HomeMy Public PortalAboutAgreement_2016-02-23_Los Angeles County_Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Area_Admin and Cost ShareMEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA, THE CITY OF
BURBANK, THE CITY OF CALABASAS, THE CITY OF GLENDALE, THE CITY OF
HIDDEN HILLS, THE CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE, THE CITY OF
MONTEBELLO, THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, THE CITY OF PASADENA, THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, THE CITY OF SAN
GABRIEL, THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE, THE
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, LOS ANGELES
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING FOR IMPLEMENTING
THE COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM (GIMP)
FOR THE UPPER LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERSHED MANGAGEMENT AREA
This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), made and entered into as of the date of the
last signature set forth below by and between THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (CITY), a
municipal corporation, THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA, a municipal corporation, THE CITY
OF BURBANK, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF CALABASAS, a municipal
corporation, THE CITY OF GLENDALE, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF
HIDDEN HILLS, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE, a
municipal corporation, THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, a municipal corporation, THE
CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF PASADENA, a
municipal corporation, THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a municipal corporation, THE CITY
OF SAN FERNANDO, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, a
municipal corporation, THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, a municipal corporation, THE CITY
OF SOUTH EL MONTE, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, a
municipal corporation, THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, a municipal corporation, LOS
ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (LACFCD), a body corporate and
politic, the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (COUNTY), a political subdivision of the State
of California. Collectively, these entities shall be known herein as PARTIES or
individually as PARTY.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board)
have classified the Greater Los Angeles County MS4 as a large municipal separate
storm sewer system (MS4) pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.26(b)(4) and a major facility
pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.2; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Board adopted National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Order No. R4-
2012-0175 (MS4 Permit); and
Page 1 of 38
41
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 1 of 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
V
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
Section 7. THE PARTIES AGREE:
a. Monitorinq Services. The CITY will perform the MONITORING SERVICES to
support the PARTIES submittal of the MS4 Permit Annual Report per the
practices found in the approved CIMP. The CITY may modify this MOA through
an amendment approved by all PARTIES, when conditions, such as but not
limited to, expansion of CIMP requirements, impact annual costs.
b. Reporting. The PARTIES authorize the CITY to prepare and submit semi-annual
and annual analytical monitoring reports to the Regional Board as described in
the CIMP as well as electronic files if requested by the Regional Board. The CITY
shall distribute the semi-annual and annual reports to the PARTIES 15 days prior
to its intended date of submittal to the Regional Board. The PARTIES may
review the monitoring report and submitted comments to the CITY prior to its
submittal to the Regional Board. The CITY has control of the submittal but shall
discuss the PARTIES' comments as they apply to the report.
c. Invoicing. The CITY will invoice the PARTIES annually, not exceeding the
amounts shown in Table 1 of Exhibit A.
Section 8. Invoicing and Payment.
a. Annual Payment. The PARTIES shall pay the CITY for their proportional share of
the estimated cost for MONITORING SERVICES as shown in Table 1 of Exhibit
A, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the invoice from the CITY. The cost
estimates presented in Exhibit A have been agreed upon by the PARTIES and
are subject to change, through an amendment, pursuant to unforeseen
challenges.
b. Invoice. The CITY will invoice the PARTIES in amounts not exceeding the
invoice amounts shown in Table 1 of Exhibit A. The annual invoices will be
issued in July of each calendar year. The first invoice will be distributed upon the
execution of this MOA.
c. Program Management Fee. The costs of MONITORING SERVICES in Exhibit A
include a Program Management Fee in the amount of 5%.
d. Incidental Expenses. The CITY will attempt to notify the PARTIES if actual
expenditures for MONITORING SERVICES are anticipated to exceed the cost
estimates contained in Exhibit A. A ten (10%) contingency to cover Incidental
Expenses is already factored into the cost estimates in Exhibit A. Incidental
costs greater than ten percent (10%) will require an amendment to this MOA.
e. Reconciliation of this MOA. Unexpended costs for variable costs at the
termination of this MOA will either be reimbursed to the PARTIES by the CITY in
Page 4 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
GAIL FARBER, Director of Public Works
Mary C. Wickham
Interim County Counsel
M
Deputy
Page 10 of 38
Date
Date
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
By
GAIL FARBER, Chief Engineer Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mary C. Wickham
Interim County Counsel
Deputy
Page 11 of 38
Date
CITY OF ALHAMBRA
Luis Ayala
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Lauren Myles
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LIZ
Joseph M. Montes, Esq.
