GONTRACT COVERSHEET
ATTACH TO ALL CONTRACTS
Submit 3 contract originals: 1) consultant/contractor; 2) originating department, and 3) City Clerk Santa Mentor Seed on ter to et signtremes, and ensue drey rior ed Dedity cerams pressed are tal manager and City Clerk names are spelled correctly
Contract Approval Routing Order Reviewed by Signed Date 1 Contracts Coordinator John Barry 3-1716
2 Department Director Andy Agle B-17-10
City Attorney's Office At Mat (CAO staff)
Contractor/Consultant Mosigned
4 chana (city stat)
300/10
5 City Manager's Office (CMO staff)
6 City Clerk's Office (CCO staff)
Section Completed by Department
Department: Ext:
Date: 3/17/2016 From Claudia Kompa Housing and Economic Development 5723 Contractor/Consultant Name:
Paul Goodwin/Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
Purpose of contract/scope of services: Why the City is entering into this contract, what project the services are related to, if the contract was approved by council and if funding is available. (If more space is needed, attach separate page.) On 1/12/10 , Council approved a contract amendment for the City's contracted survey research firm, Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, to complete a telephone survey to assess resident support for various potential affordable housing funding strategies.
NTA MONICA, CA 9040 2016 MAR 21 AMII: 02 ATTORNEY'S OFFIC ANTA MONICA RECEIVED Competitive process followed? • YES - Bid or RFP #: • NO - This is an Exception to the 16 Competitive Process. (include completed
Exception to the Competitive Process Form)
Staff member to contact once agreement is signed: Ex: 5723 Claudia Kompa
Project Manager: Ex 5723
Andy Agle Total Not to
include cantingency 350000, not to exceed 8113402. Ettee Contract Term: Renewal Option(s):
2-29-8 I Ad. Fine 2s appa farewe
Accouft to Encumber and Amounts: FY 2015-16 Budget from S0015202.589000- stal kat 30,000 Section Completed by Contracts Coordinator
Authorization: L CMO Only Contract Number:
Council -12 - 2016
(Date approved by Council):
Purchasing Requirements Met/Contract Checklist Attached: Supplemental Forms Completed/Attached:, • Yes • No • Yes • No
Insurance Requirements Met/Approval Attached: Business License Required:
• No → Yes (# /50 77> ) No
• Attached On File orrect Contract Template Used:
No 1st Mod fiste
4 rev 2/29/16
CONTRACT CHECKLIST
Sanie Homice
The Contracts Coordinator has determined the following requirements must be met for HED (insert division name) request to procure the following service:
First Modification for Professional Services Agreement for Goodwin Simon Strategic Research Section 1: Soliciting Proposals
Informal Proposals Required
Professional Services: less than $80,000
Contractual Services: $10,000 to $175,000
Formal Request for Proposal and City Council authorization required Professional Services: greater than $80,000
Contractual Services: greater than $175,000
Exception to Competitive Process- Contact Purchasing Services Manager Complete Exception to Competitive Process Request Form
Attach Exception to Competitive Process Form approved by Department Director/Purchasing Manager/City Manager
Other or N/A First Modification
Section 2: Supplemental Forms Required 4B
onfileks
Coversheet • W9 Form • Living Wage Certification • Oaks Initiative Disclosure (new vendor) (if over $54,200, renewed annually) (if over $25k, renewed annually) • Business License • State of Arizona Disclosure 43 • City Council Staff Report 1500 (N/A for Federally Funded PSAs or CSAs) (if applicable) 1-12-2016 Section 3: Contract Type (Templates are available on e-desk except for Custom Agreements) Professional Services Agreement
Contractual Services Agreement
Modification to Professional Services Agreement / Modification to Contractual Services AgreemeR 1 Prevailing Wages Agreement
Construction Contract / Construction Management Agreement Software License and/or Software Maintenance and Support Agreement CCS Instructors Agreement
Grant Agreement
Custom Agreement
Exercising Renewal Options - Renewal Letter
Other: Firs! Modification
Section 4: Insurance Requirements
Professional Services Insurance Requirements - Template 1 (requires professional liability insurance) Professional Services Insurance Requirements - Template 2 (omits professional liability insurance) Contractual Services Insurance Requirements Template
Prevailing Wage insurance Requirements Template
Risk Mgmt. Confirmation (for Modifications and Renewal Letters ONLY)-Original Requirements met 8) Custom Insurance Requirements
Attach approval from Risk Manager isk end. lAttes 203
Section 5: Contract Authorization/Execution Process
City Manager approval required
Professional Services: less than $80,000 including renewals and contingency Contractual Services: $10,000 to $175,000
City Ma natesional services: greater an 80pot require red. frustin E Professional Services: greater than $80,000
Contractual Services: greater than $175,000
Contracts Coordinator John Barry 13/2/6
3 rev 2/29/16
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica STATE OF ARIZONA DISCLOSURE FORM
TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL VENDORS PROVIDING GOODS AND SERVICES TO
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Headquarter location or residency may not be considered as a factor if prohibited by applicable law.
