RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_08_19_04_Consider_Opting_Out_of_LA-RICSCITY 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 aJ
RECOMMENDATION
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-RICS.
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-RICS Board of Directors adopts a funding plan. The LA-RICS 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-RICS. Therefore, Staff and the EPC recommend that the City Council take action to
formally "opt out" of LA-RICS.
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
4-1
MEMORANDUM: Consider "Opting Out" of LA-RICS
August19,2014
Page2
System (LA-RICS) Authority. LA-RICS 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-RICS 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-RICS in
the Weekly Administrative Report of July 30, 2014.
In November 2013, Staff attended the first stakeholder meeting for the LA-RICS 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-RICS. 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-RICS 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-RICS 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-RICS 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-RICS 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-RICS, including the cities of Azusa, Calabasas, Gardena, Glendale, Palos Verdes
Estates, Pomona and Torrance.1 Staff has yet to receive information from LA-RICS, 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-RICS 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-RICS.
At this time, only Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and the City and County of Los Angeles remain
LA-RICS members on the Peninsula.
4-2
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-RI CS 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 L TE 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.
2014-15 $4,349 2024-25 $5,301
2015-16 $4,436 2025-26 $5,407
2016-17 $4,525 2026-27 $5,515
2017-18 $4,615 2027-28 $5,626
2018-19 $4,707 2028-29 $5,738
2019-20 $4,802 2029-30 $5,853
2020-21 $4,898 2030-31 $5,970
2021-22 $4,996 2031-32 $6,090
2022-23 $5,095
2023-24 $5, 197
To Staff's 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 Sheriff's contract and the annual property tax assessments from the Los Angeles
County Consolidated Fire Protection District, beginning in FY 2015-16.
4-3
MEMORANDUM: Consider "Opting Out" of LA-RICS
August 19, 2014
Page4
Based upon the approved funding plan, electing to "opt out" of LA-RICS at this time will
only relieve the City of any obligation to LA-RICS 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-RICS-the City will continue to be
served by (and bear some of the costs of) the LA-RICS 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-RICS Board of Directors was
considering whether or not to assess participating jurisdictions for an additional
$1,000,000 to cover LA-RICS 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-RICS.
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-RICS 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-RICS 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.
4-4
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-RICS. 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-RICS.
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-RICS, LA-RICS' 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-RICS 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-RICS 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 LTE and LMR sites in the City.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Status of LA-RICS Proposed L TE and LMR Sites in Rancho Palos Verdes
On July 24, 2014, Staff met with LA-RICS 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-RICS 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-RICS 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-RICS LMR sites have not yet been executed because the
Environmental Impact Report {EIR) for the LMR network sites must be completed first.
4-5
MEMORANDUM: Consider "Opting Out" of LA-RICS
August19,2014
Page6
Quality Act (CEQA) as a result of a special, temporary CEQA exemption granted for the
LA-RICS project by the State legislature in 2012.
At Station 83, LA-RICS is considering a custom-designed 70-foot-tall monopole that will
also function as a hose-drying rack. Similar to Station 53, LA-RICS 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-RICS 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-RICS 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-RICS
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-RICS warrant withdrawal from the system.
In addition, the EPC is skeptical of the performance claims of the LA-RICS system,
particularly as compared to other, existing interoperable communications systems.
Withdrawal from LA-RI CS 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-RICS 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-RICS.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the
City Council's consideration:
4-6
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
4-7
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-RIGS) Authority; and,
WHEREAS, Article V of the LA-RIGS JPA specifies that the LA-RIGS Board of
Directors (Board) shall develop and approve a funding plan, and Section 5.01 of the
LA-RIGS 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-RIGS 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-RIGS
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-RIGS, initially from
$0/year to $2, 110/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-RIGS 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-RIGS at a regular City Council meeting.
NOW BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES:
4-8
Section 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes finds that the
LA-RI CS 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
4-9
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
4-10
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
4
-
1
1
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
4
-
1
2
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
4
-
1
3
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
l'';;;'il~il:i1·:".""'" ... " . :
l!i;::~'i.lea·1 .. 1ea.rm
:::::.:::·:·:::.:.:::,,::.:::.:::.:·::::: ""·" '" .,;:,:<.: ,' ' ' ·.
2015/2016
2017/2018
2019/2020
2021/2022
2023/2024
$4,436
$4,615
$4,8()2
$4,996
$5,197
,.,.," ''" '' "' ' ' ''
: 111-1111
··1i1cal lear
:,:,.,,"' " ' '' ' '''' ' '''
2025/2Cl26 $5,407
2027/2028 $5,626
2029/2030 $5,853
2031/2032 $6,090
I '' ,, ,, ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,,, , ,, , ,,,,,, ' ' I
Total Direct $93, 120
4
4
-
1
4
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
::::':ij~'i,111"." "" ... ''." ,.·.,,,, '',.''''' ' ":·"',:
ir&tm-ran1e ;
:~.:::,1:11ca1 .1e·1·i
::::::: ... ::.:::r::.::·::::.: .," "·:::.:., .::,.,.:.·., .·.,. · ..
Dite:11 los1 ·.
