HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2022 0907 CCSA REG ITEM 09ACITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of September 7, 2022
ACTION APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION INCLUDING
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NOS. 2022-
4122 AND 2022-4123. (ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-
0, COUNCILMEMBER POLLOCK ABSENT)
BY A. Hurtado.
A. Consider a $35,000 Agreement with Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site
Services (GCCSS) for Wireless Telecommunications Facility Consulting Services;
Consider Resolution No. 2022-4122 Amending Fees for Small Wireless Facilities
within the City’s Right-of-Way; and Consider Resolution No. 2022-4123 to Amend
the City’s Fiscal Year 2022/23 Annual Budget. Staff Recommendation: 1) Approve
an agreement with Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site Services for
wireless telecommunications facility consulting services, and authorize the Mayor
to execute the agreement, subject to final language approval by the City Manager,
and authorize the City Manager to execute up to two one-year extensions of the
agreement with a not-to-exceed value of $35,000 annually; 2) Adopt Resolution
No. 2022-4122 to amend fees for small wireless facility permits within the City’s
right-of-way and rescinding Resolution No. 2020-3977; and 3) Adopt Resolution
No. 2022-4123 to amend the FY 2022/23 Annual Budget to fund the agreement
with GCCSS and corresponding offsetting revenues. (Staff: Brian Chong,
Assistant to the City Manager) (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED)
Item: 9.A.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Brian Chong, Assistant to the City Manager
DATE: 09/07/2022 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider a $35,000 Agreement with Gunnerson Consulting &
Communication Site Services (GCCSS) for Wireless
Telecommunications Facility Consulting Services; Consider
Resolution No. 2022-__ Amending Fees for Small Wireless Facilities
within the City’s Right-of-Way; and Consider Resolution No. 2022-__
to Amend the City’s Fiscal Year 2022/23 Annual Budget
SUMMARY
On February 23, 2022, the City Council conducted a special meeting to discuss the
Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) regulations about small wireless
facilities. At the meeting, the City Council directed staff to, among other things,
commission a firm to conduct post-installation radio frequency (RF) emissions testing at
small wireless facilities to ensure they are operating within FCC limits. On April 12,
2022, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for these wireless
telecommunications consulting services. The City received one proposal, but it was
subsequently withdrawn. On June 9, 2022, the City issued a new RFP and received
two responses.
It is recommended that the City Council approve an agreement with Gunnerson
Consulting & Communication Site Services (GCCSS) for wireless telecommunications
facility consulting services, amend the City’s small wireless facility permit fees to reflect
the costs of these services, and amend the City’s FY 2022/23 Annual Budget to reflect
the corresponding additional revenues and expenditures.
BACKGROUND
In response to ongoing community concerns surrounding the installation of small
wireless facilities, the City Council conducted a special meeting on February 23, 2022 to
discuss the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling and Third report and Order (“FCC Order”)
Item: 9.A.
983
Honorable City Council
09/07/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 2
regarding regulation of small wireless facilities. The FCC Order, which went into effect
on April 15, 2019, preempts state and local government regulations that:
• Ban wireless services
• “Materially inhibit” wireless service; or
• Prevent a service provider from closing a significant gap in its service
coverage, densifying a network, or improving existing service.
Local governments are also notably limited with respect to consideration of health and
environmental effects of RF emissions from wireless facilities. Even before the FCC
Order, the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided:
No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s]
regulations concerning such emissions.
Due to this rule, the City cannot adopt regulations for wireless facilities based on
possible health impacts from RF emissions, as long as a facility meets FCC standards.
The City’s current review process for small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way
was developed by the Telecom Law Firm, a consultant hired by the City. Currently,
Public Works staff reviews applications and plans for proposed small wireless facilities
in the public right-of-way to ensure compliance with the City’s small wireless facility
regulations, subject to the FCC’s restrictive limits on what local governments are
allowed to regulate.
While staff can easily review most components of an application, such as the size of the
facility and consent of the property owner (e.g., the City, if a facility is proposed on a
City-owned streetlight), some items require specific credentials and expertise to review.
For example, the City does not currently employ an RF engineer to confirm the RF
emission calculations submitted by an RF engineer as part of a small wireless facility
application. Rather the City requires an RF engineer to self-certify that the RF
emissions meet FCC standards. As a second example, small wireless facility applicants
currently self-certify that a proposed facility will close a service gap, which is necessary
for a facility to be eligible for the FCC’s small wireless facility preemption. To provide
additional double-checks of these and other technical components of small wireless
facility permit applications, the City could retain a third-party consultant to confirm these
components.
At the February 23, 2022 special City Council meeting, the City Council discussed the
commissioning of a firm to conduct a post-installation RF emissions test at small
wireless facilities to ensure that they are indeed operating within FCC limits. The
984
Honorable City Council
09/07/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 3
current regulatory framework is based on modeling, where an RF engineer calculates
the RF emissions based on the numbers and types of telecommunications apparatuses
that are proposed at a site.
On April 12, 2022, the City released an RFP for wireless telecommunications facility
consulting services, whereby a selected consultant would provide a technical review of
small wireless facility permit applications and, upon the City’s request, would field test a
wireless telecommunications facility to determine compliance with FCC standards. The
City received one proposal, but it was subsequently withdrawn.
On May 18, 2022, in follow-up to the City Council’s February 23, 2022 special City
Council meeting, the City Council received a report on small wireless facility regulatory
and legal considerations, approved updates to the City’s development standards for
small wireless facilities, directed staff to encourage federal lawmakers to revisit the
FCC’s RF emissions standards that were adopted as part of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. Staff also advised the City Council that a new RFP would be circulated.
On June 9, 2022, the City issued the new RFP for wireless telecommunications facility
consulting services.
DISCUSSION
The City received two proposals in response to the RFP, from Center for Municipal
Solutions (CMS) and from Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site Services
(GCCSS). A review committee comprised of staff from the Public Works Department,
Community Development Department, and City Manager’s Office reviewed both
proposals.
The committee found that the proposal from CMS was not responsive to the RFP
because the firm does not provide the requested RF testing services that were required
as part of proposals.
The committee found that GCCSS is capable of providing the requested services,
including the RF testing. While based in Sequim, Washington, GCCSS proposes that
on-site field testing would be completed by a subconsultant, Centerline
Communications, a nationwide engineering firm.
For standard applications for a new facility, the GCCSS cost proposal is for a base fixed
fee of $1,000 per site. For co-location permit applications, which have fewer items to
review, a reduced fee of $500 is proposed. For applications requiring more than three
reviews, which would be extremely uncommon, an additional hourly rate of $250 would
apply. For field testing, the cost is a fixed fee of $1,600 per site for up to four sites, or
$1,100 per site for five or more sites in a single trip. The discounted amount reflects
reduced travel time for the subconsultant to drive to Moorpark.
985
Honorable City Council
09/07/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 4
In addition, the proposed agreement with GCCSS includes a retainer line item for
general consulting on wireless-related issues at a set hourly rate of $250/hour. Should
the City need GCCSS’s expertise on future wireless-related issues during the term of
the agreement, this would provide a mechanism for the City to procure it. If the City
does not utilize this option during the term of the agreement, then the City will not
assume any additional costs.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a two-year agreement with GCCSS
(Attachment 1), with a not-to-exceed amount of $35,000 and authorize the Mayor to
execute the agreement subject to final language approval by the City Manager.
Updated Fees for Small Wireless Facility Permits Within the City’s Right-of-Way
The City adopted the current application fees for small wireless facility permits within the
City’s right-of-way in December 2020. The current fee is $910 for an application
consisting of up to five small wireless facilities, plus $260 per site above five. This was
based on four hours of the City Engineer’s time and one hour of an Administrative
Assistant II’s time (for the base fee), and one hour of the City Engineer’s time and a
half-hour of an Administrative Assistant II’s time (for the additional sites).
If the City Council elects to retain the services of GCCSS to provide additional technical
reviews and field test small wireless facilities after they are activated, the City expects to
accrue additional costs of $2,600 per site for the first four sites, plus $2,100 per site for
the fifth or subsequent site on the same application. Staff recommends that these costs
be passed through to permit applicants.
It should be noted that these costs will be partially offset by some work being
transferred from City staff to GCCSS and by the City’s ability to then assign
responsibility for reviewing and processing a small wireless facility permit to an
Assistant Engineer instead of the City Engineer, as necessitated by the City’s current
workflows. For base applications where GCCSS completes part of the permit review,
staff estimates three hours of Assistant Engineer’s time and one hour of Administrative
Assistant II’s time, for a total cost of $430 in billable staff time. For additional locations
beyond the first site in a batched application, staff estimates an additional one hour of
Assistant Engineer’s time and a half-hour of an Administrative Assistant II’s time, for a
total cost of $157.50 in billable staff time.
986
Honorable City Council
09/07/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 5
When combined with the costs paid to GCCSS, these estimates result in the following
fees:
Current Fees Proposed Fees
$910 for applications for up to five small
wireless facility sites,
With an additional $260 for each additional site
on the same application.
$3,030 for applications for one small wireless facility
site,
With an additional $2,757.50 per site for a second,
third, or fourth additional site on the same
application,
With an additional $2,257.50 per site for fifth and
subsequent sites on the same application.
$910 for applications for a co-located small
wireless facility site.
$2,530 for applications for a co-located small
wireless facility site.
The FCC Order establishes “presumed reasonable” permit fees for local jurisdictions’
review of small wireless facilities of $500 for up to five small wireless facility sites, with
$100 for each additional site on the same application. However, the FCC also allows
jurisdictions to adopt fees higher than those “presumed reasonable” if the jurisdiction
can justify the fee. Staff believes that the proposed fees are thoughtfully generated and
justified. Changing parts of the City’s small wireless facility technical permit reviews
from a self-certification model to a verification model and conducting field testing are
reasonably related to the permitting process.
For reference, the City of Thousand Oaks adopted the FCC’s “presumed reasonable”
permit fees ($500 for up to five locations, plus $100 for additional locations). The City of
Simi Valley adopted a fee of $1,000 per location. It should be noted that, to staff’s
knowledge, neither of these neighboring cities conducts RF field tests, so their
respective fees do not reflect the testing costs.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-___ (Attachment 2)
to update the City’s fees for small wireless facility permits within the City’s right-of-way.
FY 2022/23 Annual Budget Amendment
The City’s adopted FY 2022/23 Annual Budget does not include $35,000 in funding for
wireless telecommunications consulting services, nor additional City revenues that the
City would receive from permit applications for small wireless facilities. To account for
the additional expenditures for the GCCSS services and the offsetting revenues from
passing the costs through to small wireless facility permit applicants, staff has prepared
987
Honorable City Council
09/07/2022 Regular Meeting
Page 6
Resolution No. 2022-___ (Attachment 3) to amend the City’s FY 2022/23 Annual
Budget. The Resolution is budget-neutral since all expenditures would be offset by
additional revenues.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City’s adopted FY 2022/23 Annual Budget does not include funding for third-party
wireless telecommunications consulting services that would fund the $35,000
agreement with Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site Services (GCCSS). If the
City Council approves the agreement, the City Council will need to amend the FY
2022/23 Annual Budget to fund the agreement (Attachment 3).
