $2,088 $5,510 $1 ,855 $15,31 7 San Gabriel 0.85% $4,828 $2,414 $3,625 $3,917 $3,221 $18,005 San Marino 0.78% $4,753 $2,212 $3,324 $2,401 $2,953 $15,642 South El Monte 0.51% $1 ,602 $3,052 $2,177 $1,573 $1,934 $10,338 South Pasadena 0.71 % $4,680 $2,010 $3,022 $2,182 $2,685 $14,579 Temple City 0.83% $4,804 $2,354 $3,537 $2,555 $3,143 $16,393 LACFCD $10,250 $6,500 $34,050 $27,300 $11 ,500 $89,600
LA County 13.25% $49,616 $37,605 $69,313 $77,719 $50,192 $284,445 Total 100.00% $398,845 $290,923 $585,296 $715,552 $390,321 $2,381 ,938 Notes:

1. Total Cost = SGVCOG Admin Fee+ Annual Report Costs+ Adaptive Management Costs + ROWD Costs+ LRS Costs+ TMRP Costs + Special Studies Costs+ 2017 Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD).

Table 2 : Upper Los Angeles CIMP Contingency (Deficiency) Funds FY15/16 To FY 17/18 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Contingency
CITY % Drainage Area
Contingency Total collected Used Leftover FY15-18
City of Los Angeles 58.53% $81 ,543 $66,726 $60,867 $209,136 $50,699.77 $158,436.67 Alhambra 1.58% $2,201 $1,801 $ 1,643 $5,646 $5,258.20 $387.38 Burbank 3.58% $4,988 $4,081 $3,723 $12,792 $6,858.12 $5,933.76 Calabasas 1.29% $1,797 $1,471 $1,342 $4,609 $5,031 .86 ($422.50) Glendale 6.32% $8,805 $7,205 $6,572 $22,582 $9,045.74 $13,536.56 Hidden Hills 0.31% $432 $353 $322 $1,108 $4,247.56 ($3,139.88) La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $2,494 $2,041 $1,861 $6,396 $5,425.68 $970.26 Montebello 1.73% $2,410 $1 ,972 $1,799 $6,182 $5,379.80 $801 .75 Monterey Park 1.60% $2,229 $1 ,824 $1,664 $5,717 $5,275.51 $441.53 Pasadena 4.78% $6,659 $5,449 $4,971 $17,080 $7,813.84 $9,265.81 Rosemead 1.07% $1,491 $1,220 $1 ,113 $3,823 $4,852.88 ($1,029.61) San Fernando 0.49% $683 $559 $510 $1 ,751 $4,390.94 ($2,640.10) San Gabriel 0.85% $1,184 $969 $884 $3,037 $4,681.32 ($1,644.14) San Marino 0.78% $1 ,087 $889 $811 $2,787 $4,620.72 ($1,833.66) South El Monte 0.51% $711 $581 $530 $1,822 $4,410.66 ($2,588.35) South Pasadena 0.71% $989 $809 $738 $2,537 $4,563.16 ($2,026.22) Temple City 0.83% $1 ,156 $946 $863 $2,966 $4,663.71 ($1 ,698.00) LACFCD $7,333 $6,000 $5,473 $18,806 $ - $18,806.05
LA County 13.25% $18,460 $15,106 $13,779 $47,344 $14,573.98 $32,770.25 Total 100.00% $146,650 $120,004 $109,467 $376,121 $151,793.45 $224,327.55 Notes:

1. Table represents excess contingency funds from FY 15-16 per Agency. As agreed, costs for the implementation of the TMRP ($4,000/Agency) was subtracted from each Agency's contingency surplus. Agency's showing Deficiency have remaining implementation costs factored into Year 1 of the TMRP annual costs (refer to Table 8)

Table 3: Upper Los Angeles SGVCOG Management Funds FY18/19 To FY 22/23 CITY %Drainage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 City of Los Angeles 58.53% $27,802 $27,802 $ 27,802 $27,802 $27,802 Alhambra 1.58% $ 751 $ 751 $ 751 $ 751 $ 751
Burbank 3.58% $ 1,701 $ 1,701 $ 1,701 $ 1,701 $1,701
Calabasas 1.29% $ 613 $ 613 $ 613 $ 613 $ 613
Glendale 6.32% $ 3,002 $3,002 $ 3,002 $ 3,002 $3,002
Hidden Hills 0.31% $ 147 $ 147 $ 147 $ 147 $ 147
La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 Montebello 1.73% $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822
Monterey Park 1.60% $ 760 $ 760 $ 760 $ 760 $ 760
Pasadena 4.78% $ 2,271 $2,271 $2,271 $2,271 $2,271
Rosemead 1.07% $ 508 $ 508 $ 508 $ 508 $ 508
San Fernando 0.49% $ 233 $ 233 $ 233 $ 233 $ 233
San Gabriel 0.85% $ 404 $ 404 $ 404 $ 404 $ 404
San Marino 0.78% $ 371 $ 371 $ 371 $ 371 $371
South El Monte 0.5 1% $ 242 $ 242 $ 242 $ 242 $242
South Pasadena 0.71% $ 337 $ 337 $ 337 $ 337 $ 337
Temple City 0.83% $ 394 $ 394 $ 394 $ 394 $ 394
LACFCD $ 2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $ 2,500 $2,500
LA County 13.25% $ 6,294 $6,294 $6,294 $ 6,294 $6,294
Total 100.00% $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000

Table 4: Upper Los Angeles Annual Report Funds FY18/19 To FY 22/23 CITY % FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 Drainage Area City of Los Angeles 58.53% $ 58,530 $ 58,530 $ 58,530 $ 58,530 $ 58,530 Alhambra 1.58% $ 1,580 $ 1,580 $ 1,580 $ 1,580 $ 1,580
Burbank 3.58% $ 3,580 $ 3,580 $ 3,580 $ 3,580 $ 3,580
Calabasas 1.29% $ 1,290 $ 1,290 $ 1,290 $ 1,290 $ 1,290 Glendale 6.32% $ 6,320 $ 6,320 $ 6,320 $ 6,320 $ 6,320
Hidden Hills 0.31% $ 310 $ 310 $ 310 $ 310 $ 310
La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ 1,790 $ 1,790 $ 1,790 $ 1,790 $ 1,790 Montebello 1.73% $ 1,730 $ 1,730 $ 1,730 $ 1,730 $ 1,730 Monterey Park 1.60% $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 Pasadena 4.78% $ 4,780 $ 4,780 $ 4,780 $ 4,780 $ 4,780
Rosemead 1.07% $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070
San Fernando 0.49% $ 490 $ 490 $ 490 $ 490 $ 490
San Gabriel 0.85% $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 $ 850
San Marino 0.78% $ 780 $ 780 $ 780 $ 780 $ 780
South El Monte 0.51% $ 510 $ 510 $ 510 $ 510 $ 510
South Pasadena 0.71% $ 710 $ 710 $ 710 $ 710 $ 710
Temple City 0.83% $ 830 $ 830 $ 830 $ 830 $ 830
LACFCD $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
LA County 13.25% $ 13,250 $ 13,250 $ 13,250 $ 13,250 $ 13,250 Total 100.00% S 100,000 S 100,000 S 100,000 S 100,000 $100,000 Notes:

1. LACFCD is compiling their own Annual Report and not contributing to the Watershed effort.

Table 5: Upper Los Angeles Adaptive Management Funds FY18/19 To FY 22/23 --- CITY % FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 Drainage Area City of Los Angeles

58.53% $41 ,703 $ $ 83,405 $ $ 55,604
Alhambra 1.58% $ 1,126 $ $ 2,252 $ $ 1,501
Burbank 3.58% $ 2,551 $ $ 5,102 $ $ 3,401
Calabasas 1.29% $ 919 $ $ 1,838 $ $ 1,226
Glendale 6.32% $ 4,503 $ $ 9,006 $ $ 6,004
Hidden Hills 0.31% $ 221 $ $ 442 $ $ 295
La Canada
Flintridge 1.79% $ 1,275 $ $ 2,551 $ $ 1,701
Montebello 1.73% $ 1,233 $ $ 2,465 $ $ 1,644
Monterey Park 1.60% $ 1,140 $ $ 2,280 $ $ 1,520
Pasadena 4.78% $ 3,406 $ $ 6,812 $ $ 4,541
Rosemead 1.07% $ 762 $ $ 1,525 $ $ 1,017
San Fernando 0.49% $ 349 $ $ 698 $ $ 466
San Gabriel 0.85% $ 606 $ $ 1,211 $ $ 808
San Marino 0.78% $ 556 $ $ 1,112 $ $ 741
South El Monte 0.51% $ 363 $ $ 727 $ $ 485
South Pasadena 0.71% $ 506 $ $ 1,012 $ $ 675
Temple City 0.83% $ 591 $ $ 1,183 $ $ 789
LACFCD $ 3,750 $ $ 7,500 $ $ 5,000
LA County 13.25% $ 9,441 $ $ 18,881 $ $ 12,588
Total 100.00% $75,000 $ 150,000 $ $ 100,000
Notes:
,. Year 3 includes costs for a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA)

Table 6: Upper Los Angeles Report Of Waste Discharge (ROWD) FY18/19 To FY 22/23 CITY % Drainage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 City of Los Angeles 58.53% $ $ $ $14,194 $
Alhambra 1.58% $ $ $ $ 383 $
Burbank 3.58% $ $ $ $ 868 $
Calabasas 1.29% $ $ $ $ 313 $
Glendale 6.32% $ $ $ $ 1,533 $
Hidden Hills 0.31% $ $ $ $ 75 $
La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ $ $ $ 434 $
Montebello 1.73% $ $ $ $ 420 $
Monterey Park 1.60% $ $ $ $ 388 $
Pasadena 4.78% $ $ $ $ 1,159 $
Rosemead 1.07% $ $ $ $ 259 $
San Fernando 0.49% $ $ $ $ 119 $
San Gabriel 0.85% $ $ $ $ 206 $
San Marino 0.78% $ $ $ $ 189 $
South El Monte 0.51% $ $ $ $ 124 $
South Pasadena 0.71 % $ $ $ $ 172 $
Temple City 0.83% $ $ $ $ 201 $
LACFCD $ $ $ $ 750 $
LA County 13.25% $ $ $ $ 3,213 $
Total 100.00% $ $ $ $25,000 $
Table 7: Upper Los Angeles Load Reduction Strategy (LRS )Funds FY18/19 To FY 22/23 CITY % Drainage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 City of Los Angeles 58.53% $ $ $ 63,200 $ 236,644 $
Alhambra 1.58% $ $ $ $ $
Burbank 3.58% $ $ $ $ 22,150 $
Calabasas 1.29% $ $ $ 39,935 $ $
Glendale 6.32% $ $ $ $ 79,152 $

Hidden Hills 0.31% $ $ $ 8,913 $ $
La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ $ $ $ 2,583 $
Montebello 1.73% $ $ $ $ $
Monterey Park 1.60% $ $ $ $ $
Pasadena 4.78% $ $ $ $ 35 $
Rosemead 1.07% $ $ $ $ $
San Fernando 0.49% $ $ $ $ 3,483 $
San Gabriel 0.85% $ $ $ $ $
San Marino 0.78% $ $ $ $ $
South El Monte 0.51% $ $ $ $ $
South Pasadena 0.71% $ $ $ $ $
Temple City 0.83% $ $ $ $ $
LACFCD $ $ $ 6,575 $ 20,050 $
LA County 13.25% $ $ $ 12,827 $ 36,902 $
Total 100.00% $ $ $ 131,500 $ 50,000 $
Notes:

