The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20151104 02 Status Rprt LA-RICS MonopoleCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS GABRIELLA YAP, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER~ NOVEMBER 4, 2015 STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED LA-RICS MONO- POLE AT UPPER POINT VICENTE REVIEWED BY: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER {;tlV\) Project Manager: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analys ~ RECOMMENDATION Receive and file a status report on the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communication System's (LA-RIGS') proposed monopole on the U.S. Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente; re-consider authorizing the Mayor to sign letters expressing the City's opposition to this proposed monopole; consider adopting Resolution No. 2015-_, thereby "opting out" of LA-RIGS prior to the November 24, 2015, deadline to do so; and consider allowing LA-RIGS to pursue construction of a new monopole on City (rather than Coast Guard) property. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this status update or authorizing the Mayor to sign letters opposing the proposed LA-RIGS LMR monopole at Upper Point Vicente. Opting out of LA -RIGS will have no immediate fiscal impact upon the City, but will reduce the City's financial obligation for its participation in the system at some point in the future. Based upon the current LA -RIGS funding plan, the City was expected to contribute a total of $93, 120 to LA-RI CS over the expected 18-year useful life of the system. Staff now estimates that this future obligation would total roughly $104,294 in order to "backfill" the lost revenue from other jurisdictions that have already left LA-RIGS (as of the date that this report was prepared). However, it is also likely that, as long as the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District continue to participate in the LA-RI CS, some portion of the cost of participation in the City will be passed through to the City and its residents through the 1 MEMORANDUM: Status Report on LA-RICS Monopole at Upper Point Vicente November 4, 2015 Page 2 annual Sheriff's contract and property tax assessments. Staff has been unable to ascertain what these pass-through costs might be. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 5th, the City Council agreed to delay sending letters opposing the proposed LA-RIGS monopole at Upper Point Vicente until the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released for public review and comment. However, the City Council also asked LA-RIGS and Staff to follow up on several outstanding issues with respect to the proposed LA-RIGS monopole and the existing City Hall monopole. This report is provided to update the City Council on the status of these outstanding issues. In addition, Mayor Knight has asked that the City Council reconsider its decision to delay taking a formal position opposing the proposed monopole. Finally, with the LA-RIGS "opt out" deadline approaching on November 24, 2015, Staff has prepared a resolution for the City Council's consideration and possible adoption at tonight's meeting. BACKGROUND The City Council last considered taking a formal position in opposition in the proposed LA-RIGS monopole on the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente at the meeting of May 5, 2015. However, at that meeting, the City Council decided to delay taking a formal position regarding the proposed monopole until the DEIR being prepared for the voice (i.e., LMR) component of the LA-RIGS system was released for public review and comment (Staff's recommended Alternative No. 2). Based upon City Council discussion at the May 5th meeting, the City Council also asked LA-RIGS and Staff to follow-up regrading several related issues. Responses regarding the status of these outstanding issues are provided in tonight's report. Mayor Knight remains concerned about LA-RIGS' proposal for a new monopole on the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. As such, he has asked that the City Council reconsider its action of May 5th, and direct Staff to complete and distribute letters opposing this proposal to the Coast Guard and other agencies with jurisdiction over the property. On August 19, 2014, Staff presented the City Council with the opportunity to consider "opting out" of LA-RIGS. At the time, the "opt out" deadline was November 24, 2014, but in late correspondence presented to the City Council at that meeting, LA-RIGS indicated that the deadline would be extended for an additional year to November 24, 2015. Therefore, the City Council deferred taking any action on its continued participation in LA-RIGS until nearer to the end of the opt-out period. 2 MEMORANDUM: Status Report on LA-RICS Monopole at Upper Point Vicente November 4, 2015 Page 3 This matter was previously agendized for the City Council's review on July 21, 2015, but was continued to tonight's meeting without discussion. On September 9, 2015, Staff met with LA-RIGS representatives to receive an update on the status of the project. LA-RI CS reported that its countywide L TE (i.e., mobile broadband) network would be completed by September 30, 2015, but there are no longer any L TE sites in the City. With respect to the LMR system, LA-RIGS still expected the draft EIR to be released by the end of the year. LA-RIGS is engaged in a parallel environmental review process under NEPA for the LMR system, which includes the proposed antenna structure on the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. Staff submitted comments to FEMA in this regard on September 10, 2015. Finally, LA-RI CS is now suggesting that it may be interested in replacing the City's existing commercial monopole with a new antenna structure on City property that would support antennae for LA-RIGS and the monopole's current commercial carriers (rather than constructing a second antenna structure on the Coast Guard property solely for LA-RIGS). This proposal raises a number of issues that need to be further researched, including the execution of a site license agreement between the City and LA-RIGS. DISCUSSION Update on Outstanding Issues As reflected in the Minutes of the May 5th City Council meeting (see attachments), there were several outstanding issues for which the City Council requested additional information from Staff and/or LA-RIGS. Responses regarding these issues are provided below. Release of the DEIR for the LA-RIGS LMR System: LA-RIGS expected the DEIR to be ready for public review this summer, with the Final EIR concluded in the fall-winter of 2015 (depending upon the comments received and other factors) for certification by the LA- RICS Board. As of the date that this report was prepared, the DEIR had not yet been released. Co-Location of LA-RIGS Antennae on Existing City Hall Monopole: LA-RIGS has not engaged in further exploration of co-location on the existing City Hall monopole, but has expressed interest in the possibility of constructing a new monopole on City (rather than Coast Guard) property that could accommodate LA-RIGS and the existing commercial carriers. LA-RIGS has indicated that it would prefer this arrangement to co-locating on the existing, privately-owned monopole. The exact location of a new monopole has not been determined yet, although LA-RIGS has suggested either the current monopole location or the site of the City's emergency communications antenna tower near the 3 MEMORANDUM: Status Report on LA-RICS Monopole at Upper Point Vicente November 4, 2015 Page 4 RPVtv studio. At any location, it is a virtual certainty that a new monopole would need to be taller than the current 80-foot monopole in order to accommodate both LA-RIGS and all of the existing commercial carriers. LA-RIGS continues to assert that the proposed installation would serve as the primary communications site for the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and LA-RIGS wants to ensure it is maintained and available in case of emergencies. To allow a new monopole to be constructed on City property, the City Council would need to approve a site license agreement with LA-RIGS. Furthermore, Staff believes that the joint installation of non-commercial (i.e., LA-RIGS) and commercial antennae on a new, City Hall monopole would also require the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) by the Planning Commission, which LA-RI CS has very much sought to avoid. If a new monopole is erected the existing Coast Guard antennae would presumably remain in their current location and condition at Upper Point Vicente. Removal of Second Coast Guard Tower: LA-RIGS had begun consultation with its Federal land-owning partners, and indicated that they would certainly raise this issue with the Coast Guard when they present the site plan. LA-RIGS states that it is their intent to make the installation as aesthetically-pleasing to the community as possible, and that would include (with the permission of the Coast Guard) the removal of the two existing wooden antenna poles that are unable to support additional equipment. However, if placement of the new monopole on Coast Guard property is abandoned, the issue of removing the second tower is probably moot. FAA Lighting Requirement for New Monopole: LA-RIGS has run the proposed monopole's geographic coordinates through the FAA's TOWAIR landing slope facility cal cu la tor (http ://wi reless2 .fee. gov /U lsApp/ AsrSearch/towai rSearch. jsp) and the resu Its showed that tower lighting would not be required. However, it is still possible that the FAA may require tower lighting. The site location and design needs to be finalized by LA-RIGS and submitted prior to any formal confirmation from the FAA regarding lighting or other safety markings. Provide Copies of Monopole Leases to Citv Council: Staff transmitted copies of the current agreements with Verizon, AT&T and Southern California Edison (SCE) to the City Council via e-mail on May 6, 2015. Status of Lease Negotiations for the City Hall Monopole: The lease agreements with Verizon, AT&T and SCE all expired on June 30, 2014. Based upon previous Staff discussions with the City Council's Civic Center Master Plan Subcommittee (Mayor Knight and Councilmember Duhovic), Staff has been pursuing a short-term extension of these existing leases (i.e., 1-2 years) to allow time for Staff and the monopole owner (Verizon, represented by American Tower Corporation) to explore options to improve the aesthetics of the monopole before committing to new, long-term lease agreements (i.e., 20 years). 4 MEMORANDUM: Status Report on LA-RICS Monopole at Upper Point Vicente November 4, 2015 Page 5 Staff is presenting these short-term lease extensions to the City Council for approval as a separate matter on tonight's agenda. Draft Opposition Letter to Upper Point Vicente Monopole Staff does not believe that the additional information provided by LA-RIGS regarding the installation on Coast Guard property alleviates the City's concerns about the project's impacts upon aesthetics and visual character, biological resources or historic resources. Mayor Knight has suggested that the City Council should reconsider its May 5, 2015, decision to delay expressing the City's formal opposition to this proposal. The attached draft opposition letter to the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other interested agencies and persons remains the same as previously presented to the City Council at the May 5th meeting. However, as mentioned above, if placement of the new monopole on Coast Guard property is abandoned, the point in formally opposing it is probably rendered moot. Consider Opting Out of LA-RIGS As reflected in the Minutes and Staff report of the August 19, 2014 meeting (see attachments), the City Council deferred taking action on the City's continued participation in LA-RIGS. The deadline by which the City Council may choose to "opt out" of participation in LA-RIGS is now November 24, 2015. During a meeting with City Staff on March 11, 2015, LA-RIGS Staff noted that the LA-RIGS Board would be considering another alternative for the funding plan for the system, this one to be based upon the number of "subscribers" (i.e., data units and radios) used in and/or by each participating jurisdiction rather than the population and geographic area of participating jurisdictions. The adoption of a revised funding plan may (or may not) result in a further extension of the "opt out" period. As of the date that this report was completed, Staff is not aware of any revised funding plan that has been presented to the LA-RIGS Board. In addition, information available on the LA-RIGS website indicates that nearly twelve percent (12%) of the expected local agency funding for the LA-RI CS system has been lost due to the "defection" of other jurisdictions from LA-RIGS, with the remaining participating jurisdictions expected to make up the shortfall. Staff believes that the true cost of the City's continued participation in LA-RI CS is even less clear now than it was when the City Council last considered opting out in August 2014. The current funding plan assumes that the City's contribution would be at least $93, 120 over the 18-year useful life of the LA-RIGS system, an amount that is expected to increase. Staff had expected to return to the City Council with a further update on the status of the LA-RIGS funding plan and consideration of opting out of LA-RIGS sometime just before 5 MEMORANDUM: Status Report on LA-RICS Monopole at Upper Point Vicente November 4, 2015 Page 6 the November 24th deadline. Given that there is only one more regularly-scheduled City Council meeting before this deadline (i.e., November 17, 2015), Staff has prepared a resolution "opting out" of LA-RICS for the City Council's consideration and possible adoption at tonight's meeting. This is essentially the same resolution that Staff previously presented to the City Council on August 19, 2014. Consider Authorizing New LA-RICS Monopole on City Property LA-RICS would like to know as soon as possible if the City is interested in replacing the current monopole, as described above. At this point, Staff has no assurance about the actual height or appearance of such a monopole. The City Attorney would need to review any site license agreement to be executed by LA-RI CS and the City for the installation of a new monopole. In addition, Staff believes that such an installation would require the approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission, which would be appealable to the City Council. As a reminder, both the existing monopole and the existing emergency communications antenna tower on City property were subject to CUP approvals, and both were ultimately approved only after being appealed to the City Council. Furthermore, committing to a major new permanent structure on the civic center campus in the absence of an approved master plan for the site may create complications and unintended consequences for the future, orderly redevelopment of the site. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On July 6, 2015, Staff originally sent a courtesy notice to the homeowners' associations for the Oceanfront Estates, Villa Capri, La Cresta Pointe and Sunset Ridge neighborhoods, advising them of the City Council's consideration of this matter at tonight's meeting. These four (4) neighborhoods surround and/or overlook Upper Point Vicente. A follow-up notice for tonight's meeting was sent to these same homeowners' associations on October 1, 20151, and October 14, 2015. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this status report; re-consider authorizing the Mayor to sign letters expressing the City's opposition to this proposed LA-RICS monopole at Upper Point Vicente; consider adopting the draft resolution to "opt out" of LA-RICS; and consider allowing LA-RICS to pursue construction of a new monopole on City (rather than Coast Guard) property. 1 Staff had previously planned to present this report to the City Council on October 20, 2015, but it was rescheduled for tonight's meeting. 6 MEMORANDUM: Status Report on LA-RICS Monopole at Upper Point Vicente November 4, 2015 Page 7 ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions (or some combination thereof) are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign opposition letters regarding the proposed LA- RICS monopole on the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. 2. Defer taking a formal position on the proposed LA-RIGS monopole until the Draft EIR for the LA-RI CS LMR system is released for public review and comment. 3. Do not "opt out" of LA-RIGS or defer taking such action until November 17, 2015. 4. Do not authorize LA-RIGS to pursue the construction of a new monopole on City property. Attachments: • July 1st e-mail response from LA-RI CS (page 8) • Draft opposition letter regarding proposed LA-RIGS monopole at Upper Point Vicente (page 12) • Draft Resolution No. 2015-_ (page 14) • May 5th City Council Minutes (excerpt) and Staff report (page 17) • August 19th City Council Minutes (excerpt) and Staff report (page 47) M:\Municipal Services\Emergency Communications\LA-RICS\20151104_LA-RICSMonopoleStatusReport_ StaffRpt.docx 7 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Kit, Odenthal. Chrjs Kit Fox Fritz Rote ; "Pat Mallon" CPat.Mallon@LA·RICS .ORG ): Wendy Stallworth-Tait Cwendy.stallworth ·tajt@la·rjcs.ora): Carolynn Petru ; Doug WWmore RE : Follow-up RE: LA ·RICS at Upper Point Vicente Wednesday, July 01, 2015 2:49:24 PM W e have provided answers below in red. The answers provided are the most updated information we have and in order to provide definitive answers we would need to progress to the next stage of design and deve lopment (tower design, full site layout, etc.). If you need us to be present at an additiona l meet ing we wou ld be happy to attend (hopefully not one where the budget is being discussed). Please let us kno w if you have any further questions. Thanks Kit, Chris Chris Odenthal Assistant Program Manager LA-RI CS Project Team 2525 Corporate Place, Suite 100 Monterey Park, CA 91754 323.881.8282 office 760.717.3400 cel l Chris.Odenthal@jacobs.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mai l transmiss ion may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individua l or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended rec ipient, you are hereby notified that any disc losure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. This E-ma il is covered by the Electronic Communications Pr ivacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 -2521 and is legally protected. From: Kit Fox [mailto:KitF@rpvca.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:11 PM To: Odenthal, Chris Cc: Fritz Rote; 'Pat Mallon' (Pat.Mallon@LA-RICS.ORG); Wendy Stallworth-Tait (wendy.stallworth-tait@la- rics.org); Carolynn Petru; Doug Willmore Subject: Follow-up RE: LA-RICS at Upper Point Vicente Importance: High Hi Chris : The City Council has been inquiring about the status of several issues that were discussed at the May th 8 5 City Counci l meeting. An excerpt from the M i nutes of the meet ing is attached, w ith the fina l approved mot ion highlig hted . You may also rev iew the video of the May 5t h d iscuss ion at the fol lowing l ink: http://rpv.g ranicus.com/Med iaPlaye r .php?view id=S&c li p id=1429&meta id =4730 Specifica l ly, we're looking for updates on the status of the fo ll owing issues: • When is the Draft EIR for the LMR system expected to be re leased for pub li c review and comment? We anticipat e the Draft EIR to be r eady for public review later this summer with the Final EIR concluded in the fall-wint er of 2015 (depends on comments received , etc .). • Has LA -RICS i nves t igated the feasib i l ity of co-locat ion on t he City's existi ng monopo le? The Authority has not engaged further regarding this tower. The ability to utilize a commercial tower is possible but the Author ity prefers its plann ed in stallation because it would control the site design (ensu ri ng it is publi c safety grade both for power and structural), would not require the payment of ren t , and would be able to cont r ol wha t equ i pment wou ld be located on the tower. The installation serves as the primary communications site for Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula and we want to ensure it is maintained and available in case of emergenci es. If the City would like us to further investigate this please provide us the lease terms the City has negotiated and the contact for the tower owner. We are not collocating any equipment on commercial towers for any other instal lation in the network (7 1 total sites). • Has LA-R I CS been able to confirm that the second, unused Coast Guard tower wou ld be removed if the existing tower was rep laced w ith a new monopo le? The Authority has begun consultation with its federal land -owning partners. We will certainly raise this issue with the Coast Guard when we present the site plan. It is the Authority's intent to make the installation as aesthetically pleasing to the community as possible, and that would include (with the permission of the US Coast Guard) the removal of the two unsightly monopoles that have broken guy wires and are unable to support additional equipment. • Has LA-RI CS bee n ab le to confirm whet her or not the FAA wou ld requ i re a proposed new monopole to be lighted? The Authority has run the monopole location of 33° 44' 41.788" N, 118° 24' 24.998" W through TOWAIR (which is what would trigger lighting for airplane consideration) and the results showed that tower lighting would not be required. It is still possible that the FAA may require tower lighting but based on our initial efforts, none is required. The site location and design needs to be finalized and submitted prior to any formal confirmation from the FAA regarding lighting. W e wou ld like to prov ide an update to t he City Counci l at its upcoming Ju ly ih meeting, so we'd appreciate responses to t hese questions by ear ly ne xt week. Than ks ! 9 Kit Fox, AICP CitlJ of Rancho Palos Verdes (310)544 -52'26 kitf@wvca .s av WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS, PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM KITF@RPV.COM TO KITF@RPVCA.GOV. From: Odenthal, Chris [ma il to :Chr is.Odentha l @jacobs.com ] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:15 PM To : Kit Fox Cc: Fritz Rote; Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: LA-RICS at Upper Point Vicente Thanks Kit... .. see you tonight. I believe we'll have representatives from the Sheriff's Department, Pat Mallon, and a representative from ISD as well. Thanks, Chris Chris Odenthal Assistant Program Manager LA-RI CS Project Team 2525 Corporate Place, Suite 100 Monterey Park, CA 91754 323 .881.8282 office 760 .717 .3400 ce l l Chris.Odenthal@jacobs.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the indivi dua l or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited . This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is le gally protected. From: Kit Fox [ma il to:KitF@rpvca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 2:53 PM To: Odenthal, Chris Cc: Fritz Rote; Carolynn Petru Subject: LA-RICS at Upper Point Vicente 10 Hi Chris: I just wanted to let you know that we'll have the PDF slides that Fritz forwarded last week (attached) available for you to refer to at tonight's City Council meeting. Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analyst City Mana5er's 0£fice City 0£ Rancho Palos Ver des 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T: (310) 544-5226 F: (310)544-5291 WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS, PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM KITF@RPV.COM TO KITF@RPVCA.GOV . NOTICE -Th is comm u nication may co nta in confident ial and privileged i nformatio n that is for the sole use of t he intended rec i p ie nt. Any v iew in g, copy i ng or distri butio n of, or re li a nce on this m essage by unintended r ec i p ients is strict ly pro h ibited. If you have rece ived this message in error, p lease notify us immed iate ly by reply i ng to th e message a nd de leti ng it from your computer . NOTICE -Th is commu ni cation may conta in confident ia l and privi leged information that is for the sol e use of the i ntended rec i p ient. A ny view in g, copy in g or distri bution of, or re li ance on this message by unintended recipients is strict ly prohibited . If yo u have rece ived this message in error, please notify us immed iate ly by reply i ng to the message a nd de letin g it from your computer. 11 November 4, 2015 [addressee] [agency] [street address] [city, state & ZIP] SUBJECT: Opposition to Proposed LA-RICS Monopole on U.S. Coast Guard Property at Upper Point Vicente in Rancho Palos Verdes Dear [addressee]: As you may (or may not) be aware, the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RIGS) authority is proposing to install a 70-to 180-foot-tall antenna structure (monopole or lattice tower) on U.S. Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The 4.50-acre Coast Guard property is surrounded by the City's Point Vicente Park/Civic Center property at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. On behalf of the City Council and residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, I write to express our deep concerns about LA-RI CS' selection of this location for the installation of an antenna tower, in hopes that you may be able to assist the City in eliminating it from further consideration. Our specific objections include: • The proposed location for this antenna tower is a visually-prominent site surrounded by the City's civic center and a portion of its nature preserve. There are also residential neighborhoods surrounding this site where ocean views would be degraded by the addition of an antenna structure and related support equipment. The addition of an antenna structure and related support equipment is also likely to degrade the character of the open space areas surrounding this site. The City believes that the construction and operation of the proposed antenna tower is likely to have significant adverse impacts upon scenic vistas and the visual character of the site and its surroundings. • As mentioned above, the proposed location for this antenna tower would be surrounded by the Alta Vicente Reserve of the City's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. The nature reserve property is enrolled as a part of the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The City believes that construction and operation of the proposed antenna tower is likely to have significant adverse impacts upon sensitive species and habitat, and that it may conflict with our NCCP. 12 • The proposed antenna location would be on the site of an existing World War 11- era bunker and the remains of gun batteries at Point Vicente. The bunker and batteries are associated with Fort MacArthur in San Pedro. Furthermore, the surrounding civic center property is a former, Cold War-era Nike missile base, which includes the intact missile silos. Finally, the site would be located within a %-mile radius of the Point Vicente Lighthouse, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The City believes that the construction and operation of the proposed antenna tower is likely to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource, either on the project site or nearby. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes expects to continue to participate in the CEQA review process for this proposed antenna site, including the submittal of comments on the Draft EIR once it is released. We hopeful that LA-RICS will not attempt to circumvent the CEQA process for this proposed location by seeking to apply the special, temporary CEQA exemption granted to LA-RICS by the State legislature in 2012. It is clear to the City that there are numerous "unusual circumstances" that apply to this site that would make the application of a categorical exemption from CEQA completely indefensible. I trust that that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes may rely upon your support to ensure that LA-RICS' proposal for an antenna tower at Upper Point Vicente is never brought to fruition. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to Senior Administrative Analyst Kit Fox in the City Manager's Office at (310) 544-5226 or via e-mail at kitf@rpvca.gov. Sincerely, Jim Knight Mayor cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Doug Willmore, City Manager Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst Pat Mallon, Executive Director, LA-RICS Wendy Stallworth-Tait, Executive Assistant, LA-RICS M:\Municipal Services\Emergency Communications\LA-RICS\20151104_LA-RICS_UPVOppositionLetter.docx 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, EXERCISING THE CITY'S AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 5.01 OF THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (LA-RICS) JOINT POWERS AGREE- MENT; RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2009-20 AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED ON MARCH 17, 2009; AND "OPTING OUT" OF CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN LA-RICS WHEREAS, on March 17, 2009, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2009-20, executing a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and authorizing the City's membership and participation in the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) Authority; and, WHEREAS, Article V of the LA-RICS JPA specifies that the LA-RICS Board of Directors (Board) shall develop and approve a funding plan, and Section 5.01 of the LA-RICS JPA further specifies that participating jurisdictions shall be provided with a period of at least thirty-five (35) days after the approval of a funding plan by the Board "opt out" of further participation in LA-RICS with no cost to the participating jurisdictions; and, WHEREAS, from late 2013 though early 2014, the City participated in good faith in a series of stakeholder workshops with other participating jurisdictions in order to develop mutually-acceptable criteria for the allocation of project costs for the LA-RICS project; and, WHEREAS, on March 6, 2014, the Board released a draft funding plan with a cost- allocation formula that substantially differed from the recommendations of the stakeholder group; and increased the City's direct financial contribution to LA-RICS, initially from $0/year to $2, 11 O/year starting in FY2015-16, and eventually increasing to $4,349/year starting in FY2014-15; and, WHEREAS, on May 28, 2014, the Board approved the LA-RICS Funding Plan (Plan) and, in so doing, provided a 180-day "opt out" period for participating jurisdictions, which will period will end on November, 24, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on July 17, 2014, the Rancho Palos Verdes Emergency Preparedness Committee (EPC) reviewed the Plan and adopted a unanimous motion recommending to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council that it "opt out" of continued participation LA-RICS; and, WHEREAS, on August 21, 2014, the Board extended the "opt out" period for participating jurisdictions for an additional year to November 24, 2015; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2015, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes considered the recommendations of the EPC and Staff to "opt out" of continued participation in LA-RICS at a regular City Council meeting. 14 NOW BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes finds that the LA-RIGS Funding Plan provides insufficient information regarding the total, long-term cost of the City's participation in LA-RI CS. Even after the release of the approved Plan in May 2014, the direct annual cost to Rancho Palos Verdes has continued to increase as a result of both continuing changes to the cash-flow assumptions and the withdrawals of other participating jurisdictions. As recently as August 7, 2014, the LA-RIGS Board proposed to burden participating jurisdictions with an additional $1,000,000 obligation for administrative positions that are not covered by the Federal grant funds that are underwriting much of the LA-RI CS project. In addition, the County has been as yet unable to provide estimated of how much of the cost of the L TE and LMR components of LA- RI CS will be passed through to the City. Section 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is skeptical of the purported benefits and performance of the LA-RIGS system. The Rancho Palos Verdes Emergency Preparedness Committee advises that there are other proven and less-expensive options for interoperable emergency communications that the City might consider, rather than continued participation in LA-RIGS. Section 3: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby rescinds Resolution No. 2009-20 and exercises its option to withdraw from further participation in LA-RIGS pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.01 of Article V of the LA-RIGS Joint Powers Agreement. Said action is taken within the 180-day "opt out" period initially specified by the LA-RIGS Board in its approval of the Plan on May 28, 2014, and as subsequently extended by the LA-RIGS Board for an additional year on August 21, 2014. Section 4: Notwithstanding the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' withdrawal from LA-RI CS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes expects to continue to work with LA-RIGS in a cooperative and expeditious manner regarding the review and possible installation of LA-RIGS' antennae on other properties in the City, including but not necessarily limited to the following: A. The installation of antennae on either Coast Guard-or City-owned property at Upper Point Vicente, located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard; B. The installation of antennae on Federal Aviation Administration-owned property at the top of San Pedro Hill, located at 3860 Crest Road East; C. The installation of antennae at the existing County-owned "antenna farm," located at 5741 Crestridge Road; and, D. Preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Resolution No. 2015- Page 2 of 3 15 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS _th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2015-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November_, 2015. City Clerk M:\Municipal Services\Emergency Communications\LA-RICS\20151104_Reso_CC.docx Resolution No. 2015- Page 3 of 3 16 $6 FOR 30 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS, AND $12 FOR MORE THAN 2 HOURS, NO CHARGE FOR SENIOR AND DISABLED VISITORS, AND APPROVING THE USE OF AN AUTOMATED PARKING PAY MACHINE. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brooks, Duhovic, Misetich, and Mayor Knight Campbell None REORDER OF THE AGENDA: Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff regarding the reordering of the remaining items on the agenda for consideration. Mayor Pro Tern Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to reorder the agenda to consider only the Budget Menu Exercise on May 19, 2015; with Item 4 (Letters in Opposition to Proposed LA-RICS Monopole at Upper Point Vicente), Item 5 (City Water Conservation Proposals), and Item 6 (Agreement with Prosum for Information Technology Services) to be considered at this time. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Misetich, and Mayor Knight None ABSENT: None REGULAR BUSINESS: Appointments to the Emergency Preparedness Committee This item was continued to the May 19, 2015 City Council Meeting. Letters in Opposition to Proposed LA-RICS Monopole at Upper Point Vicente City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were four requests to speak regarding this item. Senior Administrative Analyst Fox provided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation regarding this item. Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff. Councilman Duhovic moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to consider new business after the 10:15 P.M. City Council Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 11of15 17 Without objection, Mayor Knight so ordered. Patrick Mallon, Executive Director, LA-RICS Project, stated that after September 11, 2001 tragic event in New York, due to the inability of public safety to respond to the event there was a national effort to install an interoperable communications system to ensure communications. He reported that in 2009 the Los Angeles Joint Powers Authority formed the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA- RICS) to create a land mobile radio (LMR) system and data system, noting that in 2012 legislation was passed that required the auction of UHF T-ban radio frequencies, which means those public safety radio frequencies will be gone in 2021. He stated that there needs to be a 700 megahertz emergency radio system in place by 2021 and in order to do that there has to be an additional emergency transmitter monopole at the Upper Point Vicente site. Tomme Massey, Assistant Fire Chief, Los Angeles County Fire, stated that there is a necessity to secure sites for the LA-RICS monopoles in order to continue emergency communications on the Peninsula between public safety portable radios, fire engines, and with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. Judy Anderson, Commander for Communications and Fleet Management Bureau, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, stated that as required by Federal government it will be necessary to have monopoles at several locations, including Upper Point Vicente, to provide communication between emergency responders in the event of an emergency. She stated that LA-RICS is doing the best they can to address aesthetic issues of the monopoles. Captain Blaine Bolin, Lomita Station, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, echoed the comments of the others, noting the importance of the ability to have voice communication between emergency first responders, including the Fire Department, Sheriffs Department and the ambulance companies by 2021. Discussion ensued among Council Members and Chris Odenthal, LA-RICS, Assistant Program Manager, Jacobs Engineering, regarding the proposed monopole, generator, and the aesthetics of the proposed monopole. Councilman Duhovic moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to defer taking a formal position on the proposed LA-RICS monopole until the Draft Environmental Impact (EIR) Report for the LA-RICS LMR system is released for public review and comment. At 10:35 P.M., Councilman Duhovic left the meeting and returned at 10:37 P.M. Mayor Knight offered an amendment to the motion to consider the possible co-location of the LA-RI CS monopole on the existing monopole at City Hall. City Council Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 12of15 18 Councilman Duhovic offered an amendment to the motion to request the LA-RICS staff inquire and return to the Council with an answer regarding the removal of the second U.S. Coast Guard pole at Upper Pt. Vicente and the possibility of the Federal Aviation Administration requiring lighting on the monopole. Councilman Campbell requested that staff provide the Council with a copy of the existing monopole agreement at City Hall and an update on the monopole lease negotiations. The maker and seconder of the motion accepted the friendly amendments to the motion. Councilman Duhovic moved the motion, as amended, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to defer taking a formal position on the proposed LA-RICS monopole until the Draft EIR for the LA-RICS LMR system is released for public review and comment; consider the possible co-location of the LA-RICS monopole on the existing monopole at City Hall; request the LA-RICS staff inquire and return to the Council with an answer regarding the removal of the second U.S. Coast Guard pole at Upper Pt. Vicente and the possibility of the Federal Aviation Administration requiring lighting on the monopole; and direct staff to provide the Council with a copy of the existing monopole agreement at City Hall and an update on the monopole lease negotiations. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Misetich, and Mayor Knight None None Agreement with Prosum for Information Technology Services (Supports 2014 City Council Goal -Government Efficiency, Accountability, Fiscal Control, Transparency, and Oversight) Councilman Duhovic moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Brooks, to waive the staff report and approve the staff recommendation to: 1) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign an agreement with Prosum, Inc. for IT Services for four (4) years with a maximum cost of $808,572 consisting of $172,380 per year for base services, a ten (10) percent contingency for possible additional services and a one-time charge of $50, 100 for transitional services. In addition, the agreement includes two (2) optional one (1) year contract extensions with a maximum amount of $189,618 each year consisting of $172,380 for base services plus a ten (10) percent contingency for additional services charges. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Misetich, and Mayor Knight None City Council Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 13of15 19 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAROLYNN PETRU, AICP, DEPUTY CITY MANAGE ~ DATE: MAY 5, 2015 SUBJECT: LETTERS IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED LA-RICS MONOPOLE AT UPPER POINT VICENTE REVIEWED BY: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER ~ Project Manager: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Consider authorizing the Mayor to sign letters to the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other interested agencies and persons, expressing the City's opposition to the proposed monopole for the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communication System (LA-RICS) project on the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council continued its deliberations in this matter on April 7, 2015, to get additional details about the LA-RICS proposal at Upper Point Vicente, and to reach out to surrounding neighborhoods. LA-RI CS' consultants have met with Staff to discuss the specifics of the proposal, and Staff has sent courtesy notification to surrounding homeowners' associations. Therefore, Staff presents this matter for further City Council consideration and direction. BACKGROUND I The City Council previously considered taking a formal position in opposition in the proposed LA-RICS monopole on the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente at the meeting of April 7, 2015. This monopole would be part of the voice (i.e., LMR) component of the LA-RI CS system. However, in late correspondence present to the City Council that evening, LA-RICS asked for the matter to be continued, and provided some additional 20 MEMORANDUM: Opposition Letters for LA-RICS Monopole May 5, 2015 Page 2 information about the proposal. The City Council directed Staff to work with LA-RIGS to "flesh out" the details for its proposal at Upper Point Vicente, and to reach out to homeowners' associations in surrounding neighborhoods to advise them of this proposal. On April 22, 2015, LA-RIGS' consultants met with Staff at the site. Staff was provided with general, verbal descriptions of the scope of the proposed LMR project, and was subsequently provided with the attached document which includes a preliminary project plan. On April 23, 2015, Staff sent a courtesy notice to the homeowners' associations for the Oceanfront Estates, Villa Capri, La Cresta Pointe and Sunset Ridge neighborhoods, advising them of the City Council's consideration of this matter at tonight's meeting. These four (4) neighborhoods surround and/or overlook Upper Point Vicente. DISCUSSION Project Description The April 7th letter from LA-RIGS indicated that the damaged "40 foot guyed tower" would be "replaced" with a "modern steel tower." The letter also indicated that "there are two other towers that can be removed from service if this new tower is installed." At the time, it was not clear what the height of the replacement tower would be, nor was it clear where the additional towers to be removed were located. Therefore, on April 15, 2015, Staff invited LA-RIGS and/or its consultants to meet at the site to clarify the scope of the proposed project. This site meeting was held on April 22, 2015.1 Attached to tonight's Staff report is a presentation received from LA-RJCS on April 28, 2015 entitled "Land Mobile Radio System -Point Vicente Tower Site." The site meeting and the attached presentation clarifies that there are two existing wooden towers on the property (identified as Pole 1 and Pole 2). Based on the site meeting and the attached presentation, the proposed LMR project would include the following components: • Replacement of the eighty foot (80') tall guyed wooden pole (Pole 1) with existing Coast Guard and County antennas with a new seventy foot (70') tall steel monopole, of an unspecified diameter (probably at least eighteen inches (18") across) • Installation of a fifteen foot (15') tall lightening rod on top of the new monopole, for an overall maximum structure height of eighty five (85') feet 1 During the April 22nd site visit, it was noted that the existing antennae on the Coast Guard property are non-functional since the coaxial cables connecting them to the equipment inside the bunker have been severed. Based upon photographs taken by Staff in September 2014, it appears that these antennae have not been functional for at least the past eight (8) months, and possibly for much longer. 21 MEMORANDUM: Opposition Letters for LA-RICS Monopole May 5, 2015 Page 3 • Installation of a total of three (3) parabolic dishes on the new monopole. One dish (2' in diameter) installed at a height of twenty five feet (25') and two dishes (2' and 4' in diameter, respectively) installed at fifty five feet (55') above the ground. • Installation of a total of three (3) omnidirectional whip antennae on the new monopole. One (1) whip antenna installed at thirty feet (30') in height and two (2) whip antennae installed at sixty feet (60') above the ground. • Installation of antenna equipment and back-up generator, ideally inside of the existing bunker • Connection of antennae to equipment via coaxial cable, ideally in an underground trench • Installation of security fencing around new monopole • Removal of the guyed wooden pole with no existing antennae (Pole 2) While some of the project parameters are generally known (as listed above), a number of factors remain unknown, subject to additional technical analysis and coordination with the Coast Guard. These include, but are not necessarily limited to: • Will the Coast Guard and/or the County want to include their existing, non- functional antennae on the new monopole? • Will the Coast Guard permit the removal of the second guyed pole from their property? • Is it technically feasible to install the antenna equipment and/or back-up generator in the existing bunker? • Will the new monopole require lights and/or markings in order to comply with FAA regulations? • To what extent will sensitive biological and historical resources on the Coast Guard property be affected by the construction and operation of the new monopole? Neighborhood Outreach Four (4) homeowners' associations (HOAs) surrounding Upper Point Vicente have been notified of the City Council's consideration of this matter. These HOAs were similarly notified by Staff in September 2014 about the preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the LA-RICS project. The Oceanfront Estates HOA acknowledged receiving the previous notice regarding the proposed monopole at Upper Point Vicente. Since the second notice was mailed on April 23, 2015, the La Cresta Pointe HOA has submitted the attached email strongly objecting to the proposed project. Any further communications received after the preparation of this staff report will be provide to the City Council through later correspondence. 22 MEMORANDUM: Opposition Letters for LA-RICS Monopole May 5, 2015 Page4 Draft Opposition Letter Staff appreciates the additional project details that LA-RIGS has been able to provide up to this point. However, Staff does not believe that this additional detail alleviates the City's concerns about the project's impacts upon aesthetics and visual character, biological resources or historic resources. Therefore, the attached draft opposition letter to the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other interested agencies and persons, remains the same as previously presented to the City Council at the April 7th meeting. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LA-RI CS L TE System Changes On April 14, 2015, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a scaled-down proposal for the wireless broadband (i.e., L TE) component of the LA-RIGS system (see attached Board letter). The reduced project has eliminated L TE sites previously proposed at County Fire Station No. 83 in Miraleste Plaza and the County antenna farm on Crestridge Road, as well as at other County fire stations on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. However, these changes do not affect the proposed LMR sites that are being proposed at several locations, including the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. Status of Draft EIR for LA-RIGS LMR System In September 2014, Staff submitted comments on the scope of the draft EIR being prepared for the LMR component of the LA-RIGS system. Staff's scoping comments largely mirrored the issues that are raised in the draft opposition letter presented for the City Council's consideration at tonight's meeting. Staff has been advised that the draft EIR might be released for public review and comment in the near future. At that time, the City would have the opportunity to respond to LA-RI CS' assessment of the environmental impacts of the LMR system, both at Upper Point Vicente and at two (2) other proposed locations in the City. If the Draft EIR is release soon, the City Council may wish to hold off taking a formal position regarding the Upper Point Vicente site (and other sites) until after Staff has had the opportunity to thoroughly review the Draft EIR. However, if the Draft EIR is not released soon, there is probably no benefit in waiting to make the City Council's concerns about the LMR monopole at Upper Point Vicente known. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Staff recommends that the City Council consider authorizing the Mayor to sign letters to the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other interested 23 MEMORANDUM: Opposition Letters for LA-RICS Monopole May 5, 2015 Page 5 agencies and persons, expressing the City's opposition to the proposed LA-RICS monopole on the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign opposition letters regarding the proposed LA- RICS monopole on the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. 2. Defer taking a formal position on the proposed LA-RICS monopole until the Draft EIR for the LA-RICS LMR system is released for public review and comment. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with authorizing the Mayor to sign letters opposing the proposed LMR monopole at Upper Point Vicente. During Staff's meeting with LA- RICS on March 11, 2015, it was noted that the LA-RICS Board would be considering another alternative for the funding plan for the system, this one to be based upon the number of "subscribers" (i.e., data units and radios) used in and/or by each participating jurisdiction rather than the population and geographic area of participating jurisdictions. If this change is approved by the LA-RICS Board, it remains unclear if this new formula will come any closer to providing the City with a meaningful estimate of the full cost of its participation in LA-RICS. The adoption of a revised funding plan may (or may not) result in a further extension of the "opt out" period. Staff expects to return to the City Council with a further update on the status of the LA-RICS funding plan sometime before November 24, 2015 (i.e., the end of the current "opt out" period). Attachments: • Draft Opposition Letter regarding LA-RI CS monopole at Upper Point Vicente (Page 6) • Diagram of Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente (Page 8) • Land Mobile Radio System Point Vicente Tower Site from LA-RICS (received 4/29/15) (Page 9) • Late Correspondence from LA-RI CS (received 4/7 /15) (Page 17) • Previous City Council Staff report (dated 4/7/15) (Page 20) • Board of Supervisors report (dated 4/14/15) (Page 24) • Correspondence from La Cresta Pointe HOA (dated 4/28/15) (Page 27) M:\Municipal Services\Emergency Communications\LA-RICS\20150505_LA-RICSMonopoleOppositionletters_StaffRpt.docx 24 May 5, 2015 [addressee] [agency] [street address] [city, state & ZIP] SUBJECT: Opposition to Proposed LA-RICS Monopole on U.S. Coast Guard Property at Upper Point Vicente in Rancho Palos Verdes Dear [addressee]: As you may (or may not) be aware, the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RIGS) authority is proposing to install a 70-to 180-foot-tall antenna structure (monopole or lattice tower) on U.S. Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The 4.50'"acre Coast Guard property is surrounded by the City's Point Vicente Park/Civic Center property at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. On behalf of the City Council and residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, I write to express our deep concerns about LA-RI CS' selection of this location for the installation of an antenna tower, in hopes that you may be able to assist the City in eliminating it from further consideration. Our specific objections include: • The proposed location for this antenna tower is a visually-prominent site surrounded by the City's civic center and a portion of its nature preserve. There are also residential neighborhoods surrounding this site where ocean views would be degraded by the addition of an antenna structure and related support equipment. The addition of an antenna structure and related support equipment is also likely to degrade the character of the open space areas surrounding this site. The City believes that the construction and operation of the proposed antenna tower is likely to have significant adverse impacts upon scenic vistas and the visual character of the site and its surroundings. • As mentioned above, the proposed location for this antenna tower would be surrounded by the Alta Vicente Reserve of the City's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. The nature reserve property is enrolled as a part of the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The City believes that construction and operation of the proposed antenna tower is likely to have significant adverse impacts upon sensitive species and habitat, and that it may conflict with our NCCP. 25 • The proposed antenna location would be on the site of an existing World War 11- era bunker and the remains of gun batteries at Point Vicente. The bunker and batteries are associated with Fort MacArthur in San Pedro. Furthermore, the surrounding civic center property is a former, Cold War-era Nike missile base, which includes the intact missile silos. Finally, the site would be located within a %-mile radius of the Point Vicente Lighthouse, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The City believes that the construction and operation of the proposed antenna tower is likely to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource, either on the project site or nearby. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes expects to continue to participate in the CEQA review process for this proposed antenna site, including the submittal of comments on the Draft EIR once it is released. We hopeful that LA-RI CS will not attempt to circumvent the CEQA process for this proposed location by seeking to apply the special, temporary CEQA exemption granted to LA-RICS by the State legislature in 2012. It is clear to the City that there are numerous "unusual circumstances" that apply to this site that would make the application of a categorical exemption from CEQA completely indefensible. I trust that that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes may rely upon your support to ensure that LA-RICS' proposal for an antenna tower at Upper Point Vicente is never brought to fruition. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to Senior Administrative Analyst Kit Fox in the City Manager's Office at (310) 544-5226 or via e-mail at kitf@rpvca.gov. Sincerely, Jim Knight Mayor cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Doug Willmore, City Manager Carolynn Petru, Deputy City Manager Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst Pat Mallon, Executive Director, LA-RICS Wendy Stallworth-Tait, Executive Assistant, LA-RICS M:\Municipal Services\Emergency Communications\LA-RICS\20150505_LA-RICS_UPVOppositionLetter.docx 26 .s c fl) Q) Q) 0 "'C ·-... > Q) ..... > .5 fl) 0 0 a. 'i ... a. g_ 0 Q..C ::> 0 c ..... cu cu a::: ~ ~ t:: . Q) "'C Q.~ em a. Q) "'C E ... 0 cu .c c3 i ..... cu fl) J: cu 0 0 U) (.) 0) •O ~M ::> 27 E cu cu ...., ...., ·-"' V) > ... V) cu 0 ~ ·-~ "'C ns a:: cu ...., cu c -cu ·-.c u 0 ·-> ~ ...., "'C c ·-c 0 ns c.. ..... 28 • Install and operate 80 -90 LMR facilities at sites located primarily in L.A. County. -One in both San Bernardino and Orange County • Approximately 115 sites being considered 74 required to meet coverage and capacity requirements of the contract 15 additional sites required to meet Bounded Area Coverage and Train requirements of the contract Remaining 26 intended as alternate locations if sites become unavailab le. ©Copyright 2014, LA-RICS Authority. All Rights Reserved. \ '\. ~~}) ~~ LA-RI CS 2 9 • CEQA -Environmental Impact Report {EIR) • Scoping meetings concluded 3rd Quarter 2014 • Data collection is on-going and documentation has begun. • CEQA Exemption • National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) -On-going discussions with FEMA to clear sites for construction. • Site Access Agreements ©Copyright 2014, LA-RICS Authority. All Rights Reserved. ~.~ \\~~lj ~~ LA-RI CS 3 0 ©Copyright 2014, LA-RICS Authority. All Rights Reserved. 1. Pole 1-80 ft. telephone pole. 2. Antennas are not in operation. 3. Guyed wires are cut and unsecured. 4. Next to underground Bunker. 5. Coast Guard facility. ~.~ ~~.!'U ~~ LA-RI CS 3 1 © Copyright 2014, LA-RICS Authority. All Rights Reserved. 1. Pole 1 location of Communications Equipment inside Bunker. 1. Pole 1 to be replaced with new monopole. 2. Pole 2 to be removed. ~;~ ~'.4.~J) ~~ LA-RI CS 3 2 0 ~~~~~,~----·-·-·- :--------~SIEC •~~.~L~ "'"~~:~----·-------I _ ------~O(lt;N ............ ~NAS ~<>POOC•V>CROW•VC '""''no'"' ,,_"'-"1--w· ;-·-·-·-=-~~~!. -0-~C:..!.~~~~!::!~---- -PROPO':"ED ~vntlP ANl (N:U. // (fOT#til..1) ~CIMCl'COWa \lt;DIS>t iTOl'~1 1~ \, -~---·-=-~~+ ~~~c.r::~~~~~----r New Tower ©Copyright 2014, lA-RICS Authority. All Rights Reserved. REPlACE EXISTING 80 FT POLE w/ 70 FT MONOPOLE 1. Visual foot print is the same. 2. Existing tower with detached guyed wires will be removed. 3. New Tower can be painted to match telephone pole color/ texture. 4. Second existing telephone po le can be removed, with land owner approval . Note: tower height to be confirmed after engineering survey. Existing Tower ~-~ ~'.4.~U ~~ LA-RI CS 3 3 Site ID Site Name PVC Point Vicente PVC Point Vicente PVC Pt Vicente to San Pedro PVC Pt Vicente to Catalina PVS Pt Vicente to Catalina ©Co pyright 2014, LA-RICS Autho rity. All Rights Rese rved. Antennas Antenna Omni receive x 1 Omni transmit x 2 Parabolic 2 ft. Parabolic 4 ft. Parabolic 2 ft. Height 70ft. 60 ft. 55 ft. 55 ft. 25 ft. ~~~ ~~ LA-RI CS 3 4 -· 35 LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY LA-RI CS 2525 Corporate Place, Suite 100 Monterey Park, California 91754 Telephone: (323) 881-8291 http://www.la-rics.org PATRICK J. MALLON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SENT CORRESPONDENCE BY: April 7, 2015 The Honorable Jim Knight 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Dear Mayor Knight: E-MAIL We were made aware today of a pending item on the City Council agenda to oppose an installation of an Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority (LA-RICS) monopole at Upper Point Vicente (Point Vicente). We respectfully request that the item be continued as there appears to be a major misunderstanding with regard to the construction of 70 foot -180 foot poles or towers. The LA-RICS Program is proposing to replace an existing 40 foot guyed tower at Point Vicente that has a broken guyed anchor support and is in need of repair. The tower is dangerous to climb and maintain and needs to be replaced. Through the Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Project the faulty tower can be replaced with a modern steel tower. The facility will be upgraded to modern standards and will be operationally safe to maintain. As part of this implementation there are two other towers that can be removed from service if this new tower is installed . LA-RICS has been in contact with the land-owner, the Coast Guard, and they are in favor of this plan. There are distinct advantages to replace the tower: 1 . It will be safe for installation and maintenance programs. 2. It will reduce the number of tower poles currently operating at the site and reduce clutter at the site. 3. It replaces an alternate site initially proposed at Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall site. 4. The mountain top facility provides public safety radio coverage throughout the Rancho Palo Verdes area and Catalina Island. 5. It provides the Public Safety community a redundant microwave ring that will protect the public safety system against multiple radio system failures. 36 The Honorable Jim Knight April 7, 2015 Page2 If you have any questions, please contact Fritz Rote at (434) 229M8159 or at frote@fedeng .com Respectfully submitted, 2 I)/ P~T :if:.~,MA l~l"'e--, __ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WST:pl X:\Prl 1c111a Lara\2015 Correapondence\Mayor of Rancho PaJoa Verdes letter 04 .07 2015.docx Enclosure c: Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilmembers 37 38 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAROLYNN PETRU, AICP, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER APRIL 7, 2015 SUBJECT: LETTERS IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED LA-RICS MONOPOLE AT UPPER POINT VICENTE REVIEWED BY: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER Project Manager: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to sign letters expressing the City's opposition to the proposed monopole for the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communication System (LA-RI CS) project on the U.S. Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. BACKGROUND In March 2009, the City Council executed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) authorizing the City's membership in the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RIGS) Authority. LA-RIGS was established to engage in a region-wide cooperative effort to plan and establish a wide-area interoperable public safety communications network. When commissioned, the system is intended to provide first responders with the technology to communicate, in real time, to coordinate their response during times of emergency. The system is expected to include a network of Land Mobile Radio (LMR) sites (i.e., voice) and Public Safety Broadband Network-Long Term Evolution (L TE) sites (i.e., data). The system assumes the need to install a 70-foot-tall monopole (or equivalent) or a 180-foot-tall lattice tower (or equivalent) at each L TE and LMR site. At present, LA-RIGS has identified four (4) proposed antenna sites in the City (i.e., Fire Station No. 83 in Miraleste Plaza for an L TE site, the County "antenna farm" on Crestridge Road for both L TE and LMR sites, the FAA radar facility at the top of San Pedro Hill for an LMR site, and the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente for an LMR site). Staff last reported to the City Council on LA-RI CS in the Weekly Administrative Report of April 1, 2015. As the City Council may recall, the LA-RIGS Board of Directors adopted a funding plan for the system on May 28, 2014. With this action, LA-RIGS initiated a 180-day "opt out" period during which participating jurisdictions could withdraw from the JPA without financial obligation. The "opt out" period was originally set to end on November 24, 2014. 39 MEMORANDUM: Opposition Letters for LA-RICS Monopole April 7, 2015 Page2 However, since both Staff and the Emergency Preparedness Committee had serious reservations about the City's continued participation in LA-RIGS, Staff presented a resolution to the City Council on August 19, 2014 to consider withdrawing from the JPA. At the last minute, LA-RI CS agreed to a 1-year extension of the "opt out" period (now set to end on November 24, 2015) and waived of any financial obligation by participating jurisdictions for FY 2014-15. Therefore, the City Council agreed to take "wait and see" position on the City's continued participation in LA-RIGS. On March 11, 2015, LA-RIGS provide Staff with a status update on several components of the project, including the following: • In late January 2015, the County issued the building permit for the L TE monopole at Fire Station No. 83 (FS 83) in Miraleste Plaza. Since that time, there appears to have been little visible evidence of construction. At the March 11th meeting, Staff was advised that the FAA has "flagged" the building permit, and installation of the monopole at FS 83 is on hold until this issue is resolved with the FAA. We have asked LA-RIGS to keep us apprised of any changes to the FS 83 installation that may arise from the FAA's review. • LA-RI CS had previously proposed an L TE monopole at Fire Station No. 53 (FS 53) on Palos Verdes Drive South, which would have required the City to issue a coastal permit. At the March 11th meeting, LA-RIGS advised Staff that FS 53 is no longer included in the LA-RI CS proposal for either L TE or LMR systems. • As mentioned above, LA-RIGS also proposes to establish a countywide land mobile radio (LMR) system for emergency voice communications. In September 2014, Staff submitted comments on the scope of the environmental impact report (EIR) being prepared for the LMR system. The LMR system proposes three (3) antenna sites in the City: the County "antenna farm" on Crestridge Road, the FAA site at the top of San Pedro Hill and the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente (which is surrounded by City Hall and the nature preserve). LA-RIGS Staff has advised us that the County-owned Crestridge Road site has been determined to be exempt from CEQA, and will proceed under County permits for both LMR and L TE installations in advance of the completion of the EIR. The other two (2) sites-which are both located on Federal property-are not expected to be exempt from CEQA, and should be addressed in the Draft EIR. LA-RIGS anticipates that the Draft EIR could be released by late spring/early summer 2015. Staff intends to review and comment upon the Draft EIR once it is released. • The Palos Verdes Peninsula News recently reported on the controversy that LA-RIGS' proposed L TE/LMR monopole at Fire Station No. 56 (FS 56) in the City of Rolling Hills has raised in that community. At its meeting of March 9, 2015, the Rolling Hills City Council passed a resolution on a 3-2 vote, stating its opposition to this proposed monopole. It should be noted, however, that Rolling Hills' position with respect to FS 56 is similar to our position with respect to FS 83, which is exempt from both our City's zoning and building regulations and CEQA because it 40 MEMORANDUM: Opposition Letters for LA~RICS Monopole April 7, 2015 Page 3 is County-owned property and covered by LA-RIGS' temporary CEQA exemption (granted by the State legislature in 2012). Mayor Knight has expressed serious concerns about the LMR monopole proposed for the Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. As such, he has asked Staff to prepare letters expressing the City's opposition to this specific proposal, to be addressed to the Coast Guard, Federal and State resource agencies and other appropriate agencies and legislators in advance of the release of the Draft EIR for the LA-RI CS LMR system. Staff has prepared a draft opposition letter for the City Council's consideration. DISCUSSION The draft opposition letter reiterates the points raised by Staff in our scoping comments for the Draft EIR last September. The primary issues of concern to the City are the incompatibility of a proposed monopole on this site with the sensitive habitat in the surrounding Alta Vicente Reserve, and with significant historic resources both on-site (i.e., Battery 240 and the WWII-era bunker) and nearby (i.e., the Point Vicente lighthouse and the Nike missile base). Staff believes that the presence of these biological and cultural resources at or near the project site will make it very difficult (if not impossible) for LA- RICS to successfully argue that the proposal at Upper Point Vicente would be exempt from CEQA. However, even with the preparation of an EIR, the LA-RI CS Board will have the ability to consider adopting a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" in order to approve any proposed installation that would have significant and unavoidable adverse impacts upon the environment. By expressing the City's concerns about the LA-RIGS proposal at Upper Point Vicente directly to other Federal and State agencies that may have a role in reviewing this proposal, we are hopeful to bring pressure upon LA-RIGS to drop this site from consideration. Staff is still compiling and list of agencies and person to whom this letter would be sent, but a particular list is expected to include the following: • U.S. Coast Guard • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service • California Department of Fish & Wildlife • National Register of Historic Places • California Office of Historic Preservation • U.S. Congressman Ted Lieu • State Senator Ben Allen • State Assemblymember David Hadley Staff would appreciate suggestions from the City Council for any additional recipients for this letter. 41 MEMORANDUM: Opposition Letters for LA-RICS Monopole April 7, 2015 Page4 CONCLUSION In conclusion, Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign letters expressing the City's opposition to the proposed LA-RIGS monopole on the U.S. Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign opposition letters regarding the proposed LA- RICS monopole on the U.S. Coast Guard property at Upper Point Vicente. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with authorizing the Mayor to sign letters opposing the proposed LMR monopole at Upper Point Vicente. During our meeting with LA-RIGS on March 11th, it was noted that the LA-RIGS Board would be considering another alternative for the funding plan for the system, this one to be based upon the number of "subscribers" (i.e., data units and radios) used in and/or by each participating jurisdiction rather than the population and geographic area of participating jurisdictions. If this change is approved by the LA-RIGS Board, it remains unclear if this new formula will come any closer to providing the City with a meaningful estimate of the full cost of its participation in LA-RIGS. The adoption of a revised funding plan may (or may not) result in a further extension of the "opt out" period. Staff expects to return to the City Council with a further update on the status of the LA-RIGS funding plan sometime before November 24, 2015 (i.e., the end of the current "opt out" period). Attachments: • Draft Opposition Letter for regarding LA-RIGS monopole at Upper Point Vicente M:\Municipal Services\Emergency Communications\LA-RICS\20150407 _LA-RICSMonopoleOppositionletters_StaffRpt.docx 42 SACHI A. HAMAI Interim Chief Executive Officer April 14, 2015 County of Los Angeles CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 974-1101 http://ceo.lacounty.gov The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Supervisors: REQUEST TO APPROVE THE LA-RICS AUTHORITY CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (ALL DISTRICTS) (3 VOTES) SUBJECT Beard cf Supervisors HILDA L. SOLIS First District MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS Second District SHEILA KUEHL Third District DON KNABE Fourth District MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Fifth District Recommendation for approval of Corrective Action Plan allowing for 29 County owned, operated, or controlled sites to be used as Long Term Evolution (L TE) telecommunications site as part of the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RIGS) Authority's L TE System. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD: 1. Approve the LA-RICS Authority's Corrective Action Plan (CAP) permitting construction of Long Term Evolution (L TE) infrastructure at a smaller number of County owned, operated, or controlled sites, as identified in the LA-RICS Authority's CAP; and authorize construction to begin or continue at those County owned, operated or controlled sites, as set forth in the LA-RICS Authority's CAP. PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION The purpose of the recommended action is to allow for a smaller number of County owned, operated, and controlled sites be used as L TE telecommunications site as part of the LA-RICS L TE System. If the Board approves the CAP, it is agreeing to allow construction to proceed forward at the 29 Los Angeles County owned, operated, and controlled sites. Approval of the CAP by the Board will also allow for a condition to be met as set by the federal grantor, to allow for the current grant suspension to be lifted. "To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring Service" Please Conserve Paper -This Document and Copies are Two-Sided Intra-County Correspondence Sent Electronically Only 43 The Honorable Board of Supervisors April 14, 2015 Page 2 Implementation of Strategic Plan Goals The proposed CAP supports the Countywide Strategic Plan Goal of Operational Effectiveness (Goal 1 ). If the CAP is approved by the Board and the grant suspension is lifted, the LA-RIGS Authority will be in a position to develop a modern public safety communication system that will maximize the effectiveness of processes, structure, and operations to support the timely delivery of customer-oriented and efficient public services, particularly in the areas of public safety. FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING Design, construction, equipment purchase and implementation of the L TE System is covered by the BTOP grant, including a 20% required match, made up of 10% in-kind match and 10% cash match paid for by the LA-RI CS Authority. FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS As your Board is aware, the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) issued a suspension notice to the LA-RIGS Authority on April 3, 2015 suspending the BTOP grant for the LA-RIGS L TE project. The suspension notice required that all L TE project work stop immediately, except for specified items called out in the letter. As part of that suspension notice, the NTIA also required a CAP be submitted on April 13, 2015, that contains a revised L TE deployment plan for consideration by NTIA. That revised deployment plan must also receive approval by the Board of Supervisors prior to NTIA's release of any STOP suspension. The revised L TE deployment plan now has, as its baseline plan, 49 sites, of which 46 are L TE sites and three (3) are microwave backhaul sites. Of the core 49 site baseline plan, 29 are Los Angeles County owned, operated, or controlled sites. No County fire stations have been included in the baseline plan. Of the 29 County owned, operated, or controlled sites, 20 are LA County Sheriff sites, 4 are County hospitals or rehabilitation facilities, 4 are existing ISO telecommunications sites, and the Fire Command and Control Facility (FCCF) is included as well. All 29 County owned, operated, or controlled sites are existing telecommunications transmitter sites. The remaining 20 sites of the 49 site baseline plan, are located in independent cities that have provided, or are in the process of providing, the LA-RIGS Authority with site access agreements for those independent city sites. LA-RIGS staff will continue to conduct public outreach meetings, as requested by the Board at the March 24, 2015 Board meeting, including conducting regional outreach meetings. The public outreach will be tailored towards the remaining sites in the baseline plan. 44 The Honorable Board of Supervisors April 14, 2015 Page 3 Given that the baseline plan includes County owned, operated, or controlled sites, the NTIA is requiring that the Board approve the CAP baseline plan, before it lifts any suspension of the STOP grant for the L TE project. If the Board approves the CAP, it is agreeing to allow construction to proceed forward at the 29 Los Angeles County owned, operated, and controlled sites. The CAP also provides for additional options, if feasible, to allow for 15 State of California sites to be used to locate temporary cell on wheels (COWS) to improve coverage within those locations. The LA-RICS Authority staff is currently working with State representatives on that effort. If those sites can be used to house COWS, coverage will be improved. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The LA-RICS Authority, as the lead agency, and the County, have already determined that design, construction, implementation, operation and maintenance of the L TE System at these sites, are statutorily exempt under Public Resources Code section 21080.25, the statutory CEQA exemption adopted specifically for LA-RI CS. This action is within the scope of the original determinations. IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES (OR PROJECTS) There will be no compromise of public safety missions or disruption of vital, existing communication services. Respectfully submitted, G i .. (l, -J/u.--. s/chYA. Hamai Interim Chief Executive Officer SAH:JJ:GH TM:cc c: Executive Office, Board of Supervisors County Counsel Sheriff Fire Internal Services LA-RI CS PS.LA-RICS CAP.bl.041415.docx 45 Carolynn Petru From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Carolynn: Kit Fox Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:38 AM Carolynn Petru FW: LA-RICS LMR ANTENNA TOWER PROPOSAL Can you attach this email to the LA-RI CS Staff report? Kit Sent using 0 WA for iPhone From: Jeff Cameron <capt.jeffcameron@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 9:14:24 AM To: Kit Fox; So Kim; Mary Kessler; Jim/Jackie Smith; Kerry Young; Cam Cameron Subject: LA-RICS LMR ANTENNA TOWER PROPOSAL Mr. Fox: Thank you for your courtesy notification of City Council consideration of a formal position opposing a proposed Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Antenna Tower on Coast Guard property at Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall. I am the President of La Cresta Pointe HOA and responding on behalf of the Association. We have opposed previous antenna installations and strongly oppose this proposal. Please refer to the City's files and our letters/emails (sent to sok@rpv.com). We appreciate the need for communications county-wide to facilitate the work of first responders. That said, we oppose this proposal for the same reasons we have cited over the years concerning antennas at the City Hall site. Please register our strongest opposition to this proposal when the Council deliberates on May 5. Sincerely, Jeff Cameron President La Cresta Homeowners' Association (310) 561-3993 1 46 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-50, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AUTHORIZING THE INDEFINITE SUSPENSION OF COLLECTION OF UTILITY USERS TAX BY TELECOMMUNICATION PROVIDERS FROM THE CITY'S TAXPAYERS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S UTILITY USERS TAX ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY'S VOTERS AND CREATING A SEPARATE ACCOUNT COMMITMENT ENCUMBRANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND REFERRED TO AS THE "UTILITY USERS TAX TELECOMMUNICATION CLAIM ACCOUNT"; 2) Direct Staff to timely send notification letters to all telecommunication providers that serve taxpayers in the City directing them to immediately discontinue collecting the 3% Utility Users Tax on telecommunication services; 3) Direct Staff to determine an estimate of the total Utility Users Tax collected by telecommunication providers from taxpayers in the City during the twelve (12) month period beginning August 13, 2013, transfer such amount, as well as all Utility Users Tax received from telecommunication providers thereafter and deposit such amounts in the Commitment encumbrance of the General Fund referred to as the "Utility Users Tax Telecommunication Claim Account"; and, 4) Direct Staff to return with proposed budget adjustments in the General Fund for FY14-15 totaling the estimated amount of the expected reduction of Utility Users Tax revenue from telecommunication providers in order to maintain a balanced budget in accordance with the City Council Reserve Policies 41 and 45, with further Council discussion of those policies. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brooks, Misetich, and Mayor Duhovic None Campbell and Knight Consider "Opting Out" of Continued Participation in the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) Authority City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were no requests to speak regarding this item. Senior Administrative Analyst Fox provided a brief staff report regarding this item, noting that staff had just learned that LA-RIGS might be extending the "Opt Out" period for another year. Diana Feinberg, Committee Member, Emergency Preparedness Committee, provided a brief report regarding participation in the LA-RIGS Authority and noted that as other cities opt out of the program, the fiscal responsibility will be transferred to those cities remaining in the program. She added that there were other possibly less expensive solutions and systems that should be considered. She opined that the benefits do not appear to be worth the expense, noting she had concerns regarding the lack of a cost cap for the program. City Council Minutes August19,2014 Page 12 of 14 47 Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff. Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to: Direct staff to obtain more informat ion and return to Council w it h an update prior to the current "Opt Out" deadline of November 24, 2014. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brooks, Misetich, and Mayor Duhovic None Campbell and Knight RECESS AND RECONVENE: Mayor Duhovic called a brief recess from 10:00 P.M. to 10: 10 P.M. Purchase of Tax-Defaulted Properties in the Miraleste Canyon Area (APN 7566- 015-026), the George F. Canyon Area (APN 7568-006-008) and at 37 Cherry Hill Lane (APN 7572-004-001) City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were no requests to speak regarding this item. Senior Administrative Analyst Fox provided a brief staff report and PowerPoint presentation regarding this item. Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff. Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to: 1) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign an Agreement to Purchase Tax-Defaulted Property with the Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector for two (2) vacant parcels: Miraleste Canyon Area (APN 7566-015-026) and 37 Cherry Hill Lane (APN 7572-004- 001 ); and, 2) Direct staff to return to a future City Council meeting, if necessary after discussions with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, to assist or facilitate them with the possible purchase of the George F. Canyon Area (APN 7568-006-008). The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brooks, Misetich, and Mayor Duhovic None Campbell and Knight FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: None. City Council Minutes August 19, 2014 Page 13of14 48 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAROLYNN PETRU, AICP, ACTING CITY MANAGER® AUGUST 19, 2014 CONSIDER "OPTING OUT" OF CONTINUED PARTICI- PATION IN THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTER- OPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (LA-RICS) AUTHORITY Project Managers: Kit F~x. AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst@ RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2014-_, thereby exercising the City's authority under Section 5.01 of the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RIGS) Joint Powers Agreement; rescinding Resolution No. 2009-20 as originally adopted on March 17, 2009; and "opting out" of continued participation in LA-RIGS. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-20 approving the City's participation in the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RI CS) Joint Powers Authority. Section 5.01 of the LA-RI CS Joint Powers Agreement allows participating jurisdictions with "opt out" within a specified period of time after the LA-RIGS Board of Directors adopts a funding plan. The LA-RIGS Board adopted a funding plan on May 28, 2014, and provided for a 180-day "opt out" period until November 24, 2014. City Staff and the Emergency Preparedness Committee (EPC) have reviewed the funding plan, and believe that it is no longer in the City's best interest to participate in LA-RIGS. Therefore, Staff and the EPC recommend that the City Council take action to formally "opt out" of LA-RIGS. BACKGROUND In March 2009, the City Council executed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) authorizing the City's membership in the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications 49 MEMORANDUM: Consider "Opting Out" of LA-RICS August 19, 2014 Page2 System (LA-RIGS) Authority. LA-RIGS was established to engage in a region-wide cooperative effort to plan and establish a wide-area interoperable public safety communications network. When commissioned, the system is intended to provide first responders with the technology to communicate, in real time, to coordinate their response during times of emergency. The system is expected to include a network of Land Mobile Radio (LMR) sites (i.e., voice) and Public Safety Broadband Network-Long Term Evolution (L TE) sites (i.e., data). The system assumes the need to install a 70-foot-tall monopole (or equivalent) or a 180-foot-tall lattice tower (or equivalent) at each LTE and LMR site. At present, LA-RIGS has identified three (3) proposed antenna sites in the City (i.e., Fire Station Nos. 53 and 83 for L TE sites and the County "antenna farm" on Crestridge Road for an LMR site). Staff last reported to the City Council on LA-RIGS in the Weekly Administrative Report of July 30, 2014. In November 2013, Staff attended the first stakeholder meeting for the LA-RIGS project, the purpose of which was to solicit input from participating jurisdictions regarding the variables to be considered in developing a funding plan for LA-RIGS. At a second stakeholder meeting in December 2013, participating jurisdictions were asked for input regarding the weighting scheme for the highest-scoring variables identified at the first stakeholder meeting. At the third and final stakeholder meeting held on January 23, 2014, LA-RIGS presented the first draft of the participating jurisdictions' cost shares. The LA-RI CS Board of Directors ultimately approved a funding plan for the system on May 28, 2014, although the selection of variables and their weighting in the final plan differ substantially from those approved by the stakeholders. Also, as a contract city, it remains unclear how much the City's participation in LA-RIGS will cost since these costs presumably will be passed along to the City through the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's annual contract and the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District's annual property tax assessment. However, the City's share of the administrative cost of the system is currently expected to total $93, 120 over the 18-year useful life of the system (i.e., FY 2014-15 through FY 2031-32), averaging $5, 173 per year. Under the terms of the JPA, LA-RIGS was obligated to provide an "opt out" period to participating jurisdictions of at least thirty-five (35) days after the approval of the funding plan. In approving the funding plan, however, the LA-RIGS Board of Directors stipulated a 180-day "opt out" period, which will end on November 24, 2014. As of the date this report was completed, several participating jurisdictions have already elected to "opt out" of LA-RIGS, including the cities of Azusa, Calabasas, Gardena, Glendale, Palos Verdes Estates, Pomona and Torrance.1 Staff has yet to receive information from LA-RIGS, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department or the Los Angeles County Fire Department about the cost of participation in LA-RI CS that will be passed along to the City. The City's Emergency Preparedness Committee undertook the review of the LA-RI CS system and funding plan on July 17, 2014, and unanimously recommended that the City "opt out" of 1 On the Palos Verdes Peninsula, neither Rolling Hills nor Lomita were ever members of LA-RI CS. At this time, only Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and the City and County of Los Angeles remain LA-RIGS members on the Peninsula. 50 MEMORANDUM: Consider "Opting Out" of LA-RICS August19,2014 Page 3 LA-RIGS. Therefore, given the continued uncertainty about the costs and benefits of LA- RICS to the City, Staff and the EPC recommend that the City Council receive this report and considering "opting out" of LA-RIGS. DISCUSSION LA-RIGS Funding Plan As described in the attached LA-RIGS Funding Plan, the cost of the LA-RIGS system to participating jurisdictions is allocated on the basis of a formula that evenly weights the residential population and geographic area of each jurisdiction as a percentage of the total county. The costs for each component of the LA-RIGS system are then assessed to each jurisdiction for JPA Administration (40%), LMR Operations (30%) and LTE Operations plus Hard Match (30%). Costs for JPA Administration will be assessed to participating jurisdictions beginning in the current fiscal year (FY 2014-15), while costs associated with the L TE and LMR components will not be assessed until the fiscal years in which they are expected to become operational (i.e., FY .2015-16 for LTE and FY 2017- 18 for LMR). For full contract cities such as Rancho Palos Verdes, the only direct contribution to LA-RI CS will be for JPA Administration; the direct costs of LMR Operations and L TE Operation plus Hard Match will be passed through to contract cities by the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The amounts of these "pass through" charges are unknown at this time. The table below summarizes the City's direct cost for participating in LA-RIGS over the useful life of the system, based upon the approved funding plan. ·~· ·::~~1~1~1r:)::;~~\Rr2 !' 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 $4,349 $4,436 $4,525 $4,615 $4,707 $4,802 $4,898 $4,996 $5,095 $5, 197 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 :l.(f $5,301 $5,407 $5,515 $5,626 $5,738 $5,853 $5,970 $6,090 '.iJit1fif&$:9'~t~Q?;![; •. ;i}':::~:.::::' . f\i ····~j!'.$'5~:1/7:3:·.'.:,;:;:;~;·;i·:·:;·'.:} To Staffs knowledge, no contract cities have been provided with cost estimates for the L TE and LMR components of LA-RIGS that will be "passed through" from the County. In our case, Staff presumes that these costs will be included in the annual Los Angeles County Sheriffs contract and the annual property tax assessments from the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District, beginning in FY 2015-16. 51 MEMORANDUM: Consider "Opting Out" of LA-RICS August 19, 2014 Page4 Based upon the approved funding plan, electing to "opt out" of LA-RIGS at this time will only relieve the City of any obligation to LA-RIGS for JPA Administration costs, estimated to total at least $93, 120 over the next eighteen ( 18) years. It is important to note that, as long as the City of Rancho Palos Verdes continues to contract with the County for law enforcement and is part of the assessment district for fire protection services-and as long as the County continues to participate in LA-RIGS-the City will continue to be served by (and bear some of the costs of) the LA-RI CS system. This cost will be borne by the City through the annual Sheriff's contract, and by the City's property owners through annual property tax assessments for fire protection services. Staff has been frankly frustrated and disappointed with the process of developing the LA-RI CS funding plan. We were asked to participate in a series of stakeholder workshops over a period of several months in late 2013 and early 2014. The final product of these workshops was the development of mutually-acceptable formulae for the allocation of the costs of the LA-RICS system (L TE and LMR) to participating jurisdictions. It was only after the final formulae were agreed upon by the stakeholders that we were informed that cost estimates would not be provided to contract cities. The formulae agreed to by the participating stakeholders were then thrown out completely when the City of Los Angeles objected to them. Even after the draft funding plan was released, LA-RICS continued to "tack on" new, previously-undisclosed costs, such as the 40-percent allocation for JPA Administration. As recently as August 7, 2014, the LA-RIGS Board of Directors was considering whether or not to assess participating jurisdictions for an additional $1,000,000 to cover LA-RIGS administrative costs that could not be paid for out of the Federal grant funds that are underwriting the costs of much of the project.2 Add to all this the fact that several cities have already withdrawn from LA-RICS and the County has been unable to provide cost estimates to the contract cities, and Staff believes that these financial uncertainties warrant considering "opting out" of LA-RIGS. As discussed above, "opting out" of LA-RI CS now would "save" the City at least $93, 120 over the next eighteen (18) years. If the City desired to re-join LA-RI CS at some point in the future, there will presumably be some penalty charged by LA-RIGS to "late adopters." Staff expects that such a penalty would be limited to the JPA Administrative cost that would have been paid if the City had remained in LA-RI CS since the City's L TE and LMR Operations costs will be passed through to LA-RIGS indirectly by the County. The deadline for participating jurisdictions to exercise the "opt out" provision of the JPA is November 24, 2014. Emergency Preparedness Committee Recommendation On July 17, 2014, the Emergency Preparedness Committee (EPC) received a presentation about the LA-RI CS project from Committee Member Diana Feinberg. A copy 2 The LA-RICS Board agreed to exclude this additional charge from the LA-RICS FY 2014-15 budget, for the time being. 52 MEMORANDUM: Consider "Opting Out" of LA-RICS August 19, 2014 Page5 of that presentation is attached to tonight's report and Ms. Feinberg plans to address the City Council at tonight's meeting. As described in the EPC presentation materials, the Committee shares Staff's concerns about the unknown, long-term costs of participation in LA-RIGS. The Committee also expresses skepticism about the purported benefits and technical performance of LA-RI CS as compared to other available interoperable communications systems. As a result of the July 17th presentation and Committee discussion, the EPC unanimously agreed to recommend to the City Council that the City "opt out" of LA-RIGS. Effect of "Opting Out" Upon LA-RI CS Proposed L TE and LMR Sites in the City Whether or not the City continues to participate in LA-RIGS, LA-RIGS' proposed use of County-owned properties in the City for L TE and LMR antenna sites is expected to continue as currently proposed. The County Board of Supervisors approved a site license agreement with LA-RIGS on July 15, 2014, that allows one hundred sixteen (116) County- owned and County-leased properties to be used as LTE sites.3 Therefore, "opting out" of LA-RIGS does not have the effect of removing County-owned properties in the City from consideration as antenna sites. The paragraphs below summarize the current status of the proposed L TE and LMR sites in the City. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Status of LA-RIGS Proposed L TE and LMR Sites in Rancho Palos Verdes On July 24, 2014, Staff met with LA-RIGS representatives to discuss the zoning entitlement and building permit processes proposed for the three (3) County-owned properties in the City. For the L TE sites at Fire Station Nos. 53 and 83, a 70-foot-tall antenna monopole is proposed at each station. At Station 53, LA-RIGS is considering either a 70-foot-tall conventional monopole or a disguised "monopine." Since Station 53 is located within the City's coastal zone and the City has coastal development permit authority under its certified Local Coastal Program, LA-RIGS will be applying to the City's Community Development Department for a Coastal Permit for this installation. This will involve a duly-noticed public hearing before the City's Hearings Officer (i.e., the Director of Community Development), whose decision may be appealed by any affected or interested party to the Planning Commission and the City Council. However, since Station 53 is located in a non-appealable portion of the City's coastal zone, the City's final decision may not be appealed by or to the California Coastal Commission. It should be noted that no other City zoning or building approvals will be required at Station 53 since LA-RI CS-acting as an "extension" of the County-is exempt from the City's zoning and building regulations, and the project will also be exempt from the California Environmental 3 Site license agreements for the LA-RIGS LMR sites have not yet been executed because the Environmental Impact Report {EIR) for the LMR network sites must be completed first. 53 MEMORANDUM: Consider "Opting Out" of LA-RICS August19,2014 Page 6 Quality Act (CEQA) as a result of a special, temporary CEQA exemption granted for the LA-RIGS project by the State legislature in 2012. At Station 83, LA-RIGS is considering a custom-designed 70-foot-tall monopole that will also function as a hose-drying rack. Similar to Station 53, LA-RIGS proposal at Station 83 is exempt from the City's zoning and building regulations and CEQA. As such, there will be no public hearing process for the L TE site at Station 83. At the County antenna farm on Crestridge Road (adjacent to The Canterbury and Congregation Ner Tamid), LA-RI CS will be proposing antennae for the LMR system. The height of the proposed antenna structure at this location has not yet been determined, but previous communications with LA-RICS Staff suggested that it would be about the same height as the existing antenna tower. Since the LMR system is not covered by the CEQA exemption that applies to the L TE sites, LA-RIGS is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the LMR sites. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR is expected to be released this month, and there will be a public scoping meeting held in Supervisorial District No. 4 during the initial 30-day public comment period. The City, surrounding neighbors and the general public will have the opportunity to participate in the EIR process for the LMR system, but the zoning and building entitlement processes will be handled solely by the County. The EIR process will also include a minimum 45-day public comment period once the draft EIR is released, and a public hearing before the LA-RIGS Board of Directors, which will take action on the certification of the final EIR. CONCLUSION In conclusion, both Staff and the EPC have independently concluded that uncertainties regarding the true costs of participation in LA-RIGS warrant withdrawal from the system. In addition, the EPC is skeptical of the performance claims of the LA-RIGS system, particularly as compared to other, existing interoperable communications systems. Withdrawal from LA-RICS will save the City from incurring at least $93, 120 in future administrative charges, while the City would continue to enjoy the benefits of coverage in the LA-RI CS system for a long as the County continues to participate. The only downside of "opting out" would be the possible financial penalty that LA-RIGS could impose upon "late adopters" if the City Council elects to "opt in" to LA-RI CS again at some future date. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2014-_, thereby exercising the City's authority under Section 5.01 of the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) Joint Powers Agreement; rescinding Resolution No. 2009-20 as originally adopted on March 17, 2009; and "opting out" of continued participation in LA-RIGS. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration: 54 MEMORANDUM: Consider "Opting Out" of LA-RICS August 19, 2014 Page 7 1. Defer taking any action to "opt out" of LA-RICS until a future City Council meeting prior to the November 24, 2014, "opt out" deadline. 2. Receive and file this report, thereby choosing not to "opt out" of LA-RICS. FISCAL IMPACT The estimated fiscal impact of "opting out" of LA-RICS would be a direct cost savings of at least $93, 120 over the period from FY2014-15 through FY2031-32. The fiscal impact of the indirect costs of LA-RICS to be passed through to the City by the County remains unknown at this time. Attachments: • Draft Resolution No. 2014-_ • EPC presentation regarding LA-RICS (dated July 17, 2014) • City comment letter regarding Draft Funding Plan (dated April 29, 2014) • LA-RICS Funding Plan (approved May 28, 2014) • LA-RICS FAQs • Resolution No. 2009-20 and LA-RICS Joint Powers Agreement (adopted March 17, 2009) • City Council Minutes of March 17, 2009 (excerpt) M :\Municipal Services\Emergency Communications\LA-RICS\20140819 _ StaffRpt_ CC.docx 55 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, EXERCISING THE CITY'S AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 5.01 OF THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (LA-RICS) JOINT POWERS AGREE- MENT; RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2009-20 AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED ON MARCH 17, 2009; AND "OPTING OUT" OF CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN LA-RICS WHEREAS, on March 17, 2009, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2009-20, executing a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and authorizing the City's membership and participation in the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) Authority; and, WHEREAS, Article V of the LA-RICS JPA specifies that the LA-RICS Board of Directors (Board) shall develop and approve a funding plan, and Section 5.01 of the LA-RICS JPA further specifies that participating jurisdictions shall be provided with a .period of at least thirty-five (35) days after the approval of a funding plan by the Board "opt out" of further participation in LA-RI CS with no cost to the participating jurisdictions; and, WHEREAS, from late 2013 though early 2014, the City participated in good faith in a series of stakeholder workshops with other participating jurisdictions in order to develop mutually-acceptable criteria for the allocation of project costs for the LA-RICS project; and, WHEREAS, on March 6, 2014, the Board released a draft funding plan with a cost- allocation formula that substantially differed from the recommendations of the stakeholder group; and increased the City's direct financial contribution to LA-RICS, initially from $0/year to $2, 11 O/year starting in FY2015-16, and eventually increasing to $4,349/year starting in FY2014-15; and, WHEREAS, on May 28, 2014, the Board approved the LA-RICS Funding Plan (Plan) and, in so doing, provided a 180-day "opt out" period for participating jurisdictions, which will period will end on November, 24, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on July 17, 2014, the Rancho Palos Verdes Emergency Preparedness Committee (EPC) reviewed the Plan and adopted a unanimous motion recommending to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council that it "opt out" of continued participation LA-RI CS; and, WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes considered the recommendations of the EPC and Staff to "opt out" of continued participation in LA-RICS at a regular City Council meeting. NOW BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: 56 Section 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes finds that the LA-RICS Funding Plan provides insufficient information regarding the total, long-term cost of the City's participation in LA-RI CS. Even after the release of the approved Plan in May 2014, the direct annual cost to Rancho Palos Verdes has continued to increase as a result of both continuing changes to the cash-flow assumptions and the withdrawals of other participating jurisdictions. As recently as August 7, 2014, the LA-RICS Board proposed to burden participating jurisdictions with an additional $1,000,000 obligation for administrative positions that are not covered by the Federal grant funds that are underwriting much of the LA-RICS project. In addition, the County has been as yet unable to provide estimated of how much of the cost of the L TE and LMR components of LA- RICS will be passed through to the City. Section 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is skeptical of the purported benefits and performance of the LA-RICS system. The Rancho Palos Verdes Emergency Preparedness Committee advises that there are other proven and less-expensive options for interoperable emergency communications that the City might consider, rather than continued participation in LA-RI CS. Section 3: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby rescinds Resolution No. 2009-20 and exercises its option to withdraw from further participation in LA-RICS pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.01 of Article V of the LA-RICS Joint Powers Agreement. Said action is taken within the 180-day "opt out" period specified by the LA-RICS Board in its approval of the Plan on May 28, 2014. Section 4: Notwithstanding the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' withdrawal from LA-RI CS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes expects to continue to work with LA-RICS in a cooperative and expeditious manner regarding the review and installation of LA-RICS' proposed antenna sites on County-owned properties in the City, including but not necessarily limited to the following: A. The installation of a conventional or camouflaged monopole for L TE antennae at Los Angeles County Fire Station No. 53, located at 6124 Palos Verdes Drive South, including the processing of a Coastal Permit in accordance with the City's certified Local Coastal Program; B. The installation of a combination monopole/hose-drying rack for L TE antennae at Los Angeles County Fire Station No. 83, located at 83 Miraleste Plaza; and, C. The installation of LMR antennae and support structures at the existing County "antenna farm," located ay 5741 Crestridge Road, including the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 2 of 3 57 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS th DAY OF AUGUST 2014. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk State of California ) -County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2014-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August_, 2014. City Clerk M:\Municipal Services\Emergency Communications\LA-RICS\20140819_Reso_CC.docx Resolution No. 2014- Page 3 of 3 58 LA-RICS SITUATION AND PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Prepared by Diana Feinberg, Member, Rancho Palos Verdes Emergency Preparedness Committee July 17, 2014 5 9 LA-RICS SITUATION What is LA-RICS? Why are we discussing it now? • LA-RICS is acronym for Los Angeles Regional Interoperability Communications System • Idea in 2008: move all Los Angeles County first responders (law enforcement, fire, others) onto one radio system • All 88 cities, unincorporated areas, wilderness areas • Separate voice and L TE data networks • But very complex systems, given geography/agencies served • Idea origin: federal policy initiatives, federal grants • Joint Powers Authority created 2009 to foster LA-RICS development, asking cities and agencies to sign without knowing their costs • JPA agreement allowed withdrawing from LA-RICS when final funding plan presented • June 4, 2014, funding plan now causing reconsideration by some 2 6 0 LA-RICS SITUATION What's happened recently? •June 4, 2014, LA-RICS funding plan detailed each city's and agency's annual contributions through 2032 • Costs based on two factors, each 50o/o of total cost • Population (more residents = more cost) • Geographic area (more square miles = more cost) • However, costs for cities that later withdraw from JPA will be re-allocated to remaining cities/agencies • Contract cities (such as RPV) have minimal direct annual costs, but agencies serving them will charge back through contracts • Several cities already exercised withdrawal option from LA-RICS JPA • Opted out: Palos Verdes Estates, Torrance, Glendale, Gardena • Some contract cities never signed the JPA: Cudahy, Diamond Bar, La Habra, Lomita, Malibu, Rolling Hills, West Hollywood 3 6 1 LA-RICS SITUATION What is the cost to Rancho Palos Verdes, assuming: 1) no cities withdraw from LA-RICS and 2) no project cost over-runs? • LA-RICS June 2014 funding plan shows minor direct costs to City of Rancho Palos Verdes, with sizable unknown indirect contract costs ,;·~=r~~_,::~ ]i!:ij:,1s:11.1·1~:::::··:··.···:··:··.···.:··:.:.·. ;:<llseaf:le·an · · ":::::::·:~· ..... : .: ... " '" ';,.,:'.::: ":'.,: :. :· .: : . . . " . . "119 2015/2016 $4,436 2025/2026 $5,407 ·•••·•~i:~~ll~•~I•••••••••••••~••• 2017/2018 $4,615 2027/2028 $5,626 2019/2020 $4,802 2029/2030 $5,853 2021/2022 $4,996 2031/2032 $6,090 rnilg~~~~~I 2023/2024 $5,197 1 . i :!l!ll:l;11~!11~\lliii i:\Ii ;rn 1w@ ;:: <++ ' ' ··· I Total Direct $93, 120 4 6 2 LA-RICS SITUATION 5 By comparison, the City of Torrance would be directly charged $3.4 million over 18 years for LA-RICS, assuming no JPA withdrawals • LA-RICS June 2014 funding plan for City of Torrance (as example), not including cost of new radios for all personnel, vehicles, dispatch .. 2015/2016 ·::·:''"''.''·'.'·'·:.:·::·~::;::::'/':"'}:';'::::· '': ."' ·'::;::-::·:: .. :;::,.:::::·:'!\:: : .. "·. ·\1::IH::r.a:f:lU~;e . :· · ...... ,. :.:::: .. ::.:.::::i,~~;~ij,~~:::~~~~·.:·::.::::~:::;:1: $38,854 2017 /2018 $120,670 l~~~i~~i~I : ii'll~llil .. . . ·.· "<:::..:::::::::::::::~:::::.::::· . 2019/2020 $170,622 2021/2022 $224,241 ~~~~~~~~i 2023/2024 $227,714 1~:~.:· ID ::1111111111::: :: :r: : : llll~llil 2025/2026 $231,935 2.027/2028 $236,911 2029/2030 $241,527 2031/2032. $227,153 I •=vnwc•. mccxcc•?Tu'B • ·•••••••••· ........ , .•......••..... Total Direct $3,381,672 6 3 LA-RICS SITUATION Another comparison: The County of Los Angeles will be paying $165.3 million for LA-RICS (assuming no withdrawals from JPA) • LA-RICS June 2014 funding plan for the County of Los Angeles, not including cost of new radios for all personnel, vehicles, & dispatch !li!!i~~+~:1:~1·::::·:•···:··:: '•"':: .. ···:·:·::,::·· •/1:is·lal:·flea1l, :::::::.: ·~:·:::· :.:.:::.:·: ... ,: .:" : ... ::,:' : : .. : :.: .. ' ' :· '• . >: " ' " . . : ' ' •, • f l~lllll1ll•1••1••1••••1••1r1::•••t••• •filllll~illl~lill 2015/2016 $1,728,255 ·2025/2026 $11,392,938 ·1111•11111111•1•1111:11:1•1 •1111•:••••••1••11•111111111111~•11111~·1•11•····· 2017/2018 $5,835,421 2027 /2028 $11,632,156 •••••••~i~iiilli. 1•111•1•1••••1••1•1•••••1•111I1•1••1••••111•ilil~illll~lll111•••• ·····~1~1111111 ·,········•1•••11:•••11••1•••11111111•1•1·~~111•1~1111•••••• 2019/2020 $8,339,089 2029/2030 $11,852,752 ······~~2il~ii•~· ········•1••••················•·1••••1•11~11•11~1111••:•• illillll•l ••111••1•1••1 1iii~•iii~~~~u 2021/2022 $11,026,867 2031/2032 $11,117,505 ·••····~~·~i~iill1····•j•1•••••1r :11•11••1111•1•1•••1~111:~•lli~1·11••••••• 2023/2024 $11,191,295 Total Direct $165,335,560 6 6 4 LA-RICS SITUATION LA-RICS costs vs. stated benefits: The total cost is projected to exceed $600 million • LA-RICS funding plan projects build-up and initial operating needs of $372 million for capital costs (infrastructure} and $21 million annually to operate its two systems, payable by users • Voice system: (LMR}: • Capital costs: $205 million • Annual operating costs: $11 million, including capital replacement needs • LTE mobile broadband system: • Capital costs: $167 million •Annual operating costs: $10 million • Above costs exclude capital replacement • Additional grant monies are deemed essential for initial build out • Above costs exclude radio equipment owned by cities and agencies • Most cities/agencies will need to purchase and install new radios at own expense (LA-RICS would use different frequency bands) 7 6 5 LA-RICS SITUATION LA-RICS' costs vs. stated benefits: Benefits are very bold promises, but with no performance or cost guarantees • Promised benefits of LA-RICS system include: • Day-to-day public safety voice and data needs • Mutual aid interoperability in emergencies, disasters 8 • Moving L.A. County public safety agencies off UHF T-band (must be vacated by 2023 under H.R. 3630, "Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Bill of 2012") • Cost savings through centralized operations • Improvements in current radio coverage • Flexibility for subscribers • Encryption for secure communications • Pooling of regional frequencies and some infrastructure • "Enhanced interoperable communications with federal, state, and other local outside agencies" • Preserving use of current equipment for some agencies • But no guarantee LA-RICS becomes operational in time period stated or that additional costs won't be assessed to users 6 6 LA-RICS SITUATION Are there less-expensive alternatives to LA-RICS for public safety agency interoperability? Yes. • LA-RICS is very complex system to cover every square mile of Los Angeles County, every city, and many other agencies • While goal is interoperability for a major disaster, an infrequent need ... • ... LA-RICS is intended for everyday communication • Lower-cost interoperability alternatives include: • More mutual aid radio frequencies (CLEMARS, FIREMARS, local area agreements) programmed into current & new radios • Purchase 7-10 additional Mobile Communication Units for Sheriff's Department (trucks that can patch together different radio frequencies at disaster scenes or from hilltops) • MCU trucks allow different agencies to connect when needed, where needed. 9 6 7 LA-RICS SITUATION 10 Some questions haven't been asked regarding LA-RICS ... • Where are the guaranties? • System performance: Will it work as promised and on time? • Costs will not exceed current projections? Who pays? • What additional contract costs will City of Rancho Palos Verdes incur from L.A. County Sheriff and L.A. County Fire because of their participation in LA-RICS during 2015-2032? • (Examples): How often does a police officer in Claremont REALLY need radio communication with an officer in Hermosa Beach? Or the firefighter in Lancaster with a police officer in Long Beach? • Have lower-cost alternatives for interoperability seriously been considered (i.e., a 90°/o solution at 5-10% of the cost)? • Would LA-RICS have ever come to life without Federal funding or mandates? 6 8 LA-RICS SITUATION 11 In closing, recommendation for City of Rancho Palos Verdes is to withdraw from JPA for now • Immediate action for city budgeting and financial planning: • Determine additional annual costs City of Rancho Palos Verdes will incur from L.A. County Sheriff and L.A. County Fire because of LA-RICS during 2017-2032 • Recognize $93, 120 direct cost to RPV over 18 years is small, but new expense for city •Recommendation: • Although mostly symbolic: Withdraw from LA-RICS JPA now. Buy-in later if system works as promised and has acceptable cost. 6 9 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER 29 April 2014 Wendy Stallworth-Tait LA-RICS Project Team 2525 Corporate Pl., Ste. 200 Monterey Park, CA 91754 VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL SUBJECT: City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Comments on the Draft LA~RICS Funding Plan Dear Ms. Stallworth-Tait: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is in receipt of the draft Funding Plan approved by the Board of Directors for the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) on 7 March 2014. City Staff has also participated in all four (4) LA-RICS Stakeholder Meetings, which were held in November 2013, December 2013, January 2014 and April 2014. Based upon our review of the draft Funding Plan, we hereby offer the following comments for the consideration of the LA-RICS Board of Directors at its upcoming meeting on 7 May 2014: 1. The draft Funding Plan released on 7 March 2014 listed no annual cost to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is a "full contract" city. However, at the fourth Stakeholder Meeting held on 7 April 2014, we were advised that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be assessed a proportional share (based upon population) of the 20-percent system administration fee. This fee would start at roughly $2, 100.00/year in FY 2015-16 and increase to roughly $2,900.00/year by FY 2031-32. Although the amount of this fee is relatively nominal, we are concerned about the gradual imposition of additional, unforeseen fees and charges over the life of the LA-RI CS system. 2. As mentioned above, Rancho Palos Verdes is a "full contract" city. LA-RICS has advised us that we should expect the City's share of the annual operation and maintenance costs of the system to be passed along under the terms of our annual contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and through annual assessments imposed by the Los Angeles County Fire Protection District. However, at this point, neither LA-RICS nor the County public safety agencies have provided the City with any kind of estimate of what these costs will be. Furthermore, we have been provided with no assurance that the City's share of these costs will be allocated in a manner that is consistent with the weighted variables that were identified during 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./ RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5205 /FAX (310) 544-5291 E·MAIL: CLEHR@RPV.COM / WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM/RPV PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 70 LA-RICS Draft Funding Plan 29 April 2014 Page 2 the Stakeholder Meeting process that led to the formulation of the draft Funding Plan. As such, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully requests that the LA-RICS Board of Directors defer taking final action on the draft Funding Plan until our City (and other "full contract" cities) have been provided with an estimate of our annual pass- through costs from the County. 3. We understand that the LA-RICS Board of Directors' approval of the draft Funding Plan will begin a 35-day "opt out" period for participating jurisdictions. We believe that it would be unreasonable for our City Council to be expected to take any action regarding the City's continued participation in LA-RICS without being provided with some kind of estimate of the City's true cost of participation in the system. For this reason, we are asking the Board to defer taking action on the Draft Funding Plan until these cost estimates are provided. In addition, we are concerned that, even if the City of Rancho Palos Verdes elects to "opt out" of LA-RICS, as a "full contract" city we will continue to bear the financial burden of supporting the system for as long as the County continues to participate in the system. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the LA-RICS Board of Directors' consideration of our comments and concerns regarding the draft Funding Plan. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Senior Administrative Analyst Kit Fox at (310) 544-5226 or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com. Sincerely, ~~~ Carolynn Petru Acting City Manager cc: Mayor Jerry Duhovic and City Council Carol Lynch, City Attorney Dennis Mclean, Director of Finance & Information Technology Tracy Bonano, Emergency Services Coordinator Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst M:\Municipal Services\Emergency Communications\LA-RICS\20140429_LA-RICS_FundingPlanComments.docx 71 72 LA-RICS Funding Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 lntroduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Section 1. Funding Plan Overview ...................................................................................................... 13 Section 2. Background Research ........................................................................................................ 15 Section 3. Member Outreach ............................................................................................................. 15 Section 4. Cost Allocation Method ..................................................................................................... 