''' ''" ,",",',,',,,·.'·.:',;,. ' ' ''""·:
lillilllllfiiiliiilifilif[iili/J[iiii!lif[lii1iill[jiiiillii:ii!i[iiiiiiiiiii[iiilll111~1lllli!ii:i
2015/2016 $38,854
1111111111111111tililli/llllii[l!f fllllifill[i![i[[:iiliili[ilifili[:111111illl~lllllli[i[
2017/2018 $120;670
!illllll~lilli!lli~llll~ill tiiii~i~ili\[i!fil[iij~!l:1:1:1t1i1iiiill\lll~llil:ilii
2019/2020 $170,622
2021/2022 $224,241
2023/2024 $227,714
·:." "" ' '' " '
"lfilJl..,11.111
·: liseal !rear ';.:. '' ,,• '' '' ,: "· ''
. ": •• ·1~~-~-·: :. ::_::::''}!
lli·re:111a11 .. · .,::~
•' ,;,,',..,',,., .: '" .,','',.;"".:·: ...... ;.:::
:11111111111111111111tilifillf[llflllllfllllilii[~flillillfllllilllilil:11:1itlillllll~lllllli
2025/2026 $231,935
ifilllllllllifllllll[lii[flilllillll:i:[l!:1111111i![[llllll:11111:1111:1:iflllll~llll:1
2027/2028 $236,911
ililllllllll!l~lllll\lil!f:1111;;1:11111\flilil!:lljllllllll:liijl\::if!illlll~llllllll
2029/2030 $241,527
iilllllllllllllilllllllliljjilli llljlf[ilji\lijjii[!liiifilllill~lll~
2031/2032 $227,153
110~:~~:~\;~~':':::::~:! :~::L!~~!1~~:~~~::::::;,,,I
Total Direct $3,381,672
4
-
1
5
LA-RICS SITUATION
Another comparison: The County of Los Angeles will be paying
$165.3 million for LA-RICS (assuming no withc;Jrawals 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
:::::::ii:1111:. " ... " ·,'"
~:::::li,~aai 1e111
::.:::::::::::.::.,':',:·.:":.':,.:' ''"•'' ·"· ''' ' ' ,•:
· "·1·.··~ .. &1nn11I ..... ::
Dir.e·111a11 .. ·:
,•,,,,• '''''.'' ' ' '' ''"
:111lllllillii!l[ll[il[ll!ll[lli!i![ill~lll[lllll~li[l\li[illlll![li[l[!![llllllll~lll!il!t
2015/2016 $1,728,255
•1111111:11111[lil[[i[l[l[[il[l![[[l~i[l!ii[ll[l[li[ll\lliill~llll~lllli!i[[
2017 /2018 $5,835,421
llllllllll\~1i!lll/ll[lll~li[l!!l~l[:il[!~~llli!!•l[llil!lll~llll~llll~~I
2019/2020 $8,339,089
11••illllllll\l l!ii•[ill:11111•111~lilll[llllii••1111~11111~111••~~·
2021/2022 $11,026,867
llllllllllli 11111:1:11•:11i11:11•illillll:1~1111111111••1
2023/2024 $11,191,295
''" '' ,•' ,•'' '
. 111•111·11 . I.·•~ :·;Gbu~ll:>.'., .. :,:;:
·· 11111d lea rm
:',.:," '' '' ' '' ',, ' ' .:
lll·re·11· lusl :. ::· ·J
' ""' :,.:,·:,' ',',, ', '' ,.:.:",,.,:: .. :::::::::::
::j:111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~~1111111~illi~iiiil:1::;!1
2Cl25/2026 $11,392,938
llllllllllllllllifi!lifllj[llllilliflllllil:l!llllllillllillill~illlll~ililli
2027 /2028 $11,632,156
111:11111111111~~11:111111111~~:111~111:111:~1111~111111~1111·1~,lllJ
·:·:·:·:·:·:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·:-··:····
2029/2030 $11,852,752
•111111111111~1\ll[lllll~lilllllllli\~ltllll\lijlflll~·111~11111••
2031/2032 $11,117,505
·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·,·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,•,··.·.·:;:;::: ;:;:::;:::;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;·;:;:;:;·;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;·;:::::;·;·;:::;:;:;:;:;:;·;·;·;·;•;···-·
Total Direct $165,335,560
6
4
-
1
6
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
4
-
1
7
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
4
-
1
8
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
4
-
1
9
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% solution at 5-10% of the cost)?
• Would LA-RICS have ever come to life without Federal funding or
mandates? 4
-
2
0
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.
4
-
2
1
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 Sheriffs 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 4-22
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
4-23
4-24
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
4-25
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
4-26
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
4-27
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
4-28
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
4-29
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. It 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
4-30
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
4-31
' .
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-RICS Funding Plan Page 7
4-32
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 will 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 700/800MHz.
• 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
4-33
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
4-34
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
4-35
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
4-36
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
4-37
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
contiibutions 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
4-38
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
4-39
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
4-40
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
4-41
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
4-42
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
4-43
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
4-44
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
4-45
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 LYE Cost Allocation Formulas
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
Measures the size of population as
a predictor of system use; in
general, the greater the
population, the greater the impact
to the system.
x
£'}; ,v
'~~i~'.bi¢
plJed:~o,
Jf:o&Mcost ;;A\_v'··, .,, · '''
x
Page 21
4-46
LA-RICS Funding Plan
· svsr~rn/
Variable
Geography
,/·
i,~escription
Each jurisdiction's municipal
boundary expressed in
square mileage. The square
mileage excludes national
forest lands.
Variables Data Sources
Measure of Co~t ;:·(''
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.