1. Includes costs to perform non-stormwater investigations ($10K/Trib or Reach). Facts Sheets for Priority Outfalls ($3K/ea assumed 4 POsffrib or Reach), and LRS Reports for Segment E Tributaries (FY 20-21). Segment C and its Tributaries. and Segment D and its Tributaries (FY 21-22) Table 8: Upper Los Angeles Trash Monitoring And Reporting Plan (TMRP) Implementation FY18/19 To FY 22/23 CITY % Drainage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 City of Los Angeles 46.7% $ 35,305 $ 35,305 $ 35,305 $ 35,305 $ 35,305 Alhambra 1.26% $ 953 $ 953 $ 953 $ 953 $ 953
Burbank 2.86% $ 2,162 $ 2,162 $ 2,162 $ 2,162 $ 2,162
Calabasas 1.03% $ 1,201 $ 779 $ 779 $ 779 $ 779
Glendale 5.05% $ 3,818 $ 3,818 $ 3,818 $ 3,818 $ 3,818
Hidden Hills 0.25% $ 3,329 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189
La Canada Flintridge 1.43% $ 1,081 $ 1,081 $ 1,081 $ 1,081 $ 1,081 Montebello 1.38% $ 1,043 $ 1,043 $ 1,043 $ 1,043 $ 1,043

Monterey Park 1.28% $ 968 $ 968 $ 968 $ 968 $ 968
Pasadena 3.81% $ 2,880 $ 2,880 $ 2,880 $ 2,880 $ 2,880
Rosemead 0.85% $ 1,672 $ 643 $ 643 $ 643 $ 643
San Fernando 0.39% $ 2,935 $ 295 $ 295 $ 295 $ 295
San Gabriel 0.68% $ 2,158 $ 514 $ 5 14 $ 514 $ 514
San Marino 0.62% $ 2,302 $ 469 $ 469 $ 469 $ 469
South El Monte 0.41% $ 2,898 $ 310 $ 310 $ 310 $ 310
South Pasadena 0.56% $ 2,450 $ 423 $ 423 $ 423 $ 423
Temple City 0.66% $ 2,197 $ 499 $ 499 $ 499 $ 499
LACFCD $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
LA County 10.57% $ 7,991 $ 7,991 $ 7,991 $ 7,991 $ 7,991 Total 79.79% $ 77,344 $ 60,321 $ 60,321 $ 60,321 $ 60,321 Notes:

1. Total Drainage Area (100%) includes the Ballena Creek Participating Agencies (not shown here).

2. LACFCD is implementing their own TMRP independently, and is not contributing to this Watershed effort.

Table 9: Upper Los Angeles Special Studies Funds FY18/19 To FY 22/23 CITY % Drainage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21 -22 FY 22-23 City of Los Angeles 58.53% $44,483 $44,483 $ 44,483 $44,483 $44,483 Alhambra 1.58% $ 1,201 $ 1,201 $ 1,201 $ 1,201 $ 1,201
Burbank 3.58% $ 2,721 $ 2,721 $ 2,721 $ 2,721 $ 2,721
Calabasas 1.29% $ 980 $ 980 $ 980 $ 980 $ 980
Glendale 6.32% $ 4,803 $ 4,803 $ 4,803 $ 4,803 $ 4,803
Hidden Hills 0.31% $ 236 $ 236 $ 236 $ 236 $ 236
La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ 1,360 $ 1,360 $ 1,360 $ 1,360 $ 1,360 Montebello 1.73% $ 1,315 $ 1,315 $ 1,315 $ 1,315 $ 1,315 Monterey Park 1.60% $ 1,216 $ 1,216 $ 1,216 $ 1,216 $ 1,2 16 Pasadena 4.78% $ 3,633 $ 3,633 $ 3,633 $ 3,633 $ 3,633
Rosemead 1.07% $ 813 $ 813 $ 81 3 $ 813 $ 813
San Fernando 0.49% $ 372 $ 372 $ 372 $ 372 $ 372
San Gabriel 0.85% $ 646 $ 646 $ 646 $ 646 $ 646

San Marino 0.78% $ 593 $ 593 $ 593 $ 593 $ 593
South El Monte 0.51% $ 388 $ 388 $ 388 $ 388 $ 388
South Pasadena 0.71% $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540
Temple City 0.83% $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631
LACFCD $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000
LA County 13.25% $ 10,070 $10,070 $10,070 $10,070 $ 10,070 Total 100.00% $80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $80,000 $ 80,000 Notes:

1. Special studies at a cost of $200,000 each spread out over 5 years.

Table 10: Upper Los Angeles 2017 Report Of Waste Discharge (ROWD) Cost CITY % Drainage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 City of Los Angeles 58.53% $ 11 ,355 $ $ $ $
Alhambra 1.58% $ 307 $ $ $ $
Burbank 3.58% $ 695 $ $ $ $
Calabasas 1.29% $ 250 $ $ $ $
Glendale 6.32% $ 1,226 $ $ $ $
Hidden Hills 0.31% $ 60 $ $ $ $
La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ 347 $ $ $ $
Montebello 1.73% $ 336 $ $ $ $
Monterey Park 1.60% $ 310 $ $ $ $
Pasadena 4.78% $ 927 $ $ $ $
Rosemead 1.07% $ 208 $ $ $ $
San Fernando 0.49% $ 95 $ $ $ $
San Gabriel 0.85% $ 165 $ $ $ $
San Marino 0.78% $ 151 $ $ $ $
South El Monte 0.51% $ 99 $ $ $ $
South Pasadena 0.71% $ 138 $ $ $ $
Temple City 0.83% $ 161 $ $ $ $
LACFCD $ $ $ $
LA County 13.25% $ 2,571 $ $ $ $
Total 100.00% $19,400 $ $ $ $

EXHIBIT C
Upper Los Angeles River Enhanced Watershed Management Area CIMP and EWMP Invoicing Schedule
Table 1. CIMP/EWMP Implementation Annual Implementation Costs CITY % Drainage Area July 2018 July 2019 July 2020 July 2021 July 2022 City of Los Angeles 58.53% $667,313 $803,332 $685,920 $790,103 $802,090 Alhambra 1.58% $ 17,100 $ 14,537 $ 16,788 $ 14,920 $ 16,038 Burbank 3.58% $ 38,815 $ 53,000 $ 38,102 $ 56,019 $ 67,732 Calabasas 1.29% $ 28,894 $ 74,310 $ 53,680 $ 12,220 $ 13,132 Glendale 6.32% $ 68,524 $ 89,645 $ 67,266 $138,945 $ 112,479 Hidden Hills 0.31% $ 9,799 $ 16,797 $ 12,215 $ 2,935 $ 3,154 La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ 19,377 $ 19,139 $ 19,024 $ 16,908 $ 22,096 Montebello 1.73% $ 18,743 $ 15,935 $ 18,400 $ 16,345 $ 17,578 Monterey Park 1.60% $ 17,332 $ 14,736 $ 17,016 $ 15,124 $ 16,256 Pasadena 4 .78% $ 51 ,799 $ 44,257 $ 50,849 $ 45,232 $ 48,962 Rosemead 1.07% $ 12,615 $ 9,849 $ 11 ,374 $ 10,109 $ 10,866 San Fernando 0.49% $ 7,949 $ 6,013 $ 5,212 $ 8,634 $ 7,214 San Gabriel 0.85% $ 10,884 $ 7,858 $ 9,069 $ 9,361 $ 8,665 San Marino 0.78% $ 10,271 $ 7,172 $ 8,284 $ 7,361 $ 7,913 South El Monte 0.51% $ 13,086 $ 14,323 $ 13,608 $ 13,167 $ 13,694 South Pasadena 0.71 % $ 9,686 $ 6,510 $ 7,522 $ 6,682 $ 7,185 Temple City 0.83% $ 10,704 $ 7,657 $ 8,840 $ 7,858 $ 8,446 LACFCD $ 51,519 $ 63,860 $ 68,586 $ 61,856 $ 62,627
LA County 13.25% $ 159,814 $170,193 $164,265 $172,880 $166,732 Total 100.00% $1,224,224 $1 ,439,121 $1,276,019 $1,406,667 $ 1,412,860

EXHIBIT D
Upper Los Angeles River EWMP/CIMP Responsible Agencies
Representatives
Agency Address Agency Contact
City of Los Angeles Shahram Kharaghani
Department of Public Works E-mail: [email protected] Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division Phone: (213) 485-0587 1149 S. Broadway Fax: (213) 485-3939
Los Angeles, CA 90015
County of Los Angeles Paul Alva
Department of Public Works E-mail: [email protected] Stormwater Quality Division, 11 th Floor Phone: (626) 458-4325 900 South Fremont Avenue Fax: (626) 457-1526
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
Los Angeles County Flood Control District Paul Alva
Department of Public Works E-mail: [email protected] Stormwater Quality Division, 11 th Floor Phone: (626) 458-4325 900 South Fremont Avenue Fax: (626) 457-1526
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
City of Alhambra David Dolphin
11 South First Street E-mail: [email protected] Alhambra, XA 91801-3796 Phone: (626) 300-1571 Fax:

City of Burbank Alvin Cruz
P.O. Box 6459 E-mail:[email protected]
Burbank, CA 91510 Phone: (818) 238-3941 Fax:

City of Calabasas Alex Farassati
100 Civic Center Way E-mail: [email protected] Calabasas, CA 91302-3172 Phone: (818) 224-1600
Fax: (818) 225-7338
City of Glendale Chris Chew
Engineering Section, 633 East Broadway, Room 205 E-mail: cchew@ glendaleca.gov Glendale, CA 91206-4308 Phone: (818) 548-3945
Fax:

City of Hidden Hills Joe Bellomo
6165 Spring Valley Road [email protected] Phone:

Hidden Hills, CA 91302 (805) 279-6856
City of La Canada Flintridge 1327 Hoon Hahn
Foothill Blvd. E-mail: [email protected]
La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011-2137 Phone: 818-790-8882 Fax:818-70-8897

EXHIBIT D
Upper Los Angeles River EWMP/CIMP Responsible Agencies
Representatives
City of Montebello Norma Salinas
1600 W Beverly Blvd E-mail: [email protected] Montebello, CA 90640 Phone: 323-887-1365
Fax: 323- 887-1410
Eric Woosley
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 714-940-0100 Ext 5226
City of Monterey Park Bonnie Tam
320 West Newmark Avenue E-mail: [email protected] Monterey Park, CA 91754-2896 Phone: (626) 307-1383
City of Pasadena Sean Singletary
P.O. Box 7115 E-mail: [email protected]
Pasadena, CA 91109-7215 Phone: (626) 744-4273
Fax:

City of Rosemead, Rafael Fajardo
8838 East Valley Blvd. E-mail: [email protected] Rosemead, CA 91770-1787 Phone: (626) 569-2107
Curtis Cannon
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 569-2107
City of San Fernando Joe Bellomo
117 Macneil Street Email: [email protected]
San Fernando, CA 91340 Phone: (805) 279-6856
City of San Gabriel Daren Grilley
425 South Mission Avenue E-mail: [email protected]
San Gabriel, CA 91775 Phone:

Fax:

Patty Pena
[email protected]
Phone: (626) 308-2825
City of San Marino Kevin Sales
2200 Huntington Drive E-mail: [email protected]
San Marino, CA 91108-2691 Phone:

Fax:

City of South El Monte Manuel Mancha
1415 Santa Anita Ave. E-mail: [email protected]
South El Monte, CA 91733 Phone: (626) 579-6540
Fax: (626) 579-2409
City of South Pasadena Rafael 0. Casillas
1414 Mission Street E-mail: [email protected] South Pasadena, CA 91020-3298 Phone: (626) 403-7246

City of Temple City Andrew Coyne
9701 Las Tunas Drive E-mail: [email protected]
Temple City, CA 9178 Phone: (626) 285-2171 Ext. 4344
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Marisa Creter 1000 S. Fremont Ave. Unit 42 E-mail: [email protected] Bldg A10-N, Suite 10210 Phone: (626) 457-1800
Alhambra, CA 9180 Fax: (626) 457-1285