15 Section 5. Data Monitoring and True-Up Period ............................................................................... 25 List of Tables Table 1. Variables for LMR and LTE Cost Allocation Formulas ......................................................... 21 List of Figures Figure 1. Cost Allocation Formula ...................................................................................................... 23 Appendices Appendix 1-March 6, 2014-Draft Funding Plan Appendix 2 -April 3, 2014 -Board-Authorized Modifications Appendix 3 -May 7, 2014 -Board Item on Comments Received on Draft Plan; Summary of Comments Received from Authority Members During 60-Day Comment Period Appendix 4-August 15, 2013, LMR Board Letter and March 6, 2014, LTE Board Letter LA-RICS Funding Plan Page i 73 LA-RICS Funding Plan Executive Summary The Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communication System {LA-RICS) is a modern, integrated wireless voice and data communication system designed to serve law enforcement, fire service, and health service professionals throughout Los Angeles County. LA-RICS is a joint powers authority (Authority) with 86 Members currently, including the County of Los Angeles, 82 cities, two school districts, and the University of California, Los Angeles. LA-RICS comprises two independent systems, which include a voice {land mobile radio, or LMR) system and a broadband data (long-term evolution, or LTE) system. LA-RICS will provide day-to- day communications within agencies and allow seamless interagency communications for responding to routine, emergency, and catastrophic events. Per the Joint Powers Agreement (Agreement) adopted in 2009, the Authority must develop and adopt a Funding Plan before it commits resources to constructing the LMR or LTE systems (Ref. Art. II, Sec. 2.04(b) and Sec. 2.05(b)(2); and Art. V, Sec. 5.01). This Funding Plan has been a long time in the making, given the Agreement specified that the Authority would use its "best efforts to develop and adopt within nine (9) months of the effective date of the Agreement...a Funding · Plan specifying a means or formula for funding the construction, operation and maintenance of the System" (Ref. Art. II, Section 2.05(b)(2)). The Funding Plan must identify "funding sources and mechanisms" (Art. V, Sec. 5.01). In particular, the Funding Plan must "specify a means or formula for funding the construction, operation and maintenance of the System; such Funding Plan shall include an allocation of costs among the Members, subscribers and other funding sources" {Art. II, Sec. 2.05(b)(2)). Further, the Funding Plan must provide a "development schedule and phasing plan, which will permit the maximum feasible participation by Members" (Art. V, Sec. 5.01). This latter requirement in the Agreement recognizes the great diversity among Members in the caliber of their LMR and existing broadband systems, as well as in their ability to internally support capital improvements and maintenance. The Funding Plan presents LMR capital costs of approximately $205 million and annual costs of approximately $11 million for operations and capital replacement. It also addresses LTE capital costs of approximately $150 million, additional capital costs of approximately $17 million for additive alternates, and annual costs of approximately $10 million for operations and excludes capital replacement. The Funding Plan must identify funding sources and a means for allocating these costs among the Members. The Funding Plan relies on grant monies for the initial construction of the LMR and LTE systems. Member fees are to be the revenue source for the operations and maintenance {O&M) as well as all other capital costs. Voter assessments are not currently practical given the high cost of a ballot campaign coupled with high voter requirements to pass a special revenue measure. The LMR and LTE program costs can be divided into an infrastructure (initial capital or capital replacement) component and an O&M component. The financing model seeks to apportion costs to the Members relative to each Member's ratio of population and geographic factors. As LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 1 74 LA-RICS Funding Plan stakeholder survey results revealed that Members do not prefer a fixed fee that is not tied to a Member's specific impact to the communications system, the Funding Plan incorporates one or more measurable characteristics (population and geography) as a tool to determine each Member's revenue contribution. The Draft Funding Plan was authorized for release for comment to the Authority's Members on March 6, 2014. The Draft Funding Plan is attached as Appendix 1. On April 3, 2014, the Authority Board released a revised Cash Flow, which contemplated the Capital Replacement Reserve for the LMR System being deferred, with no accumulation, until the beginning of the fourth year of system operation. An administrative cost allocation for ongoing support of the Authority Operations at 20% of the overall administrative cost was included in the revision. This information is attached as Appendix 2. The Board received a number of comments on the Draft Funding Plan during the 60-day comme.nt period, a matrix of which is attached as Appendix 3. In consideration of the feedback received during the 60-day comment period, the Draft Funding Plan was updated to reflect the responses to this information as well as input from the Finance Committee and Authority Board. The Funding Plan's cost allocation is based on the following: • All costs for administration, operations and maintenance, capital replacement, and hard match are calculated based on the population and geographic area of the Member agency. These two variables are weighted equally at 50% each. The Funding Plan is predicated on Members participating in the system, and the contribution from each Member will be calculated on the number participating. The initial Cash Flow presented is predicated on full participation of every Member of the Authority. That is, the Member shares will be calculated assuming every potential Member is paying its indicated annual share. However, the Authority acknowledges that some Members may exercise their right to withdraw as allowed under the Agreement. A Member may make a financial decision to delay participation until such time as their communication system equipment completes its normal replacement cycle and thus the agency's capital investment is fully amortized. The Opt- Out Period for the Funding Plan is 180 calendar days from May 28, 2014, the date of adoption of the Funding Plan by the Authority's Board. The Authority's Board also set the 180 day period for withdrawal of Members, as provided for in Article V, Section 5.01 of the Agreement. In addition, the Funding Plan is required to be revisited in three years from date of adoption. As part of this requirement, LA-RICS will be required to evaluate the current cost allocation method and the system usage data and to determine whether any changes to the Funding Plan are required. For every Member that chooses not to participate, its annual share of the cost must be assumed by the Authority should total system costs be higher than the revenues collected from early participating Members. Each year an agency. does not become a Member or join LA-RI CS, its allocated but unpaid cost share of the LTE hard match and LMR capital replacement will accumulate. In this instance, bridge financing may be required to make up the difference. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 2 75 LA-RICS Funding Plan Alternatively, early participating Members will likely absorb the costs of nonparticipants, resulting in a higher cost for the early Members. Should a Member rejoin the Authority at a later date, the Authority's Board will develop policy that addresses late adopters. Some Members may have special radio or broadband coverage challenges (e.g., hilly terrain or clusters of tall buildings) that the standard backbone systems would be unable to meet. Those Members may require additional sites or facilities for an acceptable level of service. If so, those Members, and not LA-RICS, unless otherwise agreed to by the Authority's Board, may be responsible for the costs of building and maintaining these facilities. To the extent possible, LA-RICS will provide Bounded Area coverage enhancements. In-Building coverage will also be the responsibility of the Member agency that desires the coverage, unless otherwise agreed to by the Authority's Board. (Note that this does not preclude LA-RICS from being the agency that does the actual work of constructing or maintaining these facilities.) LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 3 76 LA-RICS Funding Plan Introduction The Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communication System (LA-RICS) is a modern, integrated wireless voice and data communication system designed to serve law enforcement, fire service, and health service professionals throughout Los Angeles County. LA-RICS is a joint powers authority (Authority) with 86 Members currently, including the County of Los Angeles, 82 cities, two school districts, and the University of California, Los Angeles. A system description of the LMR and LTE systems is provided below. System Description Genesis of the Hybrid LMR System In the summer of 2012, Jacobs Program Management, acting as the Authority's LMR Program Manager, performed a hybrid UHF T-band and 700 MHz analysis to ascertain whether such a system could be deployed across the greater Los Angeles Region. The results of that study, as articulated in the "LA-RICS LMR Hybrid Feasibility Study" of July 7, 2012, indicated that a hybrid LMR System was feasible and that such a system would meet both LA-RICS' near-term and longer-term public safety communications needs. It was the conclusion of the study that a hybrid system utilizing both 700 MHz P25 and T-band P25 technologies could provide the LA-RICS user community with a LMR System capable of supporting first responders. The overall conclusion was predicated on the minimum requirement of utilizing seventy (70) 700 MHz channels. The utilization of T-band spectrum within the hybrid system is fully scalable, thus rendering the T-band component configurable to address concerns regarding the concentration of first responder assets in areas during emergency response. The study concluded that a hybrid UHF T-band and 700 MHz system could: • Support 34,000 users on the 700 MHz spectrum with the capacity to accommodate a 25% incident increase of users maintaining a 1% grade of service (GoS). Although T-band channels will support 34,000 users on the T-band spectrum with the capacity to accommodate a 25% incident increase of users maintaining a 1% Gos, real-life experience indicates the need for more capacity. The study recognized that there is additional T- band capacity available to meet the real-life requirements for 10 channels per site, as this was anticipated to be a requirement in the LMR RFP and ultimate contract. • Provide voice coverage per anticipated RFP requirements with the exception of the Angeles National Forest (ANF) areas (this is primarily due to a limited number of available tower facilities in the ANF, and coverage could be enhanced as additional sites become available). LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 4 77 /" LA-RICS Funding Plan • Include a narrowband data subsystem that could replace three existing UHF mobile data systems with a single system having coverage and capacity that would meet anticipated LMR System requirements. • Include the current ACVRS that will be maintained on UHF but could be upgraded to more modern equipment. • Employ bi-directional amplifiers (BDAs) for in-building coverage as used in the existing T-band subsystems. The existing BDAs will be replaced and/or supplemented with 700 MHz BDAs as needed. The selected contractor's final design should be based on user input that would determine how the hybrid system implementation plan would be rolled out. Following the July 2012 LMR Hybrid Feasibility Study, all pertinent requirements for a hybrid system were incorporated in the LMR System RFP. Due to the requirement to provide up to 10 channels per site for surge capacity for both UHF and T-band, it was determined that a pool of 700 MHz frequencies could be used to augment capacity at sites where event escalation might occur. As a result, LA-RICS required that proposers not exceed 90 700 MHz frequencies. Two proposers provided proposals that addressed a hybrid system, and Motorola Solutions, Inc., was invited to negotiate. Subsequent to successful negotiations with Motorola, a contract was awarded by the Authority's Board that would provide a hybrid LMR System for the greater Los Angeles Region. Description of the LMR System The LMR System is a hybrid, integrated, regional, public safety wireless communications system operating primarily on UHF T-band channels and the 700 MHz spectrum. This Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) Project 25 Phase II capable wireless communications system will provide public safety first responders with mission critical voice and data communications supporting day-to-day, mutual aid, and task force operations. It will provide immediate and coordinated assistance in times of emergency, minimizing loss of life and property within the greater Los Angeles Region. Furthermore, the LMR System will provide enhanced, interoperable communications through the following subsystems: • Digital Trunked Voice Radio Subsystem (DTVRS): This DTVRS subsystem is considered the primary subsystem. ft is a hybrid design that incorporates Project 25 Phase II equipment operating a voice communications network on both the UHF "T-band" spectrum and the 700 MHz band. Intra-subsystem network operations between users on the differing bands are transparent. • Analog Conventional Voice Radio Subsystem (ACVRS): The interoperable ACVRS subsystem will interface with the hybrid UHF and 700 MHz DTVRS subsystem. ACVRS will LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 5 78 LA-RICS Funding Plan use narrow-banded UHF channels available to LA-RICS. ACVRS will consist of up to 22 Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) regionalized channels corresponding to each Telephone Radio Operator (TRO) operational service area. • Narrowband Mobile Data Network (NMDN): The NMDN subsystem will be available to all Member agencies. This subsystem's data network will operate on UHF channels and provides reliable Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) connectivity. • Los Angeles Regional Tactical Communications Subsystem (LARTCS): The LARTCS subsystem will support public safety operations on VHF Low-Band, VHF High-Band, UHF, and 800 MHz. This subsystem provides DTVRS and ACVRS interoperating connectivity with legacy public safety system users that would not normally operate on LA-RICS' primary subsystems. Where possible, the LARTCS subsystem radio system attempts to logically share common infrastructure components. System Capabilities and Advantages The LMR System will facilitate and support Authority stakeholders' day-to-day public safety voice and low-speed data communications needs, providing instantaneous mutual aid in the event of a man-made or natural disaster. As such, the LMR System provides communications surge capability and resiliency. It provides generous allowances for disaster recovery and future system growth. The Authority will possess a public safety LMR System that will be technically sufficient. In addition to supporting day-to-day public safety voice and data communications needs, the LA-RICS LMR System also provides a much-needed migration path off the UHF T-band spectrum that must be vacated in 2023 pursuant to H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Bill of 2012. Why is the hybrid approach the best option for LA-RICS at this time? • Removes LA-RICS from dependency on the federal government to make decisions regarding local spectrum and funding. • Deploys an interoperable public safety radio network on Day 1 and buys time for later resolution with respect to future T-band frequency availability. • Buys time to position for the possibility of future spectrum availability in both 700 MHz and 800 MHz. • Provides a baseline countywide system now that will easily accommodate expansion as users come on board. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 6 79 LA-RICS Funding Plan • Allows for a smooth, coordinated migration over time, and stays positioned for future FCC assistance with spectrum and funding. • Minimizes risk of breakage and stranded assets. • Utilizes existing ACVRS and narrowband data. • Allows LA-RI CS to prudently plan for yet-to-be-determined policies and direction from the FCC. Effects on Members Existing Operations & Benefits The benefits and advantages that Member agencies will gain with the LA-RICS hybrid LMR radio communications system, over their existing operations and for the next decade and beyond, are numerous and include: • A truly countywide voice and narrow band mobile data system that provides coverage and capacity throughout the jurisdictions of all Member agencies. • Reuse of infrastructure assets leverages the investments that Members have made in existing sites and equipment. • Cost savings are realized through centralized operations and maintenance of the LMR System. • Cost avoidance will be achieved when the federal legislation to vacate the current UHF T-band occurs, as the Authority will not have to re-procure and re-deploy a new regional communications system. • Coverage and capacity will meet or exceed operational requirements for all LMR subsystems and provide significant improvement over existing capabilities. • Designed-in system growth will provide long-term usability in response to population growth and additional operational requirements. • The LMR System is being designed in a modular, scalable manner to allow the Authority to add or remove Members/users as needed, necessary, and appropriate. • The LMR System will allow Member agencies the flexibility to assume responsibility for LMR System maintenance as desired. • There will be no single point of failure throughout the mission-critical DTVRS subsystem. • Geographically isolated LMR System controllers will provide redundancy in the event of a disaster. • System-wide encryption provides LMR System security against cyber attacks. LA-RJCS Funding Plan Page 7 80 LA-RICS Funding Plan • The LMR System provides encrypted communications allowing each member Agency to conduct secure operations. • The LMR System will achieve the Authority's vision of regional communications interoperability. • The LMR System will provide Member agencies operational and equipment options regarding end-of-life concerns for their current systems. • All hardware, firmware, and software licenses wlll be current as of the final acceptance. • Overall LA-RICS program objectives will be realized to the great benefit of all Members: o Pooling of regional frequencies will be accomplished. o Reuse of existing infrastructure will be realized. o Providing for interoperable day-to-day communications for all Members will finally become a reality. o Providing instantaneous mutual aid communications will be realized. o Regional disaster recovery capabilities will be enhanced. o Factored-in future growth will be available. o Positive reduction of duplication costs will be a reality. • Enhanced interoperable communications with federal, state, and other outside local agencies. • Does not require members to invest capital dollars up front for UHF-capable subscriber units, but rather preserves individual agency equipment replacement/migration strategies. Members who operate exclusively on VHF, or who have outdated 700 MHz equipment, may choose to replace their subscriber equipment in order to take full advantage of the new hybrid network. • Reduces the risk for all Members of deploying on a network that will be obsolete in less than a decade. • Over the long term, 700 MHz will provide better interoperability with contiguous neighbors -Orange, Riverside, and other adjacent county users, since they are migrating to 700/SOOMHz. • Potential exists for LA-RICS 700 MHz to be a direct backup for STRS and CWIRS -they currently have no backup capability. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 8 81 LA-RICS Funding Plan Description of the LTE System The Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN) is a state-of-the-art wireless broadband system that provides high mobility public safety grade outdoor data services across Los Angeles County. It uses the latest cellular technology, called Long Term Evolution (LTE), currently being deployed by the major cellular carriers worldwide. The PSBN is built to the higher public safety reliability standards in order to have service available when public safety needs communications most- during emergencies. The PSBN is capable of interoperability with the forthcoming FirstNet nationwide network as well as other Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP) grant- funded public safety systems. It uses the radio spectrum assigned to LA-RICS in its Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA) with FirstNet. The PSBN consists of the following major subsystems: LTE Subsystem -The LTE Subsystem consists of an LTE-compliant wireless broadband system. LTE is a· global standard established by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) and represents the most advanced commercial wireless broadband technology available. The LTE Subsystem will enable the Authority to have the same system functionality as commercial wireless carriers. The LTE Subsystem will provide wireless mobile broadband service across Los Angeles County from a preliminary 229 "cell sites" (known as eNodeBs). Please note that the actual cell sites may vary from the numbers referenced in the Funding Plan, as the design is being refined based on a number of factors. It will provide broadband coverage to outdoor users using portable devices. The LTE Subsystem will meet various Key Performance Indicator (KPI) thresholds to achieve reliable and high-speed data connections. The LTE Subsystem also includes one Evolved Packet Core (EPC) implementation at the Los Angeles County Fire Department's Fire Command and Control Facility (FCCF) to manage user mobility and routing throughout the entire system. A second redundant Evolved Packet Core is included as an additive alternate. The following table represents the percentage for each zone for the downlink (cell site to mobile device) and uplink (mobile device to cell site). LA-RICS Coverage Zones Percentage Coverage of Geography Downlink (768 kbps) Uplink (256 kbps) LA Basin 96.5 91.7 Santa Monica Mtns. 62.6 36.2 Angeles National Forest 35.0 11.6 Foothills 70.4 43.2 Foothills -Developed 91.2 76.8 CA-14 Corridor 42.2 16.9 Northern Desert 90.9 73.7 Waterway 70.8 66.0 Backhaul Subsystem -The Backhaul Subsystem provides connectivity and data routing among the 231 cell sites and the Evolved Packet Core. Microwave communication is the method of choice in the Backhaul Subsystem and provides connections for more than 80% of the PSBN LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 9 82 LA-RICS Funding Plan sites. The remaining sites as well as other intersystem connections are achieved through leased circuits. Ancillary Site Subsystem -The Ancillary Site Subsystem consists of "public safety grade" elements required to support the LTE and Backhaul subsystems. This subsystem includes new robust monopole "towers" as well as battery backup and generator systems to provide short- term and long-term power backup in the event of commercial power failures. The Ancillary Site Subsystem also includes the necessary upgrades and improvements for existing rooftop and tower sites to support the LTE and Backhaul equipment. System Capabilities & Advantages The PSBN is capable of high-speed and high-mobility communication where service is provided. Data rat~s and performance on the system will be comparable to commercial cellular services. However, this network differs from commercial services in one key area-availability of service. Commercial cellular networks are not built to the same robust standard as the PSBN and are not expected to be as survivable. Furthermore, commercial usage by consumers is typically very high _during emergencies. This creates congestion on the cell sites where the incident occurs. And due to lack of priority service on the commercial networks, public safety communication is at risk due to the congestion. The PSBN provides outdoor service to portable handheld devices over the area in the table above at data speeds at or above 768 kilobits per second (kbps) in the downlink and 256 kbps in the uplink. However, these rates represent the "edge" rates where the signal is low. LTE is capable of scaling to lower rates at lower signal levels, and therefore, the PSBN can cover more area at lower rates. This can include limited coverage inside buildings, especially inside buildings near PSBN cell sites. Typical capacity for a single cell site is expected to be on the order of 30 megabits per second (mbps}. This capacity is shared by the users in that area. The PSBN is designed to be "public safety grade." The towers are more robust than typical cell phone towers, the sites are equipped with multiple forms of power backup, and wherever possible, components and connections are redundant such that when one element fails, another is immediately ava'ilable to maintain system operation. The PSBN is capable of transporting any Internet Protocol (IP} application data. This includes Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD}, voice over IP (VoIP}, electronic Patient Care Records (ePCR}, web applications, e-mail, streaming video, Geographic Information Systems (GIS}, and many others. It is designed to accommodate very low system delays (latency} to provide high quality services to delay sensitive applications. However, the system's designed capacity is limited, and therefore, the degree to which these applications can be run simultaneously on the same cell site is limited. In addition, the system may not provide the needed coverage (e.g., in-building} required by some of these applications. The system is also capable of roaming to commercial cellular networks where PSBN service does not exist. Therefore, outside of Los Angeles County, in areas outside of the PSBN coverage LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 10 83 LA-RICS Funding Plan footprint, and inside buildings, the system is capable of supporting a transition (with a short delay during the transition) to the commercial network. Additionally, subscriber device options (including one from Motorola in the base agreement) will support the use of multiple modems that can seamlessly transition between the commercial and PSBN networks. Effects on Members' Existing Operations & Benefits Due to the higher availability of the PSBN from the robustness of the network to the dedicated capacity, public safety users will be able to rely more on the PSBN in emergencies. This will enable public safety personnel to have sustained communications in life-threatening scenarios that may normally be constrained by congestion or a complete loss of service. For example, in the event of an earthquake, existing systems may be crippled by the event itself or by the extremely high usage levels. The PSBN is expected to be more survivable in such an event, and the dedi.cated capacity means public safety does not have to compete with the public for data resources. Finally, because the PSBN is fully controlled by public safety, the Authority and its Members can adjust network priorities to address congestion within the public safety community to ensure the most critical communication gets through. In some cases, Member agencies may withhold deployment of data solutions because of the reliability or capabilities of existing systems. The higher reliability of the PSBN may enable increased use of broadband data applications in "mission-critical" scenarios. Therefore, in addition to higher reliability of existing data solutions, new life-saving benefits may now be possible over the PSBN as a result of the higher data availability. For example, due to congestion on commercial networks, real-time streaming video use may be limited. The PSBN has all of the advanced capabilities of an LTE network and can prioritize video traffic to ensure the needed resources are made available. Because the PSBN is under the control of public safety, public safety determines the priority of response to system failures when they occur. This includes public safety control of emergency deployable systems, such as a "Cell on Wheels (COW)." It also includes public safety determination of system maintenance timing to ensure that potential outages that result from maintenance minimize their impacts on public safety, not consumer, operations. It also means that restoration of service can be prioritized due to public safety, not commercial, needs. The PSBN includes a robust backhaul network connecting the PSBN cell sites with the core network "switch." These sites are predominantly located at police and fire stations. The connections could then be used to provide robust data connections to these facilities. To the extent that these facilities are on member agency networks, they may enable connectivity among Public Safety Access Points or other data communication within the region. While the PSBN connection is currently planned to end at the tower outside these police and fire stations, a connection to the inside of the co-located facility can complete the circuit. This could enable direct phone calling between Member agencies in the event that the public telephone network fails, among other applications. It should be noted that the capacity of these connections is based only on the PSBN traffic, and therefore, connections may require upgrades to support new LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 11 84 LA-RICS Funding Plan applications. However, the system is planned for 50% growth, which could be used for limited external applications. In order to benefit from the PSBN's capabilities, Member agencies will need new Band Class 14 devices. While Member agencies may have LTE-capable devices from commercial carriers, those devices do not currently support the dedicated public safety spectrum. Those new devices will need to be configured and installed. Additionally, Member agencies will need to connect their fixed networks, data centers, and applications to the PSBN. This will require coordination and collaboration between IT departments to including physical connectivity, data routing, and security. Funding LA-RICS will include voice (land mobile radio, or LMR) and broadband data (long~term evolution, or LTE) components. LA-RICS will provide day-to-day communications within agencies and allow seamless interagency communications for responding to routine, emergency, and catastrophic events. Although a significant portion of system costs will be covered through grant funding, the Authority must identify a method to distribute its remaining cost among its members. LA-RICS established a Finance Committee to address these issues, among other financial considerations, and subsequently retained Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) to develop a methodology and ultimately this Funding Plan. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 12 85 LA-RICS Funding Plan Section 1. Funding Plan Overview Requirements The LA-RICS Joint Powers Agreement Section 2.05(b)(2) notes that it is the responsibility of the Board of Directors to "develop and implement a funding plan (the 'Funding Plan') for the construction and ongoing operation of a shared voice and data system." Section 5.01 (Adoption of Funding Plan) provides additional clarity for this responsibility: It is a critical goal of the Authority to develop a Funding Plan that identifies funding sources and mechanisms, including a development schedule and phasing plan, which will permit the maximum feasible participation by Members. The Funding Plan shall be descriptive as to the contfibutions required from Members. Prior to committing resources for the construction of the System, a proposed Funding Plan as designated in Section 2.05{b)(2) shall be developed. Section 5.01 of the Agreement also requires that the Funding Plan "shall be accompanied by a description of the System, and reports and studies to allow Members to determine the System capability, cost, financing and the effects on individual Members." This Funding Plan meets those requirements. This Funding Plan identifies funding sources and mechanisms to pay for construction of LA-RICS through grant funds and contributions by Members, respectively, as discussed herein. In addition, the LMR and PSBN Agreements executed between Motorola and the Authority set forth a detailed development and phasing schedule for the construction, operation, and maintenance of each system. Much of the background information and stakeholder engagement process is contained in Appendix 1-Draft Funding Plan. On March 6, 2014, the Authority Board considered the Draft Funding Plan and authorized its release for the required 60-day comment period. On April 3, 2014, the Authority Board reviewed and considered information pertaining to the specific Cash Flow contained in the Draft Funding Plan, which contemplated deferring the Capital Replacement Reserve for the LMR System, with no accumulation, until the beginning of the fourth year of system operation. An administrative cost allocation for the ongoing support of Authority Operations at 20% of the overall administrative cost was also included in the revision. The Authority Board authorized the release of this revision, which is included in Appendix 2. On May 7, 2014, the Authority Board received a report outlining all of the comments received on the Draft Funding Plan. This information is included in Appendix 3. Included in Appendix 4 is the August 15, 2013, LMR Board letter and the March 6, 2014, LTE Board letter that discusses the phasing of work to occur to construct, operate, and maintain each system. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 13 86 ( ( LA-RICS Funding Plan Funding Plan Components and Goals LA-RICS has received favorable status through receipt of significant grant funding for the LMR and LTE systems. These grant funds cover a substantial portion of the costs associated with constructing the physical infrastructure that supports both systems. The Funding Plan is responsible for proposing an allocation of the costs not covered by the grant funding including LMR operations and maintenance, LMR life-cycle capital replacement, LTE hard cost matches, LTE soft cost matches, LTE operations and maintenance, and LTE life-cycle capital replacement (Section 4 provides more detail about Funding Plan costs). The methodology for the distribution of system costs between Member agencies and their acceptance is a major challenge to the successful completion of the LA-RICS project. The Draft Funding Plan utilized a number of variables to allocate costs for both the LTE and LMR systems. This infprmation is contained in Appendix 1. In consideration of the feedback received during the comment period, it is being recommended that the variables used to allocate cost to Member agencies be revised to eliminate as many unknowns as possible including the potential that agencies may have reported information inconsistently. The Board has met its obligation to distribute a Draft Funding Plan to Members with a description of the LMR and LTE systems, as well as "reports and studies" that would allow members to make their own assessments of system capabilities, costs, financing, and fiscal impact. In addition, Members can continue to meet with Authority staff and the LA-RICS contractor to discuss and evaluate the particulars of each system and the associated projected coverages in any geographic area affecting Members. Once the Board adopts a Funding Plan, the Board will need to notify Members within five days of adopting the Funding Plan. Members then have at least 35 days in which to submit written notice of immediate withdrawal from the Authority. Very significantly, "there will be no costs for any Member that withdraws from the Authority within this time period" (Art. V, Sec. 5.01). The Authority Board voted to extend the opt-out period for the plan to 180 days to allow Member agencies to adequately review the information and allow their governing bodies to take appropriate action, if necessary. The Authority's Board may opt to revise the Funding Plan in light of Member withdrawals following its adoption. The provision in the Agreement (last paragraph of Art. V, Sec. 5.01) that allows for a Board vote on a revised Funding Plan states: After the Funding Plan has been adopted, and until contracts are awarded to design and/or construct the System, if the Funding Plan is revised in a manner which will substantially increase the financial obligations of the members, then any Member so affected will have a further right to withdraw within a period designated by the Board, which shall not be less than 45 days after the adoption of the revised Funding Plan. There will be no costs or any Member that withdraws from the Authority within this time period, except for obligations incurred prior to the adoption of the Revised Funding Plan. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 14 87 ).(ii' LA-RICS Funding Plan Section 2. Background Research Extensive background research was done of comparable interoperable communication systems to identify existing finance plan strategies. Select allocation methods and variables from these comparable systems, as vetted by Members, were incorporated in the Draft Funding Plan authorized for release on March 6, 2014. All of the background research is contained in the Draft Funding Plan attached in Appendix 1. Section 3. Member Outreach Extensive Member outreach was done by Authority staff and PMC. All of the Member outreach and results of this outreach are contained in the Draft Funding Plan attached in Appendix 1. PMC sent init!al surveys to fire and police chiefs, as well as city managers, of each Member agency, followed with three rounds of stakeholder meetings held between November 2013 and January 2014. Each series included hosting several meetings on different days and in separate locations with the intention of increasing Member participation. Section 4. Cost Allocation Method Cost allocation, or apportionment, is the manner by which the various costs of the systems are assigned to defined user characteristics and then allocated to the LA-RICS Members based on each Member's known user data. The apportionment methodology considers the components of the system costs to the extent that they are known or can be estimated. The objective of this section is to (1) outline in a representational model the system funding preferences based on input from stakeholders and comments received during the comment period; (2) describe the funding model parameters and development; and (3) develop costs for each Member using the cost allocation formula for the LMR and LTE systems. Cost Components of Systems The costs and model development assume full buildout and implementation of the interoperable communications systems as defined in the executed agreements for LMR and LTE. Costs based on assumptions of phased buildout and implementation will result in different costs in the early years of the system. Any phasing assumptions and changes in costs for system development will be determined by the Authority. The Funding Plan relies on grant monies for the initial construction of the LMR and LTE systems. Member fees are to be the revenue source for operation of both systems, administrative costs, LTE hard match, and LMR System refresh. Voter assessments are not currently practical given the high cost of a ballot campaign coupled with high voter requirements to pass a special revenue measure. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 15 88 LA-RICS Funding Plan Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Components of LMR cost include the contract system maintenance costs (Phase 5) totaling approximately $56 million for the full 15-year contract period.1 In addition to the contracted system maintenance cost, an infrastructure component is included to account for replacement and technological upgrade and/or obsolescence. This infrastructure component, or capital replacement, is called the "Life Cycle Cost." A Life Cycle Cost estimate for replacement of LMR infrastructure is approximately $55 million as determined by the LA-RICS engineering consultant. Payments by Members for capital replacement cost are spread evenly over a 15-year period. An amount for Authority administration costs of LMR is also estimated. Long-Term Evolution {LTE) The estimated costs for LTE shown are from the Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP) grant Budget Narrative dated November 25, 2013, as well as Authority estimates. The itemized cost components are as follows: 1. System operations and maintenance: $28.6 million (first five years) 2. Total matching funds (cash) for LTE construction grant (hard match): $19.5 million Per Authority direction, in-kind matching funds as well as LTE System refresh costs will be fulfilled through means other than contributions by all Members. The Funding Plan comprises fees that are calculated by LA-RICS Member for both the LMR and LTE systems, as well as for JPA operations. Administrative costs for LA-RICS are divided into three areas, one being JPA operational cost, the second for LMR administration, and the third for LTE administration. Costs for JPA operations are for categories such as Authority staffing, administrative facility lease, and insurance. LMR and LTE administration costs are specifically for the management and implementation of each system including contract management, grant administration, and other tasks to maintain system operations. The total administrative costs are allocated in the following amounts: 40% for JPA operations; 30% for LMR; and 30% for LTE. Within LMR, the fee estimate reflects three costs (operations, system refresh, and administrative). Within LTE, the fee estimate also reflects three costs (operations, annualized grant hard match, and administrative). The following average annual cost estimates for LMR and LTE are assumed for calculating annual member fees. 1 Exhibit C.6 -Schedule of Payments LMR System Maintenance -LA-RICS LMR Agreement with Motorola. The payments vary from year to year, beginning at $4 million in year 1 and reducing to $3.6 million by year 15. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 16 89 LA-RICS Funding Plan System Cost Component Annual Cost Total Operations $3,726,600 LMR System Refresh $4,806,800 $9,308,400 Administrative $775,000 Hard Match $1,875,000 LTE Operations $6,473,900 $9,123,900 Administrative $775,000 JPA Operations $1,033,000 $1,033,000 Work by LA-RICS and its committees determined that a preferred LTE scenario be developed that excludes' the in-kind match and system refresh, and adds maintenance for the Home Subscriber Server (HSS) and Redundant Evolved Packet Core. FIRST NET OPTIONS In February 2012, Congress enacted the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, containing landmark provisions to create a much-needed nationwide interoperable broadband network that will help police, firefighters, emergency medical service professionals, and other public safety officials stay safe and do their jobs. The law's governing framework for the deployment and operation of this network, which is to be based on a single national network architecture, is the new "First Responder Network Authority" (FirstNet), an independent authority in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), located within the Department of Commerce. FirstNet will hold the spectrum license for the network and is charged with taking "all actions necessary" to build, deploy, and operate the network, in consultation with federal, state, tribal, and local public safety entities and with other key stakeholders. The act provides $7 billion in funding toward deployment of this network, as well as $135 million for a new State and Local Implementation Grant Program administered by the NTIA to support state, regional, tribal, and local jurisdictions' efforts to plan and work with FirstNet to ensure the network meets their wireless public safety communications needs. LA-RICS staff has been holding discussions with FirstNet to help offset costs, which could lead to cost savings to LA-RICS Members. These costs include capital infrastructure replacement, Core Maintenance (PSBN Hardware & Software EPC and NMS), and eNodeB Maintenance (PSBN Hardware & Software RAN). To date, FirstNet has not been able to provide any affirmative commitment to providing resources to the Authority. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 17 90 LA-RICS Funding Plan THE FUNDING PLAN DOES NOT APPLY TO SUBSCRIBER UNITS Under the Funding Plan, Members would still be responsible for their LMR or LTE subscriber units. For the LMR System, Members would be responsible for the costs of buying, maintaining, operating, and replacing the following: • Portable radios • Mobile radios • Base stations • Dispatch consoles For the LTE System, Members would be responsible for the costs of buying, maintaining, operating, and replacing the following: • High-speed data units LA-RICS may be able to help Members secure grant funding for radio or broadband subscriber units. LA-RICS may also be able to help Members pool their unit purchases so as to command lower pricing. But notwithstanding these forms of assistance, LA-RICS does not assume cost responsibility for subscriber units, unless otherwise agreed to by the Authority's Board. THE FUNDING PLAN DOES APPLY TO STANDARD LMR AND LTE BACKBONES As stated earlier, the purpose of the Funding Plan is to fund the backbone LMR and LTE systems necessary to meet a service standard under normal conditions. Major elements of the LMR backbone include: • Radio towers • Microwave links • Fiber optic links • Radio antennas • Control buildings and radio communications equipment • Ancillary equipment Major elements of the LTE backbone include: • Monopole towers • Microwave links • Fiber optic links • Broadband antennas • Control buildings and broadband communications equipment • Ancillary equipment LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 18 91 .: N LA-RICS Funding Plan Cost Apportionment The preferred option for apportioning costs to the Members is based on the following method and assumptions: • Joint Powers Authority Administration: Distribution of 40% of Authority staff and operating costs based on Authority Members' proportional share of countywide population and geography equally split 50%/50% (effective FY 2014/2015). • LMR System Operating Costs: No costs will be allocated or collected for the LMR System from Members until such time as the system is operational (projected FY 2017 /18), unless the Authority Board adopts a revised Funding Plan, including to account for any loss or shortage of grant funds. Additionally, the Authority's Board will issue an amendment to the Funding Plan to reflect projected operational and maintenance costs prior to the operation of the LMR System. The cost of operation during the first year of operation (projected FY 2017/18) is based on: a. Distribution of 30% of Authority staffing and LMR System operational costs based on Authority Members' proportional share of countywide population and geography equally split 50%/50%. The cost of operation during the second and third years of operation (projected FY 2018/19) is based on: a. Distribution of 30% of Authority staffing and LMR System operational costs and full cost of LMR System maintenance based on Authority Members' proportional share of countywide population and geography equally split 50%/50%. The cost of operation during the fourth and subsequent years of operation (projected FY 2020/21) is based on: a. Distribution of 30% of Authority staffing and LMR System operational costs and full cost of LMR System maintenance based on Authority Members' proportional share of countywide population and geography equally split 50%/50%. b. LMR System refresh based on Authority Members' proportional share of countywide population and geography equally split 50%/50%. • LTE System Operating Costs: LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 19 92 LA-RICS Funding Plan The cost of operation during the first year of operation (FY 2015/16) is based on: a. Distribution of 30% of Authority staffing and LTE System operational costs and fiber connectivity operational costs, if applicable, based on Authority Members' proportional share of countywide population and geography equally split 50%/50%. b. Hard match contribution based on Authority Members' proportional share of countywide population and geography equally split 50%/50%. The cost of operation during the second and subsequent years of operation (effective FY 2016/17) is based on: a. Distribution of 30% of Authority staffing and LTE System operational costs and full cost of LTE System maintenance (including leased fiber connectivity, if applicable) based on Authority Members' proportional share of countywide population and geography equally split 50%/50%. b. Hard match contribution based on Authority Members' proportional share of countywide population and geography equally split 50%/50%. Cost of operation during years following the extinguishment of commercial financing will continue as reflected above, with the exception of hard match contributions. Cost Variables The costs for constructing, operating, and maintaining the LMR and LTE systems are established in the agreements with the systems' provider. This Funding Plan, for purposes of establishing a set of cost parameters to conduct the cost allocation, assumes that all costs are fixed-at least through the contract periods of the agreements. It should be noted that the variables discussed in the Funding Plan may not have been key factors used by the contract vendor in determining the established total systems costs. The LMR and LTE systems are very complex and, in order to assemble their cost proposal, the contract vendor would have had to consider many more factors than the variables presented below. The LMR System is not anticipated to "go live" until FY 2017/18. Consideration of LMR System Operating Costs will be the subject of a revision to the Funding Plan released prior to the activation of the system. This is in consideration of: a. Execution of the LMR contract is by phase, with each phase requiring approval of a Notice to Proceed by the Authority Board of Directors. b. Sufficient funding for each phase must be demonstrated to the Authority Board of Directors before such consideration. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 20 93 LA-RICS Funding Plan i. Individual Notices to Proceed may be authorized by the Board of Directors on a site- by-site basis, depending on funding availability. ii. Any decrease or suspension in grant funding that might subject Authority Members to an increased substantial financial liability should be evaluated by the Board to determine whether a revised Funding Plan should be adopted, and if one is adopted, will trigger an additional 45-day opt-out period. iii. The LMR contract provides for termination for non-appropriation of funds, thus further protecting Authority Members from further liabilities being incurred that cannot be addressed via revision to the Funding Plan. c. The detailed design of the LMR System is currently in progress. i. The inability to achieve maximum benefit from some of the designated sites is resulting in site substitution and/or additions. This may result in an adjustment of maintenance and operating costs. ii. Changes in LMR technology during the design phase that warrant reconfiguration of operational aspects may result in a change to the costs allocated to Authority Members. iii. An updated analysis of projected maintenance and operating costs may also result in a change to the costs allocated to Authority Members. Given the complexity of the cost proposals, the Funding Plan measures each Member's share of the communications systems cost based on population and geography (LMR and LTE) and apportions the costs accordingly. These variables are described in Table 1 below to show how they potentially would be used to determine a Member's share of infrastructure capital replacement and operations costs. Table 1. Variables for LMR and LTE Cost Allocation Formulas $vst'Mhi; Variable Jurisdiction residential population A jurisdiction's current resident population, For Cities of Industry and Vernon, daytime resident plus worker population is used. LA-RICS Funding Plan "''·"· ~easJ~jl~f;~~9st '~( ··.·.:-~. j) . Measures the size of population as a predictor of system use; in general, the greater the population, the greater the impact to the system. Variabl~ Appli~dt~ ,' •. '?!11 .:;, capital Cmst , O&M Cost ·•.··· ::_,t .·. x x Page 21 94 LA-RICS Funding Plan System/ Variable Geography @escription Each jurisdiction's municipal boundary expressed in square mileage. The square mileage excludes national forest lands. Variables Data Sources Measure of Cost Measures the size of each Member's physical land area as a predictor of system use; in general, the greater the land area, the greater the impact to the system. Variable Ap~lied,to d~italh~st x x The variables used in the cost allocation formulas for LMR and LTE are based on information provided through several data sources. Population data was obtained from the Southern . California Association of Governments (SCAG) Local Profile Reports. Daytime resident plus worker population for the Cities of Industry and Vernon were obtained from the American Community Survey's Commuter-Adjusted Daytime Population: Places. Geographic land area, expressed in square miles, was obtained from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works through the Los Angeles County GIS Data Portal and excludes national forest land. Cost Formula Figure 1 illustrates how the cost allocation method for a given Member would be calculated. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 22 95 LA-RICS Funding Plan Figure 1. Cost Allocation Formula Cost Allocation Formula Distributed by 50% Population/50% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Administrative Cost MemberLMR Cost Member Pop~lation* Total Population of lA-RICS Members Member Population* Total Population of lA-RICS Members Member Population* Total Population of lA-RICS Members Member Population Total Population of lA-RICS Members + x 50% x 50% x 50% x 50% Cost Formula Member LTE Cost (Operations plus Hard Match) + Member Baseline Administrative Cost = Total Member Cost Member LMR Cost + + + Member Square Miles* Total Square Miles of LA-RICS Members x 50% x LMR Member LMR = Operations Operations Cost Cost Member LTE Cost (Operations plus Hard Match) Member Square Miies* Total Square Miles oflA-RICS Members Member Square Miles* Total Square Miles of LA-RICS Members x 50% x 50% X LTE Operations = Cost x LTE Hard = Match MemberLTE Operations Cost Member Hard Match Cost Member Baseline Administrative Cost Member Member Square Miles x JPA Operations = Baseline + x 50% Admin Cost Total Square Miles oflA-RICS Members * LMR and LTE populations and square miles are adjusted to reflect a member's contractual status with the County. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 23 96 LA-RICS Funding Plan Annual fee estimates by Member agency were developed for the LA-RICS LMR and LTE systems using the cost allocation process described above. Fee estimates are shown for LA-RICS members with their own independent police and/or fire services. Estimated fees for full contract cities are not calculated, as fees for full contract cities will be determined by each Member's contract terms with Los Angeles County. Full contract cities are as follows: •City of Agoura Hills •City of Industry •City of Paramount •City of Artesia •City of La Canada Flintridge •City of Pico Rivera •City of Bellflower •City of La Mirada •City of Rancho Palos Verdes •City of Bradbury •City of La Puente •City of Rolling Hills Estates •City of Calabasas •City of Lakewood •City of Rosemead •City of Carson •City of Lancaster •City of San Dimas •City of Cerritos •City of Lawndale •City of Santa Clarita •City of Commerce •City of Lynwood •City of South El Monte •City of Duarte •City of Maywood •City of Temple City •City of Hawaiian Gardens •City of Norwalk •City of Walnut •City of Hidden Hills •City of Palmdale •City of Westlake Village For cities that receive service from the County for one service, either law enforcement or fire, the cost allocation formula accounts for one half (50%) of that city's population and geography to be attributed to the County or County Fire District, and the other half {50%) that remains with the city. This division provides a means to allocate costs where one service is provided by the County while the other service is provided directly by the city. Mutual Aid Agreement Affiliates Agencies that have formal mutual aid agreements with Authority Members may receive limited authorization to utilize the LA-RICS network as a result of the mutual aid agreement. Access to the LA-RICS system will be limited to those communications essential to and within the scope of such mutual aid operations. Cash Flow The LA-RICS Funding Plan provides a projection of cash flow of project expenses based on construction milestones and system operability, and the impact on Members' fees. Member fees are spread among each LA-RICS members as well as seven additional cities that are not members of LA-RICS but receive law enforcement and/or fire services from the County. These cities include City of Cudahy, City of Diamond Bar, City of La Habra, City of Lomita, City of Malibu, City of Rolling Hills, and City of West Hollywood. The cash flow required for the LMR System backbone is developed for the time period of FY 2017 /18 through FY 2031/32, a 15-year period. The cash flow required for the LTE System backbone is developed separately for the time period LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 24 97 LA-RICS Funding Plan of FY 2015/16 through FY 2031/32, a 17-year period to match the end years with LMR. Cash flow is also provided separately for JPA operations as well as the LTE hard match. The cost allocation using the cash flow assumes participation by all JPA Members from system implementation. Section 5. Data Monitoring and True-Up Period The cost model, at least during the initial term, places an emphasis on population and geographical area data gathered from SCAG and the Census Bureau. At a future date, it may be necessary to revise these variables to align with actual use on the system. Since the system is not currently functioning, this information is not available. However, the Authority Board identified a need to establish a three-year period where the original assumptions and cost allocation formula would be revisited and if necessary revised to incorporate actual use data from the LARICS system i.n operation. If the variables for the model are changed, the new variables can be updated on a regular basis with data from the LTE and LMR systems that measures each agency's usage. It is anticipated that if this occurs, the variables used would be the number of radios on the system (LMR) and the number of data units on the system (LTE). For this regular reporting process, a means to validate data submitted to the Authority Board could be conducted by an independent third party. The validation could include tracing the process by which the data is collected and reported by the jurisdiction and/or LA-RICS, reviewing internal and external reports generated by the jurisdiction, conducting field visits, and developing historic trends in the reported data. The validation should occur in regular intervals such as annually or biannually and implemented through various techniques including random validations and/or geographic-focused verification. The data monitoring process would be applied to information generated by the Member agencies as well as by the LA-RICS communications provider should the provider have capability to track the variable data. A report of the findings would be developed for the LA-RICS Board by the independent third-party reviewer. An ongoing program of data verification is required as an assurance to all participants and the Authority that the cost shares are apportioned using representative data for each participating agency. LA-RICS Funding Plan Page 25 98 Funding Plan Population and Geography Data 99 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of La Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood Population 20,413 83,661 56,546 16,594 3,780 46,618 75,830 35,477 42,231 76,907 34,291 1,065 104,427 23,683 91,828 49,223 35,300 12,871 97,058 48,038 39,004 112,201 21,411 113,912 16,720 59,124 192,654 50,361 14,303 85,047 19,574 1,869 58,329 38,453 110,623 1,416 20,335 5,352 48,697 39,987 31,461 80,378 157,826 32,887 464,662 3,825,297 69,897 35,239 27,472 Adjusted Adjusted Geography Geography Population* {Sq. Mi.) {Sq. Mi.)* 0 7.82 0.00 83,661 7.63 7.63 56,546 11.11 11.11 0 1.62 0.00 1,890 2.89 1.44 23,309 9.54 4.77 37,915 6.78 3.39 17,739 2.62 1.31 21,116 2.47 1.23 0 6.18 0.00 34,291 5.71 5.71 0 1.96 0.00 104,427 17.34 17.34 0 13.76 0.00 0 18.94 0.00 0 8.85 0.00 17,650 13.47 6.73 0 6.55 0.00 48,529 10.10 5.05 24,019 7.04 3.52 39,004 5.13 5.13 112,201 12.57 12.57 0 3.70 0.00 56,956 9.61 4.81 16,720 5.44 5.44 29,562 5.86 2.93 192,654 29.55 29.55 25,181 14.67 7.33 0 0.96 0.00 42,524 6.08 3.04 19,574 1.45 1.45 0 1.69 0.00 29,165 3.01 1.51 0 12.04 0.00 55,312 9.10 4.55 708 9.63 4.82 0 8.26 0.00 2,676 6.16 3.08 0 7.85 0.00 0 3.47 0.00 31,461 7.90 7.90 0 9.45 0.00 0 94.51 0.00 0 1.97 0.00 464,662 51.67 51.67 3,837,173 467.19 468.37 0 4.84 0.00 35,239 3.92 3.92 0 1.18 0.00 100 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District** Los Angeles Unified School District** UCLA** NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of La Habra** City of Lomita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total Population 36,727 62,857 61,153 105,714 153,708 13,516 54,368 139,222 63,168 149,950 41,897 67,007 8,097 54,172 33,499 23,752 39,926 13,195 177,445 16,516 90,223 10,963 11,129 20,190 94,328 25,725 35,749 146,115 33,618 29,661 106,713 8,300 85,654 1,062,073 4,688 240,000 15,811 25,879 60,360 30,181 21,056 13,700 1,967 37,563 10,257,867 *Adjustments to account for contract city status. Adjusted Geography Population* (Sq. Mi.) 36,727 8.17 62,857 8.37 61,153 7.74 0 9.76 0 106.25 6,758 4.77 0 4.82 139,222 22.06 0 8.91 74,975 22.97 0 13.48 67,007 6.21 0 3.60 0 5.17 0 13.51 11,876 2.37 39,926 4.13 13,195 3.77 0 61.20 16,516 8.88 90,223 8.51 10,963 2.96 5,565 2.20 0 2.85 47,164 7.35 25,725 3.41 0 4.03 146,115 20.56 33,618 5.15 0 8.98 106,713 16.07 0 5.50 42,827 14.66 3,496,383 1,569.36 4,688 0.03 240,000 2.68 15,811 0.33 0 1.23 0 14.88 0 3.69 0 1.92 0 19.69 0 2.99 0 1.90 10,257,867 3,008 **Population and geography is at 50% to account for law enforcement or fire only. Adjusted Geography (Sq. Mi.)* 8.17 8.37 7.74 0.00 0.00 2.39 0.00 22.06 0.00 11.49 0.00 6.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.19 4.13 3.77 0.00 8.88 8.51 2.96 1.10 0.00 3.68 3.41 0.00 20.56 5.15 0.00 16.07 0.00 7.33 2,164.80 0.03 2.68 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,008 101 Annual Member Contributions 102 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Agoura Hills Oty of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of-La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of La Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2014/2015 FY 2015/16 JPA Operations JPA Operations LMR LTE Total 2,329 $ 2,376 $ -$ $2,376 5,438 $ 5,546 $ -$ 14,167 $19,713 4,677 $ 4,771 $ $ 12,196 $16,967 1,097 $ l,119 $ $ $1,119 673 $ 687 $ $ 880 $1,567 3,920 $ 3,999 $ $ 5,112 $9,111 4,905 $ 5,003 $ $ 6,389 $11,392 2,202 $ 2,246 $ $ 2,868 $5,114 2,511 $ 2,561 $ $ 3,270 $5,832 4,858 $ 4,955 $ $ $4,955 2,664 $ 2,717 $ $ 6,945 $9,663 383 $ 391 $ $ $391 8,103 $ 8,265 $ -$ 21,127 $29,392 3,492 $ 3,562 $ $ $3,562 7,746 $ 7,901 $ -$ $7,901 3,934 $ 4,012 $ -$ $4,012 4,020 $ 4,100 $ $ 5,246 $9,346 1,742 $ 1,777 $ $ -$1,777 6,518 $ 6,648 $ -$ 8,492 $15,140 3,570 $ 3,642 $ -$ 4,653 $8,295 2,801 $ 2,857 $ -$ 7,299 $10,156 7,685 $ 7,839 $ -$ 20,027 $27,866 1,686 $ 1,719 $ -$ $1,719 7,273 $ 7,418 $ $ 9,474 $16,892 1,746 $ 1,781 $ $ 4,555 $6,336 3,921 $ 3,999 $ $ 5,108 $9,107 14,537 $ 14,828 $ $ 37,897 $52,725 4,969 $ 5,068 $ -$ 6,482 $11,550 871 $ 888 $ -$ $888 5,246 $ 5,350 $ $ 6,832 $12,182 1,216 $ 1,241 $ -$ 3,169 $4,409 377 $ 384 $ $ $384 3,403 $ 3,471 $ $ 4,431 $7,901 2,049 $ 2,090 $ $ $2,090 7,023 $ 7,163 $ $ 9,148 $16,311 1,692 $ 1,726 $ $ 2,213 $3,938 2,399 $ 2,447 $ -$ $2,447 1,303 $ 1,329 $ -$ 1,702 $3,031 3,738 $ 3,813 $ -$ $3,813 2,570 $ 2,621 $ $ $2,621 2,892 $ 2,949 $ $ 7,543 $10,492 5,581 $ 5,693 $ $ $5,693 23,743 $ 24,218 $ $ $24,218 1,964 $ 2,003 $ -$ -$2,003 31,763 $ 32,398 $ -$ 82,772 $115,170 1 0 3 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admfn Cost Members City of Las Angeles City of Lynwood City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pica Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UCLA NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of La Habra City of Lomita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total FY 2014/2015 JPA Operations $ 268,526 $ $ 4,285 $ $ 2,410 $ $ 1,562 $ $ 3,198 $ $ 4,529 $ $ 4,338 $ $ 6,890 $ $ 25,515 $ $ 1,475 $ $ 3,510 $ $ 10,625 $ $ 4,635 $ $ 11,310 $ $ 4,349 $ $ 4,372 $ $ 1,007 $ $ 3,560 $ $ 3,937 $ $ 1,578 $ $ 2,678 $ $ 1,289 $ $ 19,110 $ $ 2,314 $ $ 5,911 $ $ 1,042 $ $ 923 $ $ 1,482 $ $ 5,920 $ $ 1,852 $ $ 2,452 $ $ 10,713 $ $ 873 $ $ 2,984 $ $ 8,001 $ $ 1,338 $ $ 6,720 $ $ 316,904 $ $ 238 $ $ 12,363 $ $ 1,625 $ $ 1,492 $ $ 5,501 $ $ 2,118 $ $ 1,368 $ $ 3,995 $ $ 601 $ $ 2,184 $ $ 1,012,829 $ FY 2015/16 JPA Operations LMR LTE Total 273,897 $ $ 701,893 $975,789 4,370 $ -$ -$4,370 2,458 $ -$ 6,280 $8,738 1,593 $ $ $1,593 3,262 $ -$ 8,341 $11,603 4,620 $ $ 11,805 $16,424 4,425 $ $ 11,306 $15,731 7,028 $ $ $7,028 26,025 $ $ $26,025 1,504 $ -$ 1,924 $3,429 3,580 $ -$ $3,580 10,837 $ -$ 27,699 $38,537 4,728 $ $ -$4,728 11,537 $ $ 14,742 $26,279 4,436 $ -$ $4,436 4,459 $ -$ 11,391 $15,850 1,027 $ $ $1,027 3,631 $ $ -$3,631 4,016 $ $ -$4,016 1,610 $ $ 2,056 $3,666 2,731 $ $ 6,977 $9,708 1,315 $ $ 3,363 $4,678 19,492 $ -$ -$19,492 2,360 $ $ 6,043 $8,403 6,029 $ $ 15,400 $21,429 1,063 $ $ 2,718 $3,781 941 $ $ 1,203 $2,144 1,512 $ $ $1,512 6,038 $ -$ 7,711 $13,749 1,889 $ -$ 4,827 $6,716 2,501 $ $ $2,501 10,928 $ $ 27,926 $38,854 891 $ $ 6,611 $7,502 3,044 $ $ -$3,044 8,161 $ $ 20,859 $29,020 1,365 $ $ $1,365 6,854 $ $ 8,760 $15,614 323,242 $ $ 1,405,013 $1,728,255 242 $ $ 619 $861 12,611 $ $ 32,177 $44,787 1,657 $ $ 2,186 $3,844 1,521 $ -$ $1,521 5,611 $ $ -$5,611 2,161 $ -$ $2,161 1,396 $ $ $1,396 4,075 $ $ $4,075 613 $ $ -$613 2,228 $ -$ -$2,228 1,033,086 $ -$ 2,649,827 $3,682,912 1 0 4 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/50% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of. Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of la Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach FY 2016/17 JPA Operations LMR $ 2,423 $ $ $ 5,657 $ $ $ 4,866 $ $ $ 1,141 $ $ $ 701 $ $ $ 4,079 $ $ $ 5,103 $ $ $ 2,291 $ $ $ 2,613 $ $ $ 5,055 $ $ $ 2,772 $ $ $ 398 $ $ $ 8,431 $ -$ $ 3,633 $ -$ $ 8,059 $ -$ $ 4,092 $ -$ $ 4,182 $ -$ $ 1,813 $ -$ $ 6,781 $ $ $ 3,714 $ $ $ 2,914 $ -$ $ 7,996 $ $ $ 1,754 $ $ $ 7,567 $ $ $ 1,816 $ -$ $ 4,079 $ $ $ 15,124 $ $ $ 5,170 $ $ $ 906 $ $ $ 5,457 $ $ $ 1,266 $ $ $ 392 $ $ $ 3,540 $ $ $ 2,131 $ -$ $ 7,307 $ $ $ 1,760 $ $ $ 2,496 $ $ $ 1,355 $ $ $ 3,889 $ $ $ 2,674 $ $ $ 3,008 $ $ $ 5,807 $ $ $ 24,702 $ $ $ 2,043 $ $ $ 33,046 $ $ ..-.~··-- FY 2017/18 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total $2,423 $ 2,472 $ $ -$2,472 49,936 $55,593 $ 5,770 $ 4,310 $ 51,139 $61,219 42,990 $47,856 $ 4,963 $ 3,710 $ 44,025 $52,699 $1,141 $ 1,164 $ $ -$1,164 3,101 $3,801 $ 715 $ 268 $ 3,175 $4,158 18,019 $22,098 $ 4,160 $ 1,555 $ 18,453 $24,169 22,521 $27,624 $ 5,205 $ 1,944 $ 23,064 $30,212 10,109 $12,400 $ 2,337 $ 873 $ 10,353 $13,562 11,527 $14,139 $ 2,665 $ 995 $ 11,804 $15,464 $5,055 $ 5,156 $ $ -$5,156 24,481 $27,253 $ 2,827 $ 2,113 $ 25,071 $30,011 $398 $ 406 $ -$ $406 74,468 $82,898 $ 8,599 $ 6,427 $ 76,261 $91,287 -$3,633 $ 3,706 $ -$ $3,706 $8,059 $ 8,221 $ $ $8,221 $4,092 $ 4,174 $ -$ $4,174 18,491 $22,673 $ 4,266 $ 1,596 $ 18,936 $24,798 -$1,813 $ 1,849 $ $ $1,849 29,933 $36,714 $ 6,917 $ 2,583 $ 30,654 $40,154 16,402 $20,117 $ 3,789 $ 1,416 $ 16,797 $22,002 25,729 $28,643 $ 2,972 $ 2,221 $ 26,349 $31,541 70,593 $78,588 s 8,156 $ 6,093 s 72,293 $86,541 $1,754 $ 1,789 $ $ $1,789 33,393 $40,959 $ 7,718 $ 2,882 $ 34,197 $44,797 16,057 $17,873 $ 1,853 $ 1,386 $ 16,444 $19,682 18,004 $22,083 $ 4,161 $ 1,554 $ 18,438 $24,152 133,580 $148,705 $ 15,427 $ 11,529 $ 136,797 $163,753 22,848 $28,018 $ 5,273 $ 1,972 $ 23,398 $30,643 -$906 $ 924 $ $ -$924 24,081 $29,539 $ 5,567 $ 2,078 $ 24,661 $32,306 11,169 $12,434 $ 1,291 $ 964 $ 11,438 $13,692 -$392 $ 400 $ $ -$400 15,617 $19,157 $ 3,611 $ 1,348 $ 15,993 $20,952 -$2,131 $ 2,174 $ $ $2,174 32,244 $39,551 $ 7,453 $ 2,783 $ 33,021 $43,256 7,800 $9,560 $ 1,795 $ 673 $ 7,987 $10,456 $2,496 $ 2,546 $ -$ $2,546 5,999 $7,354 $ 1,382 $ 518 $ 6,144 $8,044 $3,889 $ 3,967 $ $ -$3,967 $2,674 $ 2,727 $ $ $2,727 26,588 $29,596 $ 3,069 $ 2,295 $ 27,228 $32,591 $5,807 $ 5,923 $ $ $5,923 $24,702 $ 25,196 $ $ $25,196 $2,043 $ 2,084 $ $ $2,084 291,758 $324,804 $ 33,707 $ 25,181 $ 298,784 $357,671 1 0 5 ~ LA·RICS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UCLA NON-MEMBER cmes City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of La Habra City of Lomita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total FY 2016/17 JPA Operations LMR $ 279,374 $ $ $ 4,458 $ $ $ 2,507 $ $ $ 1,625 $ $ $ 3,327 $ $ $ 4,712 $ -$ $ 4,513 $ -$ $ 7,168 $ $ $ 26,546 $ $ $ 1,534 $ $ $ 3,652 $ $ $ 11,054 $ $ $ 4,822 $ $ $ 11,767 $ $ $ 4,525 $ $ $ 4,549 $ -$ $ 1,048 $ $ $ 3,704 $ $ $ 4,096 $ $ $ 1,642 $ $ $ 2,786 $ $ $ 1,341 $ $ $ 19,882 $ $ $ 2,408 $ $ $ 6,149 $ $ $ 1,084 $ $ $ 960 $ $ $ 1,542 $ $ $ 6,159 $ $ $ 1,927 $ $ $ 2,551 $ $ $ 11,146 $ $ $ 908 $ $ $ 3,105 $ $ $ 8,325 $ $ $ 1,392 $ $ $ 6,991 $ $ $ 329,707 $ $ $ 247 $ $ $ 12,863 $ $ $ 1,690 $ $ $ 1,552 $ $ $ 5,723 $ -$ $ 2,204 $ -$ $ 1,424 $ $ $ 4,156 $ $ $ 625 $ $ $ 2,273 $ $ $ 1,053,747 $ $ FY2017/18 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total 2,474,053 $2,753,427 $ 284,962 $ 213,526 $ 2,533,632 $3,032,120 $4,458 $ 4,547 $ -$ $4,547 22,136 $24;643 $ 2,557 $ 1,910 $ 22,669 $27,137 $1,625 $ 1,658 $ -$ $1,658 29,401 $32,728 $ 3,394 $ 2,537 $ 30,109 $36,040 41,609 $46,321 $ 4,806 $ 3,591 $ 42,611 $51,008 39,852 $44,365 $ 4,603 $ 3,439 $ 40,812 $48,855 $7,168 $ 7,312 $ $ $7,312 $26,546 $ 27,077 $ $ -$27,077 6,783 $8,317 $ 1,565 $ 585 $ 6,946 $9,097 $3,652 $ 3,725 $ $ $3,725 97,635 $108,689 $ 11,275 $ 8,427 $ 99,986 $119,688 $4,822 $ 4,919 $ $ $4,919 51,965 $63,732 $ 12,003 $ 4,485 $ 53,216 $69,704 $4,525 $ 4,615 $ $ $4,615 40,151 $44,699 $ 4,640 $ 3,465 $ 41,118 $49,223 $1,048 $ 1,069 $ $ $1,069 $3,704 $ 3,778 $ -$ $3,778 $4,096 $ 4,178 $ -$ $4,178 7,247 $8,889 $ 1,675 $ 626 $ 7,422 $9,722 24,594 $27,379 $ 2,842 $ 2,123 $ 25,186 $30,150 11,855 $13,196 $ 1,368 $ 1,023 $ 12,140 $14,531 $19,882 $ 20,279 $ -$ $20,279 21,299 $23,707 $ 2,456 $ 1,838 $ 21,812 $26,106 54,283 $60,432 $ 6,272 $ 4,685 $ 55,590 $66,547 9,582 $10,666 $ 1,106 $ 827 $ 9,813 $11,746 4,240 $5,200 $ 979 $ 366 $ 4,342 $5,687 $1,542 $ 1,573 $ -$ $1,573 27,179 $33,338 $ 6,282 $ 2,346 $ 27,834 $36,462 17,013 $18,940 $ 1,965 $ 1,468 $ 17,423 $20,856 $2,551 $ 2,602 $ $ $2,602 98,434 $109,581 $ 11,369 $ 8,496 $ 100,805 $120,670 23,302 $24,211 $ 927 $ 2,011 $ 23,863 $26,801 $3,105 $ 3,167 $ -$ -$3,167 73,523 $81,848 $ 8,491 $ 6,346 $ 75,294 $90,130 $1,392 $ 1,420 $ $ $1,420 30,877 $37,868 $ 7,131 $ 2,665 $ 31,621 $41,417 4,952,433 $5,282,140 $ 336,301 $ 427,426 $ 5,071,695 $5,835,421 2,181 $2,428 $ 252 $ 188 $ 2,233 $2,674 113,417 $126,280 $ 13,120 $ 9,789 $ 116,149 $139,057 7,706 $9,397 $ 1,724 $ 665 $ 7,892 $10,281 $1,552 $ 1,583 $ $ -$1,583 -$5,723 $ 5,838 $ $ $5,838 -$2,204 $ 2,248 $ $ -$2,248 $1,424 $ 1,452 $ -$ $1,452 $4,156 $ 4,239 $ -$ $4,239 -$625 $ 638 $ -$ $638 -$2,273 $ 2,318 $ $ $2,318 9,340,190 $10,393,937 $ 1,074,822 $ 806,117 $ 9,565,115 $ 11,446,054 1 0 6 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/50% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of La Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach FY2018/19 JPA Operations LMR $ 2,521 $ $ $ 5,886 $ 25,841 $ $ 5,063 $ 22,246 $ $ 1,187 $ -$ $ 729 $ 1,605 $ $ 4,244 $ 9,324 $ $ 5,309 $ 11,654 $ $ 2,384 $ 5,231 $ $ 2,718 $ 5,965 $ $ 5,259 $ $ $ 2,884 $ 12,669 $ $ 415 $ $ $ 8,771 $ 38,535 $ $ 3,780 $ -$ $ 8,385 $ -$ $ 4,258 $ -$ $ 4,351 $ 9,569 $ $ 1,886 $ -$ $ 7,055 $ 15,490 $ $ 3,865 $ 8,488 $ $ 3,031 $ 13,314 $ $ 8,319 $ 36,530 $ $ 1,825 $ $ $ 7,872 $ 17,280 $ $ 1,890 $ 8,309 $ $ 4,244 $ 9,317 $ $ 15,735 $ 69,125 $ $ 5,378 $ 11,823 $ $ 943 $ $ $ 5,678 $ 12,461 $ $ 1,317 $ 5,779 $ $ 408 $ $ $ 3,683 $ 8,082 $ $ 2,217 $ $ $ 7,602 $ 16,686 $ $ 1,831 $ 4,036 $ $ 2,597 $ $ $ l,410 $ 3,105 $ $ 4,047 $ $ $ 2,782 $ $ $ 3,130 $ 13,759 $ $ 6,041 $ $ $ 25,700 $ $ $ 2,126 $ $ $ 34,381 $ 150,978 $ FY 2019/20 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total -$2,521 $ 2,572 $ -$ $2,572 52,195 $83,922 $ 6,003 $ 25,358 $ 55,198 $86,560 44,935 $72,244 $ 5,164 $ 21,831 $ 47,520 $74,515 -$1,187 $ 1,211 $ $ $1,211 3,241 $5,574 $ 744 $ 1,575 $ 3,427 $5,745 18,834 $32,402 $ 4,328 $ 9,150 $ 19,918 $33,397 23,540 $40,503 $ 5,415 $ 11,437 $ 24,894 $41,746 10,567 $18,182 $ 2,431 $ 5,134 $ 11,175 $18,740 12,048 $20,731 $ 2,773 $ 5,853 $ 12,741 $21,367 $5,259 $ 5,364 $ $ $5,364 25,589 $41,141 $ 2,941 $ 12,432 $ 27,061 $42,434 $415 $ 423 $ -$ $423 77,836 $125,143 $ 8,947 $ 37,816 $ 82,314 $129,077 -$3,780 $ 3,855 $ $ $3,855 $8,385 $ 8,553 $ $ $8,553 $4,258 $ 4,343 $ $ $4,343 19,327 $33,247 $ 4,438 $ 9,390 $ 20,439 $34,267 -$1,886 $ 1,924 $ $ -$1,924 31,287 $53,832 $ 7,196 $ 15,200 $ 33,087 $55,484 17,144 $29,497 $ 3,942 $ 8,329 $ 18,131 $30,402 26,893 $43,238 $ 3,092 $ 13,065 $ 28,440 $44,598 73,786 $118,635 $ 8,485 $ 35,848 $ 78,031 $122,364 $1,825 $ 1,861 $ -$ $1,861 34,903 $60,056 $ 8,030 $ 16,957 $ 36,911 $61,899 16,783 $26,982 $ 1,927 $ 8,154 $ 17,749 $27,830 18,819 $32,379 $ 4,329 $ 9,143 $ 19,901 $33,373 139,624 $224,484 $ 16,050 $ 67,834 $ 147,656 $231,540 23,882 $41,084 $ 5,486 $ 11,603 $ 25,256 $42,344 $943 $ 961 $ $ $961 25,171 $43,310 $ 5,791 $ 12,229 $ 26,619 $44,639 11,674 $18,770 $ 1,343 $ 5,672 $ 12,345 $19,360 $408 $ 416 $ $ $416 16,324 $28,089 $ 3,757 $ 7,931 $ 17,263 $28,950 $2,217 $ 2,262 $ -$ $2,262 33,703 $57,991 $ 7,754 $ 16,374 $ 35,642 $59,770 8,152 $14,020 $ 1,868 $ 3,961 $ 8,621 $14,450 $2,597 $ 2,649 $ -$ $2,649 6,271 $10,785 $ 1,438 $ 3,047 $ 6,631 $11,116 $4,047 $ 4,128 $ $ $4,128 $2,782 $ 2,837 $ -$ $2,837 27,791 $44,679 $ 3,193 $ 13,502 $ 29,389 $46,083 $6,041 $ 6,162 $ $ $6,162 $25,700 $ 26,214 $ $ $26,214 $2,126 $ 2,168 $ $ $2,168 304,957 $490,316 $ 35,069 $ 148,159 $ 322,501 $505,728 1 0 7 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UClA NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of La Habra City of Lomita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total FY 2018/19 JPA Operations LMR $ 290,661 $ 1,280,264 $ $ 4,638 $ $ $ 2,609 $ 11,455 $ $ 1,691 $ $ $ 3,462 $ 15,214 $ $ 4,902 $ 21,532 $ $ 4,696 $ 20,623 $ $ 7,458 $ $ $ 27,618 $ $ $ 1,596 $ 3,510 $ $ 3,800 $ $ $ 11,501 $ 50,524 $ $ 5,017 $ $ $ 12,243 $ 26,891 $ $ 4,707 $ -$ $ 4,732 $ 20,777 $ $ 1,090 $ -$ $ 3,853 $ -$ $ 4,262 $ $ $ 1,708 $ 3,750 $ $ 2,898 $ 12,727 $ $ 1,395 $ 6,135 $ $ 20,685 $ $ $ 2,505 $ 11,022 $ $ 6,398 $ 28,090 $ $ 1,128 $ 4,959 $ $ 999 $ 2,194 $ $ 1,604 $ $ $ 6,408 $ 14,065 $ $ 2,004 $ 8,804 $ $ 2,654 $ -$ $ 11,597 $ 50,938 $ $ 945 $ 12,058 $ $ 3,230 $ $ $ 8,661 $ 38,047 $ $ 1,449 $ $ $ 7,274 $ 15,978 $ $ 343,027 $ 2,562,768 $ $ 257 $ 1,128 $ $ 13,383 $ 58,691 $ $ 1,759 $ 3,988 $ $ 1,615 $ $ $ 5,954 $ -$ $ 2,293 $ $ $ 1,481 $ $ $ 4,324 $ $ $ 651 $ $ $ 2,364 $ $ $ 1,096,319 $ 4,833,329 $ FY 2019/20 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total 2,585,981 $4,156,906 $ 296,474 $ 1,256,358 $ 2,734,752 $4,287,585 $4,638 $ 4,731 $ $ $4,731 23,138 $37,201 $ 2,661 $ 11,241 $ 24,469 $38,370 -$1,691 $ 1,725 $ $ $1,725 30,731 $49,407 $ 3,531 $ 14,930 $ 32,499 $50,960 43,492 $69,926 $ 5,000 $ 21,130 $ 45,994 $72,124 41,655 $66,973 $ 4,789 $ 20,238 $ 44,052 $69,079 $7,458 $ 7,607 $ $ $7,607 $27,618 $ 28,171 $ $ $28,171 7,090 $12,196 $ 1,628 $ 3,444 $ 7,498 $12,570 $3,800 $ 3,876 $ $ $3,876 102,052 $164,077 $ 11,731 $ 49,580 $ 107,923 $169,234 $5,017 $ 5,117 $ $ $5,117 54,316 $93,449 $ 12,487 $ 26,388 $ 57,440 $96,316 $4,707 $ 4,802 $ $ $4,802 41,967 $67,477 $ 4,827 $ 20,389 $ 44,382 $69,598 $1,090 $ 1,112 $ $ $1,112 -$3,853 $ 3,930 $ $ $3,930 $4,262 $ 4,347 $ $ $4,347 7,575 $13,034 $ 1,742 $ 3,680 $ 8,011 $13,434 25,706 $41,331 $ 2,956 $ 12,489 $ 27,185 $42,630 12,391 $19,921 $ 1,423 $ 6,020 $ 13,104 $20,547 $20,685 $ 21,099 $ $ $21,099 22,263 $35,790 $ 2,555 $ 10,816 $ 23,544 $36,915 56,738 $91,226 $ 6,526 $ 27,565 $ 60,003 $94,094 10,016 $16,102 $ 1,150 $ 4,866 $ 10,592 $16,608 4,432 $7,624 $ 1,019 $ 2,153 $ 4,687 $7,858 $1,604 $ 1,636 $ $ $1,636 28,409 $48,882 $ 6,536 $ 13,802 $ 30,043 $50,382 17,783 $28,591 $ 2,045 $ 8,640 $ 18,806 $29,490 $2,654 $ 2,707 $ -$ $2,707 102,888 $165,422 $ 11,828 $ 49,986 $ 108,807 $170,622 24,357 $37,360 $ 964 $ 11,833 $ 25,758 $38,555 -$3,230 $ 3,295 $ $ $3,295 76,849 $123,557 $ 8,834 $ 37,336 $ 81,271 $127,441 $1,449 $ 1,477 $ $ $1,477 32,274 $55,526 $ 7,419 $ 15,680 $ 34,131 $57,230 5,176,484 $8,082,279 $ 349,887 $ 2,514,914 $ 5,474,288 $8,339,089 2,279 $3,665 $ 262 $ 1,107 $ 2,410 $3,780 118,548 $190,622 $ 13,650 $ 57,595 $ 125,369 $196,614 8,055 $13,802 $ 1,794 $ 3,913 $ 8,519 $14,226 $1,615 $ 1,647 $ $ $1,647 -$5,954 $ 6,074 $ $ $6,074 $2,293 $ 2,339 $ $ $2,339 $1,481 $ 1,511 $ $ $1,511 $4,324 $ 4,410 $ $ $4,410 $651 $ 664 $ $ $664 $2,364 $ 2,412 $ $ $2,412 9,762,746 $ 15,692,394 $ 1,118,245 $ 4,743,078 $ 10,324,397 $ 16,185,720 1 0 8 LA-RICS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of La Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach FY2020/21 JPA Operations LMR $ 2,623 $ $ $ 6,124 $ 50,577 $ $ 5,267 $ 43,542 $ $ 1,235 $ -$ $ 758 $ 3,140 $ $ 4,415 $ 18,250 $ $ 5,524 $ 22,810 $ $ 2,480 s 10,239 $ $ 2,828 $ 11,675 $ $ 5,471 $ $ $ 3,000 $ 24,795 $ $ 431 $ -$ $ 9,126 $ 75,423 $ $ 3,932 $ -$ $ 8,724 $ -$ $ 4,430 $ $ $ 4,527 $ 18,728 $ $ 1,962 $ $ $ 7,340 $ 30,317 $ $ 4,021 $ 16,613 $ $ 3,154 $ 26,059 $ s 8,655 $ 71,498 $ $ 1,898 $ $ $ 8,190 $ 33,821 $ $ 1,966 $ 16,263 $ $ 4,415 $ 18,235 $ $ 16,371 $ 135,294 $ $ 5,596 $ 23,141 $ $ 981 $ $ $ 5,907 $ 24,390 $ $ 1,370 $ 11,312 $ $ 424 $ $ $ 3,832 $ 15,818 $ $ 2,307 $ -$ $ 7,909 $ 32,658 $ $ 1,905 $ 7,900 $ $ 2,702 $ $ $ 1,467 $ 6,076 $ $ 4,210 $ -$ $ 2,894 $ -$ $ 3,256 $ 26,929 $ $ 6,285 $ $ $ 26,739 $ $ $ 2,211 $ s $ 35,770 $ 295,500 $ FY 2021/22 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total $2,623 $ 2,676 $ $ $2,676 55,929 $112,629 $ 6,246 $ 50,668 $ 56,847 $113,761 48,149 $96,958 $ 5,372 $ 43,620 $ 48,940 $97,932 $1,235 $ 1,260 $ $ $1,260 3,473 $7,372 $ 774 $ 3,146 $ 3,530 $7,449 20,181 $42,847 $ 4,503 $ 18,283 $ 20,513 $43,299 25,224 $53,558 $ 5,634 $ 22,851 $ 25,638 $54,123 11,323 $24,042 $ 2,529 $ 10,258 $ 11,508 $24,296 12,910 $27,413 $ 2,885 $ 11,696 $ 13,122 $27,702 $5,471 $ 5,581 $ $ -$5,581 27,419 $55,215 $ 3,060 $ 24,840 $ 27,869 $55,770 $431 $ 440 $ $ -$440 83,404 $167,952 $ 9,308 $ 75,559 $ 84,773 $169,641 $3,932 $ 4,011 $ $ $4,011 $8,724 $ 8,898 $ $ $8,898 -$4,430 $ 4,518 $ $ $4,518 20,710. $43,965 $ 4,617 $ 18,762 $ 21,050 $44,429 $1,962 $ 2,001 $ -$ $2,001 33,525 $71,182 $ 7,487 $ 30,372 $ 34,075 $71,934 18,371 $39,004 $ 4,101 $ 16,643 $ 18,672 $39,416 28,817 $58,029 $ 3,217 $ 26,106 $ 29,290 $58,613 79,064 $159,217 $ 8,828 $ 71,628 $ 80,362 $160,818 $1,898 $ 1,936 $ $ -$1,936 37,400 $79,412 $ 8,354 $ 33,882 $ 38,014 $80,250 17,984 $36,213 $ 2,005 $ 16,292 $ 18,279 $36,577 20,165 $42,815 $ 4,504 $ 18,268 $ 20,496 $43,268 149,611 $301,276 $ 16,699 $ 135,538 $ 152,067 $304,304 25,590 $54,327 $ 5,708 $ 23,183 $ 26,010 $54,901 -$981 $ 1,000 $ $ -$1,000 26,971 $57,268 $ 6,025 $ 24,434 $ 27,414 $57,873 12,509 $25,191 $ 1,397 $ 11,332 $ 12,714 $25,444 $424 $ 433 $ s -$433 17,491 $37,141 $ 3,909 $ 15,846 $ 17,779 $37,533 $2,307 $ 2,353 $ $ -$2,353 36,114 $76,681 $ 8,067 $ 32,717 $ 36,707 $77,491 8,736 $18,540 $ 1,943 $ 7,914 $ 8,879 $18,736 $2,702 $ 2,756 $ $ $2,756 6,719 $14,262 $ 1,496 $ 6,087 $ 6,830 $14,413 -$4,210 $ 4,294 $ $ $4,294 $2,894 $ 2,952 $ $ -$2,952 29,778 $59,964 $ 3,322 $ 26,977 $ 30,267 $60,566 . $6,285 $ 6,411 $ $ $6,411 $26,739 $ 27,273 $ $ $27,273 $2,211 $ 2,256 $ -$ $2,256 326,771 $658,041 $ 