Please check the appropriate boxes below.
Our company's headquarters are located in the State of Arizona.
Yes ~ No
Goods or services pertaining to this solicitation will be provided by a subcontractor whose business is headquartered in the State of Arizona.
Yes No
If the response to the statement above was "yes", please list any and all subcontractors headquartered in the State of Arizona that may be providing goods or services (pertaining to this solicitation) to the City of Santa Monica.
If more than one, attach a list of additional subcontractors, including the physical address of each location.
Name of Subcontractor:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip Code:
*** PORTION BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL VENDORS ***
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct
Signed: Paul RGoodun Date: 2-12-16
Paul Goodwin Title: Owner
Printed name:
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
Name of Company:
Street Address of Headquarters: 3451 Cattaraugus Ave
City: Culver City State: CA Zip Code: 90232
Telephone # (including area code): 310-558-4761 Email: [email protected]
FOR CITY USE ONLY
NOTES:
2 (Attachment A)
City of Santa Monica
Santa Monien Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form
All persons or entities receiving public benefits defined below from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners and officers and names of those with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. This information is required by City Charter Article XX/I—-Taxpayer Protection.
Name of Entity: Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
NAME(S) OF PERSONS OR ENTITIES RECEIVING PUBLIC BENEFIT:
Paul Goodwin
NAME(S) OF TRUSTEES, DIRECTORS, PARTNERS, AND OFFICERS:
Paul Goodwin
Amy Simon
NAME(S) OF THOSE WITH MORE THAN A 10% EQUITY, PARTICIPATION OR REVENUE INTEREST:
Paul Goodwin
Amy Simon
Public benefits include:
1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;
2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12-month period; Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12-month period:
Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period;
5. Land use variance. special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan. where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000:
Tax "abatement, exception, or benefit" of a value in excess of S5,000 in any 12-month period: or
7. Payment of "cash or specie" of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12-month period.
Paul Goodwin Paul A Gooda
Prepared by: Signature:
Date: 2-12-176 Title: Owner
FOR CITY USE ONLY:
Bid/PO/Contract # Permit #
(1/06)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION
July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016
TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL CONTRACTORS PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN EXCESS OF $54,200
MINIMUM WAGE - $15.37 per hour
Please read, complete, and sign the following
THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE
THIS CONTRACT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE • (a) contractor is a government agency and is exempt
(b) contractor is a City grantee and is exempt
(c) contractor is a non-profit corporation and is exempt (d) contractor is an employer whose employees are covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement where the waiver is explicitly set forth in an agreement in clear and unambiguous terms
(e) contractor is a corporation providing banking services The undersigned, on behalf of himself or herself individually and on behalf of his or her business or organization, hereby certifies that he or she is fully aware of Santa Monica's Living Wage Ordinance (LWO), and the applicability of the LWO, and the applicability of the subject contract, as determined herein. The undersigned further agrees to be bound by all terms of the LWO, as mandated in all sections of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 4.65. If, at any time during the term of the contract, the answers to the questions posed herein change so that Contractor would be subject to the LWO.