EXHIBIT E
Upper Los Angeles River Enhanced Watershed Management Area Los Ang~ Watffsh~d group partkipotbg Jn this EWMP
Agency Area (acres) Percent Area
-------------- -------- . from Gro_!P _
Alhambra 4,884.31 1.58%
Burbank 11,09S.20 3.S8%
Calabasas 4,005.68 1.29%
City of lDs Ange'es 181,288.00 58.53%
Glendale 19,587.50 6.32%
Hidden Hills 961.03 0.31%
la Canda Flintrid e 5,534.46 I 79%
Los Angeles County 41,048.07 13.25%
MOntebello 5,356.38 1.73%
Monterey Park 4,951.51 1.60%
Pasadena 14,805.30 4.78%
Rosemead 3,310.87 1.07%
San Fernando l,S17.64 0.49%
San Gabnel 2,644.87 0.85%
San Marino 2,409.64 0.78%
SOulh El Monte 1,594.16 0.5 1%
South Pasadena 2,186.20 0.71%
Temple City 2,576.50 0.83%
lACFCD
Group Total 309,757.33 100%
LEGEND
- Los Angeles River
:··-·j Upper Los Angeles
•-··-: watershed Boundary
Flood Control
District Terntory D
Upper LA watershed Group
Participating in this EWMP
Upper LA watershed Agencies not
Participating in this EWMP
i!...c:1• 1t :i■■■■■■ 3 M'"
Upper Los Angeles River Watershed
EWM P Aaencies

ENRIQUE C ZALDIVAR

DIRECTOR
l.11.ARW_E~P~lll!S
ORAW>IBV
NM

BUREAU OF SANITATION

CHECKEOBY
VO
' DATE CREA1EO 1
6-18-13
0,-,TEREVISEO
3-3-15

SHAH~ KHAAAGHANl
PROGRAM MAN,t.GER
Thi$ ,,..,, tlld not N cao.i Qt r'9fOOi;C•(I .,. C, •fly ~J'I tiered whether tot dn.lrtlli"°" or re~ wlll'IOIJ'I tnir PfQIWI! ,.,~en PflYl'tSMOn ol the Oeix 01 Pvf>lit WOO:$ ~ of LO\ Angele, nom•• k•O~ i.or::,otY.tWl'l pen,"'1"..0!I 9"•"-~0y Jll()Ml,S 9"05 MAP N
A

ATTACHMENT B

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

AND THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO
This Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) is made and entered into as of the date of execution set forth below by and between the City of Montebello, a municipal corporation (“City”), and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, a California joint powers authority (“SGVCOG”). City and SGVCOG may be referred to herein collectively as the “Parties” or individually as a “Party.” RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board) have classified the Greater Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) as a large MS4 pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 122.26(b)(4) and a major facility pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.2; and WHEREAS, the 2012 MS4 Permit became effective on December 28, 2012, and required that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), the County of Los Angeles (COUNTY), and 84 of the 88 cities within the County comply with its prescribed elements; and WHEREAS, the 2021 MS4 Permit became effective on September 11, 2021, superseding the 2012 MS4 Permit, and requires the COUNTY, LACFCD, 85 cities within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County, the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, the County of Ventura, and 10 cities within Ventura County to comply with its prescribed elements; and WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit identifies the City as an MS4 permittee responsible for compliance with the Permit’s requirements pertaining to the City’s jurisdictional area in the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Area; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Alhambra, Burbank, Calabasas, Glendale, Hidden Hills, La Canada Flintridge, Los Angeles, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, South El Monte, South Pasadena, and Temple City and LACFCD and the COUNTY formed the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group (ULAR WMG) to collaborate on the Watershed Management Program (WMP) and the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) in accordance with the MS4 Permit, with the City of Los Angeles serving as the ULAR WMG lead agency; and WHEREAS, the ULAR WMG agencies executed an agreement to collaborate on the development of a WMP and a CIMP in accordance with the MS4 Permit for a portion of the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Area to comply with all applicable monitoring requirements of the MS4 Permit (the “ULAR WMG MOA”); and
WHEREAS, the ULAR WMG agencies agreed to cooperatively share and fully fund the costs of the implementation of the CIMP and WMP and agreed to have the SGVCOG invoice and collect funds from each of the ULAR WMG agencies to cover the costs of implementation; and WHEREAS, per Section 8.c. of the ULAR WMG MOA, if the City of Los Angeles incurred costs greater than the contract estimates contained in Exhibit A of the ULAR WMG MOA, the ULAR WMG agencies

agreed to pay the City of Los Angeles (through SGVCOG) for their proportional share of the additional expenditures at an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of their proportional annual cost; and WHEREAS, the City’s proportional share of the additional expenditures exceeds ten percent, and any costs which exceed this ten percent (10%) contingency required an amendment to the ULAR WMG MOA.

The ULAR WMG MOA expired on June 30, 2023, and the SGVCOG and the ULAR WMG agencies were unable to amend the ULAR WMG MOA before its expiration due to the reconciliation process; and WHEREAS, the SGVCOG will be entering into new agreements with ULAR WMG agencies that incurred costs which exceed their ten percent (10%) contingency; and NOW, THEREFORE, the SGVCOG and City desire to enter into a new agreement in which the SGVCOG will invoice the City for its proportional share of the additional expenditures and agree as follows:

I. RECITALS:

The above Recitals are made a substantive part of this MOA.

II. TERM:

The term of this MOA shall become effective upon execution by both Parties and shall continue until the City’s payment of the invoice per Section III.

III. INVOICING AND PAYMENT:

The SGVCOG will invoice the City in an amount not exceeding $23,784.67. The City shall pay the invoice within sixty (60) days of receipt of the invoice from the SGVCOG.

IV. NOTICES/INVOCES:

Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports relating to this MOA, and any request, demand, statement, or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the representatives of the City and/or SGVCOG at the respective addresses set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City and SGVCOG shall promptly notify each other of any change of contact information, including personnel changes, provided in Exhibit A. Written notice shall include notice delivered via e-mail or fax. A notice shall be deemed to have been received on (a) the date of delivery, if delivered by hand during regular business hours, or by confirmed facsimile or by email; or (b) on the third (3rd) business day following mailing by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) to the addresses set forth in Exhibit A.
[Signature page to follow.]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and SGVCOG hereto have caused this MOA to be executed by their duly authorized representatives and affixed as of the date of signature of the Parties:

FOR THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO:

By:___________________________
Raul Alvarez
City Manager
Date:__________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Arnold Alvarez-Glasman
City Attorney

FOR THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS:

By: ____________________________
Marisa Creter
Executive Director
Date:___________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
David DeBerry
General Counsel

EXHIBIT “A”
ULAR WMG Agency Representatives
[Behind this page.]

Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Area Agency Representatives Agency Address Agency Contact
City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division
1149 S. Broadway
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Alfredo Magallanes
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (213) 485-3958
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
Stormwater Quality Division, Building A-9 East, 1st
Floor 1000 South Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91803
Mark Lombos
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 300-4665
Los Angeles County Flood Control District Department
of Public Works
Stormwater Quality Division, Building A-9 East, 1st
Floor 1000 South Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91803
Jalaine Verdiner
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 300-4666
City of Alhambra
111 South First Street
Alhambra, CA 91801-3796
David Dolphin
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 300-1571
City of Burbank
P.O. Box 6459
Burbank, CA 91510
Stephen Walker
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (818) 238-3804
City of Calabasas
100 Civic Center Way
Calabasas, CA 91302-3172
Tatiana Holden
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (818) 224-1600
City of Glendale
Engineering Section
633 East Broadway, Room 209 Glendale, CA 91206-
4308
Maurice Oillataguerre
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (818) 550-4511
City of Hidden Hills
6165 Spring Valley Road
Hidden Hills, CA 91302
Joe Bellomo
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (805) 279-6856
City of La Canada Flintridge
1327 Foothill Blvd.

La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011-2137
Patrick DeChellis
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (818) 790-8882

Cesar Roldan
E-mail: [email protected]
City of Montebello Phone: 323-887-1247
1600 W Beverly Blvd
Montebello, CA 90640 Rita Montalvo
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 323-887-1200 Ext 469
City of Monterey Park
320 West Newmark Avenue
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2896
Xochitl Tipan
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 307-1383
City of Pasadena
100 N Garfield Ave
Pasadena, CA 91101-1726
Dawn Petschauer
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 744-3929
Michael Chung
E-mail: [email protected]
City of Rosemead Phone: (626) 569-2158
8838 East Valley Blvd.

Rosemead, CA 91770-1787 Eddie Chan
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 569-2154
City of San Fernando
117 Macneil Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
Kenneth Jones
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (818) 898-1240
Greg De Vinck
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 308 - 2825 City of San Gabriel
425 South Mission Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 91775 Capucine Hernandez
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 308-2825
City of San Marino
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108-2691
Amber Shah
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 300 - 0787
Rene Salas
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 579-6540
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Ave.

South El Monte, CA 91733
Fax: (626) 579-2409
City of South Pasadena
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, CA 91020-3298
Ted Gerber
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 403-7240
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, CA 9178
Andrew Coyne
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 285-2171 Ext. 4344
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
1333 Mayflower Avenue, Suite 360
Monrovia, CA 91016
Marisa Creter
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (626) 457-1800

ITEM # 15

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: Cesar Roldan, Director
SUBJECT: APPROVE AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190 TO COLLICUTT ENERGY SERVICES TO PROVIDE GENERATOR

MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES
DATE: April 10, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Award Professional Services Agreement No. 4190 to Collicutt Energy Services to provide generator maintenance and repair services for an initial three (3) year term in a not-to-exceed amount of $251,168; and

2. Reject all other proposals; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement; and

4. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City released Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 24-9 Emergency Generators Repairs and Services. A total of three proposals were received from Global Power Group Inc., Collicutt Energy Services, and Duthie Power Services. Staff reviewed the three proposals and rated them based on their respective qualifications. Based on the documents submitted and overall cost, staff recommends awarding the professional services agreement to Collicutt Energy Services to provide generator maintenance and repair services for the following three years.

The following is a tabulation of the fiscal impact for each of the three years:

1. Year 1 $32,876

2. Year 2 $33,863

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

3. Year 3 $34,879

4. SUB-TOTAL: $101,618

5. Contingency: $150,000

6. TOTAL: $251,618
Staff additionally seeks an appropriation of $50,000 per each year over the three-year period for as-needed repairs. The total not-to-exceed amount of the agreement over the three-year term would be $251,618, if the maximum contingency were utilized. The base contract amount over the three-year term is $101,618. The FY 2024-25 budget will be developed to include sufficient funding for these services.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City requires qualified firms to perform inspection, maintenance, and repair services of City-owned generators. These generators come in various sizes and power capacities and support back-up emergency and non-emergency power generation to City facilities and buildings including City Hall, Police Department, Public Works, Transit and Fire Stations.

Preventative maintenance and repair services include greasing bearings, checking fluid levels, filling oil and coolant, replacing unit components, verifying the condition of batteries and charging systems, inspecting hoses and clamps, diagnosing diesel injection pump and fuel injector, and other unit services or as-needed repairs. Routine testing of each unit's load bank and automatic transfer switch will take place through simulation of power outages and verifying each generator's capability to meet real-life power system demands and electrical loads.

All these services performed in a timely manner and at regular intervals are integral to ensuring that the City's generators are properly maintained to prevent potentially larger repairs and costs in the future and more importantly that these generators are kept fully operational and in good working condition to provide adequate supply of power during planned or unplanned power outages.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

N/A
ANALYSIS:

N/A
SUMMARY:

Upon approval by the City Council, Staff will award Professional Services Agreement No. 4190 (Attachment A) to Collicutt Energy Services for an initial three (3) year term in a total not-to-exceed amount of $251,618. This amount includes the base agreement amount of $101,618, plus an additional $150,000 in contingency should additional repairs

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

and maintenance beyond the basic scope be needed during the initial three-year term of the agreement. Sufficient appropriations will be included in the FY 2024-25 budget for the provision of these services.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A - AGR. 4190 RFP 24-9 Generator Maintenance Repairs and Services (Collicutt) (1) - signed
NEXT STEPS:

N/A

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

WITH COLLICUTT ENERGY SERVICES
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES and entered
into on April 10, 2024 , by and between the CITY OF MONTEBELLO, a California municipal corporation (the Collicutt Energy Services (the CONTRACTOR The CITY and the CONTRACTOR are sometimes referred to herein individually

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the CITY desires to retain a qualified contractor to provide emergency generator maintenance and repair services; and
WHEREAS, the CITY issued Request for Proposals ( RFP ) No. 24 9 on January 15, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the CONTRACTOR submitted a proposal in response to the RFP; and WHEREAS, the CONTRACTOR represents that it is fully qualified to perform such services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals; and
WHEREAS, the CITY evaluated the responses and determined that the CONTRACTOR will meet the requirements in a satisfactory manner.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the Parties of the covenants and conditions herein contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND OTHER CONTRACT DOCUMENTS A. The above-referenced Recitals constitute a material part hereof and shall hereby be incorporated by reference. Moreover, this Agreement consists of the following documents, in order of precedence, all of which are incorporated herein and made part of this Agreement, as though fully set forth herein:
a. This Agreement and its Exhibits, including any and all addenda or supplemental agreements.
b. RFP No. 24 - 9
c. Proposal referenced
d. All other documents, including but not limited to all applicable bonds, insurance certificates, permits, notices, schedules, forms, certifications, and affidavits.