36,485 $ 296,035 $ 332,135 $664,655 1 0 9 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UCLA NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of La Habra City of Lomita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ FY 2020/21 JPA Operations LMR LTE 302,404 $ 2,505,788 $ 2,770,958 4,825 $ -$ - 2,714 $ 22,420 $ 24,793 1,759 $ $ 3,602 $ 29,778 $ 32,929 5,100 $ 42,143 $ 46,603 4,885 $ 40,363 $ 44,635 7,759 $ $ 28,734 $ $ 1,661 $ 6,870 $ 7,597 3,953 $ $ 11,965 $ 98,887 $ 109,352 5,220 $ $ 12,737 $ 52,631 $ 58,201 4,898 $ -$ 4,924 $ 40,666 $ 44,969 1,134 $ $ 4,009 $ $ 4,434 $ -$ 1,777 $ 7,340 $ 8,117 3,015 $ 24,909 $ 27,545 1,452 $ 12,007 $ 13,277 21,521 $ -$ - 2,606 $ 21,572 $ 23,855 6,656 $ 54,979 $ 60,797 1,173 $ 9,705 $ 10,732 1,039 $ 4,294 $ 4,749 1,669 $ -$ - 6,667 $ 27,528 $ 30,441 2,085 $ 17,231 $ 19,055 2,762 $ $ 12,065 $ 99,697 $ 110,247 983 $ 23,601 $ 26,099 3,360 $ $ - 9,011 $ 74,466 $ 82,346 1,507 $ $ - 7,567 $ 31,273 $ 34,583 356,885 $ 5,015,958 $ 5,546,763 268 $ 2,209 $ 2,442 13,923 $ 114,872 $ 127,028 1,830 $ 7,805 $ 8,631 1,680 $ -$ 6,195 $ $ 2,386 $ $ 1,541 $ $ 4,499 $ $ 677 $ -$ 2,460 $ $ 1,140,610 $ 9,459,997 $ 10,461,085 $ FY 2021/22 Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total $5,579,150 $ 308,452 $ 2,510,320 $ 2,816,444 $5,635,216 $4,825 $ 4,922 $ $ -$4,922 $49,927 $ 2,768 $ 22,461 $ 25,200 $50,428 $1,759 $ 1,794 $ $ -$1,794 $66,308 $ 3,674 $ 29,832 $ 33,470 $66,975 $93,846 $ 5,202 $ 42,219 $ 47,368 $94,789 $89,883 $ 4,983 $ 40,436 $ 45,368 $90,787 $7,759 $ 7,914 $ $ $7,914 $28,734 $ 29,309 $ $ -$29,309 $16,128 $ 1,694 $ 6,882 $ 7,722 $16,298 $3,953 $ 4,032 $ $ $4,032 $220,205 $ 12,205 $ 99,066 $ 111,147 $222,418 $5,220 $ 5,324 $ -$ -$5,324 $123,569 $ 12,992 $ 52,726 $ 59,156 $124,875 $4,898 $ 4,996 $ $ $4,996 $90,559 $ 5,022 $ 40,739 $ 45,707 $91,469 $1,134 $ 1,157 $ -$ -$1,157 $4,009 $ 4,089 $ $ $4,089 $4,434 $ 4,523 $ -$ -$4,523 $17,235 $ 1,813 $ 7,354 $ 8,250 $17,417 $55,469 $ 3,076 $ 24,954 $ 27,997 $56,027 $26,736 $ 1,481 $ 12,028 $ 13,495 $27,005 $21,521 $ 21,951 $ $ $21,951 $48,034 $ 2,658 $ 21,611 $ 24,247 $48,517 $122,432 $ 6,789 $ 55,078 $ 61,795 $123,663 $21,611 $ 1,197 $ 9,723 $ 10,908 $21,828 $10,082 $ 1,060 $ 4,302 $ 4,827 $10,188 $1,669 $ 1,702 $ $ -$1,702 $64,636 $ 6,800 $ 27,578 $ 30,941 $65,319 $38,372 $ 2,127 $ 17,263 $ 19,368 $38,757 $2,762 $ 2,817 $ $ $2,817 $222,009 $ 12,306 $ 99,877 $ 112,057 $224,241 $50,683 $ 1,003 $ 23,644 $ 26,527 $51,174 $3,360 $ 3,428 $ -$ $3,428 $165,824 $ 9,191 $ 74,601 $ 83,698 $167,490 $1,507 $ 1,537 $ $ $1,537 $73,424 $ 7,719 $ 31,330 $ 35,151 $74,199 $10,919,606 $ 364,023 $ 5,025,030 $ 5,637,815 $11,026,867 $4,919 $ 273 $ 2,213 $ 2,482 $4,968 $255,824 $ 14,202 $ 115,080 $ 129,114 $258,395 $18,266 $ 1,866 $ 7,819 $ 8,773 $18,459 $1,680 $ 1,713 $ $ $1,713 $6,195 $ 6,319 $ $ $6,319 $2,386 $ 2,433 $ $ -$2,433 $1,541 $ 1,572 $ $ $1,572 $4,499 $ 4,589 $ $ -$4,589 $677 $ 690 $ $ $690 $2,460 $ 2,509 $ $ $2,509 21,061,691 $ 1,163,422 $ 9,477,106 $ 10,632,806 $ 21,273,334 1 1 0 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Adm in Cost Members City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of La Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach FY 2022/23 JPA Operations LMR $ 2,729 $ $ $ 6,371 $ 50,476 $ $ 5,480 $ 43,455 $ $ 1,285 $ $ $ 789 $ 3,134 $ $ 4,593 $ 18,214 $ $ 5,747 $ 22,765 $ $ 2,580 $ 10,219 $ $ 2,942 $ 11,651 $ $ 5,692 $ $ $ 3,121 $ 24,746 $ $ 449 $ $ $ 9,494 $ 75,273 $ $ 4,091 $ -$ $ 9,076 $ $ $ 4,609 $ $ $ 4,710 $ 18,691 $ $ 2,041 $ $ $ 7,637 $ 30,257 $ $ 4,183 $ 16,580 $ $ 3,281 $ 26,007 $ $ 9,004 $ 71,356 $ $ 1,975 $ -$ $ 8,521 $ 33,754 $ $ 2,045 $ 16,231 $ $ 4,594 $ 18,199 $ $ 17,033 $ 135,025 $ $ 5,822 $ 23,095 $ $ 1,020 $ $ $ 6,146 $ 24,342 $ $ 1,425 $ 11,289 $ $ 442 $ $ $ 3,987 $ 15,786 $ $ 2,400 $ $ $ 8,228 $ 32,593 $ $ 1,982 $ 7,884 $ $ 2,811 $ $ $ 1,526 $ 6,064 $ $ 4,380 $ $ $ 3,011 $ $ $ 3,388 $ 26,875 $ $ 6,539 $ $ $ 27,819 $ $ $ 2,301 $ $ $ 37,215 $ 294,913 $ FY 2023/24 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total $2,729 $ 2,784 $ $ $2,784 57,783 $114,631 $ 6,498 $ 50,286 $ 58,739 $115,523 49,746 $98,681 $ 5,589 $ 43,291 $ 50,568 $99,449 $1,285 $ 1,311 $ $ $1,311 3,588 $7,511 $ 805 $ 3,122 $ 3,647 $7,574 20,851 $43,658 $ 4,685 $ 18,145 $ 21,195 $44,026 26,060 $54,572 $ 5,862 $ 22,679 $ 26,491 $55,032 11,698 $24,497 $ 2,632 $ 10,180 $ 11,891 $24,703 13,338 $27,932 $ 3,001 $ 11,608 $ 13,559 $28,167 $5,692 $ 5,806 $ $ $5,806 28,329 $56,196 $ 3,184 $ 24,653 $ 28,797 $56,634 $449 $ 458 $ $ $458 86,170 $170,937 $ 9,684 $ 74,990 $ 87,594 $172,268 $4,091 $ 4,173 $ $ $4,173 $9,076 $ 9,258 $ $ $9,258 $4,609 $ 4,701 $ $ $4,701 21,397 $44,797 $ 4,804 $ 18,620 $ 21,750 $45,175 $2,041 $ 2,082 $ $ $2,082 34,637 $72,530 $ 7,789 $ 30,143 $ 35,209 $73,141 18,980 $39,743 $ 4,267 $ 16,517 $ 19,294 $40,078 29,772 $59,061 $ 3,347 $ 25,909 $ 30,264 $59,520 81,686 $162,047 $ 9,184 $ 71,088 $ 83,036 $163,308 $1,975 $ 2,014 $ -$ $2,014 38,640 $80,915 $ 8,692 $ 33,627 $ 39,279 $81,598 18,580 $36,856 $ 2,086 $ 16,170 $ 18,887 $37,143 20,834 $43,626 $ 4,686 $ 18,131 $ 21,178 $43,994 154,572 $306,629 $ 17,373 $ 134,517 $ 157,127 $309,017 26,439 $55,356 $ 5,938 $ 23,008 $ 26,876 $55,822 $1,020 $ 1,041 $ $ $1,041 27,865 $58,353 $ 6,269 $ 24,250 $ 28,326 $58,845 12,924 $25,638 $ 1,454 $ 11,247 $ 13,137 $25,838 $442 $ 450 $ $ $450 18,071 $37,844 $ 4,067 $ 15,727 $ 18,370 $38,163 -$2,400 $ 2,448 $ $ $2,448 37,311 $78,133 $ 8,393 $ 32,470 $ 37,928 $78,791 9,025 $18,891 $ 2,022 $ 7,854 $ 9,174 $19,051 $2,811 $ 2,867 $ $ $2,867 6,942 $14,532 $ 1,557 $ 6,041 $ 7,057 $14,655 -$4,380 $ 4,468 $ $ $4,468 $3,011 $ 3,071 $ $ $3,071 30,766 $61,029 $ 3,456 $ 26,774 $ 31,274 $61,504 $6,539 $ 6,670 $ $ $6,670 -$27,819 $ 28,375 $ $ $28,375 $2,301 $ 2,347 $ $ $2,347 337,606 $669,735 $ 37,959 $ 293,803 $ 343,187 $674,949 1 1 1 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UCLA NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of La Habra City of Lomita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total FY 2022/23 JPA Operations LMR $ 314,621 $ 2,500,811 $ $ 5,020 $ $ $ 2,824 $ 22,376 $ $ 1,830 $ -$ $ 3,747 $ 29,719 $ $ 5,306 $ 42,059 $ $ 5,083 $ 40,283 $ $ 8,073 $ -$ $ 29,895 $ $ $ 1,728 $ 6,856 $ $ 4,113 $ $ $ 12,449 $ 98,691 $ $ 5,431 $ $ $ 13,252 $ 52,527 $ $ 5,095 $ $ $ 5,122 $ 40,585 $ $ 1,180 $ $ $ 4,171 $ $ $ 4,613 $ $ $ 1,849 $ 7,326 $ $ 3,137 $ 24,860 $ $ 1,510 $ 11,983 $ $ 22,390 $ $ $ 2,711 $ 21,530 $ $ 6,925 $ 54,870 $ $ 1,221 $ 9,686 $ $ 1,081 $ 4,286 $ $ 1,736 $ $ $ 6,936 $ 27,473 $ $ 2,170 $ 17,197 $ $ 2,873 $ $ $ 12,552 $ 99,499 $ $ 1,023 $ 23,554 $ $ 3,496 $ -$ $ 9,375 $ 74,318 $ $ 1,568 $ -$ $ 7,873 $ 31,211 $ $ 371,303 $ 5,005,997 $ $ 279 $ 2,204 $ $ 14,486 $ 114,644 $ $ 1,904 $ 7,790 $ $ 1,748 $ $ $ 6,445 $ $ $ 2,482 $ $ $ 1,603 $ $ $ 4,680 $ $ $ 704 $ $ $ 2,559 $ $ $ 1,186,691 $ 9,441,210 $ FY 2023/24 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total 2,862,840 $5,678,273 $ 320,913 $ 2,491,396 $ 2,910,164 $5,722,473 $5,020 $ 5,121 $ $ $5,121 25,615 $50,814 $ 2,880 $ 22,291 $ 26,038 $51,209 $1,830 $ 1,867 $ $ $1,867 34,021 $67,487 $ 3,822 $ 29,607 $ 34,583 $68,012 48,148 $95,514 $ 5,413 $ 41,901 $ 48,944 $96,257 46,115 $91,481 $ 5,184 $ 40,132 $ 46,877 $92,193 $8,073 $ 8,234 $ $ $8,234 $29,895 $ 30,493 $ $ $30,493 7,849 $16,433 $ 1,762 $ 6,831 $ 7,979 $16,572 $4,113 $ 4,195 $ $ $4,195 112,978 $224,118 $ 12,698 $ 98,319 $ 114,846 $225,863 -$5,431 $ 5,539 $ $ $5,539 60,131 $125,909 $ 13,517 $ 52,329 $ 61,125 $126,971 $5,095 $ 5,197 $ $ $5,197 46,460 $92,168 $ 5,225 $ 40,432 $ 47,228 $92,886 -$1,180 $ 1,204 $ $ $1,204 $4,171 $ 4,254 $ $ $4,254 $4,613 $ 4,705 $ $ $4,705 8,386 $17,561 $ 1,886 $ 7,298 $ 8,525 $17,709 28,458 $56,455 $ 3,200 $ 24,766 $ 28,929 $56,895 13,718 $27,211 $ 1,541 $ 11,938 $ 13,944 $27,423 -$22,390 $ 22,838 $ -$ $22,838 24,646 $48,887 $ 2,766 $ 21,449 $ 25,054 $49,268 62,813 $124,608 $ 7,064 $ 54,663 $ 63,851 $125,578 11,088 $21,995 $ 1,245 $ 9,649 $ 11,271 $22,166 4,906 $10,273 $ 1,102 $ 4,270 $ 4,987 $10,359 $1,736 $ 1,771 $ $ $1,771 31,450 $65,860 $ 7,075 $ 27,370 $ 31,970 $66,415 19,687 $39,054 $ 2,213 $ 17,132 $ 20,012 $39,358 $2,873 $ 2,931 $ $ $2,931 113,903 $225,955 $ 12,804 $ 99,124 $ 115,786 $227,714 26,964 $51,542 $ 1,043 $ 23,466 $ 27,410 $51,919 -$3,496 $ 3,566 $ $ $3,566 85,077 $168,770 $ 9,562 $ 74,039 $ 86,483 $170,084 $1,568 $ 1,599 $ $ $1,599 35,730 $74,814 $ 8,031 $ 31,094 $ 36,320 $75,445 5,730,687 $11,107,987 $ 378,729 $ 4,987,148 $ 5,825,417 $11,191,295 2,523 $5,006 $ 284 $ 2,196 $ 2,565 $5,045 131,240 $260,370 $ 14,775 $ 114,212 $ 133,410 $262,398 8,918 $18,611 $ 1,942 $ 7,761 $ 9,065 $18,767 $1,748 $ 1,783 $ $ $1,783 $6,445 $ 6,574 $ $ $6,574 $2,482 $ 2,532 $ $ $2,532 $1,603 $ 1,635 $ $ $1,635 $4,680 $ 4,774 $ $ $4,774 $704 $ 718 $ $ $718 $2,559 $ 2,611 $ $ $2,611 10,807,962 $ 21,435,863 $ 1,210,424 $ 9,405,662 $ 10,986,621 $ 21,602,708 1 1 2 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellfiower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of la Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach FY 2024/25 JPA Operations LMR LTE $ 2,839 $ $ $ 6,628 $ 50,383 $ $ 5,701 $ 43,375 $ $ 1,337 $ $ $ 821 $ 3,128 $ $ 4,779 $ 18,180 $ $ 5,979 $ 22,723 $ $ 2,684 $ 10,200 $ $ 3,061 $ 11,630 $ $ 5,922 $ $ $ 3,247 $ 24,701 $ $ 467 $ $ $ 9,878 $ 75,134 $ $ 4,256 $ $ $ 9,443 $ $ $ 4,795 $ $ $ 4,900 $ 18,656 $ $ 2,124 $ -$ $ 7,945 $ 30,201 $ $ 4,352 $ 16,549 $ $ 3,414 $ 25,959 $ $ 9,368 $ 71,225 $ $ 2,055 $ $ $ 8,865 $ 33,692 $ $ 2,128 $ 16,201 $ $ 4,779 $ 18,166 $ $ 17,721 $ 134,776 $ $ 6,057 $ 23,053 $ $ 1,061 $ $ $ 6,394 $ 24,297 $ $ 1,483 $ 11,269 $ $ 459 $ $ $ 4,148 $ 15,757 $ $ 2,497 $ $ $ 8,561 $ 32,533 $ $ 2,062 $ 7,869 $ $ 2,925 $ $ $ 1,588 $ 6,053 $ $ 4,557 $ $ $ 3,133 $ $ $ 3,525 $ 26,826 $ $ 6,803 $ $ $ 28,943 $ $ $ 2,394 $ $ $ 38,719 $ 294,370 $ FY 2025/26 Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total -$2,839 $ 2,896 $ -$ -$2,896 59,713 $116,724 $ 6,761 $ 50,197 $ 60,707 $117,665 51,407 $100,483 $ 5,815 $ 43,215 $ 52,262 $101,292 $1,337 $ 1,364 $ $ $1,364 3,708 $7,657 $ 837 $ 3,117 $ 3,769 $7,724 21,547 $44,506 $ 4,875 $ 18,113 $ 21,905 $44,893 26,931 $55,632 $ 6,098 $ 22,639 $ 27,379 $56,116 12,089 $24,973 $ 2,738 $ 10,162 $ 12,290 $25,190 13,784 $28,475 $ 3,122 $ 11,587 $ 14,013 $28,722 $5,922 $ 6,041 $ -$ $6,041 29,274 $57,222 $ 3,312 $ 24,609 $ 29,762 $57,683 $467 $ 476 $ -$ $476 89,047 $174,059 $ 10,075 $ 74,857 $ 90,529 $175,461 $4,256 $ 4,342 $ $ $4,342 $9,443 $ 9,632 $ $ $9,632 $4,795 $ 4,891 $ $ $4,891 22,111 $45,668 $ 4,998 $ 18,587 $ 22,479 $46,065 $2,124 $ 2,166 $ $ $2,166 35,793 $73,939 $ 8,104 $ 30,089 $ 36,389 $74,582 19,614 $40,515 $ 4,439 $ 16,488 $ 19,940 $40,867 30,766 $60,139 $ 3,482 $ 25,863 $ 31,278 $60,624 84,414 $165,007 $ 9,556 $ 70,962 $ 85,819 $166,336 $2,055 $ 2,096 $ -$ -$2,096 39,931 $82,488 $ 9,043 $ 33,567 $ 40,595 $83,205 19,201 $37,530 $ 2,171 $ 16,141 $ 19,520 $37,832 21,529 $44,474 $ 4,875 $ 18,098 $ 21,888 $44,861 159,733 $312,230 $ 18,075 $ 134,278 $ 162,392 $314,745 27,322 $56,431 $ 6,178 $ 22,968 $ 27,776 $56,922 -$1,061 $ 1,083 $ -$ $1,083 28,796 $59,487 $ 6,522 $ 24,207 $ 29,275 $60,004 13,355 $26,107 $ 1,512 $ 11,227 $ 13,577 $26,317 $459 $ 469 $ -$ $469 18,675 $38,580 $ 4,231 $ 15,699 $ 18,986 $38,915 $2,497 $ 2,547 $ $ $2,547 38,557 $79,651 $ 8,732 $ 32,413 $ 39,199 $80,344 9,327 $19,258 $ 2,104 $ 7,840 $ 9,482 $19,426 $2,925 $ 2,983 $ $ $2,983 7,174 $14,815 $ 1,620 $ 6,031 $ 7,293 $14,944 $4,557 $ 4,648 $ $ $4,648 $3,133 $ 3,195 $ $ $3,195 31,793 $62,144 $ 3,595 $ 26,727 $ 32,322 $62,644 $6,803 $ 6,939 $ $ -$6,939 $28,943 $ 29,522 $ -$ -$29,522 $2,394 $ 2,442 $ $ $2,442 348,879 $681,968 $ 39,493 $ 293,282 $ 354,685 $687,461 1 1 3 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UCLA NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City ofDiamond Bar City of La Habra City of Lomita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total FY 2024/25 JPA Operations LMR $ 327,332 $ 2,496,205 $ $ 5,223 $ -$ $ 2,938 $ 22,334 $ $ 1,904 $ $ $ 3,898 $ 29,664 $ $ 5,521 $ 41,982 $ $ 5,288 $ 40,209 $ $ 8,399 $ $ $ 31,103 $ $ $ 1,798 $ 6,844 $ $ 4,279 $ $ $ 12,952 $ 98,509 $ $ 5,650 $ $ $ 13,787 $ 52,430 $ $ 5,301 $ $ $ 5,329 $ 40,510 $ $ 1,228 $ $ $ 4,339 $ $ $ 4,800 $ -$ $ 1,924 $ 7,312 $ $ 3,264 $ 24,814 $ $ 1,571 $ 11,961 $ $ 23,295 $ -$ $ 2,821 $ 21,490 $ $ 7,205 $ 54,769 $ $ 1,270 $ 9,668 $ $ 1,125 $ 4,278 $ $ 1,806 $ $ $ 7,216 $ 27,423 $ $ 2,257 $ 17,165 $ $ 2,989 $ $ $ 13,060 $ 99,316 $ $ 1,064 $ 23,511 $ $ 3,637 $ $ $ 9,754 $ 74,181 $ $ 1,631 $ $ $ 8,191 $ 31,154 $ $ 386,304 $ 4,996,775 $ $ 290 $ 2,200 $ $ 15,071 $ 114,433 $ $ 1,981 $ 7,775 $ $ 1,818 $ -$ $ 6,706 $ $ $ 2,582 $ $ $ 1,668 $ $ $ 4,869 $ $ $ 733 $ $ $ 2,663 $ $ $ 1,234,633 $ 9,423,819 $ FY2025/26 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total 2,958,434 $5, 781,970 $ 333,878 $ 2,486,979 $ 3,007,669 $5,828,527 -$5,223 $ 5,328 $ $ -$5,328 26,470 $51,742 $ 2,996 $ 22,252 $ 26,911 $52,159 $1,904 $ 1,942 $ -$ -$1,942 35,157 $68,719 $ 3,976 $ 29,554 $ 35,742 $69,273 49,756 $97,258 $ 5,631 $ 41,827 $ 50,584 $98,041 47,655 $93,152 $ 5,394 $ 40,060 $ 48,448 $93,902 $8,399 $ 8,567 $ -$ $8,567 -$31,103 $ 31,725 $ $ $31,725 8,111 $16,752 $ 1,834 $ 6,818 $ 8,246 $16,898 $4,279 $ 4,365 $ $ $4,365 116,750 $228,211 $ 13,211 $ 98,145 $ 118,693 $230,049 $5,650 $ 5,763 $ $ $5,763 62,139 $128,356 $ 14,063 $ 52,236 $ 63,173 $129,472 -$5,301 $ 5,407 $ $ -$5,407 48,012 $93,852 $ 5,436 $ 40,361 $ 48,811 $94,607 -$1,228 $ 1,252 $ -$ -$1,252 $4,339 $ 4,426 $ -$ -$4,426 $4,800 $ 4,896 $ $ -$4,896 8,666 $17,903 $ 1,962 $ 7,285 $ 8,811 $18,058 29,409 $57,486 $ 3,329 $ 24,722 $ 29,898 $57,949 14,176 $27,708 $ 1,603 $ 11,917 $ 14,412 $27,931 $23,295 $ 23,761 $ $ $23,761 25,469 $49,780 $ 2,877 $ 21,411 $ 25,893 $50,181 64,910 $126,884 $ 7,349 $ 54,566 $ 65,991 $127,906 11,458 $22,396 $ 1,296 $ 9,632 $ 11,649 $22,577 5,070 $10,472 $ 1,147 $ 4,262 $ 5,154 $10,563 -$1,806 $ 1,843 $ $ $1,843 32,501 $67,140 $ 7,361 $ 27,321 $ 33,042 $67,724 20,344 $39,767 $ 2,302 $ 17,102 $ 20,683 $40,087 -$2,989 $ 3,049 $ $ -$3,049 117,706 $230,082 $ 13,321 $ 98,949 $ 119,665 $231,935 27,865 $52,440 $ 1,086 $ 23,424 $ 28,328 $52,838 $3,637 $ 3,710 $ -$ -$3,710 87,918 $171,853 $ 9,949 $ 73,907 $ 89,381 $173,237 $1,631 $ 1,664 $ -$ $1,664 36,923 $76,268 $ 8,355 $ 31,039 $ 37,537 $76,931 5,922,042 $11,305,121 $ 394,030 $ 4,978,308 $ 6,020,599 $11,392,938 2,608 $5,098 $ 296 $ 2,192 $ 2,651 $5,139 135,623 $265,127 $ 15,372 $ 114,010 $ 137,880 $267,262 9,215 $18,971 $ 2,020 $ 7,747 $ 9,369 $19,136 $1,818 $ 1,855 $ $ -$1,855 $6,706 $ 6,840 $ $ -$6,840 $2,582 $ 2,634 $ -$ -$2,634 $1,668 $ 1,701 $ -$ -$1,701 $4,869 $ 4,967 $ $ $4,967 $733 $ 747 $ $ -$747 $2,663 $ 2,716 $ $ $2,716 11,168,853 $ 21,827,305 $ 1,259,326 $ 9,388,990 $ 11,354, 730 $ 22,003,046 1 1 4 lA·RlCS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/Sil".<; Geography for LMR, LTE, l TE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte Crty of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of la Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of La Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach FY 2026/27 JPA Operations LMR LTE $ 2,954 $ $ $ 6,896 $ 50,298 $ $ 5,932 $ 43,302 $ $ 1,391 $ $ $ 854 $ 3,123 $ $ 4,972 $ 18,150 $ $ 6,220 $ 22,684 $ $ 2,793 $ 10,183 $ $ 3,185 $ 11,610 $ $ 6,162 $ -$ $ 3,379 $ 24,659 $ $ 486 $ $ $ 10,277 $ 75,007 $ $ 4,428 $ $ $ 9,824 $ -$ $ 4,989 $ $ $ 5,098 $ 18,625 $ $ 2,210 $ -$ $ 8,266 $ 30,150 $ $ 4,528 $ 16,521 $ $ 3,552 $ 25,915 $ $ 9,747 $ 71,104 $ $ 2,138 $ $ $ 9,224 $ 33,635 $ $ 2,214 $ 16,173 $ $ 4,972 $ 18,135 $ $ 18,437 $ 134,548 $ $ 6,302 $ 23,014 $ $ 1,104 $ $ $ 6,653 $ 24,256 $ $ 1,543 $ 11,250 $ $ 478 $ $ $ 4,315 $ 15,730 $ $ 2,598 $ $ $ 8,907 $ 32,478 $ $ 2,146 $ 7,856 $ $ 3,043 $ $ $ 1,652 $ 6,043 $ $ 4,741 $ $ $ 3,259 $ $ $ 3,667 $ 26,780 $ $ 7,078 $ $ $ 30,112 $ $ $ 2,490 $ -$ $ 40,283 $ 293,872 $ FY 2027/28 Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total $2,954 $ 3,013 $ $ $3,013 61,720 $118,914 $ 7,034 $ 50,401 $ 62,754 $120,189 53,135 $102,368 $ 6,050 $ 43,390 $ 54,025 $103,466 $1,391 $ 1,419 $ $ $1,419 3,832 $7,810 $ 871 $ 3,130 $ 3,897 $7,897 22,271 $45,393 $ 5,072 $ 18,187 $ 22,644 $45,903 27,836 $56,741 $ 6,345 $ 22,731 $ 28,302 $57,378 12,495 $25,470 $ 2,849 $ 10,204 $ 12,704 $25,756 14,247 $29,042 $ 3,249 $ 11,634 $ 14,486 $29,368 $6,162 $ 6,285 $ -$ $6,285 30,259 $58,296 $ 3,446 $ 24,709 $ 30,766 $58,921 $486 $ 495 $ $ $495 92,041 $177,325 $ 10,482 $ 75,161 $ 93,582 $179,226 $4,428 $ 4,517 $ $ -$4,517 $9,824 $ 10,021 $ $ -$10,021 $4,989 $ 5,088 $ $ $5,088 22,854 $46,577 $ 5,200 $ 18,663 $ 23,237 $47,100 -$2,210 $ 2,254 $ -$ -$2,254 36,997 $75,413 $ 8,432 $ 30,212 $ 37,616 $76,259 20,273 $41,322 $ 4,618 $ 16,555 $ 20,613 $41,786 31,801 $61,268 $ 3,623 $ 25,968 $ 32,333 $61,924 87,251 $168,102 $ 9,942 $ 71,250 $ 88,713 $169,905 $2,138 $ 2,180 $ -$ $2,180 41,273 $84,131 $ 9,408 $ 33,704 $ 41,964 $85,076 19,846 $38,234 $ 2,258 $ 16,207 $ 20,179 $38,643 22,253 $45,360 $ 5,072 $ 18,172 $ 22,626 $45,869 165,103 $318,088 $ 18,805 $ 134,824 $ 167,869 $321,498 28,240 $57,556 $ 6,428 $ 23,061 $ 28,713 $58,202 $1,104 $ 1,126 $ $ $1,126 29,764 $60,672 $ 6,786 $ 24,305 $ 30,262 $61,353 13,804 $26,596 $ 1,574 $ 11,273 $ 14,035 $26,882 $478 $ 488 $ -$ $488 19,303 $39,348 $ 4,402 $ 15,763 $ 19,626 $39,790 $2,598 $ 2,650 $ $ $2,650 39,853 $81,238 $ 9,085 $ 32,545 $ 40,521 $82,150 9,640 $19,642 $ 2,189 $ 7,872 $ 9,802 $19,862 $3,043 $ 3,104 $ $ $3,104 7,415 $15,110 $ 1,685 $ 6,055 $ 7,539 $15,279 $4,741 $ 4,836 $ $ -$4,836 $3,259 $ 3,324 $ $ $3,324 32,862 $63,310 $ 3,741 $ 26,835 $ 33,412 $63,988 $7,078 $ 7,220 $ $ $7,220 $30,112 $ 30,714 $ $ -$30,714 -$2,490 $ 2,540 $ $ -$2,540 360,608 $694,763 $ 41,089 $ 294,474 $ 366,649 $702,211 1 1 5 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Ad min Cost Members City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UCLA NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of La Habra City of Lomita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total FY 2026/27 JPA Operations LMR $ 340,556 $ 2,491,983 $ $ 5,434 $ $ $ 3,056 $ 22,297 $ $ 1,981 $ $ $ 4,056 $ 29,614 $ $ 5,744 $ 41,911 $ $ 5,502 $ 40,141 $ $ 8,738 $ $ $ 32,359 $ $ $ 1,870 $ 6,832 $ $ 4,452 $ -$ $ 13,475 $ 98,343 $ $ 5,878 $ -$ $ 14,344 $ 52,341 $ $ 5,515 $ $ $ 5,545 $ 40,442 $ $ 1,277 $ $ $ 4,515 $ $ $ 4,993 $ $ $ 2,002 $ 7,300 $ $ 3,396 $ 24,772 $ $ 1,635 $ 11,941 $ $ 24,236 $ $ $ 2,935 $ 21,454 $ $ 7,496 $ 54,676 $ $ 1,322 $ 9,652 $ $ 1,170 $ 4,271 $ $ 1,879 $ $ $ 7,508 $ 27,376 $ $ 2,349 $ 17,136 $ $ 3,110 $ -$ $ 13,587 $ 99,148 $ $ 1,107 $ 23,471 $ $ 3,784 $ $ $ 10,148 $ 74,056 $ $ 1,697 $ $ $ 8,522 $ 31,101 $ $ 401,911 $ 4,988,324 $ $ 301 $ 2,196 $ $ 15,680 $ 114,239 $ $ 2,061 $ 7,762 $ $ 1,892 $ $ $ 6,977 $ $ $ 2,687 $ $ $ 1,735 $ $ $ 5,066 $ $ $ 762 $ -$ $ 2,770 $ $ $ 1,284,512 $ 9,407,880 $ FY 2027/28 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total 3,057,890 $5,890,429 $ 347,367 $ 2,497,087 $ 3,109,114 $5,953,568 -$5,434 $ 5,543 $ -$ -$5,543 27,360 $52,713 $ 3,117 $ 22,342 $ 27,818 $53,278 $1,981 $ 2,021 $ $ $2,021 36,339 $70,009 $ 4,137 $ 29,674 $ 36,948 $70,759 51,428 $99,083 $ 5,859 $ 41,997 $ 52,290 $100,145 49,257 $94,899 $ 5,612 $ 40,223 $ 50,082 $95,917 $8,738 $ 8,913 $ $ $8,913 -$32,359 $ 33,006 $ $ $33,006 8,384 $17,086 $ 1,908 $ 6,846 $ 8,524 $17,278 $4,452 $ 4,541 $ $ $4,541 120,675 $232,493 $ 13,744 $ 98,544 $ 122,697 $234,985 -$5,878 $ 5,996 $ $ $5,996 64,228 $130,913 $ 14,631 $ 52,449 $ 65,303 $132,383 $5,515 $ 5,626 $ $ $5,626 49,626 $95,612 $ 5,656 $ 40,525 $ 50,457 $96,637 -$1,277 $ 1,303 $ -$ $1,303 -$4,515 $ 4,605 $ -$ $4,605 $4,993 $ 5,093 $ $ $5,093 8,958 $18,259 $ 2,042 $ 7,315 $ 9,108 $18,464 30,397 $58,565 $ 3,464 $ 24,822 $ 30,906 $59,193 14,652 $28,228 $ 1,668 $ 11,965 $ 14,898 $28,530 -$24,236 $ 24,721 $ $ $24,721 26,326 $50,714 $ 2,994 $ 21,498 $ 26,767 $51,258 67,093 $129,265 $ 7,646 $ 54,788 $ 68,216 $130,650 11,843 $22,816 $ 1,348 $ 9,671 $ 12,042 $23,061 5,240 $10,681 $ 1,193 $ 4,279 $ 5,328 $10,801 -$1,879 $ 1,917 $ $ $1,917 33,593 $68,478 $ 7,658 $ 27,432 $ 34,156 $69,247 21,028 $40,513 $ 2,396 $ 17,172 $ 21,380 $40,947 $3,110 $ 3,172 $ $ $3,172 121,663 $234,398 $ 13,859 $ 99,351 $ 123,701 $236,911 28,801 $53,380 $ 1,129 $ 23,519 $ 29,284 $53,932 $3,784 $ 3,860 $ $ $3,860 90,873 $175,077 $ 10,351 $ 74,208 $ 92,396 $176,954 $1,697 $ 1,731 $ $ $1,731 38,164 $77,787 $ 8,693 $ 31,165 $ 38,803 $78,661 6,121,128 $11,511,363 $ 409,949 $ 4,998,541 $ 6,223,666 $11,632,156 2,695 $5,193 $ 308 $ 2,201 $ 2,740 $5,249 140,182 $270,101 $ 15,993 $ 114,473 $ 142,530 $272,997 9,525 $19,348 $ 2,102 $ 7,778 $ 9,685 $19,565 $1,892 $ 1,930 $ $ $1,930 -$6,977 $ 7,116 $ $ $7,116 -$2,687 $ 2,740 $ -$ $2,740 -$1,735 $ 1,770 $ $ $1,770 -$5,066 $ 5,167 $ $ $5,167 $762 $ 777 $ $ $777 -$2,770 $ 2,826 $ $ $2,826 11,544,325 $ 22,236, 717 $ 1,310,202 $ 9,427,148 $ 11, 737, 711 $ 22,475,061 1 1 6 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed SO"h Population/50"h Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa Oty of Baldwin Park Oty of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of La Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach FY 2028/29 JPA Operations LMR $ 3,073 $ -$ $ 7,175 $ 50,221 $ $ 6,171 $ 43,235 $ $ 1,447 $ -$ $ 889 $ 3,118 $ $ 5,173 $ 18,122 $ $ 6,472 $ 22,650 $ $ 2,906 $ 10,167 $ $ 3,314 $ 11,593 $ $ 6,410 $ $ $ 3,515 $ 24,621 $ $ 505 $ -$ $ 10,692 $ 74,892 $ $ 4,607 $ $ $ 10,221 $ $ $ 5,190 $ $ $ 5,304 $ 18,596 $ $ 2,299 $ $ $ 8,600 $ 30,104 $ $ 4,711 $ 16,496 $ $ 3,695 $ 25,876 $ $ 10,140 $ 70,995 $ $ 2,224 $ $ $ 9,596 $ 33,583 $ $ 2,303 $ 16,149 $ $ 5,173 $ 18,107 $ $ 19,181 $ 134,342 $ $ 6,556 $ 22,979 $ $ 1,149 $ $ $ 6,921 $ 24,218 $ $ 1,605 $ 11,232 $ $ 497 $ $ $ 4,490 $ 15,706 $ $ 2,703 $ -$ $ 9,266 $ 32,428 $ $ 2,232 $ 7,844 $ $ 3,166 $ -$ $ 1,719 $ 6,034 $ $ 4,933 $ $ $ 3,391 $ $ $ 3,815 $ 26,739 $ $ 7,364 $ $ $ 31,329 $ $ $ 2,591 $ -$ $ 41,910 $ 293,421 $ ,.--.--:-· .. FY 2029/30 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total $3,073 $ 3,135 $ $ $3,135 63,809 $121,204 $ 7,318 $ 50,328 $ 64,884 $122,531 54,933 $104,340 $ 6,295 $ 43,328 $ 55,859 $105,481 $1,447 $ 1,476 $ $ $1,476 3,962 $7,969 $ 906 $ 3,125 $ 4,029 $8,060 23,025 $46,320 $ 5,276 $ 18,160 $ 23,413 $46,850 28,778 $57,899 $ 6,601 $ 22,698 $ 29,263 $58,562 12,918 $25,990 $ 2,964 $ 10,189 $ 13,136 $26,288 14,729 $29,635 $ 3,380 $ 11,617 $ 14,977 $29,974 $6,410 $ 6,539 $ $ $6,539 31,283 $59,419 $ 3,585 $ 24,674 $ 31,810 $60,069 $505 $ 515 $ $ $515 95,155 $180,739 $ 10,906 $ 75,052 $ 96,759 $182,717 $4,607 $ 4,699 $ $ -$4,699 $10,221 $ 10,426 $ $ $10,426 $5,190 $ 5,294 $ -$ $5,294 23,628 $47,528 $ 5,410 $ 18,636 $ 24,026 $48,072 $2,299 $ 2,345 $ $ $2,345 38,248 $76,952 $ 8,772 $ 30,168 $ 38,893 $77,833 20,959 $42,166 $ 4,805 $ 16,531 $ 21,312 $42,649 32,877 $62,447 $ 3,769 $ 25,931 $ 33,431 $63,131 90,204 $171,340 $ 10,343 $ 71,147 $ 91,725 $173,215 $2,224 $ 2,269 $ $ $2,269 42,670 $85,849 $ 9,788 $ 33,655 $ 43,389 $86,832 20,518 $38,970 $ 2,349 $ 16,183 $ 20,864 $39,396 23,006 $46,286 $ 5,277 $ 18,146 $ 23,394 $46,816 170,690 $324,213 $ 19,565 $ 134,629 $ 173,567 $327,761 29,196 $58,730 $ 6,687 $ 23,028 $ 29,688 $59,403 $1,149 $ 1,172 $ -$ $1,172 30,771 $61,911 $ 7,060 $ 24,270 $ 31,290 $62,620 14,271 $27,109 $ 1,637 $ 11,256 $ 14,512 $27,405 $497 $ 507 $ $ $507 19,956 $40,152 $ 4,580 $ 15,740 $ 20,292 $40,612 $2,703 $ 2,757 $ $ $2,757 41,202 $82,897 $ 9,452 $ 32,497 $ 41,897 $83,846 9,966 $20,043 $ 2,277 $ 7,861 $ 10,134 $20,272 $3,166 $ 3,229 $ -$ $3,229 7,666 $15,418 $ 1,753 $ 6,046 $ 7,795 $15,595 $4,933 $ 5,031 $ $ -$5,031 $3,391 $ 3,459 $ $ $3,459 33,974 $64,529 $ 3,892 $ 26,796 $ 34,547 $65,235 $7,364 $ 7,511 $ $ $7,511 $31,329 $ 31,955 $ $ $31,955 $2,591 $ 2,643 $ $ $2,643 372,810 $708,142 $ 42,749 $ 294,048 $ 379,095 $715,891 1 1 7 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% Geography for LMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UCLA NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of La Habra City of Lomita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total FY2028/29 JPA Operations LMR $ 354,314 $ 2,488,161 $ $ 5,654 $ $ $ 3,180 $ 22,262 $ $ 2,061 $ $ $ 4,220 $ 29,568 $ $ 5,976 $ 41,846 $ $ 5,724 $ 40,079 $ $ 9,091 $ $ $ 33,667 $ $ $ 1,946 $ 6,822 $ $ 4,632 $ $ $ 14,019 $ 98,192 $ $ 6,116 $ $ $ 14,924 $ 52,261 $ $ 5,738 $ -$ $ 5,769 $ 40,380 $ $ 1,329 $ $ $ 4,697 $ -$ $ 5,195 $ $ $ 2,082 $ 7,289 $ $ 3,533 $ 24,734 $ $ 1,701 $ 11,922 $ $ 25,215 $ -$ $ 3,053 $ 21,421 $ $ 7,799 $ 54,592 $ $ 1,375 $ 9,637 $ $ 1,217 $ 4,264 $ $ 1,955 $ -$ $ 7,811 $ 27,334 $ $ 2,443 $ 17,110 $ $ 3,236 $ $ $ 14,136 $ 98,996 $ $ 1,152 $ 23,435 $ $ 3,937 $ $ $ 10,558 $ 73,942 $ $ 1,766 $ $ $ 8,866 $ 31,053 $ $ 418,148 $ 4,980,675 s $ 314 $ 2,193 $ $ 16,313 $ 114,064 $ $ 2,144 $ 7,750 $ $ 1,968 $ -$ $ 7,259 $ -$ $ 2,795 $ $ $ 1,806 $ -$ $ 5,271 $ $ $ 793 $ $ $ 2,882 s $ $ 1,336,406 $ 9,393,453 $ .-..:·.--._ FY 2029/30 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total 3,161,363 $6,003,839 $ 361,401 $ 2,493,471 $ 3,214,658 $6,069,530 $5,654 $ 5,767 $ $ $5,767 28,286 $53,728 $ 3,243 $ 22,310 $ 28,763 $54,316 $2,061 $ 2,102 $ $ -$2,102 37,569 $71,357 $ 4,304 $ 29,632 $ 38,202 $72,138 53,169 $100,991 $ 6,095 $ 41,936 $ 54,065 $102,096 50,923 $96,727 $ 5,838 $ 40,165 $ 51,782 $97,785 $9,091 $ 9,273 $ $ $9,273 $33,667 $ 34,340 $ -$ $34,340 8,667 $17,435 $ 1,985 $ 6,836 $ 8,813 $17,634 $4,632 $ 4,724 $ $ $4,724 124,759 $236,970 $ 14,300 $ 98,401 $ 126,862 $239,563 $6,116 $ 6,238 $ -$ -$6,238 66,401 $133,586 $ 15,222 $ 52,373 $ 67,520 $135,115 $5,738 $ 5,853 $ -$ -$5,853 51,305 $97,454 $ 5,884 $ 40,466 $ 52,170 $98,520 -$1,329 $ 1,356 $ -$ -$1,356 -$4,697 $ 4,791 $ -$ -$4,791 $5,195 $ 5,299 $ $ $5,299 9,261 $18,632 $ 2,124 $ 7,304 $ 9,417 $18,845 31,426 $59,693 $ 3,604 $ 24,787 $ 31,956 $60,346 15,148 $28,771 $ 1,735 $ 11,948 $ 15,403 $29,086 $25,215 $ 25,719 $ $ $25,719 27,216 $51,690 $ 3,114 $ 21,466 $ 27,675 $52,256 69,363 $131,754 $ 7,955 $ 54,709 $ 70,532 $133,196 12,244 $23,256 $ 1,402 $ 9,657 $ 12,450 $23,510 5,418 $10,899 $ 1,242 $ 4,273 $ 5,509 $11,024 $1,9S5 $ 1,994 $ $ -$1,994 34,730 $69,876 $ 7,967 $ 27,393 $ 35,315 $70,676 21,740 $41,293 $ 2,492 $ 17,147 $ 22,106 $41,745 $3,236 $ 3,300 $ $ $3,300 125,780 $238,912 $ 14,419 $ 99,207 $ 127,901 $241,527 29,776 $54,363 $ 1,175 $ 23,485 $ 30,278 $54,938 $3,937 $ 4,016 $ -$ -$4,016 93,948 $178,449 $ 10,769 $ 74,100 $ 95,532 $180,401 $1,766 $ 1,801 $ $ $1,801 39,455 $79,375 $ 9,044 $ 31,120 $ 40,120 $80,284 6,328,256 $11, 727,078 $ 426,511 $ 4,991,304 $ 6,434,937 $11,852, 752 2,786 $5,293 $ 320 $ 2,198 $ 2,833 $5,351 144,926 $275,303 $ 16,640 $ 114,308 $ 147,369 $278,316 9,847 $19,742 $ 2,187 $ 7,767 $ 10,013 $19,967 $1,968 $ 2,008 $ $ $2,008 $7,259 $ 7,404 $ $ $7,404 $2,795 $ 2,851 $ $ $2,851 -$1,806 $ 1,842 $ -$ -$1,842 $5,271 $ S,376 $ $ $5,376 . $793 $ 809 $ $ $809 -$2,882 $ 2,940 $ $ $2,940 11,934,965 $ 22,664,824 $ 1,363,135 $ 9,413,499 $ 12,136,164 $ 22,912,797 1 1 8 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% GeographyforLMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of La Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach FY2030/31 JPA Operations LMR LTE $ 3,198 $ $ $ 7,465 $ 50,437 $ 55,957 $ 6,421 $ 43,422 $ 48,174 $ 1,505 $ $ $ 925 $ 3,132 $ 3,475 $ 5,382 $ 18,200 $ 20,192 $ 6,733 $ 22,747 $ 25,237 $ 3,023 $ 10,211 $ 11,328 $ 3,447 $ 11,642 $ 12,917 $ 6,669 $ $ $ 3,657 $ 24,727 $ 27,433 $ 526 $ -$ $ 11,124 $ 75,215 $ 83,446 $ 4,793 $ $ $ 10,634 $ $ - $ 5,400 $ $ $ 5,518 $ 18,676 $ 20,720 $ 2,392 $ $ - $ 8,948 $ 30,233 $ 33,542 $ 4,901 $ 16,567 $ 18,380 $ 3,844 $ 25,987 $ 28,831 $ 10,550 $ 71,301 $ 79,104 $ 2,314 $ $ $ 9,984 $ 33,728 $ 37,419 $ 2,396 $ 16,218 $ 17,993 $ 5,382 $ 18,185 $ 20,175 $ 19,956 $ 134,921 $ 149,687 $ 6,821 $ 23,078 $ 25,603 $ 1,195 $ $ - $ 7,201 $ 24,323 $ 26,985 $ 1,670 $ 11,281 $ 12,515 $ 517 $ $ $ 4,671 $ 15,774 $ 17,500 $ 2,812 $ $ $ 9,641 $ 32,568 $ 36,132 $ 2,323 $ 7,878 $ 8,740 $ 3,294 $ $ $ 1,788 $ 6,060 $ 6,723 $ S,132 $ $ - $ 3,528 $ -$ $ 3,970 $ 26,855 $ 29,793 $ 7,662 $ $ $ 32,594 $ $ $ 2,696 $ $ $ 43,604 $ 294,686 $ 326,936 FY 2031/32 Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total $3,198 $ 3,262 $ $ -$3,262 $113,859 $ 7,614 $ 50,549 $ 57,076 $115,239 $98,016 $ 6,549 $ 43,518 $ 49,137 $99,204 $1,505 $ 1,536 $ -$ -$1,536 $7,531 $ 943 $ 3,139 $ 3,544 $7,626 $43,773 $ 5,490 $ 18,240 $ 20,595 $44,325 $54,717 $ 6,868 $ 22,798 $ 25,741 $55,407 $24,562 $ 3,083 $ 10,233 $ 11,555 $24,872 $28,007 $ 3,516 $ 11,668 $ 13,175 $28,360 $6,669 $ 6,803 $ $ $6,803 $55,817 $ 3,730 $ 24,782 $ 27,982 $56,494 $526 $ 536 $ -$ $536 $169,785 $ 11,346 $ 75,381 $ 85,115 $171,843 $4,793 $ 4,889 $ $ -$4,889 $10,634 $ 10,847 $ $ $10,847 $5,400 $ 5,508 $ $ $5,508 $44,915 $ 5,629 $ 18,718 $ 21,135 $45,481 $2,392 $ 2,439 $ $ $2,439 $72,723 $ 9,127 $ 30,300 $ 34,213 $73,640 $39,848 $ 4,999 $ 16,604 $ 18,748 $40,351 $58,663 $ 3,921 $ 26,045 $ 29,408 $59,374 $160,956 $ 10,761 $ 71,459 $ 80,686 $162,906 $2,314 $ 2,360 $ $ $2,360 $81,131 $ 10,184 $ 33,803 $ 38,167 $82,154 $36,608 $ 2,444 $ 16,254 $ 18,353 $37,051 $43,742 $ 5,490 $ 18,225 $ 20,579 $44,294 $304,564 $ 20,355 $ 135,219 $ 152,680 $308,255 $55,502 $ 6,958 $ 23,129 $ 26,115 $56,201 $1,195 $ 1,219 $ $ $1,219 $58,508 $ 7,345 $ 24,377 $ 27,524 $59,246 $25,466 $ 1,703 $ 11,306 $ 12,766 $25,774 $517 $ 528 $ -$ $528 $37,945 $ 4,765 $ 15,809 $ 17,850 $38,424 $2,812 $ 2,868 $ $ $2,868 $78,341 $ 9,834 $ 32,640 $ 36,855 $79,328 $18,940 $ 2,369 $ 7,895 $ 8,915 $19,179 $3,294 $ 3,360 $ $ $3,360 $14,570 $ 1,824 $ 6,073 $ 6,857 $14,754 $5,132 $ 5,235 $ -$ -$5,235 $3,528 $ 3,598 $ -$ -$3,598 $60,618 $ 4,049 $ 26,914 $ 30,389 $61,352 $7,662 $ 7,815 $ $ -$7,815 $32,594 $ 33,246 $ -$ $33,246 $2,696 $ 2,750 $ $ $2,750 $665,226 $ 44,476 $ 295,338 $ 333,475 $673,288 1 1 9 _..... ..... "":'--,, LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June2014 Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/SO% GeographyforLMR, LTE, LTE Hard Match, and Baseline Admin Cost Members City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UCLA NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of La Habra City of Lam ita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total FY 2030/31 JPA Operations LMR $ 368,629 $ 2,498,887 $ $ 5,882 $ $ $ 3,308 $ 22,358 $ $ 2,144 $ $ $ 4,390 $ 29,696 $ $ 6,217 $ 42,027 $ $ 5,955 $ 40,252 $ $ 9,459 $ $ $ 35,027 $ -$ $ 2,024 $ 6,851 $ $ 4,819 $ $ $ 14,586 $ 98,615 $ $ 6,363 $ -$ $ 15,527 $ 52,486 $ $ 5,970 $ $ $ 6,002 $ 40,554 $ $ 1,383 $ $ $ 4,887 $ $ $ 5,405 $ $ $ 2,167 $ 7,320 $ $ 3,676 $ 24,840 $ $ 1,770 $ 11,974 $ $ 26,234 $ $ $ 3,177 $ 21,513 $ $ 8,114 $ 54,828 $ $ 1,430 $ 9,678 $ $ 1,266 $ 4,282 $ $ 2,034 $ -$ $ 8,127 $ 27,452 $ $ 2,542 $ 17,184 $ $ 3,366 $ $ $ 14,707 $ 99,423 $ $ 1,199 $ 23,536 $ $ 4,096 $ -$ $ 10,984 $ 74,261 $ $ 1,837 $ $ $ 9,225 $ 31,187 $ $ 435,041 $ 5,002,145 $ $ 326 $ 2,203 $ $ 16,972 $ 114,556 $ $ 2,230 $ 7,784 $ $ 2,048 $ -$ $ 7,552 $ -$ $ 2,908 $ $ $ 1,879 $ -$ $ 5,484 $ $ $ 825 $ $ $ 2,999 $ $ $ 1,390,397 $ 9,433,946 $ FY 2031/32 LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total 2,772,360 $5,639,876 $ 376,001 $ 2,504,412 $ 2,827,807 $5,708,220 $5,882 $ 6,000 $ -$ $6,000 24,805 $50,472 $ 3,374 $ 22,408 $ 25,301 $51,083 $2,144 $ 2,187 $ $ $2,187 32,946 $67,032 $ 4,478 $ 29,762 $ 33,605 $67,844 46,626 $94,870 $ 6,342 $ 42,120 $ 47,559 $96,020 44,657 $90,865 $ 6,074 $ 40,341 $ 45,551 $91,966 $9,459 $ 9,648 $ $ $9,648 $35,027 $ 35,727 $ $ -$35,727 7,601 $16,476 $ 2,065 $ 6,866 $ 7,753 $16,684 $4,819 $ 4,915 $ -$ -$4,915 109,407 $222,608 $ 14,877 $ 98,833 $ 111,595 $225,306 $6,363 $ 6,490 $ -$ -$6,490 58,230 $126,243 $ 15,837 $ 52,602 $ 59,395 $127,834 $5,970 $ 6,090 $ -$ -$6,090 44,992 $91,548 $ 6,122 $ 40,644 $ 45,892 $92,657 $1,383 $ 1,410 $ -$ -$1,410 $4,887 $ 4,985 $ -$ -$4,985 $5,405 $ 5,513 $ $ -$5,513 8,121 $17,608 $ 2,210 $ 7,336 $ 8,284 $17,830 27,559 $56,075 $ 3,749 $ 24,895 $ 28,110 $56,755 13,284 $27,027 $ 1,805 $ 12,000 $ 13,550 $27,355 $26,234 $ 26,758 $ -$ $26,758 23,867 $48,557 $ 3,240 $ 21,561 $ 24,345 $49,146 60,828 $123,769 $ 8,276 $ 54,949 $ 62,044 $125,269 10,737 $21,846 $ 1,459 $ 9,700 $ 10,952 $22,111 4,751 $10,300 $ 1,292 $ 4,292 $ 4,846 $10,430 $2,034 $ 2,075 $ $ $2,075 30,456 $66,036 $ . 8,289 $ 27,513 $ 31,066 $66,868 19,065 $38,791 $ 2,593 $ 17,222 $ 19,446 $39,261 -$3,366 $ 3,434 $ $ $3,434 110,303 $224,433 $ 15,001 $ 99,642 $ 112,509 $227,153 26,112 $50,847 $ 1,223 $ 23,588 $ 26,634 $51,445 -$4,096 $ 4,178 $ $ $4,178 82,388 $167,634 $ 11,204 $ 74,425 $ 84,036 $169,665 -$1,837 $ 1,874 $ -$ $1,874 34,600 $75,012 $ 9,409 $ 31,256 $ 35,292 $75,958 5,549,568 $10,986, 754 $ 443,742 $ 5,013,204 $ 5,660,559 $11,117,505 2,444 $4,972 $ 333 $ 2,207 $ 2,492 $5,033 127,093 $258,621 $ 17,312 $ 114,809 $ 129,634 $261,755 8,636 $18,650 $ 2,275 $ 7,801 $ 8,808 $18,885 -$2,048 $ 2,089 $ -$ $2,089 -$7,552 $ 7,703 $ -$ -$7,703 $2,908 $ 2,966 $ $ $2,966 -$1,879 $ 1,916 $ $ $1,916 $5,484 $ 5,593 $ $ $5,593 $825 $ 842 $ $ $842 $2,999 $ 3,059 $ $ $3,059 10,466,374 $ 21,290,718 $ 1,418,205 $ 9,454,802 $ 10,675,702 $ 21,548,709 1 2 0 Annual Member Hard Match Contributions 121 LA-RI CS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 Annual Hard Match Distributed by 50% Population/SO% Geography City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of La Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,025 $10,025 $10,025 $10,025 $8,630 $8,630 $8,630 $8,630 $0 $0 $0 $0 $622 $622 $622 $622 $3,617 $3,617 $3,617 $3,617 $4,521 $4,521 $4,521 $4,521 $2,029 $2,029 $2,029 $2,029 $2,314 $2,314 $2,314 $2,314 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,915 $4,915 $4,915 $4,915 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,949 $14,949 $14,949 $14,949 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,712 $3,712 $3,712 $3,712 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,009 $6,009 $6,009 $6,009 $3,293 $3,293 $3,293 $3,293 $5,165 $5,165 $5,165 $5,165 $14,171 $14,171 $14,171 $14,171 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,703 $6,703 $6,703 $6,703 $3,223 $3,223 $3,223 $3,223 $3,614 $3,614 $3,614 $3,614 $26,816 $26,816 $26,816 $26,816 $4,587 $4,587 $4,587 $4,587 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,834 $4,834 $4,834 $4,834 $2,242 $2,242 $2,242 $2,242 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,135 $3,135 $3,135 $3,135 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,473 $6,473 $6,473 $6,473 $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,204 $1,204 $1,204 $1,204 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,337 $5,337 $5,337 $5,337 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,569 $58,569 $58,569 $58,569 $496,658 $496,658 $496,658 $496,658 $0 $0 $0 $0 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,025 $10,025 $10,025 $10,025 $10,025 $8,630 $8,630 $8,630 $8,630 $8,630 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $622 $622 $622 $622 $622 $3,617 $3,617 $3,617 $3,617 $3,617 $4,521 $4,521 $4,521 $4,521 $4,521 $2,029 $2,029 $2,029 $2,029 $2,029 $2,314 $2,314 $2,314 $2,314 $2,314 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,915 $4,915 $4,915 $4,915 $4,915 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,949 $14,949 $14,949 $14,949 $14,949 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,712 $3,712 $3,712 $3,712 $3,712 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,009 $6,009 $6,009 $6,009 $6,009 $3,293 $3,293 $3,293 $3,293 $3,293 $5,165 $5,165 $5,165 $5,165 $5,165 $14,171 $14,171 $14,171 $14,171 $14,171 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,703 $6,703 $6,703 $6,703 $6,703 $3,223 $3,223 $3,223 $3,223 $3,223 $3,614 $3,614 $3,614 $3,614 $3,614 $26,816 $26,816 $26,816 $26,816 $26,816 $4,587 $4,587 $4,587 $4,587 $4,587 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,834 $4,834 $4,834 $4,834 $4,834 $2,242 $2,242 $2,242 $2,242 $2,242 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,135 $3,135 $3,135 $3,135 $3,135 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,473 $6,473 $6,473 $6,473 $6,473 $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,204 $1,204 $1,204 $1,204 $1,204 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,337 $5,337 $5,337 $5,337 $5,337 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,569 $58,569 $58,569 $58,569 $58,569 $496,658 $496,658 $496,658 $496,658 $496,658 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 2 2 LA·RICS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 Annual Hard Match Distributed by 50% Population/SO% Geography City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marino City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple Oty City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UCLA NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of la Habra City of Lorn ita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 $4,444 $4,444 $4,444 $4,444 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,902 $5,902 $5,902 $5,902 $8,353 $8,353 $8,353 $8,353 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,362 $1,362 $1,362 $1,362 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,600 $19,600 $19,600 $19,600 so so so $0 Sl0,432 $10,432 $10,432 $10,432 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,060 $8,060 $8,060 $8,060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,455 $1,455 $1,455 $1,455 $4,937 $4,937 S4,937 $4,937 S2,380 S2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,276 $4,276 $4,276 $4,276 $10,897 $10,897 $10,897 $10,897 $1,924 $1,924 $1,924 $1,924 $851 $851 $851 $851 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,456 $5,456 $5,456 $5,456 $3,415 $3,415 $3,415 $3,415 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,760 $19,760 $19,760 $19,760 $4,678 $4,678 $4,678 $4,678 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,760 $14,760 $14,760 $14,760 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,199 $6,199 $6,199 $6,199 $994,185 $994,185 $994,185 $994,185 $438 $438 $438 $438 $22,768 $22,768 $22,768 $22,768 $1,547 $1,547 $1,547 $1,547 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY2022/23 FY 2023/24 $4,444 $4,444 $4,444 $4,444 $4,444 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,902 $5,902 $5,902 $5,902 $5,902 $8,353 $8,353 $8,353 $8,353 $8,353 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,362 $1,362 $1,362 $1,362 $1,362 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,600 $19,600 S19,600 S19,600 $19,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,432 $10,432 $10,432 $10,432 $10,432 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,060 $8,060 $8,060 $8,060 $8,060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,455 $1,455 $1,455 $1,455 Sl,455 $4,937 $4,937 $4,937 $4,937 $4,937 $2,380 S2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,276 $4,276 $4,276 $4,276 $4,276 $10,897 $10,897 $10,897 $10,897 $10,897 $1,924 $1,924 $1,924 $1,924 $1,924 $851 $851 $851 $851 $851 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,456 $5,456 $5,456 $5,456 $5,456 $3,415 $3,415 $3,415 $3,415 $3,415 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S19,760 $19,760 $19,760 $19,760 $19,760 $4,678 $4,678 $4,678 $4,678 $4,678 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,760 $14,760 $14,760 $14,760 $14,760 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,199 $6,199 $6,199 $6,199 $6,199 $994,185 $994,185 $994,185 $994,185 $994,185 $438 $438 $438 $438 $438 $22,768 $22,768 $22,768 $22,768 $22,768 $1,547 $1,547 $1,547 $1,547 $1,547 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 1 2 3 LA·RICS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 Annual Hard Match Distributed by 50% Population/SO% Geography City of Agoura Hills City of Alhambra City of Arcadia City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Azusa City of Baldwin Park City of Bell City of Bell Gardens City of Bellflower City of Beverly Hills City of Bradbury City of Burbank City of Calabasas City of Carson City of Cerritos City of Claremont City of Commerce City of Compton City of Covina City of Culver City City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Monte City of El Segundo City of Gardena City of Glendale City of Glendora City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hawthorne City of Hermosa Beach City of Hidden Hills City of Huntington Park City of Industry City of Inglewood City of Irwindale City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Habra Heights City of La Mirada City of La Puente City of La Verne City of Lakewood City of Lancaster City of Lawndale City of Long Beach City of Los Angeles City of Lynwood FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 $0 $0 $10,025 $10,025 $8,630 $8,630 $0 $0 $622 $622 $3,617 $3,617 $4,521 $4,521 $2,029 $2,029 $2,314 $2,314 $0 $0 $4,915 $4,915 $0 $0 $14,949 $14,949 