For future applications for small wireless facilities within the City’s right-of-way, the
additional expenditures will be fully offset by additional permit fee revenues collected as
part of the updated application fee, and there will be no net budget impact. Accordingly,
the recommended budget amendment resolution (Attachment 3) contains $35,000 in
additional revenues and $35,000 in additional expenditures.
However, if the City elects to test existing wireless facilities after installation has
occurred and the fees have been paid, the City would absorb the cost of testing and not
receive offsetting revenues. Funding for such testing of existing facilities would be
drawn from the General Fund’s fund balance
COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE
These actions do not support a current strategic directive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED)
1. Approve an agreement with Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site Services
(GCCSS) for wireless telecommunications facility consulting services, and authorize
the Mayor to execute the agreement, subject to final language approval by the City
Manager; and authorize the City Manager to execute up to two one-year extensions
of the agreement with a not-to-exceed value of $35,000 annually;
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___ to amend fees for small wireless facility permits
within the City’s right-of-way and rescinding Resolution No. 2020-3977; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-___ to amend the FY 2022/23 Annual Budget to fund the
agreement with GCCSS and corresponding offsetting revenues.
Attachment 1: Draft Agreement with Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site
Services (GCCSS)
Attachment 2: Draft Resolution No. 2022-___ Amending Fees for Small Wireless
Facilities within the City’s Right-of-Way
Attachment 3: Draft Resolution No. 2022-___ Amending the City’s FY 2022/23 Annual
Budget
988
ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment 1
Page 1-1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOORPARK AND
GUNNERSON CONSULTING & COMMUNICATION SITE SERVICES,
FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY CONSULTING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and effective as of this _________ day of
________________________, 2022, between the City of Moorpark, a municipal
corporation (“City”) and GUNNERSON CONSULTING & COMMUNICATION SITE
SERVICES, a ___________ (“Consultant”). In consideration of the mutual covenants
and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
WHEREAS, City has the need for wireless telecommunications facility consulting
services; and
WHEREAS, Consultant specializes in providing such services and has the proper
work experience, certifications, and background to carry out the duties involved; and
WHEREAS, Consultant has submitted to City a Proposal dated JULY 1, 2022,
which is attached hereto as Exhibits D and E.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, benefits, and
premises herein stated, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution through
December 31, 2024, unless this Agreement is extended, terminated, or suspended
pursuant to this Agreement.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
City does hereby retain Consultant, as an independent contractor, in a
contractual capacity to provide wireless telecommunications facility consulting services,
as set forth in Exhibits C and D. In the event there is a conflict between the provisions
of Exhibits C and D and this Agreement, the language contained in this Agreement shall
take precedence. In the event there is a conflict between the provisions of Exhibits C
and D, the language contained in Exhibit C shall take precedence.
Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibits C and D.
Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance, which is
also set forth in Exhibits C and D.
Compensation for the services to be performed by Consultant shall be in
accordance with Exhibit E. Compensation shall not exceed the rates or total annual
contract value of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) as stated in Exhibit E, without
a written amendment to the Agreement executed by both parties. Payment by City to
Consultant shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
989
Attachment 1
Page 1-2
3. PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of their ability,
experience, standard of care, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant
shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by
persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder
in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. MANAGEMENT
The individual directly responsible for Consultant’s overall performance of the
Agreement provisions herein above set forth and to serve as principal liaison between
City and Consultant shall be AIMEE BLAKESLEE, and no other individual may be
substituted without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
The subconsultant directly responsible for Consultant’s field testing shall be
subject to prior written approval by the City. Any subsequent change in field testing
subconsultant shall also be subject to the prior written approval by the City.
The City’s contact person in charge of administration of this Agreement, and to
serve as principal liaison between Consultant and City, shall be the City Manager or the
City Manager’s designee.
5. PAYMENT
Taxpayer ID or Social Security numbers must be provided, on an IRS W-9 form,
before payments may be made to vendors.
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment
rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit E. This amount shall
not exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) annually for the total term of the
Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
Consultant shall not be compensated for additional services rendered in
connection with its performance of this Agreement, unless such additional services and
compensation are authorized, in advance, in a written amendment to the agreement
executed by both parties. City and Consultant agree that travel expenses shall not be
provided for field testing services; travel costs are included in the fixed fee contained in
the Cost Proposal. The City Manager, if authorized by City Council, may approve
additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement.
Consultant shall submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon
thereafter as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be
made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. Any
expense or reimbursable cost appearing on any invoice shall be accompanied by a
receipt or other documentation subject to approval of the City Manager. If the City
990
Attachment 1
Page 1-3
disputes any of Consultant’s fees or expenses it shall give written notice to Consultant
within thirty (30) days of receipt of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
6. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION WITHOUT CAUSE
The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or
terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least
ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall
immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise.
If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or
termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
The Consultant may terminate this Agreement only by providing City with written
notice no less than thirty (30) days in advance of such termination.
In the event this Agreement is terminated or suspended pursuant to this Section,
the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of
termination or suspension, provided that the work performed is of value to the City.
Upon termination or suspension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the
Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to this Agreement.
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
The Consultant’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms
of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate or
suspend this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure
by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of
causes beyond the Consultant’s control, and without fault or negligence of the
Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
If the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee determines that the
Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this
Agreement, designee shall cause to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of
the default. The Consultant shall have seven (7) days after service upon it of said notice
in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that
the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the
right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this
Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it
may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
8. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
[This Section intentionally left blank]
991
Attachment 1
Page 1-4
9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales,
costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate
records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All
such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide
free access to the representatives of City or the City’s designees at reasonable times to
such books and records; shall give the City the right to examine and audit said books
and records; shall permit City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall
allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this
Agreement. Notification of audit shall be provided at least thirty (30) days before any
such audit is conducted. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be
maintained for a period of two (2) years after receipt of final payment.
Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension without cause of
this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer
files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the
services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of
the City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the
permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make
available to the City, at the Consultant’s office and upon reasonable written request by
the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing,
compiling, transferring, and printing computer files.
10. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its
officers, employees, and agents (“City Indemnitees”) from and against any and all
causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including
reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the
Consultant’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement or out of the
operations conducted by Consultant, including the City’s active or passive negligence,
except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of
the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or
other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement,
the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option
reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal
counsels’ fees incurred in defense of such claims.
Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions
identical to those set forth in this Section from each and every subcontractor, or any
other person or entity involved by, for, with, or on behalf of Consultant in the
performance of this Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity
obligations from others as required here, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible
according to the terms of this Section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these
requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a
992
Attachment 1
Page 1-5
waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth
here is binding on the successors, assigns, or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the
termination of this Agreement or this Section.
City does not and shall not waive any rights that it may have against Consultant
by reason of this Section, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of
any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. The hold
harmless and indemnification provisions shall apply regardless of whether or not said
insurance policies are determined to be applicable to any losses, liabilities, damages,
costs, and expenses described in this Section.
11. INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this
Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
12. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent
Contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control.
Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the
conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents, except as
set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent
that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers,
employees, or agents of the City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur
any debt, obligation, or liability against City, or bind City in any manner.
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in
the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant
for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services
hereunder.
13. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Consultant shall keep itself informed of local, state and federal laws and
regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the
performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times
observe and comply with all such laws and regulations, including but not limited to the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws
and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in
equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this Section.
993
Attachment 1
Page 1-6
14. ANTI DISCRIMINATION
Neither the Consultant, nor any subconsultant under the Consultant, shall
discriminate in employment of persons upon the work because of race, religious creed,
color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition,
genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression,
age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of such person; or any other basis
protected by applicable federal, state, or local law, except as provided in Section 12940
of the Government Code. The Consultant shall have responsibility for compliance with
this Section, if applicable [Labor Code Sec. 1735].
15. UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used
against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City in connection with the
award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion,
confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of
the City will receive compensation, directly or indirectly from Consultant, or any officer,
employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any
work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a
material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in
equity.
16. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of the City, or their designees or agents, and no
public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the
Services during his/her tenure or for one (1) year thereafter, shall have any interest,
direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work
to be performed in connection with the Services performed under this Agreement.
17. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Consultant covenants that if they or any officer or principal of their firm have any
interests, or if they acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any
manner or degree with the performance of their services hereunder, Contractor shall
immediately notify the City, in writing, informing the City of the nature of the contract,
prior to commencing with any work or entering into such contract. If the City determines
a potential conflict of interest, the City may assign any work related to the conflict of
interest to an alternate contractor.
994
Attachment 1
Page 1-7
18. NOTICE
Any notice to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing, and all such
notices and any other document to be delivered shall be delivered by personal service
or by deposit in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested,
with postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for whom intended as follows:
To: City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
To: GCCSS
Attn: Aimee Blakeslee
231 River Run Road
Sequim, WA 98382
Either party may, from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a
different address or contact person, which shall be substituted for the one above
specified. Notices, payments and other documents shall be deemed delivered upon
receipt by personal service or as of the third (3rd) day after deposit in the United States
mail.
19. CHANGE IN NAME
Should a change be contemplated in the name or nature of the Consultant’s legal
entity, the Consultant shall first notify the City in order that proper steps may be taken to
have the change reflected in the Agreement documents.
20. ASSIGNMENT
Consultant shall not assign this Agreement or any of the rights, duties or
obligations hereunder. It is understood and acknowledged by the parties that Consultant
is uniquely qualified to perform the services provided for in this Agreement.
21. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force
and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services in this
Agreement.
22. VENUE AND GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement is made, entered into, and executed in Ventura County,
California, and any action filed in any court or for arbitration for the interpretation,
enforcement or other action of the terms, conditions, or covenants referred to herein
shall be filed in the applicable court in Ventura County, California. The City and
Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern
995
Attachment 1
Page 1-8
the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also
govern the interpretation of this Agreement.
23. COST RECOVERY
In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement of, or
the declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement or as a result of any
alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled
to recover its costs and expenses from the losing party, and any judgment or decree
rendered in such a proceeding shall include an award thereof.
24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contain the entire
understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in
this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings,
representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and
shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based
solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own independent
investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
25. CAPTIONS OR HEADINGS
The captions and headings of the various Articles, Paragraphs, and Exhibits of
this Agreement are for convenience and identification only and shall not be deemed to
limit or define the content of the respective Articles, Paragraphs, and Exhibits hereof.
26. AMENDMENTS
Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall
be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by both parties to this Agreement.
27. PRECEDENCE
In the event of conflict, the requirements of the City’s Request for Proposal, if
any, and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the Consultant’s
Proposal.
28. INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT
Should interpretation of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, be necessary, it is
deemed that this Agreement was prepared by the parties jointly and equally, and shall
not be interpreted against either party on the ground that the party prepared the
Agreement or caused it to be prepared.