y~5lab,'0·>
A~pli~~t~> G~;~ital Cd~t
x
Variable.· ,; \;:<:<
Applied to;
O&MCost
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
4-47
LA-RICS Funding Plan
Figure 1. Cost Allocation Formula
Cost Allocation Formula Distributed by 503 Population/503 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
MemberLTE
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 Miles•
Total Square Miles
oflA-RICS
Members
Member
Square Miles*
Total Square Miles
of lA-RICS
Members
x 50%
x 50%
X L TE Operations =
Cost
x LTE Hard =
Match
Member Baseline Administrative Cost
Member
Square Miles x JPA Operations x 50%
Total Square Miles
oflA-RICS
Members
=
MemberLTE
Operations
Cost
Member
Hard Match
Cost
Member
Baseline
Admin Cost
* 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
4-48
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
4-49
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
4-50
Funding Plan Population and Geography Data
4-51
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
4-52
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
4-53
Annual Member Contributions
4-54
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 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
JPA Operations
$ 2,329 $
$ 5,438 $
$ 4,677 $
$ 1,097 $
$ 673 $
$ 3,920 $
$ 4,905 $
$ 2,202 $
$ 2,511 $
$ 4,858 $
$ 2,664 $
$ 383 $
$ 8,103 $
$ 3,492 $
$ 7,746 $
$ 3,934 $
$ 4,020 $
$ 1,742 $
$ 6,518 $
$ 3,570 $
$ 2,801 $
$ 7,685 $
$ 1,686 $
$ 7,273 $
$ 1,746 $
$ 3,921 $
$ 14,537 $
$ 4,969 $
$ 871 $
$ 5,246 $
$ 1,216 $
$ 377 $
$ 3,403 $
$ 2,049 $
$ 7,023 $
$ 1,692 $
$ 2,399 $
$ 1,303 $
$ 3,738 $
$ 2,570 $
$ 2,892 $
$ 5,581 $
$ 23,743 $
$ 1,964 $
$ 31,763 $
FY 2015/16
JPA Operations LMR LTE Total
2,376 $ -$ $2,376
5,546 $ -$ 14,167 $19,713
4,771 $ $ 12,196 $16,967
l,119 $ $ $1,119
687 $ $ 880 $1,567
3,999 $ $ 5,112 $9,111
5,003 $ $ 6,389 $11,392
2,246 $ $ 2,868 $5,114
2,561 $ $ 3,270 $5,832
4,955 $ $ $4,955
2,717 $ $ 6,945 $9,663
391 $ $ -$391
8,265 $ $ 21,127 $29,392
3,562 $ $ -$3,562
7,901 $ $ -$7,901
4,012 $ $ -$4,012
4,100 $ $ 5,246 $9,346
1,777 $ $ -$1,777
6,648 $ -$ 8,492 $15,140
3,642 $ -$ 4,653 $8,295
2,857 $ -$ 7,299 $10,156
7,839 $ -$ 20,027 $27,866
1,719 $ -$ $1,719
7,418 $ $ 9,474 $16,892
1,781 $ $ 4,555 $6,336
3,999 $ $ 5,108 $9,107
14,828 $ $ 37,897 $52,725
5,068 $ $ 6,482 $11,550
888 $ $ -$888
5,350 $ $ 6,832 $12,182
1,241 $ $ 3,169 $4,409
384 $ $ $384
3,471 $ $ 4,431 $7,901
2,090 $ $ $2,090
7,163 $ $ 9,148 $16,311
1,726 $ $ 2,213 $3,938
2,447 $ -$ $2,447
1,329 $ -$ 1,702 $3,031
3,813 $ -$ $3,813
2,621 $ $ $2,621
2,949 $ $ 7,543 $10,492
5,693 $ $ $5,693
24,218 $ $ -$24,218
2,003 $ $ -$2,003
32,398 $ $ 82,772 $115,170
4
-
5
5
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 Redonda 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
Citv 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 CITTES
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
4
-
5
6
/ .
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 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 LTE
$ 2,423 $ $
$ 5,657 $ $ 49,936
$ 4,866 $ $ 42,990
$ 1,141 $ $
$ 701 $ $ 3,101
$ 4,079 $ $ 18,019
$ 5,103 $ $ 22,521
$ 2,291 $ $ 10,109
$ 2,613 $ $ 11,527
$ 5,055 $ $
$ 2,772 $ -$ 24,481
$ 398 $ $
$ 8,431 $ $ 74,468
$ 3,633 $ $ -
$ 8,059 $ $
$ 4,092 $ $
$ 4,182 $ $ 18,491
$ 1,813 $ -$
$ 6,781 $ $ 29,933
$ 3,714 $ -$ 16,402
$ 2,914 $ -$ 25,729
$ 7,996 $ -$ 70,593
$ 1,754 $ $
$ 7,567 $ $ 33,393
$ 1,816 $ $ 16,057
$ 4,079 $ $ 18,004
$ 15,124 $ $ 133,580
$ 5,170 $ $ 22,848
$ 906 $ $ -
$ 5,457 $ $ 24,081
$ 1,266 $ $ 11,169
$ 392 $ $ -
$ 3,540 $ $ 15,617
$ 2,131 $ $
$ 7,307 $ $ 32,244
$ 1,760 $ $ 7,800
$ 2,496 $ $
$ 1,355 $ $ 5,999
$ 3,889 $ $
$ 2,674 $ $
$ 3,008 $ $ 26,588
$ 5,807 $ $
$ 24,702 $ $
$ 2,043 $ $
$ 33,046 $ $ 291,758
FY 2017/18
Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total
$2,423 $ 2,472 $ $ -$2,472
$55,593 $ 5,770 $ 4,310 $ 51,139 $61,219
$47,856 $ 4,963 $ 3,710 $ 44,025 $52,699
$1,141 $ 1,164 $ $ -$1,164
$3,801 $ 715 $ 268 $ 3,175 $4,158
$22,098 $ 4,160 $ 1,555 $ 18,453 $24,169
$27,624 $ 5,205 $ 1,944 $ 23,064 $30,212
$12,400 $ 2,337 $ 873 $ 10,353 $13,562
$14,139 $ 2,665 $ 995 $ 11,804 $15,464
$5,055 $ 5,156 $ $ -$5,156
$27,253 $ 2,827 $ 2,113 $ 25,071 $30,011
$398 $ 406 $ -$ $406
$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
$22,673 $ 4,266 $ 1,596 $ 18,936 $24,798
$1,813 $ 1,849 $ -$ $1,849
$36,714 $ 6,917 $ 2,583 $ 30,654 $40,154
$20,117 $ 3,789 $ 1,416 $ 16,797 $22,002
$28,643 $ 2,972 $ 2,221 $ 26,349 $31,541
$78,588 $ 8,156 $ 6,093 $ 72,293 $86,541
$1,754 $ 1,789 $ $ $1,789