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,712 $3,712 $0 $0 $6,009 $6,009 $3,293 $3,293 $5,165 $5,165 $14,171 $14,171 $0 $0 $6,703 $6,703 $3,223 $3,223 $3,614 $3,614 $26,816 $26,816 $4,587 $4,587 $0 $0 $4,834 $4,834 $2,242 $2,242 $0 $0 $3,135 $3,135 $0 $0 $6,473 $6,473 $1,566 $1,566 $0 $0 $1,204 $1,204 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,337 $5,337 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,569 $58,569 $496,658 $496,658 $0 $0 FY2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 FY 2030/31 FY 2031/32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,025 $10,025 $10,025 $10,025 $0 $0 $8,630 $8,630 $8,630 $8,630 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $622 $622 $622 $622 $0 $0 $3,617 $3,617 $3,617 $3,617 $0 $0 $4,521 $4,521 $4,521 $4,521 $0 $0 $2,029 $2,029 $2,029 $2,029 $0 $0 $2,314 $2,314 $2,314 $2,314 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,915 $4,915 $4,915 $4,915 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,949 $14,949 $14,949 $14,949 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,712 $3,712 $3,712 $3,712 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,009 $6,009 $6,009 $6,009 $0 $0 $3,293 $3,293 $3,293 $3,293 $0 $0 $5,165 $5,165 $5,165 $5,165 $0 $0 $14,171 $14,171 $14,171 $14,171 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,703 $6,703 $6,703 $6,703 $0 $0 $3,223 $3,223 $3,223 $3,223 $0 $0 $3,614 $3,614 $3,614 $3,614 $0 $0 $26,816 $26,816 $26,816 $26,816 $0 $0 $4,587 $4,587 $4,587 $4,587 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,834 $4,834 $4,834 $4,834 $0 $0 $2,242 $2,242 $2,242 $2,242 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,135 $3,135 $3,135 $3,135 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,473 $6,473 $6,473 $6,473 $0 $0 $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $1,566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,204 $1,204 $1,204 $1,204 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,337 $5,337 $5,337 $5,337 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,569 $58,569 $58,569 $58,569 $0 $0 $496,658 $496,658 $496,658 $496,658 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 2 4 \:!; IA·RICS Funding Plan Cash Flow June 2014 Annual Hard Match Distributed by 50% Population/SO% Geography City of Manhattan Beach City of Maywood City of Monrovia City of Montebello City of Monterey Park City of Norwalk City of Palmdale City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Paramount City of Pasadena City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona City of Ranchos Palos Verdes City of Redondo Beach City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rosemead City of San Dimas City of San Fernando City of San Gabriel City of San Marin6 City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santa Monica City of Sierra Madre City of Signal Hill City of South El Monte City of South Gate City of South Pasadena City of Temple City City of Torrance City of Vernon City of Walnut City of West Covina City of Westlake Village City of Whittier County of Los Angeles Inglewood Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District UCLA NON-MEMBER CITIES City of Cudahy City of Diamond Bar City of La Habra City of Lomita City of Malibu City of Rolling Hills City of West Hollywood Total FY 2024/25 FY2025/26 $4,444 $4,444 $0 $0 $5,902 $5,902 $8,353 $8,353 $8,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,362 $1,362 $0 $0 $19,600 $19,600 $0 $0 $10,432 $10,432 $0 $0 $8,060 $8,060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,455 $1,455 $4,937 $4,937 $2,380 $2,380 $0 $0 $4,276 $4,276 $10,897 $10,897 $1,924 $1,924 $851 $851 $0 $0 $5,456 $5,456 $3,415 $3,415 $0 $0 $19,760 $19,760 $4,678 $4,678 $0 $0 $14,760 $14,760 $0 $0 $6,199 $6,199 $994,185 $994,185 $438 $438 $22,768 $22,768 $1,547 $1,547 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY 2029/30 FY2030/31 FY 2031/32 $4,444 $4,444 $4,444 $4,444 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,902 $5,902 $5,902 $5,902 $0 $0 $8,353 $8,353 $8,353 $8,353 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,362 $1,362 $1,362 $1,362 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,600 $19,600 $19,600 $19,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,432 $10,432 $10,432 $10,432 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,060 $8,060 $8,060 $8,060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,455 $1,455 $1,455 $1,455 $0 $0 $4,937 $4,937 $4,937 $4,937 $0 $0 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,276 $4,276 $4,276 $4,276 $0 $0 $10,897 $10,897 $10,897 $10,897 $0 $0 $1,924 $1,924 $1,924 $1,924 $0 $0 $851 $851 $851 $851 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,456 $5,456 $5,456 $5,456 $0 $0 $3,415 $3,415 $3,415 $3,415 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,760 $19,760 $19,760 $19,760 $0 $0 $4,678 $4,678 $4,678 $4,678 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,760 $14,760 $14,760 $14,760 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,199 $6,199 $6,199 $6,199 $0 $0 $994,185 $994,185 $994,185 $994,185 $0 $0 $438 $438 $438 $438 $0 $0 $22,768 $22,768 $22,768 $22,768 $0 $0 $1,547 $1,547 $1,547 $1,547 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 $1,875,012 $0 $0 1 2 5 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1.What is lAuRICS? The proposed Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (lf\-RICS) will provide improved radio and broadband communication for the public safety providers of the greater Los Angeles region. LA-RICS is comprised of two distinct, but compatible projects: a Land Mobile Radio (LMR) ·communications system and a Long Term Evolution (LTE) broadband communications system. Covering 88 cities and the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County within a 4,084 square mile area, LA- RICS will provide integrated communications for over 50 law enforcement agencies, 31 fire departments, as well as Emergency Medical Services (EMS), transportation. and education agencies. a. LMR The LMR communication system will provide day-to-day voice and narrowband data radio communications service for individual public safety agencies, enable interoperability and interagency communications among member agencies and mutual aid providers. and support communications with regional, state, and federal agencies during disaster events. The LMR system will consist of installing infrastructure at 55 lattice tower sites and 33 monopole sites located in 64 jurisdictions throughout the County. Existing towers and poles will be utilized where possible. CEQA and NEPA review will be required prior to approval of the proposed LMR project, though some sites may be determined to be exempt. System design is underway, with completion targeted for January 2014. If approved, facility installations are estimated to take place from October 2014 through March 2016, and full deployment of the LMR system is targeted for October 2017. Once in place, the system will support 34,000 first responders and 17,000 secondary responders. 126 b. LTE The LTE wireless network technology will provide day-to-day broadband data communications service for individual public safety agencies, provide emergency responders high speed access to lifesaving multimedia information, and support the National Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN) initiative. The LTE system will provide a secure 4G data network to provide high-speed video and data access tl1at will be exclusive to public safety response. Secondary responders and public utilities will also be supported by the LTE system Two hundred and thirty-two monopole LTE sites have been identified throughout LA County. All 232 sites are potentially exempt from CEQA; however NEPA review will be required for all sites. It is currently anticipated that the contract for the 18 month LTE construction program will be awarded in January 2014. System design is scheduled to be complete within 60 days of contract execution, and. if approved, construction and full system implementation by August 2015. The LMR and LTE systems may share some infrastructure. However, each system would function independently of the other; and neither system is dependent on the other for -approval, construction, or implementation. 2. How wm LA~RICS benefit the residents of Los Angeles County? By improving the communications infrastructure for the entire Los Angeles region, LA-RICS will allow public safety personnel to enhance emergency incident coordination, hence keeping residents and businesses safer and more secure. Effective communication is fundamental to helping police officers prevent and respond to crime, provide firefighters critical information as they protect the public and property during firefighting efforts, and facilitating lifesaving exchanges of information between Emergency Medical Services (EMS) professionals and local hospitals. LA-RICS will support rapid, safe, and effective public safety response during daily operations and support faster, improved coordination of large-scale responses to emergencies such as terrorism, wildfires, earthquakes or other disasters. The Los Angeles region is designated as a high-threat area by the Department of Homeland Security. The new systems will mitigate this threat by providing more efficient and effective emergency response communications, making life safer for the region's 10 million residents. 2 127 3. Who will utilize LAMRICS and how wm it benefit responders? Once in place, the systems will support 34,000 first responders and 17,000 secondary responders. These emergency responders include personnel from 50 law enforcement agencies, 31 fire departments, as well as EMS, transportation, and education se1vices throughout the Los Angeles region. a. Public safety agencies (police, fire, and EMS) The Los Angeles region's first responders currently use a patchwork of often incompatible radio technologies and frequencies. This uncoordinated system means that neighboring agencies and systems cannot easily communicate with one another. Agencies are also beginning to outgrow their .radio systems, with their need to communicate outstripping the capacity of existing systems to carry the traffic. Despite the information revolution of the last two decades, many agencies still lack the ability to exchange more than text data. LA-RICS will improve overall traffic capacity and coverage, provide a first of its kind dedicated LTE broadband network for all first responders in the region, and provide a single region-wide LMR network. The secure 4G (LTE} data network will provide high-speed video and data access that is exclusive to public safety use. The systems will give the region's public safety personnel the tools to more effectively achieve their mission of protecting the public, property, and environment. b. Secondary responders During many emergency response operations, there is a need for secondary responders to communicate with first responding police and fire units. Transportation setvices, highway control, and public utilities perform vital activities during emergency operations, particularly as events escalate. LA-RICS will provide the voice and data capabilities for secondary responders to communicate effectively with first responders during emergency incidents. 4. What is the lA·RICS Authority? Formed under a Joint Powers Agreement in 2009, the LA-RICS Authority {JPA) is an interagency joint powers authority consisting of representatives from cities, municipalities, public safety agencies, and other public agencies in the Los Angeles region. The JPA performs administrative and fiscal oversight of the LA-RICS, identifies and pursues funding sources, sets policy, and will oversee the construction of the communications systems. 3 128 5. What is the uHybrid" system? The LA-RICS hybrid LMR system utilizes both 700 MHz and UHF T-Band P25 technologies capable of supporting first and secondary responders on a Digital Trunked Voice Radio Subsystem. The hybrid system will allow users on either spectrum to talk with any other user on the same talk-group regardless of the spectrum utilized. The purpose of the hybrid system is to provide an economic path for LA-RICS users to utilize current and future communications equipment on either spectrum while allowing for a gradual migration away from the T-Band spectrum as required by federal legislation. As the foundation for eventual migration to a 700 MHz system, the capacity of the hybrid system is capable of supporting the operations of all first responders immediately upon system implementation. The hybrid system makes it possible for users to make a planned transition to the 700 MHz spectrum as desired. 6. What is the JPA's position on the federal requirement to relinquish T-Sond channels in 2021? The JPA understands the critical need for adequate communications for public safety and the reliance of local agencies on over 600 channels in the T-Band. Due to the uncertainty in Congress' future action regarding the T-Band, LA-RICS has established a course that will allow transition off of T-Band if certain achievements are realized; specifically the successful establishment of a LTE public safety broadband system and its use by first responders for day-to-day routine voice communications. In the interim, JPA staff has met with Congressional members and their staff to underscore the critical nature of public safety communications and the need for sufficient and suitable spectrum. 1. How much will this project cost and how will the infrastructure be funded? a. LMR The total value of the contract executed with Motorola Solutions is approximately $280 million. This total includes 15 year-to-year options for system maintenance at a total value of approximately $75 million. The base system price of $205 million also includes three "Additive Alternates" that can be exercised at the sole discretion of the JPA. These Alternates include "In-Tunnel Coverage" for the Metrorail and Metrolink System (valued at approximately $5 million), "Bounded Area Coverage" for locations such as amusement parks, LAX Airport, and the Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports where high levels of activity are anticipated (valued at $20 million), and "In-Building Coverage" for selected buildings (valued at $30 million). It is not anticipated that the option for "In-Building Coverage" will be exercised until completion of the "base system" and downlink and uplink signal coverage are evaluated for those individual buildings. At that time, it is anticipated that the "In-Building Coverage" option will be exercised by and at the expense of individual jurisdictions. It is anticipated that with the existing allocation of grant funds totaling $85 million and future federal grant allocations to the Los Angeles area, sufficient funds will be available to fully fund the LMR infrastructure without commitment of local funds. 4 ~ j, ) 129 b. LTE The total cost of the LTE system is not yet known and will not be solidified until a contract is executed with the successful vendor. It is anticipated, however, that the total cost of the infrastructure can be funded with the JPA's federal Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP) grant of $154.6 million and local match requirement. The BTOP grant requires local matching funds valued at a minimum of 103 in kind and 103 cash match. Matching funds must be contributed by JPA members. 2. How wm the operating costs for each system be funded? a. LMR Projected costs for the LMR system operation are now being calculated as port of the Funding Plan. While an annual cost for maintenance was obtained with the system pricing, it is not anticipated that federal grant funds can be used for system maintenance. The bid price for maintenance will serve as an excellent component in the forecasting of operating costs. Once operatlonal, the l.MR system will be funded through member contributions . . The cost for user equipment has not been Included in the base contract price. Members can, however, take advantage of JPA pricing obtained during the procurement process. b. LTE As part of the LTE system procurement, bidders will provide costs for annual maintenance. The final figures will not be known until contractor selection and execution of the contract. Similar to the LMR system, input into the specific elements to be used in the cost allocation formula will be solicited as part of the Funding Plan development. 3. The Joint Powers Agreement calls for developing a Funding Plan before commencement of construction. Will Cities be asked for input into the Funding Plan and, if so, when will that occur? Input into the specific elements to be used in the cost allocation formula will be solicited from JPA members during development of the Funding Plan. Once the Funding Plan has been developed, members will have an "Opt-Out" period pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement. 4. Can my City "Opf~Out" of the JPA for only one of the communications systems? The JPA is currently analyzing whether any options are available that are consistent with the Joint Powers Agreement regarding member use of only the LMR system or only the LTE system. 5 130 5. Does a City have to participate in both the LMR ond LTE systems? As noted above, the JPA is currently analyzing available options, if any, regarding member use of only the LMR system or only the LTE system. The JPA's Bylaws allow for another level of participation other than as a member, namely as subscribers and affiliates. The JPA will address the policy of selective use of only one system as a subscriber or affiliate during the development of the Funding Plan. 6. If my City approves use of a site; is it obligated to participate as a member or as a subscriber/affiliate in fhe lMR and/or LTE systems? No. There is no obligation to participate in the LA-RICS. Cities are encouraged to host an LMR and/or LTE site as there are derivative benefits in supporting other public safety responders operating on the LA-RICS that may be called upon to help city agencies. Additionally, a federal effort is being made to establish the National Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN). The NPSBN is envisioned to be a replacement for all public safety communications in the future. The LTE system is a foundation system for the NPSBN. __ ,.,,, .. __ ,,_, .... --·-·-··"·---·---- 1. How were the locations of the LA-RICS tower/monopole sites selected? For the LMR system, a list of 109 sites was included in the RFP for the proposer's initial design. Each of these sites hosts existing public safety transmitter equipment. Additionally, proposers were allowed to select from a list of 255 sites as "fill in" sites with the restriction that only monopoles not exceeding 70 feet in height would be considered. Only the proposer's selected sites account for the guaranteed minimum coverage and capacity. For the LTE system, proposers were required to plan their system using 232 pre-selected sites. All 232 sites, and only these sites, could be used in the plan. These sites were selected based on an analysis of coverage requirements, and the likelihood that they would not have any adverse environmental impacts that might disqualify them from using an LA-RICS-speciflc, statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.25). The majority of proposed LTE sites are located at fire stations. 2. If my City declines the placement of a tower/monopole in the City or on a specific sitej how will that impact coverage in my area? Loss of any site will degrade the coverage for the LA-RICS. The "reach" of the LMR system tronsmitter equipment is substantially farther than the LTE system. Loss of a LMR "fill in" site will marginalize coverage in the close geographical area. Loss of a principle LMR site will require identification of an alternate site and incur a change to the contract value. Loss of any LTE site will create a gap in coverage. The ability to identify substitute LTE sites that can fill the coverage gap while meeting the criteria for the CEQA exemption discussed above, is very limited. 6 131 3. LA~RICS has sent out a Site Access Agreement. What should we do with it? The draft Site Access Agreement should be reviewed by your City Manager, City Attorney, and Planning Department as required by your City. LA-RICS and its Counsel will meet with your City staff to resolve any issues. A copy of the draft agreement can be sent in Microsoft Word for review and comment by your City. 4. Will LA-RICS comply with my City's Community Development and Building Permit processes? What if the site is a County owned facility? JPA staff will work with each City to expedite the approval and permitting process. If barriers to completion of the site prove detrimental to the projects, the JPA will be forced to abandon the site and coverage will be impacted as mentioned above. The JPA expects that for all of the sites, the JPA will follow the County's building code requirements. The JPA will work with the cities to address any local concerns. 5 .. How will the coverage being provided by LA-RICS compare to the current communications system serving my City? a. LMR The LMR system has been specified to meet 973 coverage with 953 reliability throughout the urban areas. Motorola Solutions has committed to meet these coverage requirements lf the LMR project is approved. Locations in the Foothills, Angeles National Forest and Santa Monica Mountains are much more difficult to cover and have a lower coverage requirement. Completion of the project will be an iterative process and require further analysis and work to ensure coverage. LA-RICS is committed to the premise that there will be no degradation in coverage provided by existing systems. b. LTE There is currently no integrated public safety broadband system in existence. Nevertheless, coverage has been predicted to cover 953 of the urban area outside of buildings. The system will also include a "Roam" feature on a commercial system to provide commercially available in~building and additional geographical coverage. It is the goal of the JPA to improve system coverage as future funding becomes available. 6. When will LAMRICS be fully operational? a. LMR The proposed LMR system is anticipated to be complete by phases in five years. Phase I, the Detailed Design, wlll be completed in September 2014. Construction, installation, and implementation of the system would follow, after environmental review and project approval. b. LTE The proposed LTE system must be completed and operational before August 15, 2015 to take advantage of the BTOP program's federal grant funds. 7 132 -.............................. _ ......... __ ......... ----- ___ ........ , ____ .. .., _____ ..... -....... __ ......... -.. -·-····-.. ···---.. -..... __ .. , ....... __ INTEROPERABILITY WITH OTHER SYSTEMS 1. How will LAMRICS interoperate with lnteragency Communications Interoperability System (ICIS)? The LMR system design will include an Inter Sub-System Interface (ISSI) interface to link LA- RICS and ICIS together. The governance of that interface and operational restrictions has not yet been determined. 2. If our police department is on ICIS and we contract with Los Angeles County fire who wm be on LA-RICS, how will our public safety agencies coordi~ate their responses? As mentioned above, the ISSI interface will enable LA-RICS subscribers to seamlessly interoperate with ICIS users. 3~ What is the future of interoperability between the LMR and lTE systems? The Public Safety Communications Research Laboratory (PSCR), a federal agency under the Department of Commerce, is currently evaluating the future of public safety communications. PSCR is also working with commercial vendors in establishing the standards for future communications equipment. Single devices that operate in both LMR and LTE mode are in development. No time table has been established. 8 133 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (LA-RICS JPA) AUTHORIZING THE CITY'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes recognizes the need for a county- wide interoperable communications system to better respond to regional crises and disaster events; and, WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, acting independently, has limited resources to construct such a communications network providing these capabilities; and, WHEREAS, a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), intended to create an Authority to coordinate a county-wide radio communications system for law enforcement and fire communications, has been drafted; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to become a member of the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RIGS) Authority created thereto. BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES: Section 1: Pursuant to the City's authority under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act in California Government Code Section 6500 et. seq., the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Joint Powers Agreement (LA-RICS JPA), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", is approved, thereby authorizing the City's membership in the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications Systems Authority. Section 2: Pursuant to Article V, Section 5.01 of the Agreement, if at any time prior to the adoption of the funding plan, the City Council determines that the City cannot contribute the identified resources or that it would not be in the City's best interest to continue participating in the system, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes may terminate its membership in the Authority without financial contribution or penalty. Section 3: The Mayor is authorized and directed to execute the LA-RICS JPA to effectuate the intent of this Resolution. 134 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 1 ih day of March 2009. ATTEST: ~~ City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2009-20, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on March 17, 2009. Resolution No. 2009-20 Page 2 of 2 135 %~ ~~· ·~ LA-RICS - LA-RICS JPA 2009-01-05 The Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority · Joint Powers Agreement January 2009 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A ~ Page 1of24 136 The Los Angeles Regional interoperable Communications System Authority Joint Powers Agreement Table of Contents RECITALS ... : .............. · .............. ~ ...................................................................................... 1 Article I -GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................. 1 1.01 Purpose ..................................... , ...... ~ ........................................................... : .. 1 1.02 Creation of Authority ...................................................................................... 2 1.03 Membership in the Authority ............................................................................ 2 1.04 Term ............................................ ~ ....................................................................... 2 Article II -Board of Directors ........................................... , ............................................... 3 2.01 Composition of the Board ................................................................................ 3 2.02 Ap.p.ointment of Directors ........................................................................ : ......... 3 2.03 Purpose of Board ............................................................................................. 4 -2.04 Specific Responsibilities of the Board .............................................................. 5 2.05 Startup Responsibilities .................................................................................... 6 2.06 Meetings of the Board ...................................................................................... ? 2.07 Minutes ........ ~······!··············································· .. !························· .. ···· .. , ............... 7 2.08 . Voting ........................................................................ "! ........................................... 7 2~09 Quorum; Required Votes; Approvals ......................................................... : ...... ? Article Ill -O.FflCERS, EMPLOYEES AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES ........................ 8 3.01 Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary ................................................ 8 3.02 Treasurer ......................................................................................................... 8 3.03 Auditor .. ·~····, .................... ,. ........................................................................................ 9 3.04 Bonding of Persons Having Access to.Property ......................... , .................... 9 3.05 Other Employees .................................................... , ......................................... 9 3.06 Privileges and Immunities from Liability ........................................................... 9 3.07 Advia.ory Committees ....................................................................................... 9 3.08 Membership of Advisory Committees ............................................................ 10 3.09 Meetings of Advisory .Committees ....... , ......................................................... 10 3.10 Officers of Advisory Committees ................................................................... 10 Article IV -POWERS ................................................................... ! ................................ 10 4.01 General Powers ......... : ................................................................................... 10 4.02 Power to Issue Bonds .................................................................................... 10 4.03 Specific Powers ........................................................... , ................................. 11 4.04 Limitation on Exercise of Powers ................................................................... 12 4.05 Obligations of Authority ................................................................................. 12 4.06 Additional Powers to be Exercised ................................................................ 12 LA-RIGS JPA 2009-01-05 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 2 of 24 137 The Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority -Joint Powers.Agreement Table of C0.ntents Article V -CONTRIBUTIONS; ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS; FUNDS ......................... 12 5.01 Adoption of Funding Plan .............................................................................. 12 5. 02 Contributions ................................................................................................. 13 5.03 Accounts and Reports ................................................. .-: ................................ 13 5.04 Funds ....... ,. ................................................................................................... 13 5.05 Sharing of Frequencies .................................................................................. 14 5. 06 Violations ......................................................................................... , ............. 14 5.07 System Components ..................................................................................... 14 5.08 · Adverse Impacts on System .......................................................................... 15 Article VI -WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION .......................................................... 15 r 6.01 Withdrawal by Members .. ~ ............................................... ~ ............................ 15 · 6.02 Financial liabilities of Withdrawing Members ............................................ ! ... 16 6.03 Retention of Assets by Withdrawing Member$ .................. , .... , ... , .................. 16 6.04 Termination of Authority and Disposition of Authority Assets ........................ 16 Article VII.-MISCELLANliOUS PROVISIONS ................................. ~ ................... : ......... 17 -- 7 .. 01 ~otices ........ .' .......................... ~ ................................................................. : ..... 17 7; 02 Amendment; Addition of Members ............................................................. _.-.. 18 7.03 Fiscal Year .................................................................................................... 18 7 .04 Consents and Approvals .............................................................. ! ................ 18 7.05 Amendments to Act. ...................................................................................... 18 7 .06 Enforcement of Authority ................................................................................ 18 7.07 Seve.rability ... · ........................................................................................ .-~ ......... 18 7.08 Successors ..................................... , ............................................................... 19 7.09 Assignment. ................................................................................................... 19 7.10 Governing Law ................... ~ .......................................................................... 19 7.11 Headings. ·~, ......................... ~ ................................. ; ....................................... 19 7.12 Oounterparts ............... · .................................................................................... 19 7 .13 No Third Party Beneficiaries .......................................................................... 19 7 .14 Filing of Notice of Agreement. ....................................................................... 19 7 .15 Conflict of Interest Code: .............................................. : ................................ 19 7.16 Indemnification .......... : ................................................................................ ; .. 19 7.17 Dispute Resolution/Legal Proceedings .......................................................... 20 Exhibit A -Members LA-RICS JPA 2009-01-05 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exh.ibit A page 3 of 24 138 Joint Powers Agree~ent to Establish The Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of the Effective Date by and between the public agencies set f?rth in Exhibit. A. Each public agency executing this Agreement shall be referred to 'individually as "Member/' with all referred to collectively as .. Members." RECITALS Whereas the Members require wide area and interoperable communications, and Members acting independently have limited resources to construct a communications network providing these capabilities; and, Whereas the Members have determined that working in concert to share radio communications resources is in the public interest, as doing so would provide the most effective an.d economical radio communications network for all participating public agencies; and, Whereas the Members agree that the collective goal is to evaluate, establish, and participate in a public safety radio network to meet or enhance current public safety radio communications needs of Members and to provide an architecture capable of expanding to meet future needs; and, Whereas, the Members have the authority under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, in California Government Code Section 6500 et. seq., (the "Act") to enter into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations of the Members as herein contained, the Members agree as follows: Article I " GENERAL PROVISIPNS 1.01 Purpose. This Agreement is to create an agency to exercise the powers shared in common by its Members to engage in regional and cooperative planning and coordination of governmental services to establish a wide"area interoperable public safety communications network (hereinafter referred to as the "Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System", "LA-RICS", or the "System'1). As part of this LA·RICS JPA 2009-01-05 Page 1 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 4 of 24 139 "' Joint Powers Agreement purpose, Members will seek to meet or enhance the current public safety communications needs with a System capable of expanding to meet future needs; develop funding mechanisms; and resoive technical and operational issues in the development and management of the System. Such purposes are to be accomplished and said common power exercised in the manner hereinafter set forth. 1.02 Creation of Authority. Pursuant to the Act, the Members hereby· create a public entity to be l<nown as the "Los Angeles Regk>nal Interoperable Communications System Authority" (hereinafter, the "Authority"). The Authority shall be a public entity separate and apart from the Members who shall administer this Agreement. The jurisdiction of the Authority shall be all territory within the geographic boundaries of the Members; however the Authority may undertake any action outside such geographic boundaries as is necessa1y and , incidental to the accomplishment of its purpose. 1.03 Membership in the Authority. Participation in the Authority is limited to public agencies, as defined by the Act, in the greater Los Angeles area that have approved and executed this Agreement, and contributed resources of any kind toward the construction and/or on-going operation of . the System (including, but not limited to financial, personnel, frequency, equipment, radio site, real estate or other resources), as approved by the Board of Directors. · 1.04 Term. This Agreement shall become effective, and the Authority shall come into existence, when each of thf:'. following occurs (the 11Effective Date"): (a) The Agreement'is authorized and executed by the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles; and (b) Forty-five days has elapsed after the authorization and execution of the Agreement by both the City of Los Angeles and County of Lo.s Angeles. Prior to the Effective Date, public agencies may become Members of the Authority, without Board approval, by adoption and execution of this Agreement. After the Effective Date, membership is subject to approval by the Board as set forth in Section 7.02(a) of this document. LA·RICS JPA 2009·01·05 Page2 Resolution-No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 5 of 24 140 Joint Powers Agreement Article II p Board of Directors. 2.01 Compositio~ of the Board The Authority shall be administered by a Board of Directors (the "Board") consisting of a minimum of eight (8) Directors and not more than seventeen (17) Directors identified by the following appointing authorities: . . 1. The City of Los Angeles City Administrative Officer 2. The City of Los Angeles Fire Chief 3. The City of Los Angeles Police Chief 4. The City of Los Angeles Chief Legislative Analyst 5. The County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Officer 6. _ The County of Los Angeles Fire Chief 7. The Sheriff of Los Angeles County 8. The County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services Director 9. The Los Angeles Unified School District Police Chief 10. The City of Long Beach 11. The Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs Association 12. The Los Angeles County Police. Chiefs Association 13. The California Contract Cities Association 14. At Large 15. At Large 16. At Large 17. At Large 2.02 Appointment of Directors (a) Each of the officials listed in 1 through 9 above may appoint one Director and one Alternate Director to the Board when the agency such official represents becomes a Member. (b) The City of Long Beach. may appoint one Director and one Alternate Director to the Board when the City of Long Beach becomes a Member. (c) Each of the Associations listed in 11 and 12 above may appoint one Director and one Alternate Director to the Board when at least one member of their respective Association becomes a Member of the Authority. (d) The California Contract Cities Association may appoint one Director and one Alternate Director to the Board when at least one member of the Association becomes .a Member of the Authority. In order to participate in the selection process, Association members must also be Members of the Authority. LA·RICS JPA 2009-01-05 Page3 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A · -· Page 6 of24 141 Joint Powers Agreement (e) At Large Directors and Alternate Directors shall be selected by a majority vote of Member cities, other than the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as follows: (1) One At Large Director (and one Alternate Director) must represent a Member city that operates both independent police and fire departments; (2) Two At Large Directors (and two Alternates) must represent Member cities -that operate an independent police department and/or an independent fire department; and (3) One At Large Director (and one Alternate Director) must represent a Member city not otherwise represented on the Board. (f) Within fifteen (15) days afterthe Effe.ctive Date, eligible Member cities sh~ll endeavor to meet and provide for the -selection of the At Large D.irectors and Alternate Directors, and all other entities shall endeavor to appoint their Directors and Alternatt9S. The logistics for filling the At L~rge Director and Altemate Director vacancies shall be provided for in the bylaws. ··· {g) .At.the time of appointment and for the durat_ion of service, Directors and' Alternate Directors shall be employees or officers of Members: All Directors and Alternate Directors shall be non-elected officials, with the sole exception of the Lo_s Angeles County Sheriff. (h) The. term of office of each Director and Alternate Director shall be two years, or until a successor has been appointed. Directors and Alternate Directors may serve an unlimited number of terms. (i) No Member can hold more than one seat on the Board concurrently, except that the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles can hold the aoard seats designated by the eight individuals listed in items 1 through 8 in Section 2.01. 