996
Attachment 1
Page 1-9
29. WAIVER
No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall
constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any such
waiver constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver of the same provision. No waiver
shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver.
30. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant
warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of
obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MOORPARK GUNNERSON CONSULTING &
COMMUNICATION SITE SERVICES
__________________________________ __________________________________
Troy Brown, City Manager Bryon Gunnerson, President
Attest:
__________________________________
Ky Spangler, City Clerk
997
Attachment 1
Page 1-10
Exhibit A
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of Work, Consultant will maintain
insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Consultant will use
existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not
meet requirements set forth here, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or endorse
the existing coverage to do so. Consultant acknowledges that the insurance coverage
and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage
required. Any insurance proceeds available to the City in excess of the limits and
coverage required in this Agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, will be
available to the City.
Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance using Insurance Services Office (ISO)
“Commercial General Liability” policy form CG 00 01 or the exact equivalent. Defense
costs must be paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for
claims or suits by one insured against another. Limits are subject to review but in no
event less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for all covered losses and no less than
$2,000,000 general aggregate.
Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 including
symbol 1 (Any Auto) or the exact equivalent. Limits are subject to review, but in no
event to be less than $1,000,000 per accident. If Consultant owns no vehicles, this
requirement may be satisfied by a non-owned auto endorsement to the general liability
policy described above. If Consultant or Consultant’s employees will use personal autos
in any way on this project, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability for
each such person.
Workers’ Compensation on a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as
required by law with employer’s liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident or
disease.
Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance (Over Primary) if used to meet limit
requirements, shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying
coverages. Coverage shall be provided on a “pay on behalf” basis, with defense costs
payable in addition to policy limits. Policy shall contain a provision obligating insurer at
the time insured’s liability is determined, not requiring actual payment by the insured
first. There shall be no cross liability exclusion precluding coverage for claims or suits by
one insured against another. Coverage shall be applicable to the City for injury to
employees of Consultant, subconsultants or others involved in the Work. The scope of
coverage provided is subject to approval by the City following receipt of proof of
insurance as required herein. Limits are subject to review but in no event less than
$1,000,000 aggregate.
998
Attachment 1
Page 1-11
Insurance procured pursuant to these requirements shall be written by insurers that are
admitted carriers in the State of California and with an A.M. Bests rating of A- or better
and a minimum financial size of VII.
General conditions pertaining to provision of insurance coverage by Consultant.
Consultant and the City agree to the following with respect to insurance provided by
Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general liability
coverage required herein to include as additional insureds the City, its officials,
employees, and agents, using standard ISO endorsement CG 2010 and CG
2037 with edition acceptable to the City. Consultant also agrees to require all
contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this Agreement shall
prohibit Consultant, or Consultant’s employees, or agents, from waiving the right
to subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive subrogation rights
against the City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to
require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Consultant and available or
applicable to this Agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of the
policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to
the City or its operation limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these
requirements if they include limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been
first submitted to the City and approved in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would serve to
eliminate so-called “third party action over” claims, including any exclusion for
bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification, and
additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not
make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability
or reduction of discovery period) that may affect the City’s protection without the
City’s prior written consent.
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of certificates
of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional insured
endorsement to Consultant’s general liability policy, shall be delivered to city at or
prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any insurance
is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled or
reduced at any time and no replacement coverage is provided, the City has the
right, but not the duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its
interests under this or any other Agreement and to pay the premium. Any
999
Attachment 1
Page 1-12
premium so paid by the City shall be charged to and promptly paid by Consultant
or deducted from sums due Consultant, at the City’s option.
8. Certificate(s) are to reflect that the insurer will provide 30 days notice to the City
of any cancellation or reduction of coverage. Consultant agrees to require its
insurer to modify such certificates to delete any exculpatory wording stating that
failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation or reduction of coverage
imposes no obligation, or that any party will “endeavor” (as opposed to being
required) to comply with the requirements of the certificate.
9. It is acknowledged by the parties of this Agreement that all insurance coverage
required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to apply
first and on a primary, non-contributing basis in relation to any other insurance or
self-insurance available to the City.
10. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved
with the Work who is brought onto or involved in the Work by Consultant, provide
the same minimum insurance required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to
monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring
that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this
section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors
and others engaged in the Work will be submitted to the City for review.
11. Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured retentions or
deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein and further agrees
that it will not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer, or other
entity or person in any way involved in the performance of Work contemplated by
this Agreement to self-insure its obligations to the City. If Consultant’s existing
coverage includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-
insured retention must be declared to the City. At that time, the City shall review
options with the Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the
deductible or self-insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other
solutions.
12. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the Agreement to
change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant 90
days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate additional compensation
proportional to the increased benefit to the City.
13. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will be
deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any
steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this
Agreement.
14. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the
part of the City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with an insurance
1000
Attachment 1
Page 1-13
requirement in no way imposes any additional obligations to the City nor does it
waive any rights hereunder in this or any other regard.
15. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as the City, or its
employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to
this Agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the Agreement is canceled
or terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until
the City executes a written statement to that effect.
16. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required herein expiring
during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other
policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has
been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter
from Consultant’s insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of
insurance and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these
specifications applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to
the City within five days of the expiration of coverage.
17. The provisions of any Workers’ Compensation or similar act will not limit the
obligations of Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not
to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to the City,
its employees, officials, and agents.
18. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are
not intended as limitations on coverage, limits, or other requirements nor as a
waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-
inclusive.
19. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from any
other provision in this Agreement and are intended by the parties here to be
interpreted as such.
20. The requirements in this section supersede all other sections and provisions of
this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts or
impairs the provisions of this section.
21. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any
party involved in any way with the Work reserves the right to charge the City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this
Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to the City. It is
not the intent of the City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying
with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against the City for payment
of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.
22. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss
against Consultant arising out of the work performed under this Agreement. The
1001
Attachment 1
Page 1-14
City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not
the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to
involve the City.
1002
Attachment 1
Page 1-15
Exhibit B
CITY OF MOORPARK
Scope of Work Requirement for Professional Services Agreements
Compliance with California Government Code Section 7550
Consultant shall sign and include this page in any document or written reports prepared by
Consultant for the City of Moorpark (City) to which California Government Code Section 7550
(Government Code §7550) applies. Government Code §7550 reads:
“(a) Any document or written report prepared for or under the direction of a state
or local agency, that is prepared in whole or in part by nonemployees of the
agency, shall contain the numbers and dollar amounts of all contracts and
subcontracts relating to the preparation of the document or written report; if the
total cost for the work performed by nonemployees of the agency exceeds five
thousand dollars ($5,000). The contract and subcontract numbers and dollar
amounts shall be contained in a separate section of the document or written
report.
(b) When multiple documents or written reports are the subject or product of the
contract, the disclosure section may also contain a statement indicating that the
total contract amount represents compensation for multiple documents or written
reports.”
For all Professional Services Agreement with a total dollar value in excess of $5,000, a signed
and completed copy of this form must be attached to all documents or completed reports
submitted to the City pursuant to the Scope of Work.
Does the dollar value of this Professional Services Agreement exceed $5,000?
Yes No
If yes, then the following information must be provided in compliance with
Government Code § 7550:
1. Dollar amount of Agreement/Contract: $ 35,000
2. Dollar amount of Subcontract: $ ____________
3. Does the total contract amount represent compensation for multiple
documents or written reports? Yes No
I have read the foregoing Code section and will comply with Government Code §7550.
Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site Services
Bryon Gunnerson, President Date
1003
Attachment 1
Page 1-16
Exhibit C
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1: Application Review: New Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Permits
The City’s application for small wireless facilities contains thirteen (13) required
items, some of which will be reviewed by City staff and some of which will be
reviewed by Consultant, as follows:
1. Application Form and Fee ................................ City
2. Project Narrative and Justification ................... Joint City + Consultant
3. Project Plans .................................................... Joint City + Consultant
4. Pole License Agreement .................................. City
5. Site Photos and Photo Simulations .................. Consultant
6. Regulatory Authorizations and Approvals ........ Joint City + Consultant
7. Property Owner’s Authorization ....................... City
8. RF Compliance Report .................................... Consultant
9. Acoustic Analysis ............................................. Consultant
10. Structural Analysis ........................................... City
11. Project Purpose and Technical Objectives ...... Consultant
12. Alternatives Analysis ........................................ Consultant
13. Section 6409 Evaluation .................................. Consultant
• 1A. Pre-Application Field Site Visit: The City requires an on-site field meeting
with small wireless facility applicants to review the vicinity of the proposed site
and detect any conditions, factors, or unusual circumstances that would make
the proposed location more or less preferred over other possible locations. The
City has not decided whether the selected Consultant will participate in these site
visits; cost is a key consideration in making this decision. Potential Consultants
shall provide a fixed fee for participating in a site visit, and the City will determine
whether the Consultant will be included, prior to award of a contract. If the
Consultant does not participate, the City will provide any feedback identified by
City staff during the site visits to the Consultant.
• 1B. Determination of Completeness: Within seven (7) days of receipt of an
application or resubmittal from the City (delivered electronically), Consultant shall
evaluate and determine whether the application contains all required information
needed by Consultant to complete review of the Consultant-responsible portions
of the application as listed above. Consultant shall provide a written
determination of its findings to the City (delivered electronically). If the
application is incomplete, Consultant shall provide a written determination of its
findings to the City that shall list all required items needed to complete the
application.
1004
Attachment 1
Page 1-17
• 1C. Project Memorandum: Within fourteen (14) days of receiving a
determination of completeness of an application from the City, Consultant shall
provide City with a Project Memorandum containing its determinations of the
following, as well as any other issues that Consultant believes to be relevant or
helpful in the City’s review of the application:
2. Project Narrative and Justification: Assess time, place, and manner
considerations for the proposed site, including a determination if the project
fills a coverage gap.
3. Project Plans: Assess time, place, and manner considerations for the
proposed site.
5. Site Photos and Photo Simulations: Confirm accuracy of photo simulations
and assess time, place, and manner considerations for the proposed site.
6. Regulatory Authorizations and Approvals: Confirm accuracy of item 6B (FCC
Licenses) and proof of license for all planned operating bands.
8. RF Compliance Report: Assess the planned compliance with all FCC
standards and requirements, including compliance with RF exposure
requirements.
9. Acoustic Analysis: Assess acoustic reports for consistency with the City’s
Noise Ordinance (Chapter 17.53 of the Moorpark Municipal Code, viewable at
www.moorparkca.gov/MunicipalCode).
11. Project Purpose and Technical Objectives: Confirm that the proposed site is
eligible for processing as a Small Wireless Facility because it fills a gap in
service coverage and/or capacity, consistent with FCC guidance.
12. Alternatives Analysis: Review the validity and comprehensiveness of the
Alternative Analysis, and ensure consistency with the preferred location
requirements contained in the City’s Small Wireless Facility regulations
(viewable on page 19 of www.moorparkca.gov/SmallWirelessStandards).