$40,959 $ 7,718 $ 2,882 $ 34,197 $44,797
$17,873 $ 1,853 $ 1,386 $ 16,444 $19,682
$22,083 $ 4,161 $ 1,554 $ 18,438 $24,152
$148,705 $ 15,427 $ 11,529 $ 136,797 $163,753
$28,018 $ 5,273 $ 1,972 $ 23,398 $30,643
$906 $ 924 $ $ -$924
$29,539 $ 5,567 $ 2,078 $ 24,661 $32,306
$12,434 $ 1,291 $ 964 $ 11,438 $13,692
$392 $ 400 $ $ -$400
$19,157 $ 3,611 $ 1,348 $ 15,993 $20,952
$2,131 $ 2,174 $ $ $2,174
$39,551 $ 7,453 $ 2,783 $ 33,021 $43,256
$9,560 $ 1,795 $ 673 $ 7,987 $10,456
$2,496 $ 2,546 $ -$ $2,546
$7,354 $ 1,382 $ 518 $ 6,144 $8,044
$3,889 $ 3,967 $ $ -$3,967
$2,674 $ 2,727 $ $ $2,727
$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
$324,804 $ 33,707 $ 25,181 $ 298,784 $357,671
4
-
5
7
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 Schoof 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
FY2016/17
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
4
-
5
8
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 $ $
$ 1,410 $ 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
4
-
5
9
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 $
FY2019/20
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
4
-
6
0
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 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 $ 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 $
$ 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 $ $
$ 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 $ -$ $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
4
-
6
1
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
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
FY2020/21
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
4
-
6
2
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 Hei2hts
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,Q32
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
4
-
6
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 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 LTE
314,621 $ 2,500,811 $ 2,862,840
5,020 $ $
2,824 $ 22,376 $ 25,615
1,830 $ -$
3,747 $ 29,719 $ 34,021
5,306 $ 42,059 $ 48,148
5,083 $ 40,283 $ 46,115
8,073 $ $
29,895 $ $
1,728 $ 6,856 $ 7,849
4,113 $ $
12,449 $ 98,691 $ 112,978
5,431 $ $ -
13,252 $ 52,527 $ 60,131
5,095 $ $
5,122 $ 40,585 $ 46,460
1,180 $ $ -
4,171 $ $
4,613 $ $
1,849 $ 7,326 $ 8,386
3,137 $ 24,860 $ 28,458
1,510 $ 11,983 $ 13,718
22,390 $ $ -
2,711 $ 21,530 $ 24,646
6,925 $ 54,870 $ 62,813
1,221 $ 9,686 $ 11,088
1,081 $ 4,286 $ 4,906
1,736 $ $
6,936 $ 27,473 $ 31,450
2,170 $ 17,197 $ 19,687
2,873 $ $
12,552 $ 99,499 $ 113,903
1,023 $ 23,554 $ 26,964
3,496 $ $ -
9,375 $ 74,318 $ 85,077
1,568 $ $
7,873 $ 31,211 $ 35,730
371,303 $ 5,005,997 $ 5,730,687
279 $ 2,204 $ 2,523
14,486 $ 114,644 $ 131,240
1,904 $ 7,790 $ 8,918
1,748 $ $
6,445 $ $
2,482 $ $
1,603 $ $
4,680 $ $
704 $ $
2,559 $ $
1,186,691 $ 9,441,210 $ 10,807,962 $
FY2023/24
Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total
$5,678,273 $ 320,913 $ 2,491,396 $ 2,910,164 $5,722,473
$5,020 $ 5,121 $ -$ $5,121
$50,814 $ 2,880 $ 22,291 $ 26,038 $51,209
$1,830 $ 1,867 $ $ $1,867
$67,487 $ 3,822 $ 29,607 $ 34,583 $68,012
$95,514 $ 5,413 $ 41,901 $ 48,944 $96,257
$91,481 $ 5,184 $ 40,132 $ 46,877 $92,193
$8,073 $ 8,234 $ $ $8,234
$29,895 $ 30,493 $ $ $30,493
$16,433 $ 1,762 $ 6,831 $ 7,979 $16,572
$4,113 $ 4,195 $ $ $4,195
$224,118 $ 12,698 $ 98,319 $ 114,846 $225,863
$5,431 $ 5,539 $ $ $5,539
$125,909 $ 13,517 $ 52,329 $ 61,125 $126,971
$5,095 $ 5,197 $ $ $5,197
$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
$17,561 $ 1,886 $ 7,298 $ 8,525 $17,709
$56,455 $ 3,200 $ 24,766 $ 28,929 $56,895
$27,211 $ 1,541 $ 11,938 $ 13,944 $27,423
$22,390 $ 22,838 $ $ $22,838
$48,887 $ 2,766 $ 21,449 $ 25,054 $49,268
$124,608 $ 7,064 $ 54,663 $ 63,851 $125,578
$21,995 $ 1,245 $ 9,649 $ 11,271 $22,166
$10,273 $ 1,102 $ 4,270 $ 4,987 $10,359
$1,736 $ 1,771 $ $ $1,771
$65,860 $ 7,075 $ 27,370 $ 31,970 $66,415
$39,054 $ 2,213 $ 17,132 $ 20,012 $39,358
$2,873 $ 2,931 $ $ $2,931
$225,955 $ 12,804 $ 99,124 $ 115,786 $227,714
$51,542 $ 1,043 $ 23,466 $ 27,410 $51,919
$3,496 $ 3,566 $ $ $3,566
$168,770 $ 9,562 $ 74,039 $ 86,483 $170,084
$1,568 $ 1,599 $ $ $1,599
$74,814 $ 8,031 $ 31,094 $ 36,320 $75,445
$11,107,987 $ 378,729 $ 4,987,148 $ 5,825,417 $11,191,295
$5,006 $ 284 $ 2,196 $ 2,565 $5,045
$260,370 $ 14,775 $ 114,212 $ 133,410 $262,398
$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
21,435,863 $ 1,210,424 $ 9,405,662 $ 10,986,621 $ 21,602,708
4
-
6
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 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
