HomeMy Public PortalAbout12) 7H Approval of Memorandum of Agreement CIMP for LARWMCity Council
February 2, 2016
Page 2 of 3
Region ( RW Q C B) issued a countywide MS4 permit to Los Angeles County
and 79 participating cities, including Temple City. The permit includes
requirements for the County and cities to address stormwater runoff and pollution.
4. On November 8, 2012, an updated MS4 Permit was adopted by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board and became effective on December 28,
2012.
5. On November 19, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-4954
approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and
members of the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Group for development of an
Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) and Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Program (CIMP).
8. On June 26, 2014, the CIMP was submitted to the Regional Board. The CIMP was
conditionally approved by the Regional Board on August 5, 2015, with the
requirement that implementation of the CIMP begin within 90 days of approval.
ANALYSIS:
Since the issuance of the updated MS4 permit in 2012, the City of Temple City has
begun participating in a number of regional efforts to ensure that the City complies with
the permit requirements. The permit allows the permittees to coordinate stormwater
planning efforts on a watershed basis, providing an opportunity for permittees to
customize their stormwater programs through the development and implementation of a
EWMP and a CIMP to achieve compliance with certain Receiving Water Limitations
(RWLs) and Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs).
Following the adoption of the permit, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County
Flood Control District, and the Cities of Alhambra, Burbank, Calabasas, Glendale,
Hidden Hills, La Canada Flintridge, Los Angeles, Montebello, Monterey Park,
Pasadena, Rosemead, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, South El Monte, South
Pasadena, and Temple City (collectively the cities) agreed to collaborate on the
development of a CIMP for the Upper Los Angeles River Group.
Once the MOA is approved, the City of Los Angeles will perform and coordinate the
monitoring and reporting required by the MS4 permit on behalf of the member agencies.
The agencies have agreed that the costs will be distributed according to each agency's
land area relative to the total land area in the ULAR Watershed Management Area.
Implementation will be a multi-year and multi-agency effort. The annual contribution for
this MOA will vary depending on the required monitoring and special studies needed to
comply with the MS4 Permit. The MOA includes cost share tables that outline
contributions. The cumulative watershed-wide cost for the three year term of this
Agreement is estimated to be $6,007,558. Temple City's annual not-to-exceed costs
vary between $34,389 (Fiscal Year 15-16) and $17,663 (FY 17 -18).
City Council
February 2, 2016
Page 3 of 3
As the City moves forward with implementation of the MS4 permit, the City faces
significant costs to meet the new permit requirements. This MOA is a means to reducing
these costs. It is in the City's best financial and regulatory interest to sign this MOA and
join neighboring cities to meet the requirements. For this reason, staff recommends that
the City Council approve the MOA, as written, and authorize the City Manager to sign it.
CITY STRATEGIC GOALS:
Approval of the MOA furthers the City's Strategic Goal of Good Governance, Public
Health, and Safety, and Sustainable Infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total cost to the City for CIMP monitoring during FY 2015-16 is estimated to be
$34,389. This not-to-exceed amount is higher than the $27,000 that was originally
anticipated and included in the FY 2015-16 City Budget. If the final cost to the City
exceeds what was originally budgeted, staff will address it during the 3'd Quarter budget
review.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit became effective on December 28, 2012, and
requires that the LACFCD, the COUNTY, and 84 of the 88 cities (excluding Avalon,
Long Beach, Palmdale, and Lancaster) within the County comply with the prescribed
elements of the MS4 Permit; and
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit identified the PARTIES as MS4 permittees that are
responsible for compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements pertaining to the
PARTIES' collective jurisdictional area in the Upper Los Angeles River (ULAR)
Watershed Management Area as identified in Exhibit C of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES elected voluntarily to collaborate on the development
of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) and a Coordinated
Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) in accordance with the MS4 Permit for a portion
of the ULAR Watershed Management Area as identified in Exhibit C of this MOA to
comply with all applicable monitoring requirements of the MS4 Permit; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES collaboratively prepared a final Scope of Work to
obtain a consultant (Consultant) to assist the PARTIES in the development of a CIMP;
and
WHEREAS, the CIMP was submitted to the Regional Board by the PARTIES on
June 26, 2014 and was conditionally approved by the Regional Board on August 5,
2015;and
WHEREAS, the CITY will perform the MONITORING SERVICES required to
implement the ULAR CIMP, which has been approved by the Regional Board, pursuant
to the MS4 Permit; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed that the total cost for this MOA shall not
exceed $6,007,558; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed for the CITY to perform and coordinate
the MONITORING SERVICES on the PARTIES' behalf, the PARTIES have agreed to
pay the CITY for its Monitoring Services as indicated in Table 1of Exhibit A of this MOA;
and
WHEREAS, the MONITORING SERVICES includes various program start-up
costs to implement the CIMP, and the PARTIES have agreed that these costs are
reimbursable pursuant to this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the CITY retains the right to outsource some or all of the elements of
the MONITORING SERVICES, at a cost not to exceed those shown in Tables 1-3 of
Exhibit A; and
Page 2 of 38
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed to cooperatively share and fully fund the
estimated costs of the implementation of the CIMP based on the Distributed Costs
contained in Table 1 of Exhibit A of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed that the distributed costs contained in
Table 1 of Exhibit A of this MOA is the sum of GENERAL MONITORING COSTS which
are distributed according to each PARTY'S land area relative to the total land area in
the ULAR Watershed Management Area (refer to Table 2, Exhibit A}, plus the costs of
NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING, LEGG LAKE RECEIVING WATER
MONITORING, and the ARROYO SECO LOAD REDUCTION STRATEGY document
preparation, which are distributed according to each PARTY'S land area within those
specific sub-watersheds and tributaries of the Los Angeles River (refer to Tables 3a-3g,
in Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed that the costs of monitoring Echo Park
Lake and Lake Calabasas, are not included in the MOA, but rather, are the
responsibility of the PARTIES which have jurisdiction over those water bodies; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree that each shall assume full and independent
responsibility for ensuring its own compliance with the MS4 Permit despite the
collaborative approach of the MOA.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the
PARTIES, and of the promises contained in this MOA, the PARTIES agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are fully incorporated into this MOA.
Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOA is to cooperatively fund the
MONITORING SERVICES required to implement the Upper Los Angeles Watershed
Management Area Group CIMP.
Section 3. Cooperation. The PARTIES shall fully cooperate with one another to
attain the purposes of this MOA.
Section 4. Voluntary. This MOA is voluntarily entered into for the implementation of
the CIMP.
Section 5. Term. This MOA shall become effective on the last date of execution by a
PARTY and shall remain in effect until June 30, 2018. The MOA may be extended,
through an amendment, for an additional term of three (3) years if agreed upon by the
PARTIES.
Section 6. Commitment. Once effective, all cooperating PARTIES agree to uphold
the promises contained in this MOA for the duration of the agreed upon term.
Page 3 of 38
accordance with the distributed cost formulas set forth in Tables 2 and 3a-3g of
Exhibit A, or PARTIES may elect to roll-over unexpended costs to cover
monitoring expenses in the following year. At the end of each fiscal year, and at
the end of the MOA, the CITY will provide the PARTIES with a statement of
actual expenditures, broken down for each table in Exhibit A.
f. Late Payment Penalty. Any payment that is not received within 60 days following
receipt of the CITY invoice shall be subject to interest on the original amount
from the date that the payment first became due. The interest rate shall be equal
to the Prime Rate in effect when the payment first became due plus one percent
(1%) for any payment that is made from one (1) to thirty (30) days after the due
date. The Prime Rate in effect when the payment first became due plus five
percent (5%) shall apply to any payment that is made from thirty one (31) to sixty
(60) days after the due date. The Prime Rate in effect when the payment first
became due plus ten percent (10%) shall apply to any payment that is made
more than sixty (60) days past the due date. The rates, shall nevertheless, not
exceed the maximum allowed by law.
g. Delinquent Payments. A PARTY or PARTIES payment is considered to be
delinquent 180 days after receipt of the invoice from the CITY. The following
procedure may be implemented to attain payments from the delinquent PARTY
or PARTIES: 1) verbally contact/meet with the manager(s) from the delinquent
PARTY or PARTIES; 2) submit a formal letter to the delinquent PARTY or
PARTIES from the CITY attorney; and 3) notify the Regional Board that the
delinquent PARTY or PARTIES are no longer a participating member of the
CIMP. If the PARTY or PARTIES remain delinquent after the above procedures,
then any delinquent amount(s) will be distributed in the following invoice amongst
all remaining PARTIES in accordance with a revised distributed cost formula that
is exclusive of the delinquent PARTY or PARTIES.
Section 9. THE PARTIES FURTHER AGREE:
a. Payment. The PARTIES agree to pay the CITY for all MONITORING SERVICES
required to implement the ULAR CIMP, pursuant to the MS4 Permit, not
exceeding the amounts shown in Table 1 of Exhibit A, based on the distributed
cost formulas in Tables 2 and 3a-3g of Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a
part of this MOA by this reference.
b. Documentation. The PARTIES agree to provide all requested information and
documentation in their possession, and make available for release to the CITY,
that is deemed necessary by the PARTIES to perform the MONITORING
SERVICES at no cost to the CITY.
c. Access. Each PARTY shall allow reasonable access and entry to the CITY or its
contractor, on an as-needed basis during the term of this MOA, including but not
Page 5 of 38
limited to the PARTY'S storm drains, channels, catch basins, and similar
properties (FACILITIES) to achieve the purposes of this MOA, provided,
however, that prior to entering any of the PARTY'S FACILITIES, the CITY or its
contractor shall provide written notice 72 hours in advance of entry from the
applicable PARTY, or in the cases where 72 hour advanced notice is not
possible, such as in cases of unforeseen wet weather, as early as reasonably
possible. LACFCD, being a member of this MOA, agrees to provide a "no-fee"
Access Permit to their facilities/structures which require access to perform the
MONITORING SERVICES by the CITY. This Access Permit does not cover any
fees that may be required for Construction Permits for the installation of
permanent monitoring equipment.