13. Section 6409 Evaluation: Determine if the proposed facility is a Small
Wireless Facility, as defined in federal law [“Section 6409(a)”].
Task 2: Application Review: Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Co-Location Permits
The City’s has a simpler, more streamlined application for co-locating a small
wireless facility on a site that already contains a wireless telecommunications facility.
The application requirements (Attachment 2) include six (6) required items, some of
which will be reviewed by City staff and some of which will be reviewed by
Consultant, as follows:
1. Site Plan .......................................................... City
2. Narrative and Map: Nearby Facilities ............... City
3. Narrative and Map: Service Areas ................... City
4. RF Report ........................................................ Consultant
5. Photo Simulations ............................................ Consultant
6. Site Maintenance and Security ........................ City
1005
Attachment 1
Page 1-18
• Project Memorandum: Within seven (7) days of receipt of an application or
resubmittal from the City (delivered electronically), Consultant shall provide City
with a Project Memorandum containing its determinations of the following, as well
as any other issues that Consultant believes to be relevant or helpful in the City’s
review of the application:
4. RF Compliance Report: Assess the planned compliance with all FCC
standards and requirements, including compliance with RF exposure
requirements.
5. Site Photos and Photo Simulations: Confirm accuracy of photo simulations
and assess time, place, and manner considerations for the proposed site.
Task 3: Field Testing of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
• Upon City request, Consultant shall conduct a field test to measure the actual RF
emissions and noise generated by the small wireless facility and determine
compliance or non-compliance with FCC and City standards. Although the City
retains discretion over when to commission a field test, the City intends to do so
following the installation and activation of a new wireless telecommunications
facility.
• Consultant shall complete the field test and deliver a written determination of
compliance or non-compliance with FCC standards to the City within twenty-
one (21) calendar days.
Task 4: Advice on Issues Related to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
• Consultant shall be available to the City to provide general advice and consulting
services related to wireless telecommunications facilities, upon City request.
• Consultant shall be available to attend evening City Council meetings, either in-
person or virtually via teleconference (the City currently uses Zoom as its
teleconference platform) and provide general advice and consulting services
related to wireless telecommunications facilities, upon City request and
reasonable notice to consultant.
1006
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 1
_______________________________________
Response to:
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNCIATIONS FACILITY CONSULTING
for
THE CITY OF MOORPARK
TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS PROPOSAL
Submitted July 1, 2022
Due: July 7, 2022 at 4:00 PM
Attachment 1
Page 1-19
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT D
1007
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 3
GCCSS ORGANIZATION, CREDENTIALS AND EXPERIENCE ................................................................................. 4
Organization 5
Credentials 5
Experience 9
Recent and On-Going Projects 10
UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................... 14
Statement of Understanding 14
Scope of Work 14
Additional Services 18
SERVICES AGREEMENT...................................................................................................................................... 23
NEGATIVE HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 23
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................... 24
Resume of Bryon Gunnerson 24
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
GCCSS managed site in the City of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Attachment 1
Page 1-20 1008
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 3
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
To: The City of Moorpark, CA
Re: Response to RFP “Wireless Telecommunications Facility Consulting Services”
Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site Services, LLC (“GCCSS”) is pleased to submit this
proposal to the City of Moorpark.
GCCSS is a full-service telecommunications consulting firm founded in 2011 with our main office in
Seattle, Washington and consultants spread across the country. With a combined experience over
100 years in the wireless telecommunications industry, GCCSS specializes in providing guidance to
landlords with wireless telecommunication leases/sites. Our founding members spent over 30 years
building and managing thousands of tower sites on several continents for the telecom industry before
turning their attention to the needs of landowners seated on the other side of the proverbial table.
The entire GCCSS team collaborates virtually on projects, providing valuable insight as to their
personal expertise and knowledge. Aimee Blakeslee, Senior Consultant will be the project manager
and the Town’s point of contact. Aimee brings a variety of skills and experience acquired during her
20 years in the legal field. Bryon Gunnerson, Owner and President of GCCSS, has held management,
leadership, technical and engineering positions within the telecommunications industry since 1972.
Bryon provides executive oversight on all projects.
GCCSS currently assists various municipalities, emergency management operations, municipal
housing authorities, universities, school districts, plus numerous other organizations and individuals
to review applications for the installation and modifications of both small cell and macro cell sites.
GCCSS reviews these sites for compliance with federal, state and local laws, building codes,
environmental and safety compliance and lease/licensing compliance. GCCSS’ personal, close
attention to our customers and our flexibility in providing individualized services and terms sets us
apart from our competitors. We are not vendors of telecommunication companies or equipment
manufacturers. Nor do we perform work for wireless service carriers or other telecommunications
industry entities. Instead, the GCCSS team works exclusively for landlords, like yourself. That means
that we will never have a conflict of interest.
Additional details about the GCCSS team and our past and current projects are provided in the
following proposal. Our team has the necessary skills to successfully complete all requirements of
the Request for Proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in your RFP We would
welcome the opportunity to discuss this proposal more fully with the City of Moorpark and appreciate
your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bryon Gunnerson
Bryon Gunnerson, President
Gunnerson Communications Consulting and Site Services
Bryon.Gunnerson@gccss.net
Date: July 1, 2022
Attachment 1
Page 1-21 1009
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 4
GCCSS ORGANIZATION, CREDENTIALS AND EXPERIENCE
Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site Services, LLC (“GCCSS”) provides guidance and
services to landlords of existing and proposed macro and small wireless sites across the United
States and in Canada. Founded in 2011, the GCCSS team members have over 100 years of combined
experience in the wireless industry. Our consulting services cover all aspects of wireless site
operations, compliance and leasing. GCCSS has reviewed applications for site installations and
modifications for hundreds of customers and thousands of sites, including analyzing construction
drawings, radio frequency emissions reports, environmental reports, structural analyses, zoning
compliance, best practices, regulatory compliance and alternate site evaluations.
GCCSS has experience with all types of wireless communications site installations, including water
tanks, guyed and self-supported towers, rooftops and other existing building installations. We
provide our customers with unmatched advice concerning best practices for location, aesthetics, and
installation methods.
Our customers include cities, governmental agencies, school districts, universities, corporations
(both large and small), real estate portfolio managers, real estate trusts, property management firms,
lawyers, tribes, and individual property owners. We are experienced working with city attorneys,
mayors, planning departments, boards, and various departments to coordinate efficient
management of the permitting application process. While we are available to help our customers
manage their wireless leases from “cradle to grave”, our involvement is tailored to meet our
customers’ specific needs. Because we provide services exclusively to landlords and not to the
wireless industry, we are able to avoid those conflicts of interest that occur when Consultants serve
both sides of the industry.
Our hands-on experience with all types
of wireless site installations and intimate
knowledge of various equipment
platforms and network operations,
enables us to provide our customers
with sound business advice in any
situation.
Attachment 1
Page 1-22 1010
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 5
ORGANIZATION
CREDENTIALS
The GCCSS team is a small collection of highly skilled and trained individuals, hand-picked by Bryon
Gunnerson to provide a specialized service in a niche market. Our founding members have worked
in the cellular and wireless industry since its inception in the early 1970’s and were instrumental in
creating McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. (now AT&T Wireless), Western Wireless, Inc. (now T-
Mobile), and various international cellular companies in locations throughout Europe and Asia. All of
our team members are experienced in not only, reviewing applications for cell site installations and
modifications, but also in drafting wireless ordinances, creating efficient and thorough application
processes and comprehensive wireless siting plans. All GCCSS members are highly experienced at
issue spotting and problem solving and work closely with our customers to meet their individual
needs.
Bryon Gunnerson, Chief Executive Officer, President
Bryon's tenure in the wireless industry dates back to 1972 with AT&T Wireless’s predecessor, McCaw
Cellular Communications, Inc. (McCaw). While at McCaw, Bryon was responsible for the build-out of
many parts of its wireless network. Following his time at McCaw, Bryon assisted with the founding
of Western Wireless and led the development of the network that would eventually become T-
Mobile USA (T-Mobile). Bryon remained at T-Mobile for many years as the Senior Vice President,
Engineering and Operations, managing a portfolio of 25,000 cell sites and assisting with site
acquisitions both nationally and internationally.
After leaving T-Mobile, Bryon recognized a need for industry experts whose interests were not
aligned with the national wireless carriers. To test that theory, Bryon worked with several municipal
and private entities to correct issues with their wireless leases and develop new leasing programs.
Through the results gained from this experience, it became apparent that wireless landlords and
Attachment 1
Page 1-23 1011
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 6
property owners, large and small, public and private, could benefit from the independent knowledge
and expertise of a group of wireless industry experts.
In 2011, Bryon founded GCCSS to assist in several areas of the wireless industry. Since founding
GCCSS, Bryon has been instrumental in assisting communities with the development and
implementation of macro and small cell policies; from the development of city codes to the
implementation of application and development policies. In addition, Bryon has recently and
personally designed and constructed two cell towers, which GCCSS currently manages for its
customer.
David T. Rutter, Senior Consultant
David's experience in the wireless industry also goes back to the early 1980’s where he was a member
of the team that created McCaw with Bryon Gunnerson. As the Director of Operations nationwide,
David was instrumental in the design, development, and implementation of McCaw's initial cellular
networks in Washington, Oregon, Kansas, Texas, Missouri, Florida, Tennessee, California, and
Oklahoma. Following AT&T’s purchase of McCaw, David
became a founding member and Partner in The Walter Group,
Inc. (TWG). As Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer at
TWG, David's responsibilities included strategic planning;
capital project and operations management; network design,
analysis, and construction; regulatory assistance; RFP creation
and vendor selection; network long term planning; foreign
government and FCC licensing; and turnkey network
deployment. While at TWG, David managed the teams that
created cellular applications for licenses in Brazil, Columbia,
Germany, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Israel, Latvia, Mexico,
Paraguay, Senegal, Soviet Georgia, Taiwan, the United States,
and Uruguay. Continuing with his expertise in network design
and deployment, David and TWG designed, built, and
managed cellular networks for various customers throughout
the United States, Mexico, Europe, and Asia.
David assists customers in the supervision and management
of existing and new macro and small cell sites, large-scale
construction projects, and cell site relocation. David’s
experience with thousands of cell sites brings value to every
project as David has generally seen every challenge that can
be presented at sites. It is not uncommon for David to find
new means and methods to be used at sites that reduce the
impact to the property owner, while still allowing contractors
to complete the work required.
Attachment 1
Page 1-24 1012
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 7
Aimee Blakeslee, Senior Consultant and Point of Contact
Aimee brings a variety of skills and experience acquired during her 20 years in the legal field including
research, negotiating, and contract drafting and review. During law school, Aimee focused her
studies on alternative dispute resolution, even studying International Dispute Resolution in Rome.
After training and receiving certification from the Center for Conflict Resolution in Chicago, she was
chosen to assist in the development the City’s pilot program to resolve foreclosure cases during the
mortgage crisis. Aimee entered the wireless industry providing Site Acquisition and Leasing for
several of the major wireless companies. She gained valuable experience in the technical side of the
wireless industry, reviewing construction plans, structural analysis, compliance reports and working
with many zoning and building code authorities. With this experience, Aimee is familiar with the
internal practices of the wireless carriers, as well as those of major tower companies. Her great
attention to detail has proven to be a tremendous asset. Additionally, Aimee’s contacts in the
telecom industry provide access to valuable resources.