4
-
6
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 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 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 $
FY 2025/26
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
4
-
6
6
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 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 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
4
-
6
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 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
4
-
6
8
LA-RI CS
Funding Plan Cash Flow
June 2014
Annual Costs Distributed 50% Population/50"A;
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 2028/29
JPA Operations LMR LTE
$ 3,073 $ $
$ 7,175 $ 50,221 $ 63,809
$ 6,171 $ 43,235 $ 54,933
$ 1,447 $ $
$ 889 $ 3,118 $ 3,962
$ 5,173 $ 18,122 $ 23,025
$ 6,472 $ 22,650 $ 28,778
$ 2,906 $ 10,167 $ 12,918
$ 3,314 $ 11,593 $ 14,729
$ 6,410 $ $
$ 3,515 $ 24,621 $ 31,283
$ 505 $ -$
$ 10,692 $ 74,892 $ 95,155
$ 4,607 $ -$
$ 10,221 $ $
$ 5,190 $ $
$ 5,304 $ 18,596 $ 23,628
$ 2,299 $ -$
$ 8,600 $ 30,104 $ 38,248
$ 4,711 $ 16,496 $ 20,959
$ 3,695 $ 25,876 $ 32,877
$ 10,140 $ 70,995 $ 90,204
$ 2,224 $ $
$ 9,596 $ 33,583 $ 42,670
$ 2,303 $ 16,149 $ 20,518
$ 5,173 $ 18,107 $ 23,006
$ 19,181 $ 134,342 $ 170,690
$ 6,556 $ 22,979 $ 29,196
$ 1,149 $ $
$ 6,921 $ 24,218 $ 30,771
$ 1,605 $ 11,232 $ 14,271
$ 497 s $
s 4,490 s 15,706 $ 19,956
$ 2,703 $ -$
$ 9,266 $ 32,428 $ 41,202
$ 2,232 $ 7,844 $ 9,966
$ 3,166 $ $
$ 1,719 s 6,034 $ 7,666
$ 4,933 $ $
$ 3,391 $ $
$ 3,815 $ 26,739 $ 33,974
$ 7,364 $ $
$ 31,329 s $
$ 2,591 $ $
$ 41,910 $ 293,421 $ 372,810
FY 2029/30
Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total
$3,073 $ 3,135 $ $ $3,135
$121,204 $ 7,318 $ 50,328 $ 64,884 $122,531
$104,340 $ 6,295 $ 43,328 $ 55,859 $105,481
$1,447 $ 1,476 $ $ $1,476
$7,969 $ 906 $ 3,125 $ 4,029 $8,060
$46,320 $ 5,276 $ 18,160 $ 23,413 $46,850
$57,899 $ 6,601 $ 22,698 $ 29,263 $58,562
$25,990 $ 2,964 $ 10,189 $ 13,136 $26,288
$29,635 $ 3,380 $ 11,617 $ 14,977 $29,974
$6,410 $ 6,539 $ $ $6,539
$59,419 $ 3,585 $ 24,674 $ 31,810 $60,069
$505 $ 515 $ $ -$515
$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
$47,528 $ 5,410 $ 18,636 $ 24,026 $48,072
$2,299 $ 2,345 $ -$ $2,345
$76,952 $ 8,772 $ 30,168 $ 38,893 $77,833
$42,166 $ 4,805 $ 16,531 $ 21,312 $42,649
$62,447 $ 3,769 $ 25,931 $ 33,431 $63,131
$171,340 $ 10,343 $ 71,147 $ 91,725 $173,215
$2,224 $ 2,269 $ $ $2,269
$85,849 $ 9,788 $ 33,655 $ 43,389 $86,832
$38,970 $ 2,349 $ 16,183 $ 20,864 $39,396
$46,286 $ 5,277 $ 18,146 $ 23,394 $46,816
$324,213 $ 19,565 $ 134,629 $ 173,567 $327,761
$58,730 $ 6,687 $ 23,028 $ 29,688 $59,403
$1,149 $ 1,172 $ -$ $1,172
$61,911 $ 7,060 $ 24,270 $ 31,290 $62,620
$27,109 $ 1,637 $ 11,256 $ 14,512 $27,405
$497 $ 507 $ s -$507
$40,152 $ 4,580 $ 15,740 $ 20,292 $40,612
$2,703 $ 2,757 $ -s -$2,757
$82,897 $ 9,452 $ 32,497 $ 41,897 $83,846
$20,043 $ 2,277 $ 7,861 $ 10,134 $20,272
$3,166 s 3,229 $ $ $3,229
$15,418 $ 1,753 $ 6,046 $ 7,795 $15,595
$4,933 $ 5,031 $ -$ $5,031
$3,391 $ 3,459 $ $ $3,459
$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
$708,142 $ 42,749 $ 294,048 $ 379,095 $715,891
4
-
6
9
LA-RI CS
Funding Plan Cash Flow
June2014
Annual Costs Distributed SO% 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 2028/29
JPA Operations LMR
$ 3S4,314 $ 2,488,161 $
$ S,6S4 $ $
$ 3,180 $ 22,262 $
$ 2,061 $ $
$ 4,220 $ 29,S68 $
$ 5,976 $ 41,846 $
$ S,724 $ 40,079 $
$ 9,091 $ $
$ 33,667 $ $
$ 1,946 $ 6,822 $
$ 4,632 $ $
$ 14,019 $ 98,192 $
$ 6,116 $ $
$ 14,924 $ S2,261 $
$ S,738 $ $
$ S,769 $ 40,380 $
$ 1,329 $ -$
$ 4,697 $ -$
$ S,19S $ $
$ 2,082 $ 7,289 $
$ 3,S33 $ 24,734 $
$ 1,701 $ 11,922 $
$ 25,21S $ -$
$ 3,0S3 $ 21,421 $
$ 7,799 $ S4,S92 $
$ l,37S $ 9,637 $
$ 1,217 $ 4,264 $
$ 1,9SS $ $
$ 7,811 $ 27,334 $
$ 2,443 $ 17,110 $
$ 3,236 $ $
$ 14,136 $ 98,996 $
$ 1,1S2 $ 23,43S $
$ 3,937 $ $
$ 10,SS8 $ 73,942 $
$ 1,766 $ $
$ 8,866 $ 31,0S3 $
$ 418,148 $ 4,980,67S $
$ 314 $ 2,193 $
$ 16,313 $ 114,064 $
$ 2,144 $ 7,750 $
$ 1,968 $ $
$ 7,2S9 $ $
$ 2,79S $ $
$ 1,806 $ $
$ S,271 $ $
$ 793 $ $
$ 2,882 $ $
$ 1,336,406 $ 9,393,4S3 $
FY 2029/30
LTE Total JPA Operations LMR LTE Total
3,161,363 $6,003,839 $ 361,401 $ 2,493,471 $ 3,214,6S8 $6,069,S30
$S,6S4 $ S,767 $ $ $S,767
28,286 $S3,728 $ 3,243 $ 22,310 $ 28,763 $54,316
$2,061 $ 2,102 $ -$ -$2,102
37,S69 $71,3S7 $ 4,304 $ 29,632 $ 38,202 $72,138
53,169 $100,991 $ 6,09S $ 41,936 $ 54,06S $102,096
S0,923 $96,727 $ S,838 $ 40,16S $ Sl,782 $97,78S
$9,091 $ 9,273 $ $ -$9,273