d. The NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL MONITORING element of the
MONITORING SERVICES to be provided by the City will constitute non-
stormwater outfall-based screening and monitoring only, and will terminate upon
identification and prioritization of outfalls with significant non-stormwater
discharges. The ensuing investigation(s) to identify the sources of these non-
stormwater discharges will be conducted by a third-party consultant who will
report findings to the CITY and to PARTIES located within the drainage area of
the investigation(s). The estimated costs for these investigations are
incorporated in the estimated costs for NON-STORMWATER OUTFALL
MONITORING in Table 3a-3e, in Exhibit A.
e. MONITORING SERVICES of this MOA do not include monitoring activities in
Echo Park Lake and Lake Calabasas. These are the responsibility of 'the
agencies with jurisdiction over these water bodies.
Section 10. Indemnification
a. Each PARTY shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless each other PARTY,
including its special districts, elected and appointed officers, employees, agents,
attorneys, and designated volunteers from and against any and all liability,
including, but not limited to, demands, claims, actions, fees, costs, and expenses
(including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees), arising from or
connected with the respective acts of each PARTY arising from or related to this
MOA; provided, however, that no PARTY shall indemnify another PARTY for that
PARTY'S own negligence or willful misconduct.
b. In light of the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State of
California imposing certain tort liability jointly upon public entities solely by reason
of such entities being parties to an agreement (as defined in Section 895 of said
Code), each of the PARTIES hereto, pursuant to the authorization contained in
Section 895.4 and 895.6 of said Code, shall assume the full liability imposed
Page 6 of 38
upon it or any of its officers, agents, or employees, by law for injury caused by
any act or omission occurring in the performance of this MOA to the same extent
such liability would be imposed in the absence of Section 895.2 of said Code. To
achieve the above stated purpose, each PARTY indemnifies, defends, and holds
harmless each other PARTY for any liability, cost, or expense that may be
imposed upon such other PARTY solely by virtue of said Section 895.2. The
provisions of Section 2778 of the California Civil Code are made a part hereof as
if incorporated herein.
Section 11. Termination
a. Any PARTY may terminate this MOA for any reason, in whole or part, by giving
the other PARTIES and the Regional Board thirty (30) days written notice
thereof. Terminated PARTIES shall remain wholly responsible for their share of
the costs of MONITORING SERVICES that were incurred up to the date at which
the MOA was terminated. A terminated PARTY shall have rights to all work and
reports produced with the use of its paid cost allocation. Each PARTY shall
also be responsible for the payment of its own fines, penalties or costs incurred
as a result of the non-performance of the CIMP.
b. The CITY shall notify in writing all PARTIES within fourteen (14) days of receiving
written notice from any PARTY that intends to terminate its PARTY status in this
MOA.
c. If a PARTY fails to comply with any of the terms or conditions of this MOA, that
PARTY shall forfeit its rights to the work completed through this MOA, but no
such forfeiture shall occur unless and until the defaulting PARTY has first been
given notice of its default and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged
default as determined by the PARTIES.
Section 12. General Provisions
a. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports relating to this MOA, and any
request, demand, statement, or other communication required or permitted
hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the representatives of the
PARTIES at the addresses set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. Parties shall promptly notify each other of any
change of contact information, including personnel changes, provided in
Exhibit B. Written notice shall include notice delivered via e-mail or fax. A notice
shall be deemed to have been received on (a) the date of delivery, if delivered by
hand during regular business hours, or by confirmed facsimile or by e-mail; or (b)
on the third (3) business day following mailing by registered or certified mail
(return receipt requested) to the addresses set forth in Exhibit B.
Page 7 of 38
b. Administration. For the purposes of this MOA, the PARTIES hereby designate
as their respective PARTY representatives the persons named in Exhibit B. The
designated PARTY representatives, or their respective designees, shall
administer the terms and conditions of this MOA on behalf of their respective
PARTY. Each of the persons signing below on behalf of a PARTY represents
and warrants that he or she is authorized to sign this MOA on behalf of such
PARTY.
c. Relationship of the Parties. The PARTIES are, and shall at all times remain as to
each other, wholly independent entities. No PARTY to this MOA shall have
power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of any other PARTY
unless expressly provided to the contrary by this MOA. No employee, agent, or
officer of a PARTY shall be deemed for any purpose whatsoever to be an agent,
employee, or officer of another PARTY.
d. Binding Effect. This MOA shall be binding upon, and shall be to the benefit of the
respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each PARTY; provided, however,
no PARTY may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOA without
the prior written consent of the other PARTIES.