City Attorney
Page 12 of 38
Date
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Date:
ATTEST:
Holly Wolcott
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
0
Michael N. Feuer
City Attorney
John A. Carvalho
City Attorney
al
Page 13 of 38
Kevin James, President
Board of Public Works
THE CITY OF BURBANK
Dated:
ATTEST:
Mark Scott, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C Y1►'L�) IHi17:116N.I:4
5z
Bob Frutos, Mayor
Joseph H. McDougall, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Page 14 of 38
THE CITY OF CALABASAS
Dated:
ATTEST:
Maricela Hernandez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott Howard, Interim City Attorney
CITY OF CALABASAS
59
Page 15 of 38
Gaines, Mayor
THE CITY OF GLENDALE
Dated: CITY OF GLENDALE
ATTEST:
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael Garcia, City Attorney
iIm
Ara Najarian, Mayor
Page 16 of 38
THE CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS
Dated:
ATTEST:
Cherie L. Paglia, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Roxanne M. Diaz, City Attorney
CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS
IS Al
Larry G. Weber, Mayor
Page 17 of 38
THE CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
Dated:
Evv-1449
Mark R. Alexander, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark Steres, City Attorney
a
Dave Spence, Mayor
Page 18 of 38
THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO
Dated: CITY OF MONTEBELLO
Christina Cortez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Daniel Hernandez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Arnold Alvarez-Glasman, City Attorney
Page 19 of 38
CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Date:
By:
Paul Talbot, City Manager
ATTEST:
L-A
Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney
Page 20 of 38
Dated:
WlMmw
Mark Jomsky, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Brad L. Fuller, Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF PASADENA
:A
Michael J. Beck, City Manager
Page 21 of 38
[a) twill) a 0Z1111 0461DI:\ 17
Dated:
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
In
Jeff Allred, City Manager
Page 22 of 38
THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO
Dated: CITY OF SAN FERNANDO
lvsm.4W
Elena G. ChAvez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rick R. Olivarez, City Attorney
Joel Fajardo, Mayor
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
a
Steven A. Preston, City Manager
Page 24 of 38
CITY OF SAN MARINO
Dated:
ATTEST:
John Schaefer, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steve Dorsey, City Attorney
CITY OF SAN MARINO
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
a
[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
Lm
Sergio Gonzalez, City Manager
Page 27 of 38
CITY OF THE TEMPLE CITY
Date: 2 [ �� / v I
ATTEST:
— &V�
WW
Peggy Kiffo, tio Clerk
APPROVED AS TO F
Eric S. Vail, City Attorney
CITY OFTEMPLE CITY
By `
Tom Chavez, Me&or
Page 28 of 38
EXHIBIT A
Table 1. Distribution of Total Estimated Cost for Implementing the ULAR CIMP
Agency
Fiscal Year
15-16
Fiscal Year
16.17
Fiscal Year
17-18
Total
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 EI 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:
t. The Total Estimated Cost for each agency is the sum of General Monitoring Costs (refer to Table 2, Exhibit A) plus the costs for NonStormwater
Outfall Monitoring, Legg Lake Receiving Water Monitoring, and Arroyo Sew 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, which are also detailed In Tables 2 and 3a -f in
Exhibit A.
Page 29 of 38
Table 2. Distribution of General Monitoring Costs.
LIMP Component Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 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 Services: Annual Report, Dara Tools, 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
Note:
1. General Monitoring Costs Include all required monitodng 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 / Total Area) x 100%
6. Distributed Cost to each Party = [(Total of General Monitoring Costs -LACFD 5%) xAgency Percent Area].
Page 30 of 38
Land Area
%of
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Total
Agency
(acres)
Area
15-16
16-17
17-18
LACFCD (S%)
-
-
$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 EI 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 monitodng 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 / Total Area) x 100%
6. Distributed Cost to each Party = [(Total of General Monitoring Costs -LACFD 5%) xAgency Percent Area].
Page 30 of 38
Table 3a. Distribution of Costs for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring in Rio Hondo.