Contractor will promptly notify the Director of Finance in writing. Contractor further understands and agrees that the failure to comply with the LWO, this certification, or the terms of the Contract as it applies to the LWO, shall constitute a default of the Contract, which shall be grounds for termination. City shall have the right to examine all books and records of the Contractor as they relate to compliance with the LWO. Payroll records shall at a minimum include the full name of each employee performing labor or providing services under the contract, job classification, and rate of pay.
These statements are made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.
Printed Name: Paul Goodwin Title: owner
Paul R Goodun Date: 2-12-16
Signature:
Contractor: : Goodwin Simon Strategic Research _ Bid Number (if applicable): 16 Service Description:
Opinion Research
(Attachment A)
City of Santa Monica
Nanta Moniea Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form
All persons or entities receiving public benefits defined below from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners and officers and names of those with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.
Name of Entity: Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
NAME(S) OF PERSONS OR ENTITIES RECEIVING PUBLIC BENEFIT:
Paul Goodwin
NAME(S) OF TRUSTEES, DIRECTORS, PARTNERS, AND OFFICERS:
Paul Goodwin
Amy Simon
NAME(S) OF THOSE WITH MORE THAN A 10% EQUITY, PARTICIPATION OR REVENUE INTEREST:
Paul Goodwin
Amy Simon
Public benefits include:
ersonal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month perioc ale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12-month perio Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12-month period; Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period
5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25.000;
6. Tax "abatement, exception, or benefit" of a value in excess of S5,000 in any 12-month period; or
7. Payment of "cash or specie" of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12-month period.
Prepared by: Paul Goodwin Signature: Paulf Footin
2-12-176 Title: Owner
Date:
FOR CITY USE ONLY:
Bid/PO/Contract # Permit#
(1/06)
Oaks Initiative Notice
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS
AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS, OR OTHER
BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica's voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. It prohibits a public official from receiving specified personal benefits from a person or entity after the official votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a "public benefit" to that person or entity. Examples of a "public benefit" include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000.
The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this note and information about the Initiative's requirements. An information sheet on the Oaks Initiative is attached.
You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative's text from the City Clerk.
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person who is seeking a "public benefit." If the "public benefit" is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officers, or (e) ten percent interest in the entity.
Therefore, if you are seeking a "public benefit" covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the attached form (Attachment A). 4-4 Premail
CITY OF Housing and Economic Development
1901 Main Street, Suite C
Santa Monica, CA 90405
City of
Santa Monica 16 MAR 28 P3:19
Inter-Departmental Memorandum
DATE: March 28, 2016
TO: Rick Cole, City Manager
FROM: Adt Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development SUBJECT: Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
Attached for your signature are three original First Amendments to the Contract with Paul Goodwin of Goodwin Simon Strategic Research.
Background
On January 12, 2016 Council approved a contract amendment for the City's contracted survey research firm, Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, to complete a telephone survey to assess resident support for various potential affordable housing funding strategies.
First Modification of
Agreement Number 10141
(CCS)
Goodwin Simon Strategic
Research
FIRST MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT NO. 10141 (CCS)
This Fein as of in arch ch Nur by and bees heir dina mica, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Goodwin Simon Strategic Research is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. On or about March 1, 2016, the City and Goodwin Simon Strategic Research en- tered into Agreement Number 10141 (CCS) for conducting the City's Bi-Annual Citywide Resident Satisfaction Survey ("Original Agreement").
B. The City and Goodwin Simon Strategic Research desire to modify the Original Agreement to include additional services to be performed by Goodwin Simon Stra- tegic Research and to increase the contract price to pay for those additional ser- vices).
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Now, therefore, the undersigned parties do hereby mutually agree to modify the Origi- nal Agreement as follows:
1. Section 2 of the Original Agreement entitled "Goodwin Simon Strategic Research Services" shall be modified by adding the following paragraph:
Additional Services. Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will perform all of the additional services ("Additional Services") described in Ex- hibit A-1, Scope of Services. Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will complete the Additional Services in accordance with Exhibit B-1, Budget.