Aimee is currently the Project Leader for McDonald’s USA, working directly with their Property
Portfolio Manager to review applications for new site installations and site modifications. Aimee also
assists state and local government entities, school districts, universities, transportation entities, and
more, to review construction applications, manage wireless infrastructure, create leasing
documents, and assisting with negotiations with wireless carriers.
Brett Reall, Senior Consultant and Business Manager
Brett has worked in specialty real estate since the mid-1990’s, beginning with providing underwriting
specialty financing, credit analysis, and contract negotiation for specialized real estate transactions.
In 2009, Brett focused on the telecommunications finance market; with responsibilities including cell
site valuation/assessment/audit, and wireless lease analysis.
In 2013, Brett joined GCCSS to lead the company’s operations in the macro and small cell markets.
Brett assists local governments, school districts, emergency responders, property management
firms, investors, and private property owners with all aspects of the wireless industry. By combining
the experience gained in finance and wireless telecom infrastructure, Brett ensures customers have
the information needed to manage rooftop antenna sites, water towers, cell towers, and various
other wireless structures; and to make decisions that could affect these sites over time. Recent
projects include design of low-rise cellular network for local jurisdiction, remediation of rooftops
overloaded by wireless tenants, lease extensions, plan review for cell site modification and new cell
site construction; cell site construction supervision; rent reduction request reviews; assisting local
government customers in the developing a system for small cell implementation; master license
agreement creation and negotiation, negotiating with wireless carriers for new tenant additions and
in contract disputes; fair market rent analysis; and implementation of multi-tenant site ‘best
practices’ to facilitate smooth, headache-free site operations for both property owners and site
tenants.
Christine Gillan. Senior Consultant
Christine joined the GCCSS team in 2015 after two decades of practicing law, first as a litigator and
most recently as a commercial real estate lawyer at a prestigious law firm with offices throughout
the East Coast. Christine’s legal experience adds value in all aspects of commercial real estate
Attachment 1
Page 1-25 1013
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 8
transactions, including issue-spotting, negotiations, legal research, legal interpretation and
application, and in the preparation and negotiation of communication site leases, easements,
licenses, and a broad variety of ancillary agreements. While GCCSS does not provide legal advice to
its customers, Christine’s background allows her to work effectively with lawyers on both sides of
each transaction.
Christine assists local governments with wireless facility plan reviews; telecom lease audits;
negotiated and drafted master license agreements, leases, and contracts for lease extensions,
amendments, and buy-outs; conducted rent analysis and offer comparisons; assisted with the
management of lease sites; and reviewed and overseen tenant requests for equipment
alterations/upgrades. Christine also has assisted municipalities and universities manage their small
cell installations by providing information regarding local ordinances and state laws governing the
municipalities’ rights to control the installations, advising on market rent, creating a review process
and design criteria, small cell code writing, and assisting with the permitting process - all with an eye
towards minimizing the cities’ up-front costs in the negotiation process and maximizing their
revenues from the installations. Christine remains a member of the South Carolina Bar Association.
Debra Jeronimus, Sr. Consultant
Debra brings valuable skills and experience acquired
through her total 30 years’ experience in real estate,
property management and the oil and gas industry. Debra
owned her own Real Estate and Property Management
company since 1994. Her portfolio included 30 properties
and over 250 management properties. Debra, and over a
dozen real estate agents she employed were responsible
for the sale of hundreds of properties. Debra’s vast
experience in real estate and asset management provides
tremendous insight to telecom site management and
business operations. After earning her law degree, Debra
went to work in the oil and gas industry as a Landman
negotiating with mineral owners for oil and gas leases,
where she procured over 1500 leases in ten years. As a
Landman, Debra was required to interpret complex land
and mineral leases as well as complicated State and
Federal statutes regarding the sale of land and mineral
rights, chain of title, probate and leasehold issues. Her
invaluable 30+years’ experience in negotiating with both
landlords and tenants for contracts, leases, easements,
amendments, and various other legal documents, as well
as drafting and interpreting those documents in addition
to her exceptional customer relations and, problem
solving skills allow her to be successful in all her telecom
site related endeavors.
GCCSS is entrusted to manage two
carrier installations concealed within
the newly renovated steeple of this
historic Massachusetts church.
Attachment 1
Page 1-26 1014
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 9
EXPERIENCE
GCCSS has assisted many municipalities and government agencies with the following:
Review and management of equipment modification requests (including the review and
analysis of construction drawings and structural analyses) for all types of telecommunication
sites;
Land use and local code/regulation consulting, drafting and management;
Creation and implementation of permit application processes on public and private property;
Preparation and negotiation of lease extensions, amendments, memorandums and exhibits;
Evaluation of safety and environmental reports, including radio frequency emissions testing;
Analysis and negotiation of leases for new sites;
Community dispute resolution;
Master license agreement creation and negotiation;
Drafting easements, settlement terms and other documents for attorney review;
Small cell and DAS design, application review process creation and implementation;
Site audits for tenant compliance with equipment placement and operation requirements;
Lease audits for compliance with rent requirements and monies owed by tenants;
Long-term site planning and management;
Lease buy-out and contract negotiations;
Creation and oversight of site-specific installation and operating procedures;
Design and construction oversight of new tower installations;
RFP drafting and procurement advisement;
Equipment, utility and site relocation;
Upgrade of emergency communications systems;
Network design and radio frequency coverage planning to improve wireless coverage;
Structural and systems designs including best practices stealth design;
Construction management coordination and oversight;
Expert testimony, and
Lease and issue dispute resolution with wireless carriers and tower companies.
Attachment 1
Page 1-27 1015
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 10
RECENT AND ON-GOING PROJECTS
The following are descriptions of some of our recent and on-going projects:
City of North Myrtle Beach, SC
Provide on-going assistance with the negotiation and
management of small cell installations in the City’s
public rights-of-way.
Created design standards and site application process
for small cell and 5G installations.
Review and manage all cellular equipment
modification/upgrade requests made by cellular
tenants under their leases on City-owned property,
including:
the review of construction drawings for best
engineering practices, radio frequency reports
and structural analyses;
the negotiation of rent increases; and
the negotiation and preparation of lease
amendments.
Conduct permit application reviews for all
telecommunication installation applications
submitted to the City, which includes reviewing
construction drawings and structural analysis for
compliance with existing City code the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, and provide
recommendations as appropriate.
Attend City Council meetings to discuss on Small Cells (5G) and its implications for the City;
Perform site inspections, as deemed necessary by the City, during tank maintenance project.
Negotiated and managed the relocation of two telecom tenants from the City’s water tank
while the City conducted a maintenance event.
GCCSS’s work with the City is based on an hourly rate and our fees are often successfully
passed through to the carrier-tenants.
Bedford Community Group, NY
Assisted a community group by analyzing
coverage in the area.
Designed the in-fill coverage.
Presented a plan to the planning board as an
alternative to plans presented by a wireless
carrier that were not acceptable to the
community.
Attachment 1
Page 1-28 1016
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 11
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Economic Authority,
Sequim, WA
Utilized engineering, testing, manufacturer
relationships, construction expertise, fiber
experience, lease and regulatory expertise and
general communication site knowledge to improve
wireless coverage in the tribal area.
Drafted and negotiated the ground leases for
wireless carriers and Sheriff’s department in
addition to all the forms and applications for the
various federal agencies.
Designed and managed construction of monofir
stealth tower.
Coordinated with contractors and the Tribe to
obtain the required building and developmental
permits.
Coordinated final inspections with the Tribal
engineering firm.
Provide ongoing maintenance, management and security measures for the site and all tower
tenants.
McDonald’s USA, Inc.
Review tenant applications for new installations and
equipment modifications including, construction drawings,
permits, structural analyses, environmental impact reports,
RF reports, permits, insurance information, and all other
necessary documents and information to assess
compliance with building code, local, state and federal laws
and with lease terms.
Thorough document reviews revealed many times that
cell site tenants provided insufficient or erroneous reports
and inadequate construction drawings and documentation.
Manage sites to ensure no interference with business
operations.
Identified revenue generating opportunities.
Audited payment records and recovered over $50,000
in back rent and late fees in the first six months of GCCSS
being retained.
Negotiated new leases and amendments.
GCCSS provides ongoing support for the approximately
50 rooftop and tower sites across the country.
Attachment 1
Page 1-29 1017
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 12
Paradise Valley Unified School District (PVUSD), AZ
Review tenant applications for new installations and
equipment modifications including, construction drawings,
permits, structural analyses, environmental impact
reports, RF reports, permit requests, insurance
information, and all other necessary documents and
information to assess compliance with building code, local,
state and federal laws and with lease terms.
Managed sites to prevent interference with school
activities, maintain security procedures and coordinate
contractor access.
Designed and implemented organizational and operational
procedures.
Implemented processes to allow PVUSD to recover fees
and expenses from cell site tenants to cover tower
management costs, expenses, and consultant fees.
University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
Review tenant applications for new installations and equipment modifications including,
construction drawings, permits, structural analyses, environmental impact reports, RF reports,
permit requests, insurance information, and all other necessary documents and information to
assess compliance with building code, local, state and federal laws and with lease terms.
Manage the rooftop cell sites to ensure efficiency and minimal time commitment of the
University.
Advised on minimizing roof damage and safety hazards.
Created standardized documents to streamline the equipment modifications and property
access.
De La Salle High School, Concord, CA
Review tenant applications for new installations and equipment modifications including,
construction drawings, permits, structural analyses, environmental impact reports, RF reports,
permits, insurance information, and all other necessary documents and information to assess
compliance with building code, local, state and federal laws and with lease terms.
Negotiated a resolution to a lease dispute with a wireless tower company that could have
caused the school to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Coordinate site access, ensure safety protocols are followed, school operations are not
interfered with and the school grounds are maintained.
Manage new installations, equipment modifications and lease renewals.
GCCSS’ dedication has resulted in substantial rent increases and reimbursement of costs.
Monopalm and stealth flagpole at
a PVUSD Middle School.
Attachment 1
Page 1-30 1018
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 13
Central Kitsap School District, WA
Review tenant applications for new installations and
equipment modifications including, construction drawings,
permits, structural analyses, environmental impact reports,
RF reports, permits, insurance information, and all other
necessary documents and information to assess compliance
with building code, local, state and federal laws and with
lease terms.
Negotiate and supervise construction of new cell sites.
Assist with resolution of tenant disputes.
Assisted with relocation of utilities to allow redevelopment of
school property.
JeffCom 911
Review tenant applications for new installations and
equipment modifications including, construction drawings,
permits, structural analyses, environmental impact reports,
RF reports, permits, insurance information, and all other
necessary documents and information to assess compliance
with building code, local, state and federal laws and with
lease terms.
Advised on new tenant colocation application and installation
process.