$33,667 $ 34,340 $ -$ -$34,340
8,667 $17,435 $ 1,98S $ 6,836 $ 8,813 $17,634
$4,632 $ 4,724 $ $ -$4,724
124,7S9 $236,970 $ 14,300 $ 98,401 $ 126,862 $239,S63
$6,116 $ 6,238 $ -$ -$6,238
66,401 $133,S86 $ lS,222 $ S2,373 $ 67,S20 $135,llS
$S,738 $ S,8S3 $ -$ -$S,8S3
S1,30S $97,454 $ S,884 $ 40,466 $ S2,170 $98,S20
$1,329 $ l,3S6 $ -$ -$1,3S6
$4,697 $ 4,791 $ -$ -$4,791
$S,19S $ S,299 $ $ $S,299
9,261 $18,632 $ 2,124 $ 7,304 $ 9,417 $18,84S
31,426 $S9,693 $ 3,604 $ 24,787 $ 31,956 $60,346
15,148 $28,771 $ 1,735 $ 11,948 $ 15,403 $29,086
$2S,21S $ 2S,719 $ $ $2S,719
27,216 $Sl,690 $ 3,114 $ 21,466 $ 27,67S $S2,2S6
69,363 $131,7S4 $ 7,95S $ S4,709 $ 70,S32 $133,196
12,244 $23,2S6 $ 1,402 $ 9,6S7 $ 12,4SO $23,SlO
5,418 $10,899 $ 1,242 $ 4,273 $ S,S09 $11,024
$1,9SS $ 1,994 $ $ $1,994
34,730 $69,876 $ 7,967 $ 27,393 $ 3S,31S $70,676
21,740 $41,293 $ 2,492 $ 17,147 $ 22,106 $41,74S
$3,236 $ 3,300 $ $ $3,300
12S,780 $238,912 $ 14,419 $ 99,207 $ 127,901 $241,S27
29,776 $S4,363 $ 1,17S $ 23,48S $ 30,278 $54,938
$3,937 $ 4,016 $ -$ -$4,016
93,948 $178,449 $ 10,769 $ 74,100 $ 9S,S32 $180,401
$1,766 $ 1,801 $ $ $1,801
39,4SS $79,37S $ 9,044 $ 31,120 $ 40,120 $80,284
6,328,2S6 $11, 727,078 $ 426,Sll $ 4,991,304 $ 6,434,937 $11,8S2,7S2
2,786 $S,293 $ 320 $ 2,198 $ 2,833 $S,3Sl
144,926 $27S,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
$7,2S9 $ 7,404 $ $ $7,404
$2,79S $ 2,8Sl $ $ $2,8Sl
$1,806 $ 1,842 $ -$ -$1,842
$S,271 $ S,376 $ $ $S,376
$793 $ 809 $ $ $809
$2,882 $ 2,940 $ $ $2,940
ll,934,96S $ 22,664,824 $ l,363,13S $ 9,413,499 $ 12,136,164 $ 22,912,797
4
-
7
0
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 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 2030/31
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
$ 5,132 $ $ -
$ 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
4
-
7
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 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
4
-
7
2
Annual Member Hard Match Contributions
4-73
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 Cu Iver 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
$0
$10,025
$8,630
$0
$622
$3,617
$4,521
$2,029
$2,314
$0
$4,915
$0
$14,949
$0
$0
$0
$3,712
$0
$6,009
$3,293
$5,165
$14,171
$0
$6,703
$3,223
$3,614
$26,816
$4,587
$0
$4,834
$2,242
$0
$3,135
$0
$6,473
$1,566
$0
$1,204
$0
$0
$5,337
$0
$0
$0
$58,569
$496,658
$0
FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19
$0 $0 $0
$10,025 $10,025 $10,025
$8,630 $8,630 $8,630
$0 $0 $0
$622 $622 $622
$3,617 $3,617 $3,617
$4,521 $4,521 $4,521
$2,029 $2,029 $2,029
$2,314 $2,314 $2,314
$0 $0 $0
$4,915 $4,915 $4,915
$0 $0 $0
$14,949 $14,949 $14,949
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$3,712 $3,712 $3,712
$0 $0 $0
$6,009 $6,009 $6,009
$3,293 $3,293 $3,293
$5,165 $5,165 $5,165
$14,171 $14,171 $14,171
$0 $0 $0
$6,703 $6,703 $6,703
$3,223 $3,223 $3,223
$3,614 $3,614 $3,614
$26,816 $26,816 $26,816
$4,587 $4,587 $4,587
$0 $0 $0
$4,834 $4,834 $4,834
$2,242 $2,242 $2,242
$0 $0 $0
$3,135 $3,135 $3,135
$0 $0 $0
$6,473 $6,473 $6,473
$1,566 $1,566 $1,566
$0 $0 $0
$1,204 $1,204 $1,204
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$5,337 $5,337 $5,337
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$58,569 $58,569 $58,569
$496,658 $496,658 $496,658
$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
4
-
7
4
LA-RI CS
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 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 Lorn ita
City of Malibu
City of Rolling Hills
City of West Hollywood
Total
FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY2018/19
$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
$0 $0 $0 $0
$10,432 $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 $4,937 $4,937
$2,380 $2,380 $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 FY 2022/23 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 $19,600 $19,600 $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 $1,455
$4,937 $4,937 $4,937 $4,937 $4,937
$2,380 $2,380 $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
$19,760 $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
4
-
7
5
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 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 FY2028/29 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
4
-
7
6
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 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 FY2027/28 FY 2028/29 FY2029/30 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
4
-
7
7
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1.What is LA-rues?