B.
list above shall apply.

SECTION 2. SERVICES / COMPENSATION.

A. All terms, conditions, requirements, and provisions of RFP 24 9 and , as such is set forth fully in A

ATTACHMENT A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

incorporated fully herein by this reference and shall be binding on the Parties. To the extent of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and that set forth in any exhibits or attachments hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.

B. The CONTRACTOR shall provide to the CITY all labor, equipment, materials and incidental necessary to provide services, as such is set forth fully in incorporated fully herein by this reference
C. The CONTRACTOR shall be compensated for performance of the Professional Services as set forth in the Schedule of Compensation attached hereto as and The CONTRACTOR shall provide
an itemized billing statement to the CITY each month for Professional Services performed. The CONTRACTOR shall not incur fees or costs which exceed the Compensation without the prior written consent of the CITY.

SECTION 3. TERM.

A.

June 30, 2027, unless
terminated earlier as hereinafter provided. This Agreement may be extended for two (2) additional one (1) year extension periods, with the mutual written agreement of both Parties.

B. Notice to Proceed. Any work or service contemplated under this Agreement applicable, department head.

SECTION 4. PERFORMANCE.

A. The CONTRACTOR shall at all times, faithfully, competently, and to the best of its ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein.

B. The CONTRACTOR shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by companies engaged in providing similar services, as are required of CONTRACTOR hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.

C. The CONTRACTOR shall be knowledgeable of and subject to all CITY ordinances, rules and regulations, standard operating procedures, and the supervisory chain of command.

D. The CONTRACTOR shall have the right to retain, subject to t h e CITY's approval, additional individuals, contractors or subcontractors to assist in the completion of services as herein defined. Compensation for additional individuals, contractors or subcontractors shall be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the CONTRACTOR.

E. The CONTRACTOR shall retain all original reports, field and office notes, correspondence, calculations, maps, a n d other documents specifically related to the services provided by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement, other than documents which are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege or any other law. Said documents shall be made available for inspection by the CITY upon request.

SECTION 5. WORK PRODUCT.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

A. The CONTRACTOR hereby agrees that all work product produced pursuant to this Agreement and provided to the CITY during and upon completion of this Agreement, shall be the property of the CITY, and ownership of said work product shall be retained by the CITY.

B. All data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by the CONTRACTOR or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by the CONTRACTOR without prior written consent by the CITY. The CITY shall grant such consent if disclosure is legally required. All such written products shall be returned to the CITY upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR agrees that the covenants contained in this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

SECTION 6. EXTRA SERVICES.

No Extra Services over and above the Compensation shall be rendered by the CONTRACTOR under this Agreement unless such Extra Services first shall have been duly authorized in writing by the City Manager . SECTION 7. CITY SUPERVISION.

The City Manager shall have the right of general supervision of all work performed by the CONTRACTOR and shall be the CITY agent with respect to obtaining the CONTRACTOR s compliance hereunder. No payment for services rendered under this Agreement shall be made without the prior approval by the City Manager.

SECTION 8. TERMINATION.

In the event that either Party hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, the non-defaulting Party shall give the defaulting Party written notice of the default, the nature of the default, and of the steps necessary to cure the default.

A. Termination for Cause. In the event that any of the provisions of the Agreement are violated by either Party, the non-defaulting Party may terminate the Agreement by serving written notice upon the other Party, listing the violation(s) and its intent to terminate such Agreement unless within ten (10) days after the serving of such notice, such violation shall cease or be rectified, the contract shall upon the expiration of an additional thirty (30) days cease and terminate. Violations by the CONTRACTOR which cannot be corrected within ten (10) days, said contract shall at the option of the CITY cease and terminate upon the giving of like notice. In the event of any such termination for default by the CONTRACTOR, the CITY may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise for the account and at the expense of the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR and his sureties shall be liable to the CITY for any excess cost occasioned in the event of any such termination. This change shall not be construed to prevent the termination, for other causes authorized by law or other provisions of this contract. In the event of a termination for cause, the CONTRACTOR shall only be entitled to the Compensation for those Professional Services satisfactorily performed on or before the effective date of termination.

B. Termination for Convenience. The CITY shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, to terminate this Agreement in whole, or in part, by giving thirty (30) business day written notice to the CONTRACTOR. Upon the termination of this

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

Agreement as provided herein, the CITY shall provide to the CONTRACTOR the part of Compensation which would otherwise be payable to the CONTRACTOR for services the CONTRACTOR had completed as of the date of termination, less the amount of all previous payments with respect to the Compensation. Further, upon such a termination for convenience by the CITY, the Parties agree that the CONTRACTOR shall be reimbursed for any nonrefundabl costs that the CONTRACTOR has incurred for its services under this Agreement, provided that: (1) such non- refundabl costs were incurred by the CONTRACTOR prior to the date of termination, and (2) that the CONTRACTOR provides the CITY with adequate proof that the CONTRACTOR incurred the costs, and is unable to seek a refund for such costs.

Such non-refundabl costs may include, but are not limited to, travel reservations incurred by the CONTRACTOR for its performance of services under this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR agrees to cease all work under this Agreement on or before the effective date of any notice of termination.

SECTION 9. EMPLOYMENT OF CITY EMPLOYEES.

No regular employee of the CITY shall be employed by the CONTRACTOR during the term of this Agreement.

SECTION 10. NON-LIABILITY OF CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES.

No official or employee of the CITY shall be personally liable to the CONTRACTOR in the event of any default or breach by the CITY, or for any amount which may become due to the CONTRACTOR.

SECTION 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

A. The CONTRACTOR is and shall, at all times, remain as to the CITY a wholly independent contractor. Neither the CITY nor any of its elected officials, officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of the CONTRACTOR except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner represent that he or she is in any manner an elected official, officer, employee, or agent of the CITY. No employee benefits shall be available to the CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in this Agreement, the CITY shall not pay salary, wages, or other compensation to the CONTRACTOR for performance hereunder for the CITY, the CITY shall not be liable for compensation to the CONTRACTOR, the CONTRACTOR s employees or the CONTRACTOR s subcontractors for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.

B. The Parties further acknowledge and agree that nothing in this Agreement shall create or be construed to create a partnership, joint venture, employment relationship or any other relationship except as set forth in this Agreement.

C. The CITY shall not deduct from the Compensation paid to the CONSULTANT any sums required for Social Security, withholding taxes, FICA, state disability insurance or any other federal, state or local tax or charge which may or may not be in effect or hereinafter enacted or required as a charge or withholding on the compensation paid to the CONSULTANT. The CITY shall have no responsibility to provide the CONSULTANT, its employees or subcontractors with worker compensation insurance or any other insurance.

SECTION 12. CalPERS ANNUITANTS AND ELIGIBILITY INDEMNITY.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

A. If the CONTRACTOR Retirement System
TRACTOR must provide the CITY with written notification of such fact a minimum of 14 calendar days prior to commencement of services under this Agreement. Failure to provide such notification may result in termination of the Agreement, and any penalties or other costs relating thereto shall be borne by the CONTRACTOR. If this Agreement remains in place, the CONTRACTOR shall execute any amendment(s) to this Agreement requested by the CITY in order to comply with all laws and regulations applicable to CalPERS annuitants.

B. In the event that the CONTRACTOR or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of the CONTRACTOR providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or CalPERS to be eligible for enrollment in CalPERS as an employee of the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for CalPERS benefits on behalf of the CONTRACTOR or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of the CITY.

C. Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, the CONTRACTOR and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by the CITY, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of the CITY and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by t h e CITY for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

SECTION 13. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

The CONTRACTOR shall at all times observe and comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments including, but not limited to the Montebello Municipal Code. The CITY, and its appointed or elected officers, employees, or agents, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the CONSULTANT to comply with this section.

SECTION 14. INDEMNIFICATION.

The CONTRACTOR agrees to, and shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the CITY, its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, defense costs, civil, penalties, expenses, causes of action, and judgments at law or in equity, or liability of any kind or nature which the CITY, its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injuries or deaths of persons, or damage to property arising out of the CONTRACTOR s negligent or wrongful act, or omission under the terms of this Agreement, except only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the CITY.

SECTION 15. INSURANCE COVERAGE.

A. During the term of this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect insurance against claims for death or injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with CONTRACTOR s performance of this Agreement. Such insurance shall be of the types and in the amounts as set

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

forth below:

Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an occurrence basis for bodily injury and property damage, including products-completed operations, personal injury, and advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, the limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

Automobile Liability Insurance: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if CONTRACTOR has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned), with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the laws of the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employ Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the CONTRACTOR S profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.

A. 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.

B. The CONTACTOR shall require each of its subcontractors, if any, to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Agreement.

C. The policy or policies required by this Agreement shall be issued by an insurer admitted in the State of California and with a current rating of at least A:VII in the latest edition of Best's Insurance Guide.

D. Each insurance policy required above shall state that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days or written notice (ten [10] days for non-payment) has been given to the CITY. The CONTRACTOR agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid insurance in full force and effect the CITY may either (i) immediately terminate this Agreement for Cause; or (ii) take out the necessary insurance and pay, at the CONTRACTOR s expense, the premium thereon.

E. Evidence of Insurance prior to commencement. The Contractor shall provide to the CITY a Certificate(s) of Insurance evidencing such coverage, together with copies of the required policy endorsements no later than five (5) business days prior to commencement of service and at least fifteen (15) business days prior to the expiration of any policy.

Unreasonable failure to provide such evidence may be cause for termination of the Agreement The evidence of insurance shall
be delivered via U.S. mail or email to:

City of Montebello
Attn: Principal Risk Officer
1600 West Beverly Boulevard
Montebello, CA 90640
Email: [email protected]

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

F. Coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, reduced in coverage or in limits, non-renewed, or materially changed for any reason, without thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof given by the insurer to the CITY by U.S. mail, e-mail, or by personal delivery, except for nonpayment of premiums, in which case ten (10) days prior notice shall be provided.

G. Evidence of Insurance during the entire term of the Agreement. At all times during the term of this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall maintain on file with the C Risk Manager a certificate or certificates of insurance showing that the aforesaid policies are in effect in the required amounts and naming the CITY as an additional insured. The CONTRACTOR shall, prior to the commencement of work under this Agreement, file with the H. The CONTRACTOR shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Such proof will be furnished at least two (2) weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages.

I. The general liability and automobile policies of insurance required by this Agreement shall contain an endorsement naming the CITY, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers as additional insured . All of the policies required under this Agreement shall contain an endorsement providing that the policies cannot be canceled or reduced except on thirty days prior written notice to the CITY. The CONTRACTOR agrees to require its insurer to modify the certificates of insurance to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, and to delete the word endeav with regard to any notice provisions.

J. The insurance provided by the CONTRACTOR shall be primary to any coverage available to the CITY. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers, shall be in excess of CONTRACTOR s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

K. All insurance coverage provided pursuant to this Agreement shall not prohibit the CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR s employees, agents or subcontractors, from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. The CONTRACTOR hereby waives all rights of subrogation against the CITY.

L. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. At the option of the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall either reduce or eliminate the deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to the CITY, or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and expenses.

M. Procurement of insurance by the CONTRACTOR shall not be construed as a limitation of the CONTRACTOR'S liability or as full performance of CONTRACTOR s duties to indemnify, hold harmless and defend under the indemnity covenants of this Agreement.

SECTION 16. SUBCONTRACT, ASSIGNMENT OR DELEGATION.

The CONTRACTOR shall not subcontract, delegate, or assign its duties or rights hereunder, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the CITY. Any proposed subcontract, delegation, or assignment shall provide a description of the services to be covered, identification of the proposed sub-consultant, delegee, or assignee, and an explanation of why and how the same was selected, including the degree of competition involved.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

Any subcontract, delegation or assignment shall be made in the name of the CONTRACTOR and shall not bind or purport to bind the CITY and shall not release the CONTRACTOR from any obligations under this Agreement including, but not limited to, the duty to properly supervise and coordinate the work of employees, assignees, delegees or sub-contractors. No such subcontract, delegation or assignment shall result in any increase in the amount of total compensation payable to the CONTRACTOR under the Agreement.

SECTION 17. NO WAIVER.

Waiver by any Party hereto of any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute the waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant hereof.

SECTION 18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION; GOVERNING LAW.

Disputes regarding the interpretation or application of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, be resolved through good faith negotiations between the Parties. If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce this Agreement or because of alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney s fees, expert fees, costs and necessary disbursements incurred in that action or proceeding, in addition to such other relief as may be sought and awarded. The venue for any litigation shall be County of Los Angeles, California. The Parties agree that the covenants contained in this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

SECTION 19. ATTORN S FEES AND COSTS.

If litigation is reasonably required to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.

SECTION 20. WARRANTIES.

Each of the Parties represents and warrants to one another as follows:

A. It has received independent legal advice from its attorneys with respect to the advisability of entering into and executing this Agreement; B. In executing this Agreement, it has carefully read this Agreement, knows the contents thereof, and has relied solely on the statements expressly set forth herein and has placed no reliance whatsoever on any statement, representation, or promise from any other party, or any other person or entity, not expressly set forth herein, nor upon the failure of any other party or any other person or entity to make any statement, representation or disclosure of any matter whatsoever; and
C. It is agreed that each Party has the full right and authority to enter into this Agreement, and that the person executing this Agreement on behalf of either Party has the full right and authority to fully commit and bind such Party to the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 21. MISCELLANEOUS.

A. The descriptive paragraph headings of this Agreement are included for purposes of convenience only and shall not control or affect the construction of interpretation of any of its

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

provisions.

B. Whenever the context hereof shall so require, the singular shall include the plural, the male gender shall include the female gender, and the neuter and vice versa.

C. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provisions had never been contained herein.

D. The representations and warranties made by the Parties to this Agreement shall survive the consummation of the transaction herein described.

E. This Agreement may be signed in any one or more counterparts all of which taken together shall be but one and the same Agreement. Any signed copy of this Agreement or of any other document or agreement referred to herein, or copy or counterpart thereof, delivered by facsimile transmission, shall for all purposes be treated as if it were delivered containing an original manual signature of the Party whose signature appears in the facsimile and shall be binding upon such Party in the same manner as though an originally signed copy had been delivered.

F. Each of the Parties acknowledges that it has been represented by independent counsel of its own choosing, or if it has not been so represented, it has been admonished to obtain independent counsel and has freely and voluntarily waived and relinquished the right to counsel.

Each Party who has not obtained independent counsel acknowledges that the failure to have independent legal counsel will not excuse such P failure to perform under this Agreement or any agreement referred to in this Agreement.

SECTION 22. NOTICE.

All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered via e-mail Electronic Notice as further defined below), personally or on the second (2nd) business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals hereunder shall be given to the following addresses or such other addresses as the Parties may designate by written notice:

If to CITY: City of Montebello
Attn: Raul Alvarez, City Manager
1600 West Beverly Boulevard
Montebello, CA 90640
(323) 887-1200
Email: [email protected]
With a copy to: City of Montebello
1600 West Beverly Boulevard
Montebello, CA 90640
(323) 887 1200
Email: [email protected]

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

If to CONTRACTOR: Collicutt Energy Services
Dave Taylor, Vice President of US Operations
12349 Hawkins Street
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
(587) 227-5179
Email: [email protected]
Electronic Notice
purposes of this section if sent to the electronic mail address specified above. Electronic Notice shall be deemed received at the time the Party sending Electronic Notice receives verification of receipt by the receiving Party. Any Party receiving Electronic Notice may request and shall be entitled to receive the notice on paper, in a nonelectronic form.

SECTION 23. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.

In the performance of this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall not discriminate against any employee, sub-consultant, or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, mental condition or sexual orientation. The CONTRACTOR will take affirmative action to ensure that sub-consultant and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation.

SECTION 24. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

The CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be performed by the CONSULTANT under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services hereunder. The CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it.

Furthermore, the CONTRACTOR shall avoid the appearance of having any interest that would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement.

The CONTRACTOR covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary or otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of services to t he CITY as a result of the performance of this Agreement, or the services that may be procured by the CITY as a result of the recommendations made by the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR's covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

SECTION 25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.

This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the CITY and the CONTRACTOR.

Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations or representations not expressly set forth herein are of no force or effect. Subsequent modifications to this Agreement shall be effective only if in writing and signed by each Party. If any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall be valid and binding.

SECTION 26. EXTENSION TO OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
Unless otherwise specified in writing, the CONTRACTOR agrees that the prices, terms, and

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

governmental agencies at the mutual agreement of both the public agency and awarded CONTRACTOR. All requirements of the specifications, purchase orders, invoices, and payments with other agencies shall be directly with the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees to the extension of these contract terms to other governmental agencies conditioned upon the agreement of the CONTRACTOR with the governmental agency. This provision in no way guaranteed that the CONTRACTOR will agree to enter into a contract with a governmental agency pursuant to this Section. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 4190

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

NTRACTOR )

CITY OF MONTEBELLO COLLICUTT ENERGY SERVICES
Raul Alvarez, City Manager
Dave Taylor, Vice President of US
Operations
ATTEST:

Christopher Jimenez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney
EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A Response to RFP 24-9
Exhibit B Schedule of Compensation
Exhibit C Labor Law Requirements
Exhibit D Live Scan Fingerprinting Requirement

Energy
--- --.- A Rolls-Royce
COLLICUTT solution
Generator Preventative Maintenance Agreement Proposal for:

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

JAMES COINER
Quote# 1629
1/30/2024

EXHIBIT A

Generator Preventative Maintenance Agreement
Callicutt Energy is pleased for offer you the following quote for Maintenance Service. The quote will include all transportation, labor and materials for the work listed below.

Inclusions
Callicutt Energy Services will perform the following Reliability Inspections and Maintenance Services, to include transportation, labor and materials for work performed during regular business hours, Monday through Friday between 7AM and 4PM.

Scope of Work
Callicutt Energy will perform the following services:
(1) Lubrication
A) Inspecting engine crank case oil level
B) Clean crankcase heater
C) Change crankcase oil (Annual Service Only)
D) Inspect oil lines and connections
E) Sample oil and submit for analysis (Annual Service Only) F) Inspect oil pressure
G) Replace oil filters (Annual Service Only)
(2) Cooling System
A) Inspect engine coolant level
B) Inspect radiator core
C) Inspect coolant line connections and hoses
D) Inspect fan belt tension and wear
E) Inspect radiator condition
F) Inspect coolant concentration and corrosion inhibitor G) Inspect coolant pump
H) Inspect temperature regulator
I) Inspect water jacket heater for correct operation
J) Sample coolant and submit for analysis (Annual Service Only)
(3) Air Induction and Exhaust
A) Inspect air cleaner service indicator (change if quoted) B) Inspect/clean dust collector cap
C) Inspect manifold and air piping for leaks
D) Inspect all intake system hoses and connections
E) Open condensation drains
F) Inspect engine exhaust system including after treatment devices
Initials:
---
(4) Fuel System (Diesel)
A) Inspect sediment bowls and open drains
B) Inspect fuel system components f/ signs of water,
sludge and rust
C) Inspect fuel level in day tank and main tank, where
applicable
D) Inspect fuel pressure
E) Inspect and test fuel level float switches
F) Inspect fuel lines and fittings
G) Inspect and test containment alarm
H) Inspect and test transfer pump
I) Sample fuel and submit for analysis (Annual Service
Only)
J) Replace fuel filters (Annual Service Only)
(5) Electrical System
A) Inspect battery electrolyte condition and level-if
applicable
B) Clean electrical connections and battery
C) Inspect alternator drive belt tension and wear
D) Inspect shutoff controls
E) Inspect starter
F) Check battery charging system for proper operation
(6) General Scope
A) Visually check engine mounts
B) Visually check complete unit
C) Test run and check for misfire, vibration and
unusual noise
D) Inspect for cleanliness

ATS Scope of work
A) Inspect for contaminant intrusion (dust, moisture)
clean/vacuum
B) Inspect for contaminant intrusion (dust, moisture)
clean/vacuum
C)Torque Main Lug connections (Only if powered down.).

D) Check terminals and connections for
looseness/overheating (Only if powered down.).

E) Check and adjust all accessories to customer specs.

F) Remove barriers and inspect contacts/arc chutes/heel contact. (Only if powered down.).

G) Inspect main contact
H) Check integrity of electrical hardware in control panel I) Test all lightbulbs
J) Lubricate necessary moving parts (Only if
powered down.).

K) Remove barriers and inspect contacts/arc chutes/heel contact. (Only if powered down.).

L) Inspect limit switches (Only if powered down.).

M)Inspect enclosure
N) Check engine start contacts/connections.

O) Complete test (load or no load.).

P) Check system battery.

For Bypass Switches only and would require power
shut down to the switch
a) Bypass to normal or Source 1.
b) Disconnect start wires
c) Put in isolation.
d) Manually operate ATS.
e) Inspect, clean and test
f) Put in test position
g) Attach start contact wires.
h) Test ATS.
i) Put ATS back in auto.
1) 24 Hr emergency service
2) 4 Hr response time
Initials:

Loadbank Scope of work
A) Verify Generator is in off position.

B) Open breaker to building.

C) Disconnect each phase from load side of breaker. D) Connect pigtails to each phase to load side of breaker.

E) Layout cable to Callicutt provided load bank
F) Connect cable to pigtails & load bank; ensure all
connections are tight.

G) Run Generator and warm up engine.

H) Step up load using load bank incrementally to customer specs. (25%-100% capacity)
I) Run test to customers specified time (2hrs).

J) Check temperature of cables, turbo, cooling
system every lSmin and record
K) Check voltages and amps at each phase every lSmin.

L) Once testing is complete, drop load and cool down
for lSmin
M) Turn off Generator and leave in off position.

N) Disconnect and rollup all cabling.

O) Disconnect pigtails to each phase to load side of
breaker. P) Reconnect each phase to load side of breaker Q) Close breaker to building.

R) Set Generator in Auto.

S) Check for leaks

A Rolls-Royce
- solution
Job Notes for Customer
None
Preferred Pricing
Contract Labor
Rate
$165.00 per hour portal to portal during normal business hours Monday through Friday 7 AM to 4 PM on all service trouble calls above and beyond the maintenance contract.

Overtime Rate $247.50 per hours portal to portal on all service trouble calls above and beyond the maintenance contract after normal business hours.

Doubletime Rate $330.00 per hours portal to portal on Sundays and Holidays. $3.20 per mile round trip.

Diesel Fuel
Deliverv.
no labor, mileage, or truck charge 24/7 - 365 days a year with 300 gallons or more. Less than 300 gallons add $250 for delivery fee.

Rental Generator
Rate
20% discount to contract customers if the rental is available with Callicutt Energy Services.

-- -- 6,!;!!;UTT
A Rolls-Royce
- solution
Exclusions
Customer's electrical equipment and or building circuits, functions and or operations. This contract does not include any repairs to the equipment. All repairs to the equipment must be approved by the customer. The pricing in this contract does not include applicable taxes.