0) An Alternate Director may act in their Director's absence and shall exercise all rights and privileges of a Director. (k) Each Director and each Alternate Director shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and may.be removed by the appointing a·uthority at any time without notice. {I) Notice of any removal or appointment of a Director or Alternate Director shall be provided in writing to the Chair of the Board. 2.03 Purpose of Board. The general purpose of the Board is to: LA·RICS JPA 2009-01-05 Page4 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 7 of 24 142 :: (a) Provide structure for administrative and fiscal oversight; (b) Identify and pursue fu:-!ding sources; (c) Set policy; (d) Maximize the utilization of available resources; and (e)" Oversee all Committee activities. 2.04 Specific Responsibilities of the Board. The specific responsibilities of the Board shall be as follows: (a) Identify participating entities needs and requirements; Joint Powers Agreement (b) Develop and implement a funding plan (the 11Funding Plan'') fo.r the construction · and on-going operation of a shared voice and data system; (c) Formulate and adopt the budget prior to the commencement of the fiscal year; (d) Hire necessary and sufficient staff and adopt personnel rules and regulations; (e) Adopt rules for procuring supplies, equipment and services; (f) Adopt rules for the disposal of surplus property; (g) Establish committees as necessary to ensure that the interests and concerns of each user agency are represented and to e.hsure operation.al, technical and financial issues are thoroughly researched and analyzed; (h) Provide for System implementation and monitoring; {i) Determine the most appropriate and cost effective maintenance plan for the System; 0) Provide for System maintenance; (k) Adopt and revise System operating policies and procedures, as well as technical and maintenance requirements; (I) Review and adopt recommendations regarding the·establishment of System priorities and talk groups; (m) Address concerns of all System user agencies; (n) Oversee the establishment of long-range plans; LA·RICS JPA 2009·01-05 Page5 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 8 of 24 143 ,Joint Powers Agreement = (o) Conduct and oversee System audits at intervals not to exceed three years; (p) fa.rrar.ge for an ann1.113J independent fiscal audit; (q) Adopt such bylaws, rules and regulations as are necessary for the purposes hereof; provided that nothing in the bylaws, rules and regulations shall be inconsistent with this Agreement;-and (r) Discharge other duties as appropriate or required by statute. 2.05 Startup Responsibilities The Authority shall have the duty to do the following within the specified timeframe or, if no time Is specified, within a reasonable time: (a) To establish within three (3} months of the Effective Date of this Agreement the . Advisory Committees designated in Section 3.07; (b) To use its best efforts to develop and adopt within nine (9) months of the Effective Date of this Agreement: (1) A plan specifying a means or formula for determining the timing and sequencing of construction of the System consistent with the functional specifications; and (2) A Funding Plan specifying a means or formula for funding the construction, operation and maintenance of the System; such Funding Plan shall include an allocation of costs among the Members, subscribers, and other funding sources; (c) To establish System participation pricing including start-up costs, and ongoing Subscriber/Member unit pricing to cover System operations, technical upgrades. and System replacement reserves; (d) ·To encourage other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, including but not limited to, the State and Federal government, and special districts, to participate in LA-RIGS; (e) To establish policies and procedures for the voluntary transfer and/or sharing of assets from Members; (f) To retain legal counseJ; and (g) To evaluate the need for, acquire and maintain necessary insurance. LA·RICS JPA 2009-01-05 Page6 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 9 of 24 144 Joint Powers Agreement 2.06 Meetings of the Board. (a) Regular Meetings. The Board shall provide for its regular meetings p1vviued, however, that at least one regular meeting shall be held quarterly. The date, hour and location of regular meetings shall be fixed by resolution of the Board and a copy of the resolution shall be transmitted to eech of the Members. (b) Special Meetings. Special meeting$ of the Board may be called by the Chair or as provided for in the bylaws. (c) Call, Notice and Conduct of Meetings. All meetings of the Board, including without limitation, regular, adjourned regular and special meetings, shall be called noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with California Government Code section 54950). As soon as practicable, but no later than the time of posting, the Secretary shall provide · notice and the agenda to each Member, Dire.ctor and Alternate Director. (d) First Meeting. The first meeting of the Board shall be no sooner than fifteen (15) days after the Effective Date. 2.07 Minutes. The Secretary shall cause to be kept minutes of the meetings of the Board and shall, as soon a:s practicable after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be made available to each Director, the Members and other parties upon request. 2.08 Voting. All voting power of the Authority shall reside in the Board. Each Director shall have one vote. An Alternate Director may participate and vote in the proceedings of the Board only in the absence of that Alternate's Director. No absentee ballot or proxy shall be permitted. 2.09 Quorum; Required Votes; Approvals. A majority of the appointed Directors shall constitute a quorum of the Board for the transaction of business except that less than a quorum or the Secretary may adjourn meetings of the Board from time-to-time. The affirmative votes of a majority of the appointed Directors shall be required to take any action by the Board, except, two-thirds vote (or such greater vote as req'uired by state law) of the appointed Directors shall be required to take any action on the following: (a) Establish start"up contributions from Members; (b) Adopt a Funding Plan; LA-RIGS JPA 2009·01-05 Page7 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 10 of 24 145 Joint Powers Agreement (c) Subject to prior approval by the passage of an authorizing ordinance or other legally sufficient action by the affected jurisdiction, levy and collect, or cause to. be colltJcted, communicationimpact fees on new residential, commercial, and industrial development, as authorized by local, state, and federal law; (d) Change the designation of Treasurer or Auditor of the Authority; (e) Issue bonds or other forms of debt; (f) Adopt or amend the bylaws; and (g) Subject to prior approval by the passage of an authorizing ordinance or other legally sufficient action by the affected jurisdiction, exercise the power of eminent domain. ·Article Ill • OFFICERS., EMPLOYEES AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES 3.01 Chairperson, Vice*Chairperson and Secretary. For eE:lch fiscal year, the Board shall el·ect a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among the Directors, and shall appoint a Secretary, who need not be a Director. In the event that the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson or Secretary so elected resigns from s.uch office or his/her represented Member ceases to be a Member of the Authority, the resulting vacancy shall be filled at the next regular meeting of the Board held after such vacancy occurs or as soon as practicable thereafter. Succeeding officers shall perform the duties normal to said offices. The Chairperson shall sign all contracts on behalf of the Authority, and shall perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board. In the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson shall sign contracts and perform all of the Chairperson's duties. 3.02 Treasurer. The Treasurer and Tax Collector of the County of Los Ange·Jes shall be the Treasurer of the Authority. To the extent pe~mitted by the Act, the Bo~rd may change, by resolution, the Treasurer of the Authority. The Treasurer shall be the depository, shall have custody of the accounts, funds and money of the Authority from wha'tever source, and shall have the duties and obligations set forth in the Act. For grants awarded to Members or third parties for use with the System,. the Treasurer will work with the Member or third party to put in place appropriate fiscal controls to meet the grant requirements. LA-RIGS JPA2009-01-05 Page8 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 11 of 24 146 Joint Powers Agreement :: 3.03 Auditor. The Auditor-Controller of the County of Los Angeles shall be the Auditor of the Authority. T-o the extent permitted by the Act, the Board may change, by resolution, the Auditor of the Authority. The Auditor shall perform the functions of auditor for the Authority and shall make or cause an independent.annual audit of the accounts and records of the Authority b.y a certified public -accountant, in compliance with the requirements of the Act and generally accepted auditing standards. · 3.04 Bonding of Per!;ons Having Access to Property. Pursuant' to the Act, the Board shall designate the public officer or officers or person or persons who have charge of, handle, or have access to any property of the Auth<;>rity and shall require such public officer-or officers or person or persons to file an official • _ bond in an amount to be fixed by the Board. 3.05 Other Employees. The Board shall have the power by resoluti.on to appoint and employ such other officers, employ~es, consultants atld independent contractors as may be n~cessary to carry-out . the purpose of this Agreement. --· . 3.06 Privileges and Immunities from ·Liability. All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemption from laws, ordinances and rules, all pension, relief, disability, workers' compensation and other benefits which apply to the activities of officers, agents or employ~es of a public a.gency when performing their respective functions shall apply to the officers, agents or employees of the Authority to the same degree and extent while engaged in the performance-of any of the functions and other duties of such officers, agents or employee.s under this Agreement. None of the officerst agents or employees directly ~mployed by the Board shall be deemed, by reason of their employment by the Board to be employed by the Members or by reason of their employment by the Board, to be $Ubject to any of the requirements of the Members. · 3.07 Advisory Committees. The Board shall establish the following Advisory committees: (a) Operations Committee -The Operations Committee's primary purpose is to review and recommend to the Board operating policies and procedures that will ensure the System resources are used efficiently to meet the needs of all Members. (b) Technical Committee-The Technical Committee's primary purpose is to review and recommend to the Board policies and procedures related to System performance, maintenance and other technical issues. LA·RICS JPA 2009-01·05 Page9 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 12 of24 147 Joint Powers Agreement (c) Finance Committee -The Finance Committee's primary purpose is to review and recommend to the Board; (1) .The Funding Plan; (2) A fiscal year budget; and (3) Financial policie.s and procedures to ensure e.quitable contributions by Members. (d) Legislative Committee-The Legislative Committee's primary purpose is to review .and recommend to the Board a plan for securing funding from state and federal governments and to advise the Board on regulatory and legislative matters. 3.08 Membership of Advisory Committees. !=ach Director shall appoint one voting me.mber to each Advisory Committee. 3.09 Meetings of Advisory Committees. All meetings of each Advisory Committee shall be held in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. For the purposes of convening meetings and conducting busines.s, unless otherwise: provided in the bylaws, a majority of the members of the committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that less than a quorum· or the secretary of each Advisory Committee may adjourn meetings from time-to-time. As soon as practicable, but no later than the time of posting, the Secretary of the Committee shall provide notice and the agenda to each Member, Director and Alternate Director. 3.1 O Officers of Advisory Committees. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, each Advisory Committee shall choose its officer~ comprised of a Chairperson. a Vice-Cl'}airperson and a Secretary. Article IV ~ POWERS 4.01 General Powers. The Authority shall have the powers common to the Members and which are necessary or convenient to the accomplishrpent of the purposes of this Agreement, subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 4.04. As provided in the Act, the Authority shall be a public entity separate from the Members. 4.02 Power to Issue Bonds. The Authority shall have all of the powers provided in Articles 2 and 4 of Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the California Government Code, including the power to issue bonds thereunder. LA-RICS JPA2009-01-05 Page 10 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 13 of 24 148 Joint Powers Agreement 4.03 Specific Powers. The Authority is hereby authorized, in its own name, to perform all acts necessary for the exercise of the foregoing powers, including but not limited to, any or all of the following: (a) To make and enter into contracts, including but not limited to, agreements for the purpose of acquiring real and/or p~rson~~I property, equipment, employment contracts and professional services agreements; · (b) To make and enter into contracts with subscribers who desire to utilize the System for their primary radio communications and affiliates who desire to utilize the System only for mutual or automatic aid; (c) To acquire, construct, maintain, or operate telecommunications systems or service and to provide the equipment necessary to deliver public services therefrom; (d) To acquire, construct, manage, maintain or operate any building, works or improvements; · (e) To aqquire, hold, lease, or dispose of property; (f) To employ or engage contractors; agents, or employees; (g) To sue and be sued in its own name; (h) To apply for, receive and utilize grants anc:l loans from federal, state or local governments or from any other available source in order to pursue the purposes of the Authority; (i) To issue bonds and to otherwise incur debts, liabilities and obJigations, provided that no such bond, debt, liability or obUgation shall constitute a debt; liability or obligation to the individual respective Members; (j) To invest any money in.the treasury, pursuant to the Act, which is not required for the immediate necessities of the Authority, as the Authority determines is advisable, in the same manner and upon the same conditions as local agencies, pursuant to Section 53601 of the California Government Code; and (k) To promulgate, adopt, and enforce any rules and regulations, as may be necessary and proper to implement and effectuate the terms, provisions, and purposes of this Agreement. LA·RICS JPA 2009·01·05 Page 11 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 14 of 24 149 Joint Powers Agreement 4.04 Limitation on Exercise of Powers. All common powers exercised by the Board shall be exercised in a manner consistent with, and subject to, the restrictions and limitations upon the exercise of such powers as are applicable to th.e County of Los Angeles, as may be amended from time to time. 4.05 Qbligations of Authority. The debts, liabilities a11d opligations of the Authority shall not be the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Members. In addition, pursuant to the Act, no Director shall be personally liable on the bonds or subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance of bonds. 4.06 Additional Powers to be Exercised. In addition to those powers common to each of the Members, the Authority shall have those powers that may be conferred upon it by subsequently enacted legislation. Article V -CONTRIBUTIONS; ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS; FUNDS 5.01 Adoption of Funding Plan. It is a critical goal of the Authority to develop a Funding Plan that identifies funding sources and mechanisms, including a development schedule and phasing plan, which will permit the maximum feasible participation by Members. The Funding Plan shall be descriptive as to the contributions required from Members. Prior to committing resources for the construction of the System, a proposed Funding Plan as designated in Section 2.05(b)(2) shall be developed. In order for the Funding Plan to be. considered by the Members prior to its adoption, the Board t:>h.~11 distribute the proposed Funding Plan to Members pursuant to Section 7.01. The proposed Funding Plan shall be accompanied by a description of the System, and reports and studies to allow Members to determine the System oa.pability, cost, finam;:ing and the effects on individual Members. The Board shall also designate a period, which shall be not less than 60 days, during which Members may provide comments to the Board regarding the proposed Funding Plan. After the comment period has expired, the Board may: (a) Adopt the Funding plan as proposed; (b) Revise the Funding Plan to address some or all of the Member comments; or (c) Reconsider the Funding Plan at a later date. LA·RICS JPA 2009-01-05 Resolution No. 200~~8,\t~ibit A Page 15 of 24 150 Joint Powers Agreement ::: Notice shall be given to Members pursuant to Section 7:01 within five days of adoption of the Funding Plan. The notice shall include a copy of the adopted Funding Plan. The Board shall also designate a period, which shall be not less than 35 days after the · Funding Plan is adopted, during which Members may submit written notice of immediate withdrawal from the Authority. There will be no costs for any Member that withdraws from the Authority within this time period. After the Funding Plan has been adopted, and until contracts are awarded to design and/or construct the System, If the Funding Plan is revised in a manner which will substantially increase the financial obligations of the Members, then any Member so affected will have a further right to withdraw within a period designated by the Board, which shall be not less than 45 days after the adoption of the Revised Funding Plan. There will be no costs for any Mem~er that withdraws from the Authority within this time period, except for obligations incurred prior to the adoption of the Revised Funding Plan. 5.02 Contributions. The Members may. in the appropriate circumstance. or when required heteunder: ··· (a)_ Make contributions from--their treasurie·s.for the purposeS;set forth ~erein; _ .. . -. '(b) Make payments of public funds tp defray the cost of such purposes; (c) Make advances of public funds for such purposes, such advances to be repaid as provided by written agreement; or (d) Use its personnel, equipment or property in lieu of other contributions or advances. No Member shall be required to adopt any tax, assessment, fee or charge under any circumstances. 5.03 Accounts and Reports. The Treasurer shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practice or by any provision of any trust agreement entered into with respect to the· pro_ceeds of any bonds issued by_ the Authority. The books and records of the Authori.ty in the hands of the Treasurer shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by duly appointed representatives of the Members. The Treasurer, within 180 days after the close of each fiscal year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal year to the Members. 5.04 Funds. The Treasurer shall receive, have custody of and/or disburse Authority funds in accordance with the laws applicable to public agencies and generally accepted LA-RICS JPA 2009~01-05 Page 13 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 16 of 24 151 Joint Powers Agreement accounting practices, and shall make the disbursements required by this Agreement in order to carry out any of the purposes of this Agreement. 5.05 Sharing of Frequencies. Members holding Federal Communication Commission (FCC) licenses to frequencies ("Licensee(s)") shall ~uthorize the Authority to share th~ use of such frequencies and/or radio stations. Such use shall be in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, (47 CFR 90.179). Any authorization for the use of such license shall be made pursuant to a written agreement between the Member and Authority. Revoking such authorization requires Member to provide twelve (12) months advance written notice to the Authority unless otherwise identified in written agreement. Licenses shall remain primary to the ~ember holding the license. Only the Member is aUowed to make any modiflcati.ons to its -license{s) on behalf of the Authority, and the Authority shall pay all associated fees. 5.06 Violations. Payment of fines and penalties imposed for operational or equipment violations shall be the responsibility of the entity committing the violation. If the entity responsible for a violation is not the FCC Licensee, then the responsible entity shall pay forthwith .ar)Y fines imposed upon the Licensee, as ~pecified in the bylaws. 5.07 System Components. The System Is comprised of components that include physical plant, infrastructure, frequencies, user equipment, and dispatch center eqvipment ( the "System Components") as described in this Section 5.07. Members shall retain ownership of System Components that they contribute to construct or operate the System, unless otherwise agreed to in writing. The Authority shall retain ownership of System Compohents purchased by the Authority, unless otherwise agreed to in writing. (a) Physical Plant: The Physical Plant includes the forlowing: real estate, shelters, environmental controls, antenna support structures, power systems, security systems, and other site structures. The maintenance of the Physical Plant shall be in accordance with the requirements specified by the Authority and is the responsibility of the co.ntri.buti~g Memb~r, unless otherwise agreed to in writing. (b) Infrastructure: Infrastructure includes the following: antenna systems, base station repeaters, diagnostic and alarm systems, microwave systems, backhaul systems, control eqt1ipment and all other related electronic .equipment and software. The Authority is responsible for the operation and maintenance of Infrastructure. {c) Frequencies: Frequencies are radio channels that have been licensed by the FCC in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations. Licensees shall authorize LA-RICS JPA2009-01-05 Page 14 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 17 of 24 152 ~t@ 1~ LA-RICS Joint Powers Agreement : the Authority to share the use of such frequencies and/or radio stations subject to a separate frequency sharing agreement. (d) User Equipment: User Equipment includes the following: mobile radios, portable radios, mobile data computers, radio data modems, control stations, and other related equipment. All User Equipment sJiall meet or exceed the minimum acceptable standards established by the Authority. l_n the event that any User Equipment is determined to be affecting the proper operation of the overall Sy~tem as id~ntified by the Authority, such User Equipment shall be immediately removed from service and shall not be returned to service until any deficiencies are resolved to the satisfaction of the Authority. The Authority shall maintain a list of User Equipment approved for operation on the System. Any changes to the User Equipment list shall be approved.by the Authority. ·Such approval shall not be. unreasonably withhe.ld. · (e) Dispatch Center Equipment: Dispatch Center Equipment inctudes the following: dispatch consoles, togging recorders, system interfaces, and other ancillary equipment. The Authority shall maintain a list of Dispatch Center Equipment approved for operation on the System. Any changes to the Dispatch Center Equipment list shall be approved by the Authority. Such approval shall ~ot be unreasonably withheld. 5.08 Adverse Impacts on System. No Member. subscriber or affiliate shall take any action that adversely impacts the System. If the System is impacted by actions of a Member, subscriber or affiliate, the offending party shall tak~ immediate action to return the System to its full operating state. The Authority, or its designee as set forth in the bylaws, shall make the sole determination of whether Member, subscriber or affiliate equipmeht or operations adversely impact the System. Article VI ~ WITHDRAWAL ANO TERMINATION 6.01 Withdrawal by Members. After the periods referred to in Section 5.01 , Members may withdraw from the Authority by giving notice as follows: (a) Members who do not provide Infrastructure, Frequencies or Physical Plant to System shall provide to the Chairperson ninety (90) days advanct3d written notice of its intent to withdraw from the Authority; LA-RICS JPA 2009-01 ·05 Page 15 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A :- Page 18 of 24 153 Joint Powers Agreement : (b) Members who provide Infrastructure, Frequencies or Physical Plant to System shall provide to the Chairperson twelve (12) months advanced written notice of its inteni iu withdraw from the Authority. 6.02 Financial Liabilities of Withdrawing Members. Except as otherw~se provided in Section 5.01: (a) A withdrawing Member shall remain liable for RH financial liabilities incurred during its membership in the Authority; however, the Member shall not be liable for any new financial. liabilities incurred after submitting written notice to withdraw. (b) The withdrawing Member must continue to pay its share of operating costs during the ninety day or twelve month period, as applicable, after submitting its written notice of the intent to withdraw. · · ·(c) The Authority and the withdrawing ME:iniber may negotiate a buy-out agreement for early termination of membership to retire any ongoing financial obligations the Member shares with the Authority. (d) If a withdrawing Member holds a seat on the Board, that Member's participation on the Board shall immediately cease when the written notice to withdraw is submitted. 6.03 Retention of Assets by Withdrawing Members. Each Member shall hold Its licenses and retain sole owne.rship of its licenses, including those authorized for use by the Member to the Authority. The licenses and any System Components provided by a Member to the Authority shall remain the sole asset of that Member unless otherwise negotiated. If requested by the Authority, the withdrawing Member shall consider options for the Authority's continued use of Member assets. Acceptance of a11y option is at the sole discretion of the withdrawing Member. In addition, the use by the Authority of the withdrawing Member's System Components shall be terminated upon the effective date pf withdrawal (twelve months from initial notice), and such System Components shall remain the sole asset of the withdrawing Member, unless otherwise agreed. Such withdrawing Member shall have no interest or claim in any remaining assets of the Authority, the Board, or of ar:iy of the remaining Members. 6.04 Termination of Authority and Disposition of Authority Assets. Upon termination of this Agreement and dissolution of the Authority by all Members, and after payment of all obligations of the Authority, the Board: (a) May sell or liquidate Authority property; and LA-RICS JPA 2009-01·05 Page 16 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhib_itA Page 19 of 24 154 Joint Powers Agreement (b) Shall distribute assets, including rea.I or personal property, in proportion to the cohtributions made by Members. Any System Components provided by a Member to the Authority shall remain the asset of that Member and shall not be subject to distribution under this section. Article VII .:. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7 .01 Notices. Any notice. required or permitted to be made hereunder shall be in writing and f?hall be delivered in the manner prescribed herein at the principal place of business of each party. The parties may give notice by: (a) Personal delivery; (b) E-mail; (c) U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid; (d) 11 Certified" U.S. mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested; (e) Facsimile; or (f) Any other method de.emed appropriate by the Board. At any time, by providing written notice to the other parties to this Agreement, any party may change the place, fac$lmile numbe.r or e-mail for giving nQtice. All written notices or corresporide·nce sent in the described manner will be deemed given to ~ party on whicheverdate occurs earliest: (a) The date of personal delivery; (b) The third business day following deposit in the u:s. mail, when sent by "first class" mail; (c) The date on which the party or its agent either signed the return receipt or refused to accept delivery, as noted on the return receipt or other U.S. Postal Service form, when s.ent by "certified" mail; or (d) The date of transmission, when sent by e-mail or facsimile. LA·RICS JPA 2009·01·05 Resolution No. 200/-~8,lf:~~ibit A Page 20 of 24 ;.;,• 155 Joint Powers Agreement :: 7.02 Amendment; Addition of Members. (a) In addition to the original signatories to this Agreement, other public agencies may join the Authority as a Member, subject to the provisions of Section 1.03. The addition of any Member shall become effective upon: (1) The execution on behalf of such entity of a counterpart of this Agreement and the delivery of such executed counterpart to the Board; and (2) The adoption of a resolution of the Board admitting that agency to the Authority. {b) This Agreement may only be amended by two-thirds of the Members, which must include the affirmative votes of the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles, evidenced by the execution. of a written amendment t<? this Agreement. ~ ·However, this Agreement shall not be amended, modified or otherwise revised, ·changed or. rescinded, If slroh action would: (1) Materially and adversely affect eitherthe rating of bonds issued by the .Authority, or bondholders holding such bonds; or ~ (2). Limit or reduce the obligations of the Members to make, in the a,ggregate, payments which are for the benefit of the owners of the bonds: 7.03 Fiscal Year. The Authority•s 12~month fiscal year shall be specified in the Authority's bylaws. _7.04 . Consents and Approvals. Any consents or approvals required under this Agreement shall not be unreaso-nably withheld. 7.05 Amendments to Act. The provisions of the Act, as it may be amended from time to time, which are required to be included in this Agreement, are hereby incorporated into this Ag.reement by reference. 7.06 Enforcement of Authority; The Authority_ ts -hereby authorized to tak.e any or all legal or equitable actions, including but not limited to injunction and specific performance, necessary or permitted by l~w to enforce this Agreement. 7.07 Severability. If any one or more of the terms, provisions, promises, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement were, to any extent, adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void, or voidable for LA-RICS JPA 2009-01-06 Page 18 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 21of24 156 Joint Powers Agreement any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, promises, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shal: be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 7 .08 Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the bene!.it of the successors of each Member. ·· - 7 .09 Assignment. No Member shall assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the aoard. 7.10 Governing Law. This Agreement is made and to be performed in the County of Los Angeles, State of Cedifornia, and as such California substantive and procedural law shall apply. 7 .11 Headings. The section headings herein are for convenience only and are not to be construed as modifying or governing the language of this Agreement. 7.12 Counterparts. This AgrE;iement may be executed in col,mterparts. 7 .13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement and the obligations here1,1nder are not intended to benefit any party other than the Authority and Its Members, except as expressly prov.ided otherwise herein. No entity that is not a signatory to this Agreement shall have any rights or cause~ of actioh against any party to this Agreement as a result of that party's performance or non-performance under this Agreement, except as expressly provided otherwise herein. 7.14 Filing of Notice of Agre_ement. Within 30 days after the Effective Date 1 or amendment thereto, the Secretary shall cause to be filed with the Secretary of State the notice of Agreement required by the Act. 7 .15 Conflict of Interest Code. The Board shall adopt .a conflict of interest code as required by law. 7.16 Indemnification. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless each Member (and each Member's officers, agents, and employees) from any and all liability, including but not limited to claims, losses, suits, injuries, damages, costs and expenses (including LA-RICS JPA 2009-01-05 Page 19 Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit.A Page 22 of24 157 Joint Powers Agreement attorney's fees), ~rising from or as a result of any acts, errors or omissions of the Authority or its officers, agents or employees. 7.17 Dispute Resolution/Legal Proceedings. Disputes regarding the interpretation or application of any provision of this Agre.ement shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, be resolved through good faith negotiations between the Members and/or the Authority . . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Member has caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by its proper officers thereunto duly authorized, its official seals to be hereto affixed, as follows: LA-RIGS JPA 2009-01-05 Page20 Resolutioo No. 2009-20, Exhibit A Page 23 of24 158 ' . t' ~(:_~~~::., joint Powers Agreement ··, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Autho.rization For Membership in the Los Angeles Regional Interoperability Commonications System Authority (LA-RICS) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes , by order of its City Council, has caused this Joint Powers Agreement to be executed ·on its behalf by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, as of the date so attested below. '8. ~ MAYOR . ~ DATE ATTEST: ~~ CITY CLERK DATE LA-RICS JPA 2009-01-05 159 City Clerk Morreale reported that the notice of the public hearing was duly published, no written protests were received, and late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting on this item. Mayor Clark declared the public hearing open. Mayor Clark recommended waiving the staff report. Councilman Long and Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz noted that they were in agreement with waiving the staff report, but requested clarification from staff regarding several points. Discussion between Council and staff included the following topics: clarification that key policy decisions needed to be made and support for subsidies for issues regarding Citywide safety; increasing the earthquake retrofit subsidy to 75% and ensuring that a sufficient definition of earthquake retrofitting was established by staff; a step-by-step process for earthquake retrofitting posted on the City website; subsidizing permits for .replacement of wood shake roofs at 75%; projected costs to the City regarding an increased burden on staff to manage potential increases in permit requests; and, a one- year monitoring period to assess cost and burden to staff and revisiting the matter if deemed necessary. Councilman Long moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2009-19, AS AMENDED, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ESTABLISHING A TOTAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN, APPROVING A COST OF SERVICES ANALYSIS, AND ADOPTING A MASTER SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES with the modification that earthquake retrofitting as defined in the staff report would be subsidized at a level of 75% and roofing permits to replace wood shake roofs would be subsidized at a level of 75%. Mayor Clark closed the public hearing. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Long, Wolowicz, and Mayor Clark None Gardiner and Stern PAUSE TO CONSIDER THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA: REGULAR NEW BUSINESS: Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) Joint Powers Agreement (401 x 1206) City Council Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 10of12 160 Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to waive the staff report and approve the staff recommendation to: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2009- 20, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, APPROVING THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (LA-RICS JPA), THEREBY AUTHORIZING THE CITY'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE LA-RICS AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE JPA AGREEMENT; and, 2) Direct Staff to report back on the status of the LA-RI CS Authority prior to the adoption of the funding plan with a recommendation on whether to continue the City's membership in the JPA at that time. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Long, Wolowicz, and Mayor Clark None Gardiner and Stern ·c1rv COUNCIL ORAL REPORTS: Councilman Long moved, seconded by Mayor Clark, to waive City Council Oral Reports. Without objection, Mayor Clark so ordered. Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz announced the passing of a long-time Rancho Palos Verdes resident, Bill Stein, who was the Senior Administrator of the Port of Los Angeles for many years. COUNCIL DISCUSSION & SUGGESTION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Mayor Clark requested a future item addressing the pros and cons of a lobbyist ordinance for a preliminary discussion. Councilman Long requested a report from staff in the weekly report regarding a Reverse 911 System, including approximate cost and technological barriers. CLOSED SESSION REPORT: City Attorney Lynch reported on the following items: 1) Regarding the City Manager's Performance Evaluation, the Council did not have sufficient time to discuss the matter and continued the item to the next Council meeting; and, 2) Regarding the Conference with Real Property Negotiators for the Potential Purchase of Open Space, a status update report was provided and no action taken, with Councilman Gardiner and Councilman Stern absent for both items. City Council Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 11 of 12 161