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Rio Hondo)
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Total
Fiscal Year
17.18
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 Outfall 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
Monitoring Cost Sub -Total
$350,131
$126,222
$126,222
$602,576
Contingency (10%)
$35,013
$12,622
$12,622
$60,258
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%)
$0
$2,777
$2,777
$5,554
Rio Hondo (Total)
$385,144
$141,621
$141,621
$668,387
Agency
Land Area
(acres)
%of
Area
Fiscal Year
15-16
Fiscal Year
16-17
Fiscal Year
17.18
Total
LACFCD (5%)
--
--
$19,257
$7,081
$7,081
$33,419
County of Los Angeles
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 Gabriel
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 EI Monte
1,592.66
3.66%
$13,378
$4,919
$4,919
$23,216
City of South Pasadena
180.45
0.41%
$1,516
$557
$557
$2,630
City of Temple City
2,576.51
5.91%
$21,642
$7,958
$7,958
$37,557
Rio Hondo (Total)
43,559.83
100%
$385,144
$141,621
$141,621
$668,387
Page 31 of 38
Table 3b. Distribution of Costs for NonStormwater Outfall Monitoring in Arroyo Seco.
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Arroyo Sew) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total
15-16 16-17 17-18
Inventory and 6 screening Events
$55,397
- $0
$0
$55,397
Source Investigations
$40,000
$0
$0
$40,000
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
$41,718
$41,718
$41,718
$125,155
Data Management (15%)
$20,567
$6,258
$6,258
$33,083
Program Management (5%)
$7,884
$2,399
$2,399
$12,682
Monitoring Cost Sub -Total
$165,566
$50,375
$50,375
$266,316
Contingency (10%)
$16,557
$5,037
$5,037
$26,632
Annual Escalation (0%,2%,2%)
$0
$1,108
$1,108
$2,216
Arroyo Seco (Total)
$182,123
$56,520
$56,520
$295,164
Agency
Area
(acres)
(acres)
%of
Area
Fiscal Year
15-16
Fiscal Year
16.17
Fiscal Year
17-18
Total
LACFCD(5%)
-
--
$9,106
$2,826
$2,826
$14,758
City of Los Angeles
3,936.66
27.73%
$47,972
$14,888
$14,888
$77,748
County of Los Angeles
2,361.13
16.63%
$28,773
$8,929
$8,929
$46,632
City of Glendale
9.39
0.07%
$114
$36
$36
$186
City of La Canada Flintridge
3,791.77
26.71%
$46,207
$14,340
$14,340
$74,886
City of Pasadena
3,586.72
25.26%
$43,708
$13,564
$13,564
$70,837
City of South Pasadena
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 NonStormwater Outfall Monitoring in Segment E of Los Angeles River.
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Segment E) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total
15-16 16-17 17-18
Inventory and 6 screening Events
$89,880
$0
$0
$89,880
Source Investigations
$60,000
$0
$0
$60,000
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
$0
$82,052
$82,052
$164,104
Data Management (15%)
$22,482
$12,308
$12,308
$47,098
Program Management (5%)
$8,618
$4,718
$4,718
$18,054
Monitoring Cost Sub -Total
$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
Inventory and 6 screening Events
Land Area %of
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Total
Agency
(acres) Area
15-16
16-17
17-18
$0
LACFCD (5%)
-- --
$9,954
$5,558
$5,558
$21,070
City of Los Angeles
30,933.21 78.68%
$148,800
$83,090
$83,090
$314,981
County of Los Angeles
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 NonStormwater Outfall Monitoring in Compton
Creek.
$1,275
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Compton Creek)
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Total
$235,636
15-16
16-17
17-18
Inventory and 6 screening Events
$77,454
$0
$0
$77,454
Source Investigations
$0
$50,000
$0
$50,000
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
$0
$0
$47,990
$47,990
Data Management (15%)
$11,618
$7,500
$7,198
$26,317
Program Management (5%)
$4,454
$2,875
$2,759
$10,088
Monitoring Cost Sub -Total
$93,525
$60,375
$57,948
$211,848
Contingency (10%)
$9,353
$6,038
$5,795
$21,185
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%)
$0
$1,328
$1,275
$2,603
Compton Creek (Total)
$102,878
$67,741
$65,018
$235,636
Agency
Land Area
(acres)
%of
Area
Fiscal Year
15-16
Fiscal Year
16-17
Fiscal Year
17.18
Total
LACFCD (5%)
--
--
$5,144
$3,387
$3,251
$11,782
City of Los Angeles
10,602.17
62.91%
$61,480
$40,482
$38,855
$140,817
County of Los Angeles
6,251.93
37.09%
$36,254
$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 NonStormwater Outfall Monitoring in Segment B of Los Angeles River.