e. Amendment. The terms and provisions of this MOA may not be amended,
modified, or waived, except by an instrument in writing signed by all non-
delinquent PARTIES. Such amendments may be executed by those individuals
listed in Exhibit B or by a responsible individual as determined by each PARTY.
f. Law to Govern. This MOA is governed by, interpreted under, and construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event of
litigation between the Parties, venue in the state trial courts shall lie exclusively in
the County of Los Angeles.
g. No Presumption in Drafting. The Parties to this MOA agree that the general rule
that an MOA is to be interpreted against the Party drafting it, or causing it to be
prepared shall not apply.
h. Severability. If any provision of this MOA shall be determined by any court to be
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOA
shall not be affected, and this MOA shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOA.
i. Entire Agreement. This MOA, and its Exhibits, constitutes the entire agreement
of the PARTIES with respect to the subject matter hereof.
j. Waiver. Waiver by any PARTY to this MOA of any term, condition, or covenant of
this MOA shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant.
Waiver by any PARTY to any breach of the provisions of this MOA shall not
Page 8 of 38
constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach
or violation of any provision of this MOA.
k. Counterparts. This MOA may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute but
one and the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts shall
have been delivered to all PARTIES to this MOA.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have caused this MOA to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives and affixed as of the date of signature
of the PARTIES:
Page 9 of 38
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
By
GAIL FARBER, Director of Public Works
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mary C. Wickham
Interim County Counsel
By
Deputy
Page 10 of 38
Date
Date
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
By
GAIL FARBER, Chief Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mary C. Wickham
Interim County Counsel
By
Deputy
Page 11 of 38
Date
Date
CITY OF ALHAMBRA
By __ ~----------
Luis Ayala
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
By __________________ __
Lauren Myles
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By~~~~~--~-----
Joseph M. Montes, Esq.
City Attomey
Date
Page 12 of 38
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Date: _______ _
ATTEST:
Holly Wolcott
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael N. Feuer
City Attorney
By: --------------------
John A. Carvalho
City Attorney
By: --~------~-----
Kevin James, President
Board of Public Works
Page 13 of 38
THE CITY OF BURBANK
Dated: CITY OF BURBANK ---------------------
ATTEST:
Mark Scott, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By ____________________ ___
Bob Frutos, Mayor
Joseph H. McDougall, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Page 14 of 38
THE CITY OF CALABASAS
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF CALABASAS
By~~~--~------------
Fred Gaines, Mayor ·
ATTEST:
Maricela I-Iemandez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott Howard, Interim City Attorney
Page 15 of 38
THE CITY OF GLENDALE
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF GLENDALE
ATTEST:
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael Garcia, City Attomey
By~~~~~~----------
Ara Najarian, Mayor
Page 16 of 38
THE CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS
Dated: _________ _ CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS
ATTEST:
Cherie L. Paglia, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Roxanne M. Diaz, City Attorney
By ___________ _
Larry G. Weber, Mayor
Page 17 of 38
THE CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
Dated: __________ _
ATTEST:
Mark R. Alexander, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark Steres, City Attorney
CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
By ____________ _
Dave Spence, Mayor
Page 18 of 38
THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO
Dated: __________ _
ATTEST:
Daniel Hernandez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Arnold Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney
CITY OF MONTEBELLO
By~~~~--~----------
Clu·istina Cortez, Mayor
Page 19 of 38
CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Date:~~~~~~~~-
ATTEST:
By: __________________________ _
Paul Talbot, City Manager
By:~--------------------------
Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:~------------
Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attomey
Page 20 of38
CITY OF PASADENA
Dated: _________ _
ATTEST:
Mark Jomsky, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Brad L. Fuller, Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF PASADENA
By ____________ _
Michael J. Beck, City Manager
Page 21 of 38
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Dated:~---------CITY OF ROSEMEAD
By~~~~~~-----
Jeff Allred, City Manager
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney
Page 22 of 38
THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO
Dated: _________ _ CITY OF SAN FERNANDO
By_~~---------
Joel Fajardo, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elena G. Chavez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rick R. Olivarez, City Attomey
Page 23 of 38
THE CITY OF SAN GABRIEL
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF SAN GABRIEL
ATTEST:
Eleanor K. Andrews, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert L. Kress, City Attorney
By _____________________ __
Steven A. Preston, City Manager
Page 24 of 38
CITY OF SAN MARINO
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF SAN MARINO
ATTEST:
John Schaefer, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steve Dorsey, City Attorney
By~~~~~~------------
Richard Ward, Mayor
Page 25 of 38
THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
Dated: _________ _
ATTEST:
[insert name], City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
[insert name], City Attorney
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
By~-----~-----
[INSERT NAME], City Manager
Page 26 of 38
THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Dated: _________ _
ATTEST:
Evelyn G. Zneimer, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Teresa L. Highsmith, City Attorney
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
By __________________________ _
Sergio Gonzalez, City Manager
Page 27 of 38
CITY Oil THE TEMPLE CITY
Date:
~~~~~~~~~--
ATTEST:
Peggy Kuo, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Eric S. Vail, City Attorney
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
By ______________________ __
Tom Chavez, Mayor
Page 28 of 38
EXHIBIT A
Table 1. Distribution of Total Estimated Cost for lmf:!lementing the ULAR CIMP.