Audited sites for compliance with lease documents.
Negotiated with tenants to resolve discrepancies in lease documents vs. installed equipment.
Various County Housing Districts
Review tenant applications for new installations and equipment modifications including,
construction drawings, permits, structural analyses, environmental impact reports, RF reports,
permits, insurance information, and all other necessary documents and information to assess
compliance with building code, local, state and federal laws and with lease terms.
Negotiate and supervise construction of new cell sites.
Documented equipment and utilization of leased space to ensure compliance with the lease and
building codes.
Consult on best practices and operational support, proposed construction plans and equipment
installation, and impact on property.
Propose alternatives and coordinate details with wireless tenants to minimize impact to
customer properties and building residents.
Attachment 1
Page 1-31 1019
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 14
UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCOPE OF WORK
GCCSS employs a collaborative approach when serving our customers.
We believe that the varying backgrounds of our Consultants make us stronger, collectively, than any
one of us individually. With backgrounds in the law, contract negotiation, finance, site construction
and operations, tower management, and site upgrade and maintenance, we provide a full range of
services for our customers to assist them manage their wireless sites.
STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
GCCSS understands the needs of the City as set forth in the
RFP, and is prepared to provide consulting services related
to the review of applications for cell site permits and
technical consulting. GCCSS is prepared to review all
applications for compliance with local ordinances with
respect to all telecommunications facilities, including DAS
and Small Cell sites within the City.
GCCSS is prepared to begin this work upon contract
execution on both a continuing and as-needed basis. GCCSS
will work directly with the City staff, and counsel to better
define the goals and requirements. Ideally, we would prefer
to send one or two GCCSS consultants to Moorpark to (i)
meet the representatives in person to receive any particular
direction regarding the SOW and to answer questions the
representatives may have; (ii) familiarize ourselves with the
City; (iii) photograph the sites; and (iv) gather relevant
documentation from local permitting offices that cannot be
produced electronically. This trip would take up to two days
(excluding travel) and would be performed by the primary
Consultants for this project. However, GCCSS can effectively
perform this work from its satellite offices, using internet
meeting platforms and Google Earth.
Elk Grove, Illinois
SCOPE OF WORK
GCCSS is prepared to perform the scope of work listed below for the City, which is directly pulled
from the RFP. This proposal is based solely on information available at the time of the creation of
this proposal and may change once all information is provided and reviewed. GCCSS may provide
recommendations that differ from the proposed scope of work should we find a more efficient or
effective opportunity or option. Upon the execution of a contract between GCCSS and the City,
GCCSS will familiarize itself with the City’s current programs, ordinances, facilities, documents and
any other information necessary to accurately perform all work required by the City and prepare
technical expert review of applications for wireless communications facilities as follows:
Attachment 1
Page 1-32 1020
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 15
Task 1: Application Review: New Wireless Telecommunications Facility Permits
GCCSS is prepared to review technical applications for new wireless telecommunication facility
permits as required by the City, including:
1A. Pre-Application Field Site Visit:
GCCSS is prepared to virtually attend an on-site field meeting with small wireless facility
applicants to review the vicinity of the proposed site and detect any conditions, factors or
unusual circumstances that may make the proposed location more or less preferred over
other possible locations.
1B. Determination of Completeness:
Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of an application or resubmittal of an application, GCCSS
will evaluate and determine whether the application contains all required information
required to complete the application review. GCCSS will provide a written determination of
its findings to the City. If the application is incomplete, we will list all required items needed
to complete the application.
1C. Project Memorandum:
Within fourteen (14) days of receiving a determination of completeness of an application
from the City, GCCSS will provide the City with a comprehensive Project Memorandum
containing its determinations of the following, as well as any other issues that we believe to
be relevant or helpful in the City’s review of the application:
1. Project Narrative and Justification: GCCSS will assess time, place, and manner
considerations for the proposed site.
2. Project Purpose and Technical Objectives: GCCSS will confirm that the proposed
site is eligible for processing as a Small Wireless Facility because it fills a gap in
service coverage and/or capacity, consistent with FCC guidance.
3. Project Plans: GCCSS will review corresponding construction drawings for
compliance with local codes, ordinances and applicable FCC standards.
4. Regulatory Authorizations and Approvals: GCCSS will confirm accuracy of FCC
Licenses and proof of license for all planned operating bands.
5. Structural Loading Analysis. GCCSS will review structural analyses to ensure
structure and safety compliance.
6. Site Photos and Photo Simulations: GCCSS will review and confirm accuracy of
photo simulations.
7. RF Compliance Report: We will assess the site plans for compliance with all
local and federal requirements and standards regarding RF exposure.
8. Acoustic Analysis: GCCSS will assess acoustic reports for consistency with the
City’s Noise Ordinance.
9. Local Code Compliance: GCCSS will determine if the proposed facility conforms
with local ordinances regarding Telecommunications Facilities.
10. Section 6409 Evaluation: We will determine if the proposed facility is a Small
Wireless Facility, as defined in federal law [“Section 6409(a)”].
11. Alternatives Analysis: Review alternative designs and site locations.
Attachment 1
Page 1-33 1021
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 16
Task 2. Application Review: Wireless Telecommunications Facility Co-Location Permits
GCCSS is prepared to review technical permit applications for co-locating small wireless
telecommunication equipment on a site that already contains a wireless telecommunications facility
as required by the City:
2A. Project Memorandum:
Within seven (7) days of receipt of an application or resubmittal of an application, GCCSS will
provide the City with a Project Memorandum containing its determinations of the following,
as well as any other issues that we believe to be relevant or helpful in the City’s review of the
application:
1. RF Compliance Report: GCCSS will assess the planned compliance with all FCC standards
and requirements, including compliance with RF exposure requirements.
2. Site Photos and Photo Simulations: GCCSS will confirm accuracy of photo simulations and
assess time, place, and manner considerations for the proposed site.
Task 3. Field Testing of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
GCCSS has partnered with Centerline Communications, LLC
(“Centerline”), a nationwide wireless infrastructure
engineering firm. Centerline was founded in 2006 as a turnkey
professional services organization providing infrastructure
solutions to the wireless industry.
Centerline will conduct field tests to measure the actual RF emissions and noise generated by each
small wireless facility upon the City’s request. The measurements will capture anything in the RF
environment up to 50/60 GHz. Three types of broadband meters are used to capture anything in the
RF environment that needs to be measured—Narda NBM-520 (up to 50 GHz), Narda NBM-550 (up
to 50 GHz) and Wavecontrol SMP2 (up to 60 GHz).
Attachment 1
Page 1-34 1022
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 17
Centerline will analyze the measurements to determine if the site is in compliance with FCC
regulations in all publicly accessible areas. The final report will display the measured values with
respect to the FCC maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits and will recommend additional
mitigation measures, if needed. Once the PO is received Centerline should be able to complete the
site visit and report within 21 days.
Centerline’s Dedicated Engineer: P.E. Michael Fischer:
Mr. Fischer is currently the Director of Engineering for EME Services at Centerline Communications.
He has 19 years’ experience as a radio frequency (RF) engineer with a heavy focus on wireless
telecommunications regulatory/compliance matters. He graduated from Widener University with a
Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering in 2003 and is a licensed Professional Engineer in 13
states/jurisdictions (CA, CT, DC, IL, MD, NC, NJ, NY, PA, SC, TX, VA, WA). Over the past 19 years, he
has evaluated thousands of wireless facilities for compliance with FCC rules and regulations and has
been accepted as an expert witness in 100+ jurisdictions to testify about RF exposure & RF design in
front of various municipal boards and community groups across multiple states.
Task 4. Advice on Issues Related to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
GCCSS is available to the City to provide
general advice and consulting services
related to wireless telecommunications
facilities, upon City request. We are
available to attend evening City Council
meetings, either in person or virtually via
teleconference, and provide general
advice and consulting services related to
wireless telecommunications facilities,
upon the City’s request.
GCCSS managed site
in Pasco, Washington.
Attachment 1
Page 1-35 1023
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 18
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Lease Audits for City Owned Leases
GCCSS can review existing leases and provide recommendations for improving legal terms and
revenues. We create a database of major lease terms and documentation. We carefully review
all historical lease documentation for each of the leases and identify any missing or problematic
lease terms and implications to the Town. GCCSS can also review payment ledgers and report on
any rent discrepancies between what the Town has collected and amounts actually owed by cell
site tenants. We can also make recommendations for lease extensions and/or renewals including
terms and rates, revenue sharing, as well as an overall strategy for going forward. All data will be
compiled into one comprehensive Lease Audit.
A Lease Audit will show:
An overview of the leases;
A summary of the critical business terms of each lease, grouped by site;
A list of the potential issues identified in each lease;
Recommendations; and
A comparison of current rents to potential rents for illustrative purposes.
This chart reflects the loss the customer experienced by poor management of the
lease which GCCSS could have prevented. Property Owner lost over $160,000.
Attachment 1
Page 1-36 1024
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 19
Evaluation of Existing Sites in PROW
GCCSS can inspect all existing leased and permitted sites to ensure equipment is installed
properly and within the allocated footprint allowed pursuant to the lease/permit. We are
experienced with all types of telecommunication sites, including water tank installations and will
evaluate all construction drawings, radio frequency reports, and structural reports for
compliance with the lease and government regulations. GCCSS will identify any variance in the
alignment and accuracy of the type and number of wireless communications equipment
components between installation and agreement. We can travel to the wireless sites or review
photos and Google Earth images with the same accuracy.
The Equipment Audit will show:
A database of building and site installation documents including construction drawings,
permits, surveys, environmental and safety reports and photographs of all site areas and
installed equipment;
Areas that may present structural concerns, unauthorized changes, non-adherence to
building code regulations, identify apparent property damage and make general site
operational recommendations based on our findings;
Areas of tenant/permitee non-compliance (for example: tenant’s installed equipment varies
from the permit application, or there are hazardous materials stored on the site);
Notes regarding the structural capacity to add additional cell tower tenants; and
GCCSS recommendations.
The Equipment Audit will include an at-a-glance format to track equipment, site conditions and lease
compliance. It will organize the types, sizes and weight of the equipment, roof capacity, dates of
installation and structural analysis and relevant construction drawings and permits and where they
are located on the property.
Identification of incorrectly installed equipment.
Attachment 1
Page 1-37 1025
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 20
Contract Drafting
GCCSS can assist the Town with drafting and negotiating leases for individual sites located on
municipal property or a Master Lease which the Town may utilize as the base document for
future leases. We will edit each document specifically for each site as necessary and in
compliance with the Ordinance, local, state and federal law. Our leases are comprehensive and
provide substantial detail necessary to prevent complicated legal issues and allow for efficient
management. The agreements will address the following issues common to this type of lease
(including but not limited to):
i. guidelines and/or requirements for equipment installations including specifications for how
it should be installed, where it can be installed, etc.
ii. standardized lease language for all Cell Site Leases that will incorporate the major details of
leases with the Town and make it more efficient to add additional site leases. Master
Agreements will also create uniformity in the Town’s cell site program making it easier to
operate and manage.
iii. workflow protocols for notifications from the Tenant when equipment needs to be installed,
repaired or removed. Protocols will clearly identify required notification time frame, who is
to be notified, what equipment is needed to facilitate the work (i.e. crane), how information
should be presented such as plans and submittals, etc.
iv. standardized forms customized to meet the needs of the Town to maximize the efficiency
and security of the cell site program.