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Segment B) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total
15.16 16-17 17-18
Inventory and 6 screening Events
$0
$0
$0
$0
Source Investigations
$0
$40,000
$0
$40,000
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring
$0
$0
$33,798
$33,798
Data Management (15%)
$0
$6,000
$5,070
$11,070
Program Management (5°%)
$0
$2,300
$1,943
$4,243
Monitoring Cost Sub -Total
$0
$48,300
$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
(acres)
%of
Area
Fiscal Year
15-16
Fiscal Year
16-17
Fiscal Year
17-18
Total
LACFCD (5%)
--
--
$0
$2,710
$2,290
$4,999
City of Los Angeles
15,089.17
62.03%
$0
$31,933
$26,982
$58,915
County of Los Angeles
5,152.65
21.18%
$0
$10,904
$9,214
$20,118
City of Alhambra
1,573.00
6.47%
$0
$3,329
$2,813
$6,142
City of Monterey Park
952.18
3.91%
$0
$2,015
$1,703
$3,718
City of Pasadena
66.59
0.27%
$0
$141
$119
$260
City of South Pasadena
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 Ouffall Monitoring, Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LAC FCD) is responsible for 5°%of the Total Cost, which is
subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Partes.
2. Distributed Cost to each Parry within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs -LACFD 5%) x Agency
Percent Area].
Page 34 of 38
Table 3f. Distribution of Costs for Legg Lake Receiving Water Monitorin
Legg Lake Receiving Water Monitoring
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
FiscalYear
Total
Fiscal Year
15-16
16-17
17-18
Area
Receiving Water Monitoring
$15,458
$15,458
$15,458
$46,373
Data Management (15%)
$2,319
$2,319
$2,319
$6,956
Program Management (5%)
$889
$889
$889
$2,666
Monitoring Cost Sub -Total
$18,665
$18,665
$18,665
$55,996
Contingency (10%)
$1,867
$1,867
$1,867
$5,600
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%,2%)
$0
$411
$411
$821
Legg Lake (Total)
$20,532
$20,942
$20,942
$62,417
Table 3g. Distribution of Costs for Arroyo Seco Load Reduction Strategy Document Preparation.
Agency
Land Area
%of
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Total
Agency
(acres)
Area
15-16
16-17
17.18
$3,675
LACFCD (5%)
--
--
$1,027
$1,047
$1,047
$3,121
Countyof Los Angeles
2,044.68
56.21%
$10,965
$11,184
$11,184
$33,332
City of South EI Monte
1,592.68
43.79%
$8,541
$8,712
$8,712
$25,964
Legg Lake (Total)
3,637.35
100%
$20,532
$20,942
$20,942
$62,417
Table 3g. Distribution of Costs for Arroyo Seco Load Reduction Strategy Document Preparation.
Agency
Land Area
(acres)
%of
Area
Fiscal Year
15-16
Fiscal Year
16-17
Fiscal Year
17-18
Total
LACFCD (10%)
-
--
$3,675
$0
$0
$3,675
City of Los Angeles
3,936.66
27.73%
$9,171
$0
$0
$9,171
County of Los Angeles
2,361.13
16.63%
$5,500
$0
$0
$5,500
City of Glendale
9.39
0.07%
$22
$0
$0
$22
City of La Canada Flintridge
3,791.77
26.71%
$8,833
$0
$0
$8,833
City of Pasadena
3,586.72
25.26%
$8,356
$0
$0
$8,356
City of South Pasadena
512.25
3.61%
$1,193
$0
$0
$1,193
Arroyo Seco LRS (Total)
14,197.93
100%
$36,750
$0
$0
$36,750
Page 35 of 38
EXHIBIT B
Upper Los Angeles River Enhanced Watershed Management Area CIMP
Responsible Agencies Representatives
Agency Address
Agency Contact
City of Los Angeles
Shahram Kharaghani
Department of Public Works
E-mail: Shahram.Kharaghani@Lacity.org
Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division
Phone: (213) 485-0587
1149 S. Broadway
Fax: (213) 485-3939
Los Angeles, CA 90015
County of Los Angeles
Paul Alva
Department of Public Works
E-mail: PALVA@dpw.lacounty.gov
Watershed Management Division, 111�' Floor
Phone: (626) 458-4325
900 South Fremont Avenue
Fax: (626) 457-1526
Alhambra CA 91803-1331
Los Angeles County Flood Control District
Terri Grant
Department of Public Works
E-mail: TGRANT@dpw.lacounty.gov
Watershed Management Division, 11" Floor
Phone: (626) 458-4309
900 South Fremont Avenue
Fax: (626) 457-1526
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
City of Alhambra
David Dolphin
11 South First Street
E-mail: DDOLPHIN@cityofalhambra.org
Alhambra, XA 91801-3796
Phone: (626) 300-1571
Fax:
City of Burbank
Alvin Cruz
P.O. Box 6459
E-mail: ACruz@burbankca.gov
Burbank, CA 91510
Phone: (818) 238-3941
Fax:
City of Calabasas
Alex Farassati
100 Civic Center Way
E-mail: afarassati@cityofcalabasas.com
Calabasas, CA 91302-3172
Phone:
Fax:
City of Glendale
Maurice Oillataguerre
Engineering Section, 633 East Broadway, Room 209
E-mail: moillataguerre@ci.glendale.ca.us
Glendale, CA 91206-4308
Phone:
Fax:
City of Hidden Hills
Joe Bellomo
6165 Spring Valley Road
jbellomo@willdan.com
Hidden Hills, CA 91302
Phone: 805 279-6856
City of La Canada Flintridge
Edward Hitti
1327 Foothill Blvd.
E-mail: EHitti@lcf.ca.gov
La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011-2137
Phone: 818-790-8882
Fax:818-70-8897
Page 36 of 38
EXHIBIT B
Upper Los Angeles River Enhanced Watershed Management Area CIMP
Responsible Agencies Representatives
City of Montebello
Norma Salinas
1600 W Beverly Blvd
E-mail: Nsalinas@cityofmontebello.com
Montebello, CA 90640
Phone: 323-887-1365
Fax: 323-887-1410
City of Monterey Park
Amy Ho
320 West Newmark Avenue
E-mail: amho@montereypark.ra.gov
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2896
Mikki Klee
E-mail: mklee@jlha.net
Phone: (562) 802-7880
Fax: 562 802-2297
City of Pasadena
Stephen Walker
P.O. Box 7115
E-mail: SWalker@cityofpasadena.net
Pasadena, CA 91109-7215
Phone: (626) 744-4271
Fax:
City of Rosemead,
Anthony La
8838 East Valley Blvd.
E-mail: ala@cityofrosemead.org
Rosemead, CA 91770-1787
Phone: (626) 569-2118
City of San Fernando
Joe Bellomo
117 Macneil Street
Email: jbellomo@willdan.com
San Fernando, CA 91340
Phone: (805) 279-6856
City of San Gabriel
Daren Grilley
425 South Mission Avenue
E-mail: dgdlley@sgch.org
San Gabriel, CA 91775
Phone:
Fax:
City of San Marino
Kevin Sales
2200 Huntington Drive
E-mail: kjserv@aol.com
San Marino, CA 91108-2691
Phone:
Fax:
City of South EI Monte
[insert name]
jinsert address]
E-mail:
Phone:
Fax:
City of South Pasadena
Shin Furukawa
1414 Mission Street
E-mail: SFurukawa@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 City, CA 9178
Mikki Klee
E-mail: mklee@jlha.net
Phone: (562) 802-7880
Fax: 562 802-2297
Page 37 of 38
EXHIBIT C
Upper Los Angeles River Enhanced Watershed Management Area Group
San Fernando
1,517.64
0.49%
San Gabriel
2,64487
0B5%
San Marina
2,109.64
0.)e%
South El Monte
1,594,16
0.51%
South Pasadena
2,186.20
0.71%
Tmple0ty
2,576.50
0B3%
LMFco
. m, n. a.x nwee woe. ceatms.a.u+
Group Tatd
309,75733
100%
LEGEND
moommoss Los Angeles River
--'j Upper Los Angeles Upper LA Watershed Group
l—.._t watershed Boundary Participating in this EWMP
Flood Control O Upper LA watershed Agencies not
-- -- Dishict Territory Participating In this EWMP
+.sa+" „rr... - a—.-- ...._. .
taint IFWMP Ananias
Page 38 of 38
euaEnu at: snMrnnor4
BlW WEE. SIWe1M1 gWUGYAN
•'�'
OR PRCGBN.I IAWAC9l
gaECrOFt
[eANN Bf: Clltl:AE➢BY:
0/aEfRFAIm
6161)
mF m.p N.n nWXemrav ,mv++.K.YvwYp„
emeebawrouvn v�aaWvinwn. w�9w
an x6,4s®
uvsrw_ewasPpeMu
nt w
. m, n. a.x nwee woe. ceatms.a.u+
k+s
w n�awwoe eu
Page 38 of 38