Fisca l Year Fisca l Year Fi sca l Yea r Tota l Agency 15-1 6 16-17 17-18
LACFCD $128,820 $89,931 $83,464 $302,215
City of Los Angeles $1,164,325 $919,008 $846,702 $2,930,035
County of Los Angeles $392,577 $271,798 $254,265 $918,641
City of Alhambra $51,979 $33,726 $31,439 $117,143
City of Burbank $54,892 $45,817 $41,794 $142,503
City of Calabasas $19,818 $16,541 $15,089 $51,448
City of Glendale $97,043 $80,921 $73,819 $251,783
City of Hidden Hills $4,755 $3,968 $3,620 $12,343
City of La Canada Flintridge $82,421 $37,194 $35,187 $154,802
City of Montebello $71,012 $38,486 $36,544 $146,043
City of Monterey Park $58,090 $34,814 $32,707 $125,611
City of Pasadena $210,796 $106,276 $100,887 $417,959
City of Rosemead $44,190 $23,898 $22,698 $90,786
City of San Fernando $7,508 $6,267 $5,717 $19,492
City of San Gabriel $35,301 $19,091 $18,132 $72,524
City of San Marino $32,162 $17,393 $16,519 $66,074
City of South El Monte $29,805 $20,214 $19,636 $69,655
City of South Pasadena $19,767 $14,683 $13,400 $47,851
City of Temple City $34,389 $18,597 $17,663 $70,649
Total Estimated Cost of $2,539,651 $1,798,624 $1,669,283 $6,007,558 CIMP
Note:
1. The Total Estimated Cost for each agency is the sum of General Monitoring Costs (refer to Table 2, Exhibit A) plus the costs for Non-Stormwater
Outfall Monitoring, Legg Lake Receiving Water Monitoring, and Arroyo Seco Load Reduction Strategy Document Preparation (refer to Table 3a-
g, Exhibit A).
2. The figures shown in this table include a 5% Program Management Fee and a 10% Contingency, wh ich are also detailed in Tables 2 and 3a-f in
Exhibit A.
Page 29 of 38
Table 2 . Distribution of General Monitoring Costs.
Cl MP Co mpo n e nt
Fisca l Year Fisca l Ye a r Fisca l Yea r Total 15-16 16-17 17-18
Receiving Water Monitoring $378,749 $390,506 $361,556 $1,130,811
Storm Water Outfall Monitoring $35,085 $70,170 $105,256 $210,511
Non-Storm Water Outfall Monitoring (NSWO costs are distributed according to sub-watershed)
Data Management (15%) $62,075 $69,101 $70,022 $201,198
Capital Expenses $254,890 $336,000 $216,000 $806,890
Operation & Maintenance Expenses $35,132 $52,733 $65,333 $153,199
Contracted Servi ces : Annual Report, Data To ols, On -call support $630,731 $224,381 $224,381 $1,079,493
Program Management (5%) $69,833 $57,145 $52,127 $179,105
General Monitoring Costs (subtotal) $1,466,496 $1,200,037 $1,094,675 $3,761,208
Contingency (10%) $146,650 $120,004 $109,467 $376,121
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $26,401 $24,083 $50,484
General Monitoring Costs (total) $1,613,146 $1,346,441 $1,228,225 $4,187,812
l a nd Area %of Fisca l Yea r Fisca l Yea r Fisca l Yea r T ot al Agency (a cres) Area 15-16 16-17 17-18
LACFCD (5%) $80,657 $67,322 $61,411 $209,391
City of Los Angeles 181,288.00 58.53% $896,901 $748,615 $682,887 $2,328,404
County of Los Angeles 41,048.07 13.25% $203,081 $169,505 $154,623 $527,208
City of Alhambra 4,884.31 1.58% $24,165 $20,169 $18,399 $62,732
City of Burbank 11,095.20 3.58% $54,892 $45,817 $41,794 $142,503
City of Calabasas 4,005.68 1.29% $19,818 $16,541 $15,089 $51,448
City of Glendale 19,587.50 6.32% $96,907 $80,885 $73,783 $251,575
City of Hidden Hills 961.03 0.31% $4,755 $3,968 $3,620 $12,343
City of La Canada Flintridge 5,534.46 1.79% $27,381 $22,854 $20,848 $71,083
City of Montebello 5,356.38 1.73% $26,500 $22,119 $20,177 $68,796
City of Monterey Park 4,951.51 1.60% $24,497 $20,447 $18,652 $63,596
City of Pasadena 14,805.30 4.78% $73,248 $61,137 $55,770 $190,154
City of Rosemead 3,310.87 1.07% $16,380 $13,672 $12,472 $42,524
City of San Fernando 1,517.64 0 .49% $7,508 $6,267 $5,717 $19,492
City of San Gabriel 2,644.87 0.85% $13,085 $10,922 $9,963 $33,970
City of San Marino 2,409.64 0 .78% $11,921 $9,950 $9,077 $30,949
City of South El Monte 1,594.16 0.51% $7,887 $6,583 $6,005 $20,475
City of South Pasadena 2,186.20 0.71% $10,816 $9,028 $8,235 $28,079
City of Temple City 2,576.50 0.83% $12,747 $10,639 $9,705 $33,092
Total 309,757.32 100% $1,613,146 $1,346,441 $1,228,225 $4,187,812
Note:
1. General Monitoring Costs include all required monitoring elements in the CIMP , except for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring and Receiving
water monitoring in Echo Park Lake, Lake Calabasas, and Legg Lake.