Equipment Pricing Breakdown

EQUIPMENT
SERIAL

MODEL ADDRESS/LOCATION ANNUAL

SERVICE

QUARTERLY

INSPECTION
2-HOUR

LOADBANK
ATS

INSPECTION
2080283 PRIME SITE 461050100 1343 N MONTEBELLO $739.64 $397.60 X 3 = $595.00 $250.00 $1,192.80 2097094 GOLF COURSE - 9574150100
901 VIA SAN

CLEMENTE
$1,092.13 $508.90 X 3 =
$1,526.70
$595.00 $250.00
33JVGMLG0005 FS 56 - 80REOZJF 1166 S GREENWOOD $1,114.66 $397.60 X 3 = $595.00 $250.00 AVE $1,192.80 2092284 FS#56 - 7754370100 1166 S GREENWOOD $1,071.22 $391.20 X 3 = $600.00 $250.00 AVE $1,173.60 61A08255 POLICE STATION - SR4 1600 W BEVERLY BLVD $1,217.21 $454.50 X 3 = $825.00 $250.00 $1,363.50 G080196791 FS# 55 - DSGAA- 600 N MONTEBELLO $939.85 $365.60 X 3 = $750.00 $250.00 7218050 BLVD $1,096.80 2013035 GARVEY RESERVOIR - 1395 S ORANGE AVE $695.77 $388.00 X 3 = $825.00 $250.00 94A02387-S $1,164.00 33DGGMKR0119 FS#57 - 30REOZK 2950 VIA ACOSTA $977.36 $391.20 X 3 = $775.00 $250.00 $1,173.60 2113854 CITY HALL - 1600 W BEVERLY BLVD $1,266.62 $473.70 X 3 = $995.00 $250.00 13778530100 $1,421.10 1328B10182 VERNON - SDG40S 2800 S SOTO ST $1,090.39 $508.90 X 3 = $785.00 $250.00 $1,526.70 Customer Total: $32,876.45 NOTE: It is the generator owners' responsibility to ensure the generator is properly permitted and that the unit is being operated during the hours allowed and in accordance with their required laws and or regulations The approved pricing for the scope of work will remain in effect for one year. It will be renewed automatically each year with an increase of 3% per year until written notice is received. Written notice must be received one month prior to automatic renewal.

Submitted by: MONICA TORRES Email: [email protected] Phone:562-228-1323

Acceptance
The undersigned hereby accepts this Planned Maintenance Agreement and agrees to the Terms and Conditions of Sale found at: www.collicutt.com/termsofservice.

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

JAMES COINER
Print: Signature:

Date: PO:

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
YEAR 1 $32,876.45
YEAR 2 $33,862.74
YEAR 3 $34,878.63
Total Cost: $101,617.82
An additional 10% per fiscal year (July-June) may be added with approval from the City Manager.

EXHIBIT C
Terms for Compliance with California Labor Law Requirements

1. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that
this Agreement is subject to (a) Chapter 1 and (b) the rules and regulations

CONTRACTOR
shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in 1(a) and 1(b) as though set forth in full herein.

2. California law requires the inclusion of specific Labor Code provisions in certain contracts. The inclusion of such specific provisions below, whether or not required by California law, does not alter the meaning or scope of Section 1 of this Exhibit, above.

3. CONTRACTOR shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1725.5 and has provided proof of registration to CITY prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR shall not perform work with any subcontractor that is not registered with DIR pursuant to Section 1725.5. CONTRACTOR and subcontractors shall maintain their registration with the DIR in effect throughout the duration of this Agreement. If the CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor ceases to be registered with DIR at any time during the duration of the project, CONTRACTOR shall immediately notify CITY.

4. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, CONTRACTOR Services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. CONTRACTOR shall post job site notices, as prescribed by DIR regulations.

5. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. CONTRACTOR acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and CONTRACTOR shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement.

6. 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 CITY, forfeit $200.00 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.

7. 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 CITTY of the location of the records.

8. CONTRACTOR shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code 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 60 days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, CONTRACTOR, and each of its subcontractors shall submit to CITY a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement.

9. The CONTRACTOR shall not perform Work with any Subcontractor that has been debarred or suspended pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of CONTRACTOR from public works. The CONTRACTOR and Subcontractors shall not be debarred or suspended throughout the duration of this Contract pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of CONTRACTOR from public works. If the CONTRACTOR or any Subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the project, the CONTRACTOR shall immediately notify CITY.

10. CONTRACTOR
work. CONTRACTOR shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810.

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 CITY, forfeit $25.00 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 hours in any one calendar day and 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 hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay.

11. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, CONTRACTOR hereby certifies as follows:
compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before

12. For every subcontractor who will perform work on the project, CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for such subcontractor compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, and CONTRACTOR shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of those statutory provisions and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with those statutory provisions.

CONTRACTOR shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his

or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. CONTRACTOR shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure.

13. To the maximum extent permitted by law, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (at CONTRACTOR expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to CITY) CITY, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors serving in the role of CITY officials, and volunteers from and against any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including CONTRACTOR, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of fees, and other related costs and expenses. All duties of CONTRACTOR under this Section shall survive the termination of the Agreement.

D

LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINTING REQUIREMENT
The CONTRACTOR may be required to successfully pass a Department of fingerprinting service provider or at the City of Montebello Police Department.

The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for obtaining the Live Scan for its staff and shall bear the cost thereof. The agency completing the fingerprints must provide the City of Montebello Human Resources with background check results and subsequent records for review. The CONTRACTOR may be required to CONTRACTOR
Montebello Human Resources prior to performing work on-site.

ITEM # 16

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: Cesar Roldan, Director
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS

FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
DATE: April 10, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Authorize the purchase of Six (6) 2070 traffic signal controllers from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works; and

2. Authorize staff to approve Los Angeles County Department of Public Works City Service Request No. 271404; and

3. Amend the Fiscal Year 2023-24 budget by increasing appropriations by $65,000 in Account No. 222-30-300-6010.10 (Measure M, Public Works, Administration, Machinery and Equipment); and,

4. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Per the General Service Agreement executed between the City and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, the City submits City Service Requests (CSRs) directly through the County’s Tracking System portal and pays for services upon receipt of an itemized invoice from the County which covers all the services performed. Staff submitted a request to the County for the replacement of six (6) 2070 traffic signal controllers.

Los Angeles County estimates the cost for the six controllers to be $65,000 (Attachment A). Staff requests the appropriation of $65,000 from Measure M funds to purchase the

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

six 2070 traffic signal controllers. A budget amendment in the amount of $65,000 is necessary to increase appropriations in Fiscal Year 2023-24 in Account No. 222-30-300- 6010.10 (Measure M, Public Works, Administration, Machinery and Equipment).

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City has six (6) traffic signal controllers in need of replacement. The City is currently renting the controllers from Yunex (the City’s traffic signal operations and maintenance contractor), though this is a temporary measure until the controllers are permanently replaced.

The previous traffic signal controllers had predominantly operated for a period of over 20 years. Service life of a 170 McCain controller is approximately 20 years if the system is monitored closely and maintained regularly. Traffic accidents, weather damage and electrical power surges and outages affect the service life of the controller.

The City submitted a service request to purchase controllers through the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The County generated service request No. 271404 for the purchasing of six (6) 2070 controllers which are loaded with Maxtime firmware, 2070 conflict monitor, GPS unit and antenna, controller testing and implementation of signal timing; including the installation of equipment and timing in the field at the intersections listed below:

1. N. Montebello Boulevard and W Madison Avenue

2. Whittier Boulevard and Garfield Avenue

3. Lincoln Avenue and N. Wilcox Avenue

4. W. Beverly Boulevard and N. Hay Street

5. W. Whittier Boulevard and N. Taylor Avenue

6. W. Beverly Boulevard and N. 6th Street
The intelligence behind all signalized intersections is the traffic signal controller. The 2070 series traffic signal controller optimizes efficiency at the intersection. Combined with the traffic cabinet, the controller manages traffic flow and ensures safety for all roadway users. The 170 controller is obsolete, thus the need to upgrade to 2070 controllers.

Per the Assumption of Liability Agreement/Joint Indemnity Agreement executed between the City and Los Angeles County, the County shall assume liability and defend and hold the City harmless for acts or omissions of the County occurring in the performance of any agreement between the parties to provide services, where such an agreement provides that the County will provide at least the same level of services that the County provides to unincorporated areas.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

N/A
ANALYSIS:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

N/A
SUMMARY:

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to approve request No. 271404 (Attachment A) and amend the FY 2023-24 budget by increasing appropriations by $65,000 in Account No. 222-30-300-6010.10 (Measure M, Public Works, Administration, Machinery and Equipment).

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A - Los Angeles County Department of Public Works – City Service Request No. 271404
NEXT STEPS:

N/A

Attachment A

ITEM # 17

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: Cesar Roldan, Director
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 24-24 TO APPLY TO CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION'S URBAN

FORESTRY PROGRAM AND COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM
DATE: April 10, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-24 authorizing the appropriate City staff member to execute and sign the document and to work with TreePeople to submit the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Urban Forestry Program application; and,

2. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Activities proposed in this project will be funded by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Urban Forestry Program grant. There are no matching funds required as part of this grant. Should the City be successful in receiving the grant award, staff will return to the City Council to appropriate the funds and present a spending plan.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The urban forestry funding application falls under the purview of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Urban Forestry Program (CalFire). The Urban Forestry Act (PRC 4799.06 - 4799.12) the Urban and Community Forestry Program (UCF) works to expand and improve the management of trees and related landscapes in communities throughout California. CalFire’s mission is to lead the effort to advance the development of sustainable urban and community forests in California.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

This grant will fund crucial steps to advance the City’s management and improvement of its trees. As a part of this grant, the City would complete an updated inventory, a tree canopy assessment, the development of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UMFP), and tree planting. The UFMP will be the City’s guiding document to ensure that the benefits of a healthy urban forest are available to the community. The UFMP will, at minimum, include a shared vision for the urban forest, an inventory assessment, quantified urban forest benefits, strategic plans, routine maintenance procedures, a street tree planting plan, and an evaluation component. A main goal of the UFMP will be to increase citywide canopy cover in order to maximize urban cooling, stormwater mitigation, air pollution mitigation, and improve walkability.

Other City policies that relate to urban forestry will be reviewed and updated to guarantee urban forest management continuity. After the UFMP is complete, the grant will fund a community tree planting campaign. Tree planting sites and species will be guided by the completed UFMP. This project will be applied for and completed in partnership with TreePeople.

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) to apply for a CalFire Urban and Community Forest Grant under the category Management Activities in partnership with TreePeople. The objective of this project is to develop a comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan to increase tree benefits, reduce risk, ensure cost-efficient maintenance, and promote community engagement.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

N/A
ANALYSIS:

N/A
SUMMARY:

Once the Resolution (Attachment A) is approved by City Council, City staff and TreePeople will work together to develop a competitive application to submit to CalFire by the end of May. Should the City be successful in receiving the grant, staff will return to the City Council with a recommended action to appropriate the grant funds.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A - CAL FIRE UCF Grant Resolution 2024-24 NEXT STEPS:

N/A

RESOLUTION
Resolution No.: _________ 24-24___________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL_______ OF ______THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO____ (Title of Governing Body) (City/County/District/nonprofit)

FOR FUNDING FROM THE URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION.

WHEREAS, the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has received federal funds from the USDA Forest Service’s Inflation Reduction Act for Urban and Community Forestry; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies and non-profit organizations under the program, and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter an agreement with the State of California to carry out an urban forestry project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO :
(Title of Governing Body)

1. Approved the filing of an application for the Urban and Community Forestry grant program funds; and

2. Certifies that said applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project; and,

3. Certifies that funds under the jurisdiction of THE CITY COUNCIL are available to begin the project. (Title of Governing Body)

4. Certifies that said applicant will expend grant funds prior to March 30, 2026.

5. Appoints _Raul Alvarez__, or a designee, as agent of the CITY COUNCIL to conduct negotiations, (City Manager) (Title of Governing Body)
execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.