2. Section 4 of the Original Agreement entitled "Compensation" shall be modified by adding the following paragraph:
Compensation. The City will compensate Goodwin Simon Strategic Research for the Additional Services in an amount not to exceed $30,000, as set forth in Exhibit B-1. The total contract price for services pursuant to the Original Agreement and this First Modification shall not exceed $113,400.
3. Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit B-1 are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
1 March 2016
4. Except as expressly modified by this First Modification, all other terms and condi- tions of the Original Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Modification as of the date and year first written above.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
ATTEST:
denise Andern Name Lick Cole
DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
hues atree
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
Cin Atoner
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research
By Paul ACrok
Name: PAuL R6ouRen
Title: Dune
2 March 2016
Exhibit A-1
Additional Services
Scope of Services and Deliverables
The scope of work for completing this study includes the following:
• Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will meet with City representatives in person to review research needs and explore changes from the previous survey instru- ments.
• Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will draft a questionnaire and present it to the City for review and a revision. It is anticipated there may be three to four itera- tions before the survey draft is ready for testing.
• Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will test the draft survey to determine the questionnaire length and to make sure that questions are working as planned. • Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will translate the survey into Spanish once the draft is finalized.
• During the testing period, Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will draw a sample and train a call center for the study.
• Methodology
• 20-minute interview
• 600 respondents
• voter file sample
• The fielding will take approximately five to six days and nights to reach the split sample of 600 interviews. Interviewers will use strict call back procedures to reduce the likelihood of bias resulting from lack of completes with hard to reach resi- dents. Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will also have hand-off procedures in place for respondents who prefer to be interviewed in Spanish. • Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will then produce aggregate results, followed by cross-tabulation tables. These tables will break out findings by variables such as owner/renter, political orientation, and presence of children in the home. 3 March 2016
• Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will then prepare a written summary of find- ings, including an executive summary and then detailed findings. Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will use tables and figures to illustrate the results. • Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will present results to Council, staff, or other audiences as requested by City.
Other deliverables include:
• A questionnaire in draft and final form
• Topline results
• Cross tabulation tables
• A written summary of findings
• Oral briefings as desired
• Additional memoranda for use by the media, elected officials, etc. • Public presentations of results
Schedule/Milestones: Start date to be determined by the City • Week 1: Meeting with City staff to discuss survey purposes and goals, and identity questions from previous track that the City wishes to repeat, and to identify new areas of inquiry
• Week 2: Questionnaire draft to City staff. Revision and editing • Week 3: Finalize questionnaire. Translation into Spanish. Sample design com- pleted and sample in place
• Week 4: Fielding begins
• Week 5: Main fielding concludes
• Week 6: Topline results to City staff
• Week 6: Cross-tab tables available to City staff
4 March 2016
• Week 9: Written report to City staff.
• • Week 10 - 18: Goodwin Simon Strategic Research will make presentations of re- sults as requested
5 March 2016
Exhibit B-1
Budget
Telephone interviews: $30,000
Payment Schedule:
• 25% upon City approval of final survey questionnaire
• 25% upon main fielding
• 25% upon cross-tab tables and written report provided to City staff • 25% upon conclusion of presentations as requested by City The total amount of compensation for Services Rendered for the First Modification, pursuant to the scope of service identified in Exhibit A-1, shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000). The total amount of compensation for the original agree- ment and First Modification should not exceed One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($113,400).
6 March 2016
January 12, 2016
Staff Report
Requesting the First
Modification of Agreement
Number 10141 (CCS)
with an increase of $40,000.
City Council
City of Report
Santa Monica*
City Council Regular and Special Joint Meeting: January 12, 2016 Agenda Item: 8.A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director, Housing Division, Housing and Economic Development Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Director
Subject: Potential New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review, comment, and provide direction regarding a report prepared by the Housing Commission regarding potential sources of funding for affordable housing;
2. Review, comment, and provide direction regarding a narrowed list of potential sources of financing for affordable housing, and
3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to professional services agreement No. 10141 in the amount of $40,000 with Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, a California-based company, to conduct a resident survey to gauge support for various potential affordable housing funding strategies, resulting in a four-year amended agreement with a total amount not to exceed $123,400.