2. The areas owned by Caltrans, State Parks, and U.S. Government have been excluded from the total area of the Upper Los Angeles River
watershed.
3. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the General Monitoring Costs, which is subtracted before the costs
are distributed among the other Parties.
4. Area (acres) determined by GIS analysis as shown in Exhibit C.
5. Agency Percent Area = (Agency Area I Total Area) x 1 00%
6. Distributed Cost to each Party= [(Total of General Monitoring Costs-LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area].
Page 30 of 38
Table 3a. Distri butio n of Costs for Non-Stor mwater Outfall Monitoring in Rio Hondo.
Non -Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Rio Hon do} Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Total 15-16 16-17 17-18
Inventory and 6 screening Events $85,432 $0 $0 $85,432
Source Investigations $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000
Non-Stormwater Outfa ll Monitoring $104,532 $104,532 $104,532 $313,596
Data Management (15%} $43,495 $15,680 $15,680 $74,854
Program Management (5%} $16,673 $6,011 $6,011 $28,694
Monitori ng Cost Sub -Tota l $350,131 $12 6,2 22 $126,222 $602,576
Contingency (10%) $35,013 $12,622 $12,622 $60,258
Ann ua l Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%} $0 $2,777 $2,777 $5,554
Rio Hondo (Total) $385,144 $141,621 $141,621 $668,387
Agency l a nd Area %of Fisca l Year Fisca l Year Fiscal Year To tal (a cres) Area 15-16 16-17 17-18
lACFCD (5%) $19,257 $7,081 $7,081 $33,419
County of los Ange les 8,057.60 18.50% $67,681 $24,887 $24,887 $117,455
City of Alhambra 3,311.34 7.60% $27,814 $10,228 $10,228 $48,269
City of Montebello 5,299.29 12.17% $44,512 $16,368 $16,368 $77,247
City of Monterey Park 3,999 .35 9.18% $33,593 $12,353 $12,353 $58,298
City of Pasadena 10,177.22 23.36% $85,485 $31,434 $31,434 $148,352
City of Rosemead 3,310.89 7.60% $27,810 $10,226 $10,226 $48,262
City of San Gabrie l 2,644.88 6.07% $22,216 $8,169 $8,169 $38,554
City of San Marino 2,409 .65 5.53% $20,240 $7,443 $7,443 $35,125
City of South El Monte 1,592.66 3.66% $13,378 $4,919 $4,919 $23,216
City of So uth Pasadena 180.45 0.41% $1,516 $557 $557 $2,630
City ofTemple City 2,576.51 5.91% $21,642 $7,958 $7,958 $37,557
Rio Hondo (Tota l) 43,559.83 100% $385,144 $141,621 $141,621 $668,387
Page 31 of 38
T a ble 3b. Di s tribut ion o f Costs for Non-Stormwa t e r Outfall Monitori n g in Arroy_o S eco .
No n-Stormwater Outfa ll Monitorin g (Ar r oyo Seco) Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Tota l 15-16 16·17 17·18
Inv e ntory and 6 screening Events $55,397 $0 $0 $55,397
So urce Inve st igations $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000
Non -Stormwater Outfa ll Monitoring $41,718 $41,718 $41,718 $125,155
Da t a Ma n ageme nt (15 %) $20,567 $6,258 $6,258 $33,083
Program Management {5%) $7,884 $2,399 $2,399 $12,682
Monito ring Co st Su b-Tota l $165,566 $50,375 $50,3 75 $266,316
Contingency {10%) $16,557 $5,037 $5,037 $26,632
Annua l Escala t ion (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,108 $1,108 $2,216
Arroyo Seco (Tota l) $18 2,123 $56,520 $56,520 $295,164
Agency La n d Area %of Fisca l Year Fi sca l Year Fisca l Yea r Tota l (acres) Area 15 -16 16 -17 17·18
LA CFCD {5%) $9,106 $2,826 $2,826 $14,758
City of Lo s Angele s 3,9 36 .6 6 27.73% $47,972 $14,888 $14,888 $77,74 8
County of Los Angeles 2,361.13 16.63% $28,773 $8,929 $8,9 29 $46,632
City of Glenda le 9 .39 0.07% $114 $36 $36 $186
City of La Canada Fli ntridge 3,791 .77 26.71% $46,207 $14,340 $14,340 $74,886
City o f Pa sadena 3,586.72 25.2 6% $43,708 $13,564 $13,564 $70,837
City of South Pa s adena 512.25 3.61% $6,242 $1,937 $1,937 $10,117
Arroyo Seco {Total) 14,197.93 100% $182,123 $56,520 $56,520 $295,164
Page 32 of 38
Table 3c. Distribution of Costs for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitorin£1 in Sesment E of Los Anseles River.