The proposed Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications
System (LA-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 areo 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
educatlon 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.
4-78
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 that 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 l 0 million residents.
2
4-79
3. Who wm utilize LA .. RICS 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 seJYices
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 seJYices, 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 fiscdl oversight of the LA-RICS, identifies and pursues funding
sources, sets policy, and will oversee the construction of the communications systems.
3
4-80
5. What is the "Hybrid" 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·Band channels in 2021?
The JPA understands the critical need for adeqvate communications for public safety and
fhe 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.
----·-,._ ....................... -.. _ ............................................................................................. -............. --.. ·---
COSTS, THE '~ .... ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~.!...~.~ ... -~LAN", AND TH PT-OUT"
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
4-81
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 part 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 operational, the LMR 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 "Opt-Out" of the JPA for only one of the communications
systems?
The JPA is currently analyzing whether any options are avaflable that are consistent with
the Joint Powers Agreement regarding member use of only the LMR system or only the
LTE system.
5
4-82
5. Does a City have to participate in both the LMR and 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 the 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 site1 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
transmitter 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
4-83
3. LA~fUCS 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 lAufUCS 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 wm 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 LA-RICS 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 STOP program's federal grant funds.
7
4-84
-····························--·---········-----
---·····---····---·····---·-·--·······--··--····-·····--··-·····--············-
INTEROPERABILITY WITH OTHER SYSTEMS -----------.. ····-··----·--·--·
1. How will LA-RICS 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 re·sponses?
As mentioned above, the ISSI interface will enable LA-RICS subscribers to seamlessly
interoperate with ICIS users.
3~ What is the future of fnteroperabmty 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
4-85
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-RICS) 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.
4-86
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 17th day of March 2009.
~(OX Myor
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.
~~
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2009-20
Page 2of2
4-87
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 1 of 24 4-88
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 ...................................................................................... ?
2.01· Minutes ........ , ...... '!'··············································•lf!•············································7
2.08 ·Voting .......................................................................... 11! •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7
2~09 Quorum; Required Votes; Approvals ......................................................... : ...... ?
Article Ill -O.FFJCERS, EMPLOYEES AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES ........................ 8
3.01 Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary ................................................ 8
3.02 Treasurer ......................................................................................................... 8
3.03 Auditor. •111•···,.··················· .......................................................................................... 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
3.1 O Officers of Advisory Committees ................................................................... 1 O
Article IV -POWERS ................................................................... ! ................................ 10
4.01 General Powers ......... : ................................................................................... 10
4.02 Power to Issue Bonds .................................................................................... 1 O
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·RICS JPA 2009-01-05
Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A
Page 2 of24 4-89
The Los Ange1es Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority
-Joint Powers:Agreement
Table of Co.ntents
Article V -CONTRIBUTIONS; ACCOUNTS AND REPO~TS; 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.-MISCELLAN!iOUS PROVISIONS ................................. ~ ................... : ......... 17
7 .. 01 ~otices ........ .' .......................... -................................................................. : ..... 17
1;02 Amendment; Addition of Members ............................................................... : .18
7.03 Fiscal Year .................................................................................................... 18
7 .04 Consents and Approvals .............................................................. ! ................ 18
7. 05 Ametldments 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 H8adings. ·1!~·························~································-~·-····································· 19
7.12 Counterparts ............... · .................................................................................... a ••••• 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 of24 4-90
Joint Powers Agreeilient 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 i.nteroperable 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 and 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'l As part of this
LA-RICS JPA 2009-01-05 Page 1
Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A
Page 4 of 24 4-91
"' 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 Known as the "Los
Angeles Regional 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 Lo.s 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,
rad1o 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 "Effective 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
AgFeement 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 of24 4-92
~u~
'' LA-RICS
Joint Powers Agreement
Article II ~ 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
6. 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 Ang.eles 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 4-93
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.ireotors and
.Alternate Directors, and all other entities shall endeavor to appoint their Directors
and Alternat~s. The logistics for filling the At L~rge Director and Alternate Director
vacancies shall be provided for in the byleiws.
··· (g) .AUhe time of appointment and for the duratJon of service, Directors ancf
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 13oard 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 notiee.