Those documents may include:
Application for Modification of Equipment
Site Installation Procedures
Access Procedures and Checklist
v. Leases will clearly identify Tenants’
leased areas and permitted equipment
to prevent future challenges and
discrepancies.
GCCSS will provide insight on strategic
contracting issues, including options to allow
the Town to maximize revenue and recoup
costs. We enforce the principle that our clients should not have to pay for costs associated with
these cell sites, and our leases anticipate possible arguments that a cell site tenant may come up
with as an excuse to avoid paying those costs. GCCSS will determine if current leases are set up
in a manner that allows the Town to introduce additional fees to be assessed against the tenant
which will be utilized to offset costs incurred by the Town for their own personnel and for the
cell tower lease management consulting services. Our leases typically include reimbursement
for repairs and maintenance, taxes, utilities and administrative fees.
Attachment 1
Page 1-38 1026
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 21
Contract Negotiation
GCCSS will assist the Town with negotiating business terms, including but not limited to, monthly
fees, escalation rates, increased future network capacity and strength, based on approved
method of calculation and market conditions to benefit the Town.
We understand the leverage of the property owner and the cell site tenant, and how to use that
leverage when negotiating a lease. Our extensive data and experience provide us with important
insight as to the worth of a site and what is typically acceptable in the industry. Create
negotiation strategies and conduct future negotiations with cell site tenants as required to
maximize site revenue and improve terms of leases.
Advisement Concerning Construction and Maintenance of Wireless Facilities
GCCSS has extensive experience in planning and managing site construction and maintenance on
all types of structures including rooftops, stealth, and water tanks, lattice towers, monopoles and
guyed towers. GCCSS can inspect a site to determine if a site requires maintenance or if a
structural analysis performed by a certified engineer is required. We can consult or draft relevant
RFP’s to complete the services. We can also assist with the zoning, permitting and FCC licensing
requirements.
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee with 5 carriers on the rooftop brings significant income to the
University but requires strict monitoring by GCCSS to ensure Wireless Tenants install equipment and maintain
the rooftop or damage could quickly turn these leases into a deficit.
Attachment 1
Page 1-39 1027
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 22
Small Cell/DAS Permitting Processes Creation and Implementation
GCCSS works with various municipal representatives and departments to develop efficient site
application processes with safety, aesthetics, environmental impact, technology enhancement
and cost effectiveness in mind. Permit Application Process Guidelines are created to guide
applicants through the application process for collocations, installations, modifications, or
replacement in public rights of way in compliance with the City’s Ordinance and federal law.
GCCSS’s comprehensive design and process creation may include:
Processes flow chart;
Online application submission;
List of required documents including construction and electrical drawings, RF emissions
reports, certified structural analysis, photo simulations, traffic control plans, etc.;
Fees, deadlines and other requirements for compliance with local, state and federal law;
Right of way verification process;
Engineering recommendations;
Technical review for design and engineering compliance;
Insurance requirements;
Approved small cell design catalog; and
List of available assets, including underground utility corridors with maps.
GCCSS recommends inviting
applicants to participate in an
optional, informal preapplication
meeting to open a dialogue
between the City and an applicant
regarding the applicant’s long-
term small cell deployment plans
in so that the applicant’s small cell
application can move smoothly
through the process once it is
submitted for formal review.
These meetings are encouraged
by the Federal Communications
Commission Declaratory Ruling
and Report and Third Order
released September 27, 2018.
GCCSS is available to facilitate
these meetings.
Attachment 1
Page 1-40 1028
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 23
SERVICES AGREEMENT
GCCSS requires no deviations from the City’s Standard Services Agreement.
NEGATIVE HISTORY
To GCCSS’s knowledge, there are no alleged prior or ongoing contract failures. There are no civil or criminal
litigation or investigations pending against GCCSS or any Consultant within the last 5 years.
REFERENCES
Client Location Contact Phone Email
Bedford Community Group Bedford, NY Peter Scaturro 914-602-4046
City of North Myrtle Beach
N. Myrtle Beach, SC Chris Noury,
City Attorney
843-280-5500
cpnoury@nmb.us
Jamestown Tribe Economic
Authority
S’Klallam, WA W. Joe Allen,
Executive Dir.
360-583-5791
University of Wisconsin -
Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI Jennifer Herzog,
Legal Counsel
414-251-6809 herzogj@uwm.edu
De La Salle High School Concord, CA Lynne Jones,
VP of Finance
925-288-8125 jones@dlshs.org
McDonald’s USA, Inc. Chicago, IL Jami Hays,
Real Estate Portfolio
Manager
919-215-2951 Jami.Hays@us.mcd.com
De La Salle High School in California trusts GCCSS to ensure the safety of students and facilities
when managing antennas mounted to stadium lighting at the athletic complex.
Attachment 1
Page 1-41 1029
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 24
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
RESUME OF BRYON GUNNERSON
Professional Summary
I’ve held management, leadership, technical and engineering positions within the telecommunications
industry since 1972. I was the Vice President, for the Western Region of T-Mobile USA one of five Regional
VP’s for this Fortune 500 Company. I’ve been responsible for capital budgets in excess of $200 million a
year and operating budgets in excess of $50 million a year. My employees in operations and development
have totaled in excess of 350 full time and over 1000 contract or part time personnel. I’ve been a leader of
large organizations with three Executive Directors, numerous Directors and Managers. My region of
involvement was multi-state and responsible for national initiatives for organization and development.
I currently manage “Lamb Investments” which is a charitable trust fund that I established during the dot-
com era. This money is from my stock proceeds of Western Wireless, VoiceStream and T-Mobile which is
used for funding several companies and charities. A large part of my involvement is pro-forma work with
these companies, business reviews and management oversight and/or consultation where needed.
In addition to Lamb Investments, I operate a consulting business under the name of Gunnerson Consulting
and Communication Site Services, LLC which consults on leasing, engineering and various aspects of
wireless technology.
Professional Achievements and Experience
Western Regional Vice President for T-Mobile -- 1999 to 2005. I was Responsible for technical operations
and system development of Cellular/PCS services for a 16-state region. This was the largest geographical
region of T-Mobile with extensive logistics for leasing, zoning, construction and on-going operations of
thousands of cellular and PCS sites and large switching complexes. This required leadership of hundreds
of direct full-time employees including senior level directors and managers. I also had a staff which included
human resources, accounting and legal employees. I was directly involved in negotiating large vendor and
supply contracts along with programs for contract labor.
Executive Director Western Wireless and VoiceStream - 1992 to 1999. I was Responsible for building
over 5,000 cell sites and switching facilities nation-wide with extensive teams of employees and contractors.
Western Wireless was a spin-off company from McCaw Cellular just prior to McCaw Cellular closing the deal
to sell to AT&T. I was one of a core group of five which started Western Wireless through the purchase and
acquisition of small companies and bankruptcies in the cellular industry. We rapidly grew into a 16 state
network covering secondary markets. When PCS (new frequency bands) were made available, we started
VoiceStream as a separate corporation. VoiceStream grew into a Fortune 500 company with stock
valuations of over 1000%. VoiceStream was sold to Deutche Telekom (T-Mobile) for $54B in 2001. I was
involved in a great deal of coordination, merger requirements, technical standards associated with bringing
these companies together.
Director for McCaw Cellular and McCaw Communications 1980 to 1992. McCaw Cellular (McCaw
Communications) started as a paging company that was purchased by Craig McCaw in April of 1980 from
Joe Diamond (Diamond Parking). If you ever parked in Seattle, you paid Joe. I joined McCaw
Communications as the 9th employee of the company; four of the other employees were the McCaw brothers.
My third day on the job, I joined John McCaw on a trip to purchase companies in Alaska, Idaho, Oklahoma
and Texas. My initial function was to evaluate technical assets and convert the operations to be profitable.
These were all paging and traditional mobile telephone systems (pre-cellular). In 1983 I worked with AT&T
(Bell Labs at the time) to design, lease, zoning and engineer applications for several markets. The markets
that I worked on won the FCC awarded spectrum assignments for technical excellence. These were
Colorado, Washington and Oregon. McCaw Cellular was born and grew to become the largest cellular
company in the United States. This company was sold to AT&T for $12 billion. My functions within this
company varied but always with heavy employee commitment, project management and leadership
requirements.
Attachment 1
Page 1-42 1030
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 25
Corporate organization for national initiatives which include:
Vice President of Process Innovation and Alignment. Below you’ll see just a sample of the business
innovations that I initiated or fostered in this position.
Design and business reviews for all of the engineering regions on a constant basis for over five years.
This involved holding intensive business reviews, money management, engineering, development and
personnel. These sessions would often be conducted with the Senior Vice President, President and
Chairman of the corporation in attendance. It was also my job to convey “best practices” and new
standards learned from these reviews.
Corporate compliance and internal audit was a constant requirement of my position including assuring
that all activities complied with Federal Communications Commission, State and Local zoning
requirements as well as FASB, GAAP and Sarbanes-Oxley rules as they apply. Additionally, I worked
with internal audit to assure that critical management practices were created and adhered to assure that
the exposure of the corporation to law suits and problems were always minimized.
Corporate measurements committee and nation-wide bonus programs. I was involved with a cross-
functional team of six for the development of corporate measurements for the major areas of business.
I focused on the Engineering Department measurements and bonus plans for the other area Vice
Presidents and Directors to be directly related to these measurements. Also as part of this team I was
highly involved in customer satisfaction. This required working with terra-bites of data and customer
behavior analysis to find methods of retaining customers.
I introduced and perfected an on-line reverse bidding process. Think of this as Ebay. But instead of the
price going up as you bid, the price goes down with each bid. The purchasing needs for the Engineering
Department was just under $2 billion a year and consisted of thousands of individual purchases. I moved
my region from individual negotiations per item to a sealed bid processes and finally to on-line reverse
bidding. Within six months this process was rolled out nation-wide and within two years there had been
over 10,000 bids conducted for material, construction activities and contracts, including engineering,
legal and architectural fees.
Cell design and capital spending priorities of $1.8 billion budget was reduced by $200 million with 80%
validity in process and procedure. I worked with the Corporate Engineering team to develop a method
of evaluating, by empirical measures, where the most value would be gained for all new cell sites within
the United States. With extensive regression model with testing we were able to obtain a highly valuable
tool that took the “dart board” approach out of engineering. This established priorities that gave the
engineering team’s tremendous credibility within the corporation and was hailed as a great success by
the internal audit organization.