Non-Stormwat e r Outfall Monit o r ing (Seg m e n t E) Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Tot a l 15-16 16-17 17-18
Inventory an d 6 sc ree n ing Eve nts $89,880 $0 $0 $89,880
Source In vestigat io ns $60,000 $0 $0 $60,0 00
No n-Stormwater Outfa ll Monito ring $0 $82,052 $82,052 $164,104
Data Management (15%) $22,482 $12,30 8 $12,308 $47,098
Program Managem ent (5%) $8,618 $4,7 1 8 $4,718 $18,054
Monitoring Cost Sub-Tota l $180,980 $99,078 $99,078 $379,136
Contingency (10%) $18,098 $9,908 $9,908 $37,914
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $2,180 $2,180 $4,359
Segment E (Total) $199,079 $111,165 $111,165 $421,409
Agency land Area %of Fisca l Year Fisca l Year Fisca l Year Total (acres) Area 15-16 16-17 17-18
LACFCD (5%) $9,954 $5,558 $5,558 $2 1,070
Ci t y o f Lo s Ange le s 30,933.21 78.68% $148,800 $83,090 $83,090 $314,981
Co unty of Los Ange les 8,382.73 21.32% $40,324 $22,517 $22,517 $85,358
Segment E (Total) 39,315.94 100% $199,079 $111,165 $111,165 $421,409
Table 3d. Distribution of Costs for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitorin9 in Com ~ton Creek.
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Co m pton Creek) Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Fisca l Year To t a l 15-16 16-17 1 7-18
Invent ory and 6 screening Events $77,454 $0 $0 $77,454
Source Investigations $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000
Non-Stormwater O utfa ll Monitoring $0 $0 $47,990 $47,990
Data Ma n agement (15%) $11,6 18 $7,500 $7,198 $26,317
Program Managem e nt (5%) $4,454 $2,875 $2,759 $10,088
Monitoring Cost Sub -Tota l $93,525 $60,375 $57,948 $211,848
Conti ngency (10%) $9,353 $6,038 $5,795 $21,185
Annual Esca lation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,328 $1,275 $2,603
Compton Creek (Total) $102,878 $67,741 $65,018 $235,636
Agency l and Area %of Fiscal Year Fi sca l Year Fiscal Year To t a l (acres) Area 15-16 16-17 17-18
LAC FCD (5 %) $5,144 $3,387 $3,251 $11,782
City of Los Ange les 10,602 .17 62.91% $61,480 $40,482 $38,855 $140,817
Cou nty of Los Angeles 6,251.9 3 37.09% $3 6,254 $23,872 $22,912 $83,037
Compton Creek (Total) 16,854.11 100% $102,878 $67,741 $65,018 $235,636
Page 33 of 38
Table 3e. Distribution of Costs for Non-Stormwate r Outfall Monitoring in Segment B of Los Angeles River.
Non-Stormwat er Outfall Moni toring (Segment B) Fi sca l Yea r Fisca l Year Fisca l Year Total 15-16 16-17 1 7-18
Inventory and 6 scree ning Events $0 $0 $0 $0
Sou r ce Investigations $0 $40,000 $0 $40,000
N on-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $0 $33,798 $33,798
Data Man ageme nt (15 %) $0 $6,000 $5,070 $11,070
Program Management (5%) $0 $2,300 $1,943 $4,243
Monitoring Cost Sub-Tota l $0 $4 8,300 $40,811 $89,111
Contingency (10%) $0 $4,830 $4,081 $8,911
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,063 $898 $1,960
Segment B (Total) $0 $54,193 $45,790 $99,983
Agency Land Area %of Fi sca l Year Fisca l Year Fisca l Year Tota l (acr es) Area 15-16 16-17 17-18
LACFCD (5%) $0 $2,710 $2,290 $4,999
City of Los Angeles 15,089 .17 62.03% $0 $3 1,933 $26,982 $58,915
Count y of Lo s Ange l es 5,152.65 21.18% $0 $10,904 $9,214 $20,118
City of Alhambr a 1,573.00 6.47% $0 $3,329 $2,813 $6,142
City of Monterey Park 952.18 3.9 1% $0 $2,015 $1,703 $3,718
City of Pasadena 66.59 0.27% $0 $141 $119 $260
City of South Pa sadena 1,493.50 6.14% $0 $3,161 $2,671 $5,831
Segment B (Total) 24,327.09 100% $0 $54,193 $45,790 $99,983
Note:
1. For Non-stormwater Ou tfall Monitori ng, Los Angeles County Fl ood Con trol District (LAC FCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is
subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.