{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 4-94
(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 ''Funding Plan1
') for 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 4-95
,Joint Powers Agreement
=
(o) Conduct and oversee System audits at intervals not to exceed three years;
(p) Arrange for an arnui:il 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-RICS; ·
(e) To estabHsh policies and procedures for the voluntary transfer and/or sharing of
assets from Members;
(f) To retain legal counsel; 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 4-96
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 each of the Members.
(b) Special Meetings. Special meetings 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$ practicable after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be made
available to each Director, the Members and other p.arties 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 Altemate'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 required 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-RICS JPA 2009·01-05 Page7
Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A
Page 10 of24 4-97
Joint Powers Agreement
(c) Subject to prior approval by the pas-sage of an authorizing ordinance or other
legally sufficient action by the affected jurisdiction, levy and collect, or cause to. be
collticted, 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 eE1ch 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·fes shall be the Treasurer of
the Authority. To the extent pe~mitted by the Act, the BoEJrd 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
--
4-98
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 ma!·~e 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 Authc;>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 Soard shall have the power by resoluti.on to appoint and employ such other officers,
employ~es, consultants and 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 employees 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 officers, agents or employees directly employed 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 subject 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
pertormance, maintenance and other technical issues.
LA·RICS JPA 2009-01·05 Page9
Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A
Page 12 of 24 4-99
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 equitable 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 business, 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.
3.10 Officers of Advisory Committees.
Unless otherwise determined by the Board, each Advisory Committee shall choose its
officer~ comprised of a Chairperson. a Vice-C.f1airperson 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 ;accomplishrrtent 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 4-100
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, ag:-eements for
the purpose of acquiring real and/or p~rson~!31 property, equipment, employment
contracts and professional services agreements; ·
(b) To make and enter into contracts with subscribers who desire to utilize the
Systel!I 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 acquire, 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 and 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 obUgatlon 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
ResolutioR No. 2009-20, Exhibit A
Page 14 of 24 4-101
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 the County of Los Angeles, as may be amended from time to time.
4.05 Qbligations of Authority.
The debts, liabilities aryd oeligations 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 ANO REPORTS; FUNDS
5.01 Adoption of Funding Plan.
It is a critical go.al 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 Se.ction 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 $h_~ll distribute the proposed Funding Plan to Members pursuant to Section 7.01.
The proposed Funding Plan shall be accompanied by a description of the System, and
reports and studies to allow Members to determine the System capability, co$t,
finan<::ing and the effects on indJvidual 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 JPA2009-01-05
Resolution No. 2omE~B.i=i~ibit A
Page 15 of 24 4-102
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 Member that withdraws from the Authority within this time
period, except for dbligations incurred prior to the adoption of the Revised Funding Plan.
5.02 Contribµtions. .
The Members may. in the appropriate circumstance. or when required hereunder:
~
··· (~) _ Make contributi_ons from-their treasurie·s,for the pur~ose~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 aff 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 4-103
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 authorize the Authority to share the use of suchfreqt!encies and/or
radio stations. Such use shafl 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 shaU remain primary to the ~ember
holding the license. Only the Member is aUowed to make any modificati.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 ~pacified in the bylaws.
5.07 System Components.
The System Is comprised of components that include physical plant, infrastructure,
frequencies, user equipment, and dispatch center equipment ( 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
Components 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, ,s.ecurity
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 equipment 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 JPA 2009-01-05 Page 14
Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A
Page 17 of 24 4-104
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 an.y User
Equipment is determined to be affecting the proper operation of the overall System
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 includes the
following: dispatch consoles, logging 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 i:iot
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 take 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 AND 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 advanct:ld 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 4-105
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 io withdraw from the Authority.
6.02 Financial Liabilities of Withdrawing Members.
Except as otherwi.se provided in Section 5.01:
(a) A withdrawing Member shall remain liable for Rli 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 Member 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 ownership 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 so1e 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.
Acceptaflce 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 of 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 aryy 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-RIOS JPA 2009-01·05 Page 16
Resolution No. 2009-20, Exrnb.itA
Page 19 of 24 4-106
Joint Powers Agreement
(b) Shall distribute assets, including rea.I or personal property, in proportion to the
contributions 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 shaJI 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) "Certified" U.S. mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested;
(e) Facsimile; or
(f) Any other method deemed appropriate by the Board.
At any time, by providing written notice to the other parties to this Agreement, any party
may change the place1 facsimile numbe.r or e-mail for giving nQtice. All written notices
or corresporide·nce sent in the descrrbed manner will be deemed given to a party on
whichever-date 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 recejpt or
refused to accept delivery, as noted on the return receipt or other U.S. Postal
Service form, when sent by "certified" mail; or
(d) The date of transmission, when sent by e-mail or facsimile.
LA·RICS JPA 2009·01·05 Resolution No. 2ool~a,'t:1~ibit A
Page 20 of 24 4-107
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 strch 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
aggregate. 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 byJaws.
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 prQvisions 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 Agreement by
reference.
7.06 Enforcement of Authority;
The Authorityls -hereby authorized to take any or all legal or equitable actions, including
but not limited to injunction and specific performance, necessary or permitted by law 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 JPA2009-01-05 Page 18
Resolution No. 2009-20, Exhibit A
Page 21of24 4-108
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 th~reby 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 benefit 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 Board.
7.10 Governing Law.
This Agreement is made and to be performed in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California, 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 Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
7 .13 No Third Party Beneficlaries.
This Agreement and the obligations here1,mder are not intended to benefit any party
other than the Authority and its Members, except as expressly provided 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 DateJ 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 4-109
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 Agreement
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
Resolutior:i No. 2009-20, Exhibit A
Page 23 of24 4-110
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.
e. (lli__
MAYOR . ~ DATE
CITY CLERK DATE
)
LA-FUCS JPA 2009-01-05
4-111
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
4-112
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
·c1TY 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
4-113