Approved and adopted the 10th day of April, 2024.

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, number___24-24_______, was duly adopted by the following roll call vote of the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO. (City Council/Board of Supervisor/Board of Directors)
Ayes: _______ Noes: _________ Absent: ________ ____________________________________(Clerk signature)

ATTACHMENT A

ITEM # 18

CITY OF MONTEBELLO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Raul Alvarez, City Manager

BY: Cesar Roldan, Director
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 24-25 GRANTING AN EASEMENT ON CITYOWNED LAND, 1060 S GREENWOOD AVE, TO SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SCE) FOR ELECTRICAL UTILITY

PURPOSES
DATE: April 10, 2024
RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No.24-25 (Attachment B) granting an easement on City-owned land, 1060 S. Greenwood Ave., to Southern California Edison Company (SCE) for electrical utility purposes; and,

2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee, to sign the Grant of the easement to Southern California Edison (SCE) on behalf of the City; and

3. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the City for the granting of the Southern California Edison (SCE) easement.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

On February 24, 2023, the City of Montebello entered into a ground lease agreement, Attachment A, with CCTMO LLC (Crown Castle Communication) for approximately eighty-four (84) square feet of space located at Holifield Park, northeast corner of the intersection of Greenwood Avenue and Frankel Avenue on City Property, APN 6352-006- 901 as described in Exhibit C-1 of Attachment A. The purpose of this lease agreement is for the construction, installation, maintenance, and operation of their communication

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2024

facilities, and transmittal tower.

Dish Telecommunications (Network Connex) has also leased space for its equipment with Crown Castle at the location where the City of Montebello and Crown Castle have their ground lease agreement. Therefore, Dish Telecommunication is requesting an easement for Southern California Edison (SCE) to supply power to their equipment.

Resolution No. 24-25 (Attachment B) will grant Southern California Edison (SCE) an easement to construct, use, maintain, and operate electrical and communication equipment. While at the same time, ensuring that the City reserves its rights to access and build upon the easement area for street, road, or driveway purposes.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

In accordance with the California Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3), granting Southern California Edison (SCE) Easement for the distribution of electrical energy is exempt from CEQA in that it can be seen with certainty that grating of a utility easement will not have a significant effect on the environment.

ANALYSIS:

N/A
SUMMARY:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 24-25 which grants an easement on City-owned land to Southern California Edison (SCE) for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating electrical and communication systems for the distribution of electrical energy.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment A - Crown Castle Lease Agreement

2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 24-25
NEXT STEPS:

N/A

24 February
23 Attachment A

8. Hazardous Materials.
perm.it
� Lessee's Obligation and lodemnih•. Lessee shall not (either with or without negligence) cause or the escape, disposal or release of any Hazardous Materials on or from the Leased Premises in any manner prolubited by law. Lessee shall indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims, damages, fines, judgments, penalties, costs, liabilities or losses (including, without limitation, any and all sums paid for settlement of claims, attorneys' fees, and consultants' and experts' fees) arising from the release of any Hazardous Materials on the Leased Premises if caused by Lessee or persons acting under Lessee. {fil Lessor's Obligation and Indemnity. Lessor shall not (either with or without negligence) cause or permit the escape, disposal or release of any Hazardous Materials (as defined below) on or from Lessor's Property or Leased Premises in any manner prohibited by law. Lessor shall indemnify and hold Lessee hannless fium any and all claims, damages, fines, judgments, penalties, costs, liabilities or losses (including, without limitation, any and all sums paid for settlement of claims, attorneys' fees, and consultants' and experts' fees) arising from the presence or release of any Hazardous Materials on Lessor's Property or Leased Premises unless caused by Lessee or persons acting under Lessee.
.{Q For purposes of this Agreement the tenn "Hazardous Materials" means any substance which is (i) designated, defined, classified or regulated as a hazardous substance, hazardous material, hazardous waste, pollutant or contaminant under any Environmental Law, as currently in effect or as hereafter amended or enacted, ( ii) a petrolewn hydrocarbon, including crude oil or any fraction thereof and all petroleum products, (iii) PCBs, (iv) lead, (v) asbestos, (vi) flammable explosives, ( vii) infectious materials, or ( v
iii) radioactive materials. "Environmental Law(s)" means the Comprehensive Environmenta
l Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601, et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901, et seq., the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2601, et seq., the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. 5101, et seq., and the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sections 1251, et seq., as said laws have been supplemented or amended to date, the regulations promulgated pursuant to said laws and any other federal, state or local law, statute, rule, regulation or ordinance which regulates or proscnbes the use, storage, disposal, presence, clean-up, transportation or release or threatened release into the environment of Hazardous Material.

9. Insurance. Lessee, at its sole expense, shall obtain and keep in force insurance which may be required by any federal, state or local statute or ordinance of any governmental body having jurisdiction in connection with the operation of Lessee's business upon the Leased Premjses. At a minimum, said insurance shall include Commercial General Liability coverage in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate and shall name Lessor as an additional insured. fu addition, Lessee, shall obtain Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the laws of the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer's Liability Insurance with limit ofno less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. The required limits recited herein may be met by primary and excess or umbrella policies covering other locations. Upon Lessor's written request, which request shall not exceed once per year, Lessee will provide Lessor with a copy of the certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage.

IO. Removal of Obstructions. Lessee has the right to remove obstructions from Lessor's Property, including but not limited to vegetation, which may encroach upon, interfere with or present a hazard to Lessee's use of the Leased Premises or the Easements.

11. Reserved

12. Real Estate Taxes. Lessor shall pay all real estate taxes on Lessor's Property. Lessee agrees to reimburse Lessor for any documented increase in real estate or personal property taxes levied against Lessor's Property that are directly attributable to the Improvements constructed by Lessee. Lessor agrees to provide Lessee any documentation evidencing the increase and how such increase is attributable to Lessee's use. Lessee reserves the right to challenge any such assessment, and Lessor agrees to cooperate with Lessee in connection with any such challenge. Notwithstanding any language in this section to the contrary, Lessee shall not be obligated to reimburse Lessor for any applicable taxes, unless Lessor requests such reimbursement, including any required documentation, within one (I) year after the date such taxes became due.

13. Waiver of Claims and Rights of Subrogation. The parties hereby waive any and all rights of action for negligence against the other on account of damage to the Improvements, Lessor's Property or to the Leased Premises resulting from any fire or other casualty of the kind covered by property insurance policies with extended coverage, regardless of whether or not, or in what amount, such insurance is carried by the parties. All policies of property insurance carried by either party for Site Name: SM248 Holifield Park RL
2 Business Unit#: 827967

the Improvements, Lessor's Property or the Leased Premises shall include a clause or endorsement denying to the insurer rights by way of subrogation against the other party to the extent rights have been waived by the insured before the occurrence of injury or loss.

14. Default.
@ Notice of Default: Cure Period. In the event that there is a default by Lessor or Lessee {the "Defaulting Party") with respect to any of the provisions of this Agreement or Lessor's or Lessee's obligations under this Agreement, the other party (the "Non-Defaulting Party'') shall give tht: Defaulting Party written notice of such default After receipt of such written notice, the Defaulting Party shall have thirty (30) days in which to cure any monetary default and sixty (60) days in which to cure any non-monetary default. The Defaulting Party shall have such extended periods as may be required beyond the sixty (60) day cure period to cure any non-monetary default if the nature of the cure is such that it reasonably requires more than sixty ( 60) days to cure, and Defaulting Party commences the cure within the sixty (60) day period and thereafter continuously and diligently pursues the cure to completion.

The Non-Defaulting Party may not maintain any action or effect any remedies for default against the Defaulting Party unless and until the Defaulting Party has failed to cure the same within the time periods provided in this Section. !ID Consequences of Lessee's Default. In the event that Lessee is in default beyond the applicable periods set forth above, Lessor shall have the right to injunctive relief, to require specific performance of this Agreement and to pursue an action for damages available at law . .(Q Consegucnccs of Lessor's Default. In the event that Lessor is in default beyond the applicable periods set forth above, Lessee shall have the right to injunctive relief, to require specific performance of this Agreement, to pursue an action for damages, terminate the Lease, vacate the Leased Premises and be relieved from all further obligations under this Agreement; perform the obligation(s) of Lessor specified in such notice, and charge Lessor for any expenditures reasonably made by Lessee in so doing or set-off from Rent any amount reasonably expended by Lessee as a result of such default.

15. Limitation on Damages. In no event shall either party be liable to the other for consequential, indirect, speculative or punitive damages in connection with or arising from this Agreement, or the use of the Leased Premises, Easements, and/or Utility Easement.

16. Hold Harmless. Each party shall indemnify and defend the other party against, and hold the other party harmless from, any claim of liability or Joss from personal injury or property damage arising from the use and occupancy of the Leased Premises or Lessor's Property by such indemnifying party, its employees, contractors, servants or agents, except to the extent such claims are caused by the intentional misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of the other party, its employees, contractors, servants or agents.

17. Lessor's Covenant of Title. Lessor covenants that Lessor holds good and marketable fee simple title to Lessor's Property and the Leased Premises and has full authority to enter into and execute this Agreement.

18. Interference with Lessee's Business. Lessor agrees that it will not permit the construction, installation or operation on Lessor's Property of {i) any additional wireless communications facilities or (ii) any equipment or device that interferes with Lessee's use of the Leased Premises for a wireless communications facility. Each of the covenants made by Lessor in this Section is a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Leased Premises.

19. Eminent Domain. If Lessor receives notice of a proposed or threatened ta1cing by eminent domain of any part of the land upon which the Leased Premises or Easements are situated, whether through a condemnation lawsuit or the acquisition of land pursuant to the power of eminent domain (a "Taking"), Lessor will notify Lessee of the proposed Ta1cing within five (5) business days ofreceiving said notice. If the Ta1cing affects any portion of the Leased Premises or Easements that is less than the entire Leased Premises and Easements (a "Partial Taking"), then Lessee will have the option to either (i) declare the Agreement null and void, effective as of the date of Taking, and thereafter neither party will have any liability or obligation hereunder; or (ii) remain in possession of that portion of the Leased Premises and Easements that will not be taken, in which event there shall be an equitable adjustment in rent on account of the portion of the Leased Premises and Easements so taken. In the event of a Partial Taking, the parties shall enter into any amendment of the Agreement made necessary as a result of the Partial Taking. With respect to any Taking each party shall have the right to contest the Taking and directly pursue an award for their respective interests.

Site Name: SM248 Holifield Park RL
Business Unit #: 827967
3

20. Applicable Law. This Agreement and the perfonnance thereof shall be governed, interpreted, construed and regulated by the laws of the State where the Leased Premises is located. The parties agree that the venue for any litigation regarding this Agreement shall be in the state or federal courts in the county where the Leased Premises is located.

21. Notices. All notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be given by (i) established express delivery service which maintains delivery records, (ii) hand delivery, or (iii) certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Notices may also be given by facsimile transmission, provided that the notice is concwrently given by one of the above methods. Notices are effective upon receipt, or upon attempted delivery if delivery is refused or if delivery is impossible because of fuilure to provide reasonable meai�s for accomplishing delivery. The notices shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses:

Lessor:

Lessee:

City of Montebello
Attn: City Manager
1600 W. Beverly Boulevard
Montebello, California 90640
CCTMOIJ.C
Attn: Legal - Real Estate
2000 Corporate Drive,
Canonsburg, PA 15317-8564

22. Assignment. Sublease, Licensing and Encumbrance. Lessee has the right, at its sole discretion, to assign its interest in this Agreement and to sublease or license use of the Leased Premises, E.asements and Improvements. Assignment of this Agreement by Lessee shall be effective upon Lessee sending written notice to Lessor and shall relieve Lessee from any further liability or obligatio11 Lessee has the further right to pledge or encumber its interest in this Agreement. Upon request to Lessor from any leasehold mortgagee, Lessor agrees to give the holder of such leasehold mortgage written notice of any default by Lessee and an opportunity to cure any such default within fifteen (15) days after such notice with respect to monetary defaults and within a commercially reasonable period of time after such notice with respect to any non-monetary default.