2 . Distributed Cost to each Party with in a given Segmen t or T ributary= [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs -LACFD 5%) x Agency
Percent Area].
Page 34 of 38
Ta ble 3f. Dis t ribution o f Costs f o r Legg La k e Receiving Water Monitoring.
legg Lake Rece iving Water Monitoring Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Tota l 15-16 16-17 17-18
Receiving Wat e r Mo nito ring $15,458 $15,458 $15,458 $46,373
Da t a Man agement (15 %) $2,319 $2,319 $2,3 19 $6,956
Program Ma na gement (5%) $889 $889 $889 $2,666
Moni t o r ing Cost Sub-Total $18,665 $18,665 $18,665 $55,996
Conti ngen cy (10%) $1 ,867 $1,86 7 $1,867 $5,600
An nual Escala ti o n (0 %, 2%, 2%) $0 $411 $411 $8 21
legg lake (Total) $20,532 $20,942 $20,942 $62,417
Agen cy La nd Area %of Fisca l Year Fi sca l Year Fiscal Year Tota l (acres) Ar ea 15-16 16-17 17-18
LA CFCD (5%) $1,027 $1,047 $1,04 7 $3,121
Co u nty of Los Ange les 2,0 44.6 8 5 6.2 1% $10,96 5 $11,184 $11,184 $33,332
Cit y of So uth El Monte 1,59 2.6 8 43.79% $8,541 $8,712 $8,712 $25,964
legg lake (Tot a l) 3 ,637.35 100% $20,532 $20,94 2 $20,942 $62,417
Table 3g. Distribution of Costs for Arroyo Seco Load Reduction Strategy Document Preparation .
Agency l a nd Ar e a %of Fi sca l Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acre s) Area 15-16 16 -1 7 17-18
LACFCD (10%) $3,6 75 $0 $0 $3,675
City of Los Ange les 3,9 36.6 6 2 7 .73% $9,171 $0 $0 $9,171
County of Los Ange le s 2,361.13 16.63% $5,500 $0 $0 $5,500
City of Gle nd a le 9.39 0 .07% $22 $0 $0 $22
Cit y of La Cana da Flintridge 3 ,791.77 2 6 .7 1% $8,833 $0 $0 $8,833
Cit y of Pasadena 3,586.72 25.26% $8,3 56 $0 $0 $8,356
City of So uth Pasa d e na 512.25 3 .61% $1,193 $0 $0 $1,193
Arroyo Seco lRS (Total) 14,197.93 100% $36,750 $0 $0 $36,750
Pag e 35 of 38
EXHIB IT 8
U pper Los Ange les River Enhanced Watershed Management Area CIMP
Respons i ble Agenc ies Representati ves
City of Montebello Norma Sali nas
1600 W Beverly B lvd E-mail: Nsali nas@cityofmontebello.com
Montebello , CA 90640 Phone: 323-887-1365
Fax: 323-887-1410
City of Monterey Park AmyHo
320 West Newmark Avenue E-mail: amho@montereypark.ca.gov
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2896 Mikki Klee
E-mai l: mklee@jlh a.net
Phone: (562) 802-7880
Fax: (562) 802-2297
City of Pasadena Stephen Walker
P .O . Box 7115 E-mail: SWalker@cit yofpasadena .net
Pasadena , CA 91109-7215 Phone: (626) 7 44-4271
Fax:
City of Rosemead , Anthony La
8838 East Vall ey Blvd . E-mail: a la@cityofrosemead.org
Rosemead , CA 9 1770 -1787 Phone: (626) 569-2 118
City of San Fernando J oe Bellomo
117 Macneil Street Email: jbellomo@willdan.com
San Ferna ndo, CA 91340 Phone: (805) 279-6856
City of San Gabriel Daren Grill ey
425 South Mission Av enue E-mail : dgrilley@sgch.org
Sa n Gabriel, CA 91775 Phone:
Fax:
City of San Marino Kevin Sales
2200 Huntington Drive E-mail : kjserv@ao l.com
San Marino , CA 91108-2691 Phone:
Fax:
City of South El Monte [in se rt nam e]
[in se rt address] E-mail :
Phone:
Fax:
City of South Pasadena Shin Furukawa
1414 Mission Street E-mail : SF urukawa@ci.south-pasadena.ca.us
South Pasadena, CA 91020-3298 Phone: (626) 403-7246
Fax:
City of Temple City Michael Forbes, AICP, Community Development Director
9701 Las Tunas Drive E-mail:
Temple Ci t y, CA 9178 Mikki Klee
E-mail : mklee@j lha.net
Phone: (562) 802-7880
Fax: (562) 802-2297
Page 37 of 38