Web site mapping; “Personal Coverage Check." I worked between Engineering, IT and Sales teams to
introduce a feature for customers that would indicate where there is reliable coverage of our services
before they purchased a product. This Web feature won awards from the California Consumer
Council for “truth in advertising." The real benefit to this feature was the data obtained behind the scenes
about sales behaviors that enabled us to reduce the amount of bad sales and returns. What came from
the entire process was a graphical information system for the company which is used by every
department for the creation of maps that can have anything from store locations to highly complex
network diagrams produced for internal use or production.
Company-wide training for culture shift and Engineering Department transfer of knowledge. I spent
my last year with T-Mobile introducing a complete culture shift for the company. A select group of the
Vice Presidents were professionally trained by Sean-Delany to change how every employee must
conduct business in order to become a stronger and more competitive company. We had over a month
of intensive training on methods and content and then we paired up for training sessions across the
country and over 24,000 employees. I conducted over 50 training sessions that would last 2-3 days each.
In addition to the culture changing, I put together a small team from the Engineering department which
trained top executives, Vice Presidents and Directors on all aspects of the Engineering department.
Attachment 1
Page 1-43 1031
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 26
$2 billion purchase of Cingular California, Nevada systems. When Cingular purchased the assets of
AT&T Wireless they were required to divest themselves of the conflicting FCC allocated spectrum in
California and Nevada. Up till this time, I was the Vice President for the Western Region that was
operating as a joint system operator between T-Mobile and Cingular for California and Nevada. I had a
counter-part in New York that was operating the other side of the agreement with Cingular and T-Mobile.
This was a highly unique business arrangement between the two companies to share technical networks
with separate marketing arms. I worked with my Cingular Vice President counter-part to keep both
companies happy and functioning.
Purchase and conversion of the Washington DC system from Sprint. I was the technical team leader for
over the 450 cell sites and 2 switching complexes from Sprint and convert them to T- Mobile. This involved
intense coordination with landlords, electrical companies, network and wire line companies, employees
of Sprint and the element of exact timing. Because of Securities and Exchange Com-mission rules, we
had to have precise coordination for the change of ownership and operation of this system and what was
presented to the customers. I facilitated everything technical leading up to this transaction so that at
exactly one hour after the markets closed, “T-Mobile” appeared on customers cellular phones.
Education:
High School 1972
Trained as an Emergency Medical Technician with 2 years of emergency room experience, 1974.
Certification expired.
Trained four years with mountain search and rescue (Alpine Rescue Team) in Evergreen, Colorado 1972- to-
1976. I participated in over 100 searches and technical rescues.
“McCaw University” 1986 to 1988
This was an internal corporation program for leadership and technical training. I trained for 2 years in
Washington DC under Dr. Raj Sing and Dr. Nira Sing for engineering in cell and system design as well as
the corporation’s legal group for FCC regulations. As part of this training I reviewed and was part of the
engineering of the top 30 cities for the initial cellular systems ever built.
Trained negotiator through “Karrass” for skills in basic negotiating and buying companies. I have negotiated
hundreds of contracts some of which were as large as $150 million with little or no help and one contract
where I had a significant part is was worth $2 billion.
Sean-Delany Culture. 30 days of intense personal relationship and behavioral training. It was a “train- the-
trainer” course.
Countless training for all company internal issues, HR, Engineering, Finance, Accounting, Sales, Customer Care, Feet
Management and Marketing.
I conducted on-going training for my department for a vast array of subjects; Agreements, Master
Agreements, Operations, Purchasing, Internal Audit procedures, Engineering methods, common internal
procedures.
Trained in Red Cross basic and advanced Red Cross w/CPR.
Private pilot with a helicopter rating; current rating.
Affiliations:
Boy Scouts of America Seattle Area Council, 2001 to present
Fundraiser and participant for the Phil Condit Campout. Phil Condit is he past CEO for Boeing Commercial
Planes. I participate in many functions of fundraising with this group including a $30M capital campaign for
rebuilding the summer camps. The Phil Condit campout is a separate fundraiser comprised of twenty-four
key corporate executives that are mostly Eagle Scouts where we experience 3-4 days of outback camping,
fundraising and guidance for the Seattle Area Council. I also directly support local Sequim Troops.
Boys and Girls Club of the Olympic Peninsula, 2007 to 2008
Board member, Vice President and Financial Committee Chairperson.
Amateur Radio I belong to the ARRL, a national organization and to the Western Washington Coordination
Group for frequency coordination efforts of mountain top repeaters in the area. I own and operate a very
sophisticated UHF repeater system covering from Ellensburg to Port Angeles and from Bellingham to Olympia.
Attachment 1
Page 1-44 1032
RFP Wireless Consulting/Gunnerson 27
CONCLUSION
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions about the information contained herein. We,
at GCCSS, are available to assist with any of the services herein.
QUALIFICATIONS The information contained in this report is specific to the customer for whom it was prepared. GCCSS reviewed only the material referenced herein when conducting its analysis. Unless otherwise specified herein, GCCSS did not independently verify the accuracy of any of the information provided and assumed the same to be accurate on its face. GCCSS’s conclusions are based upon the background of our consultants and their experience in the field. Our consultants are not engineers, lawyers or real estate appraisers and our customers are urged to seek the independent advice of any of the aforementioned professionals when deciding how to use the information contained herein.
Attachment 1
Page 1-45 1033
RFP Wireless Consulting / Gunnerson
_______________________________________
Response to:
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNCIATIONS FACILITY CONSULTING
for
THE CITY OF MOORPARK
COST PROPOSAL
Submitted July 3, 2022
Due: July 5, 2022 at 4:00 PM
Attachment 1
Page 1-46
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT E
1034
RFP Wireless Consulting / Gunnerson
GCCSS is prepared to commence work immediately upon execution of the Service Agreement. Costs will
be based on the tasks specified in the RFP.
TASK FEE
Task 1 Application Review for New Wireless Telecommunications
Facility Permits. Up to 3 reviews of an application, including a
Determination of Completeness and a comprehensive Project
Memorandum. Additional reviews to be billed at GCCSS hourly rate of
$250.00.
Flat fee: $750 per application
review.
Add $250 for up to 1-hour
preliminary field site visit.
Task 2. Application Review for Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Co-Location Permits. Up to 3 reviews of an application, including a
comprehensive Project Memorandum. Additional reviews to be billed
at GCCSS hourly rate of $250.00.
Flat fee: $250 per application
review.
Add $250 for up to 1-hour
preliminary field site visit.
Task 3. Field Testing of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
EME Field Visit with post-install RFE on-site measurements for small
cell site and report of findings (no predictive modeling report). Price
includes all time, travel and materials.
Pricing (Per site /report):
1-4 sites = $1,500
5+ sites = $1,000
Additional fee for PE stamp
if needed = $100
Fees for Tasks 1-3 should be passed through to the wireless applicants.
Task 4. Advice on Issues Related to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
All work performed by GCCSS for services falling outside the scope of Tasks 1-3 will be billed at the
standard GCCSS hourly rates.
GCCSS Consultants $250 p/hour with time billed in .10 increments.
Time to be rounded up for any portion of a .10
increment.
GCCSS Administrative Costs $50 p/hour billed in .10 increments. Time to be
rounded up for any portion of a .10 increment.
Travel Time $150 p/hour with time to be rounded up for
every ½ hour
Notes:
1. Except as indicated herein, all travel expenses (including flights, car rental, gas, meals, and hotels) will
be billed to the City at cost.
2. GCCSS will obtain prior approval for expenses and work to keep our expenses reasonable.
3. GCCSS can advise the City regarding the institution of cost recovery practices, when appropriate,
related to GCCSS’s performance of the services below.
All payments owed shall be billed by GCCSS to the City monthly. Any alterations to the work specified
above will be submitted to the City to be approved in writing and will require the entry into a written
change orders executed by both parties.
Attachment 1
Page 1-47 1035
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING FEES FOR
SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY PERMITS WITHIN THE
CITY’S RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 2020-3977
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2020-3977 adopting fees for small wireless facility permits within the City’s right-of-way;
and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2022, the City Council received a staff report
describing an amended permit review process for small wireless facility permits to
include third-party review of technical aspects of the permit and field testing small
wireless facilities for consistency with FCC standards; and
WHEREAS, information on the costs required to provide permit application
review and processing purposes was made available to the public as required by
Section 66016 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the service for which the fees are charged, as required by Section 66014 of
the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to recover the costs of reviewing small
wireless facility permit applications from those applying for such permits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does not desire to amend the previously-adopted
“Application Fee for New Pole to Support Small Wireless Facilities” or “Annual
Recurring Fee for Attachment to City-Owned Structure” related to small wireless
facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City Council Resolution No. 2020-3977 is hereby rescinded upon
the effective date of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. The proposed fees for small wireless facility permits, as shown in
Exhibit A of this resolution, are hereby adopted.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
1036
Resolution No. 2022-____
Page 2
SECTION 4. The Finance Director shall update the City’s Schedule of Fees and
Service Charges to reflect this resolution.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of September 2022.
________________________________
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Ky Spangler, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A: Proposed Fees
1037
Resolution No. 2022-____
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Small Wireless Facilities Within the City’s Right-of-Way
Application Fee for Up to Five Small Wireless Facilities Sites .............................. $910.00
Additional Sites (Above Five) on Same Application ....................... $260.00 per site
Application Fee for First Small Wireless Facility Site............................. $3,030.00 per site
Additional Sites (Second through Fourth) on Same Application ...... $2,757.50 per site
Additional Sites (Fifth and beyond) on Same Application ................ $2,257.50 per site
Application Fee for Co-Located Small Wireless Facility ........................ $2,530.00 per site
Application Fee for New Pole to Support Small Wireless Facilities ................... $1,000.00
Annual Recurring Fee for Attachment to City-Owned Structure ............... $270.00 per site
1038
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR (FY) 2022/23 BUDGET TO ESTABLISH FUNDING
FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
CONSULTING SERVICES
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2022, the City Council adopted the Operating and
Capital Improvement Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2022, the City Council received a staff report
describing an amended permit review process for small wireless facility permits to
include third-party review of technical aspects of the permit and field testing small
wireless facilities for consistency with FCC standards; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2022, the City Council approved an agreement
with Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site Services for wireless
telecommunications facility consulting services with a not-to-exceed amount of $35,000;
and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2022, the City Council amended fees for small
wireless facility permits within the City’s right-of-way to pass through the costs of the
wireless telecommunications facility consulting services to permit applicants.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A budget amendment of $35,000 in expenditures from the Public
Works Fund (2205), and a corresponding budget revenue increase of $35,000 in the
same fund, to fund an agreement with Gunnerson Consulting & Communication Site
Services (GCCSS);
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of September 2022.
________________________________
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Ky Spangler, City Clerk
1039
Resolution No. 2022-___
Page 2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS FUND
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSULTING SERVICES
FY 2022/23
REVENUE BUDGET ALLOCATION:
Account Number
Current
Budget Revision
Amended
Budget
2205-000-00000-44030 $ 0.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00
Total $ 0.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATION:
Account Number
Current
Budget Revision
Amended
Budget
2205-223-00000-51000 $ 30,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 65,000.00
Total $ 30,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 65,000.00
1040