23. Notice of Sublease. Lessee hereby provides notice to Lessor of its sublease of a portion of the Leased Premises to Dish Network or an affiliate or subsidiary (the "Dish Subtenant"). As used herein, the term "Sublease" includes any arrangement by which a third party can collocate its equipment at the Leased Premises, whether it is by Sublease, license, easement or any other agreement or arrangement.

24. Mortgages. 1n the event that the Leased Premises is currently encwnbered or shall become encwnbered by such a mortgage, Lessor shall obtain and furnish to Lessee a commercially reasonable non-disturbance agreement, in a form reasonably acceptable to Lessee, for each such mortgage, in recordable form. If Lessor fails to provide any non-disturbance agreement, Lessee may withhold and accrue, without interest, the Rent until such time as Lessee receives all such documentation.

25. Sale of Property, If Lessor sells all or part of Lessor's Property, of which the Leased Premises is a part then such sale shall be under and subject to this Agreement.

26. Surrender of Property. Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, Le.ssee shall, within a reasonable time, remove all above ground Improvements and restore the Leased Premises as nearly as reasonably possible to its original condition, without, however, being required to replace any trees or other plants removed, or alter the then existing grading.

27. Quiet Enjovment. Lessor covenants that Lessee, on paying Rent and performing the covenants of this Agreement, shall peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the Leased Premises and Easements.

28. Lessor's Waiver. Lessor hereby waives and releases any and all liens, whether statutory or under common law, with respect to any of Lessee's property now or hereafter located on the Leased Premises.

Miscellaneous.

Site Name: SM248 Holifield Park RL
Business Unit#: 827967
4

Recording. Lessee shall have the right to record a memorandwn of this Agreement with the appropriate recording officer. Lessor shall execute and deliver such a memorandum, for no additional consideration, promptly upon Lessee's request.

Entire Agreement Lessor and Lessee agree that this Agreement contains all of the agreements, promises and understandings between Lessor and Lessee. No oral agreements, promises or understandings shall be binding upon either Lessor or Lessee in any dispute, controversy or proceeding at law. Any addition, variation or modification to this Agreement shall be void and ineffective unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto.

Captions. The captions preceding the Sections of this Agreement are intended only for convenience of reference and in no way define, limit or describe the scope of this Agreement or the intent of any provision hereof.

Construction of Document. Lessor and Lessee acknowledge that this document shall not be construed in favor of or against the drafter by virtue of said party being the drafter and that this Agreement shall not be construed as a binding offer until signed by Lessee.

Partial Invalidity. If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, then such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.

IRS Form W-9. Lessor agrees to provide Lessee with a completed ms Form W-9, or its equivalent, upon execution of this Agreement and at such other times as may be reasonably requested by Lessee. In the event the Lessor's Property is transferred, the succeeding Lessor shaJJ have a duty at the time of such transfer to provide Lessee with a completed IRS Form W-9, or its equivalent, and other related paper work to affect a transfer in Rent to the new Lessor. Lessor's failure to provide the IRS Form W-9 within thirty (30) days after Lessee's request shall be considered a default and Lessee may take any reasonable action necessary to comply with IRS regulations including, but not limited to, withholding applicable taxes from Rent payments.

Conditional Signing Bonus. Lessee will pay to Lessor a one-time amount of One Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($1,500) for the full execution of this Agreement, payable within sixty (60) days of the full execution of this Agreement ("Conditional Signing Bonus"). In the event that this Agreement (and any applicable memorandum of Agreement and/or amendment) is not fully executed by both Lessor and Lessee for any reason, Lessee shall have no obligation to pay the Conditional Signing Bonus to Lessor.

Site Name: SM248 Holifield Park RL
Business Unit#: 827967
[Signature pages follow)
s

PARCEL 1:

EXHIBIT II A
.,
(Legal Description of Lessor's Property!
The East halfoftbe South half of the South half ofLot64 ofEI Cannel Tract, as per Map recorded in Book 7, Page 134, of Maps, on filed in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

Also that portion of the Northeasterly 2.3775 feet of the Southwesterly 203.6225 feet, which lies Northwesterly of a line parallel to and Northwesterly 60 feet from the Southeasterly line of said Lot 64.

PARCEL 2:

The West halfofthe South half of the South half of Lot 64 ofEI Carmel Tract, as per Map recorded In Book 7, Page 134, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

PARCEL 3:

The Northeasterly 203.63 feet of the Southwesterly 407.245 feet of the Southeasterly 60 feet of Lot 64, El Cannel Tract, as per Map recorded in Book 7, Pages 134 and 135, of Maps, in the· Office of the County Recorder of said County.

PARCEL 4:

The Northwesterly 100 feet of the Southeasterly 160 feet of the Northeasterly 206 feet of the Southerly balfofLot 64 of the El Carmel Tract, in the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia, as per Map recorded in Book 7, Page 134, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

PARCEL 5:

The Westerly 110 feet of the Easterly 270 feet of the Northerly 206 feet of the Southerly half of Lot 64 of the El Carmel Tract, in the City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 7, Page 134, of Maps, in the Office of the CoWlty Recorder of said County.

Site Name: SM248 Holifield Park RL
Business Unit#: 827967

Site Name: SM248 Holifield Park RL
Business Unit#: 827967
EXHIBIT"B"
[Site Piao)

Site Name: SM248 Holifield Park RL
Business Unit#: 827967
EXHIBIT "C-1"
[Description of Leased Premises)
[See attached]

827967
SM248 Holifield Park RL
LEASE AREA (PREPARED BY THIS OFFICE):

BEING A PORTION OF LAND DESCRlBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1963, AS GRANT DEED 5444, IN BOOK 52 PAGE 618 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY MOST CORNER THE PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED AUG.UST 20, 1963, AS GRANT DEED 5444, IN BOOK 52 PAGE 6 I 8 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBJECT PARCEL, N 63°48'55" W, A DISTANCE OF 274.71 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, N 26° 16'58" E, A DISTANCE 152.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNJNG:

COURSE 1) THENCE N26° l 6'58"E, A DISTANCE OF 11.00 FEET; COURSE 2) THENCE S63°43'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 7.65 FEET;
COURSE 3) THENCE S26°
16'58"W, A DISTANCE OF 11.00 FEET;
COURSE 4) THENCE N63°
43'02"W, A DISTANCE OF 7.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 84 SQUARE FEET (0.002 ACRES), MORE OR L.ESS.

APN: 6352-006-901
OWNER(S): MONTEBELLO CITY
DEED REFERENCE: DOC. NO.

Site Name: SM248 Holifield Park RL
Business Unit#: 827967
EXHJBIT "C-2"
I Description of Easements)
(See attached]

827967
SM248 Holifield Park RL
ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT (PREPARED BY THIS OFFICE):

A 20.00 FOOT STRJP OF LAND, OVER, ACCROSS AND THROUGH A PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1963, AS GRANT DEED 5444, IN BOOK 52 PAGE 618 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LYING

10.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWJNG DESCRIBED CENTERLINE:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY MOST CORNER THE PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1963, AS GRANT DEED 5444, IN BOOK 52 PAGE 618 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBJECT PARCEL, N 63°
48'55" W, A DISTANCE OF 303.91
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING:

COURSE l) THENCE N26° l I '05"E, A DISTANCE OF 155.40 FEET TO POINT 'A'; COURSE 2) THENCE CONTINUING N26°
1 I'0S"E, A DISTANCE OF 5.65 FEET TO POINT 'C' AND
THE TERMINUS OF THIS DESCRIPTION.

TOGETHER A 20.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND, OVER, ACCROSS AND THROUGH A PORTlON OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1963, AS GRANT DEED 5444, IN BOOK 52 PAGE 618 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LY ING I 0.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRJBED CENTERLINE:

BEGINNING AT THE HEREIN BEFORE DESCRJBED POINT 'A':

COURSE I) THENCE SI 8
°
38'26"W, A DISTANCE OF 19.27 FEET;
COURSE 2) THENCE S63°
43'02"E, A DrSTANCE OF 30.91 FEET TO POINT 'B' AND THE

TERMINUS OF THIS DESCRIPTION,
TOGETHER A 8.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND, OVER, ACCROSS AND THROUGH A PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1963, AS GRANT DEED 5444, IN BOOK 52 PAGE 618 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFIClAL RECORDS, ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA, LYING 4.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRJBED CENTERLINE:

BEGINNING AT THE HEREINBEFORE DESCRJBED POINT 'B':

COURSE I) THENCE N26° l 6'58"E, A DISTANCE OF 11.94 FEET; COURSE 2) THENCE S63°43'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 7.65 FEET;
COURSE 3) THENCE N26° I 6'58"E, A DISTANCE OF 19.00 FEET; COURSE 4) THENCE N63°43'02"W, A DISTANCE OF I I .65 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF THIS DESCRIPTION.

TOGETHER A 8.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND, OVER, ACCROSS AND THROUGH A PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1963, AS GRANT DEED 5444, IN BOOK 52 PAGE 618 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LYING 4.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE:

BEGINNING AT THE HEREIN BEFORE DESCRIBED POINT 'B':

COURSE 1) THENCE S26°
16'58"W, A DISTANCE OF 136.45 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF THJS DESCRIPTION.

TOGETHER A 12.00 FOOT STRJP OF LAND, OVER, ACCROSS AND THROUGH A PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1963, AS GRANT DEED 5444, IN BOOK 52 PAGE 618 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LYING 6.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWlNG DESCRrBED CENTERLINE:

BEGINNING AT THE HERElNBEFORE DESCRJBED POINT 'C':

COURSE 1) THENCE S63°
43'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 16.22 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF THIS DESCRIPTfON.

CONTAINING 5,303 SQUARE FEET (0.122 ACRES), MORE OR LESS.

APN: 6352-006-901
OWNER(S): MONTEBELLO CITY
DEED REFERENCE: DOC. NO.
. . 905
·1.�­
o���y_.,

Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO. 24-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING AN EASEMENT ON CITYOWNED LAND, CHET HOLIFIELD PARK WITHIN LOT 63 OF EL

CARMEL TRACT, TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
(SCE) FOR ELECTRICAL UTILITY PURPOSES

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Southern California Edison (“SCE”) has requested that the City of Montebello (“City”) grant an easement (Exhibit “A” & “B”) on City-owned property, Chet Holifield Park, located near the intersection of Greenwood Avenue and Frankel Avenue on Lot 63 of El Carmel Track per map recorded in book 7, pages 134 and 135 recorded in the office of Los Angeles County. The easement is for the construction, installation, use, maintenance, and operation of electrical and communication equipment to supply power to Dish Telecommunications equipment.

WHEREAS, Dish Telecommunications has leased space for its equipment with Crown Castle Communication. The City of Montebello has already a ground lease agreement with Castle Communication. Therefore, the easement with Edison is needed in order to provide electrical power to the Dish Communication equipment.

WHEREAS, the City of Montebello (‘City”) is the record owner of the real property, the Chet Holifield, located at Lot 63 of El Carmel Tract, located in the City as depicted in Exhibit “B”, each attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Easement Property”); and
WHEREAS, the City and Southern California Edison agree the easement is necessary to provide electric power services to the Dish Telecommunication equipment.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY. The City of Montebello finds that the grant of the easement is appropriate in order to protect the City’s right of access over the easement property while simultaneously allowing Southern California Edison to provide the necessary electric power services to Dish Telecommunications equipment.

SECTION 2. ADOPTION. The City of Montebello approves the grant Easement (Exhibit “A”), for the construction, installation, use, maintenance, and operation of electrical and communication equipment for the purpose of supplying electrical power to the Dish Telecommunication facilities on the easement property, in substantially the form submitted and attached hereto as Exhibit “A & B”.

SECTION 3. STATEMENTS. The City of Montebello finds that in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3), granting Southern California Edison the Easement for the construction, installation, use,