Executive Summary
In August 2015, Council identified "maintaining an inclusive and diverse community" as one of its top Strategic Goals and later held a study session reaffirming its long-term commitment to a robust affordable housing program. Concurrently, the Housing Commission has concluded a year-long community discussion regarding funding for affordable housing with a report and recommendations to Council. The Commission's recommendations include potential new funding sources that would require voter approval. In order to assess voter opinions regarding potential funding sources, staff recommends a contract modification in the amount of $40,000 for the City's contracted survey research firm, Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, to complete a telephone survey to assess resident support.
Background
1 of 11
Santa Monica has a long history of supporting social equity, housing affordability, and community inclusivity. Santa Monica voters have expressed their support for housing affordability through a series of voter-approved initiatives, starting in 1979 with the adoption of rent control and continuing through 2010 with the adoption of Citywide eviction protections. However, local measures to support affordability and inclusivity in Santa Monica have been undermined by state actions, including legislation allowing for vacancy decontrol of rent-controlled apartments and removal of rent-controlled apartments, as well as the 2012 elimination of the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency, the City's primary funding source for the production and preservation of low-income housing. Over the past five years, approximately 400 to 550 long-term, rent-controlled apartments have gone to market rents each year. Without a stable source of financing for affordable housing, there has been a significant diminution in the tools available to the City to combat the loss of housing that is affordable to low-and moderate-income households.
In November 2014, Santa Monica voters considered a ballot measure to increase the local documentary transfer tax, as well as a companion measure to direct all funds toward affordable housing if the transfer tax increase was approved. In considering whether to place a measure on the November 2014 ballot, the City completed a telephone survey of likely Santa Monica voters (Attachment A.) The polling results showed strong support for affordable housing and majority support for an increase in the documentary transfer tax. At the ballot box, a majority of voters supported directing funds toward affordable housing, though the transfer tax increase failed to receive majority support. As a result, the City is left without a significant, stable source of funding for affordable housing, thereby impacting the City's ability to maintain inclusivity and diversity. At its August 23, 2015 retreat, the City Council reaffirmed its support for affordable housing by identifying "maintaining an inclusive and diverse community" as one of its top strategic goals.
At its August 25, 2015 meeting, Council held a study session (Attachment B) regarding the current state of housing affordability in Santa Monica, as well as various approaches 2 of 11
to creating a local funding source for affordable housing. A summary of the potential funding sources presented at the study session is outlined in the table below.
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING
Funding Source Description Revenue Estimate (yr.)
Reduction in other programs to support Would depend on cuts General Fund
affordable housing
Transit ~ $3M for each 1%
Tax on hotel stays; currently 14% increase
Occupancy Tax
~ $2.4 Million for each
Documentary Taxes transfers of real estate; currently $1.50 increase in Transfer Tax $3 per $1,000 of sale value transfer tax
Tax on utility use such as gas, electric, ~ $3 Million for each 1% Utility User Tax phone, etc.; currently 10% increase
$220/year per property
General for 30 years = $100
Property tax surcharge
Obligation Bond Million bond
$334/year per property =
Parcel Tax Property tax surcharge $8 Million annually
~ $7.5 Million for each
Sales Tax Tax on retail goods; currently 9.5%
4% increase
~ $1 Million for each 1%
Parking Tax Tax on parking fees; currently 10%
increase
Council comments during the study session questioned the feasibility or value of certain of the proposals, including questioning whether a general obligation bond or parcel tax could meet the required two-thirds voter approval threshold and whether they should be preserved for capital improvements (in the case of GO bonds) and school funding (in the case of parcel taxes.) Council expressed interest in continuing to explore the other identified options.
At its August 25, 2015 study session, Council also initiated a discussion of appropriate long-term goals with respect to the preservation and production of affordable housing.
One goal that appealed to several Council and community members was to match the annual loss of affordability on 400 to 550 long-term, rent-controlled apartments with the preservation or production of deed-restricted affordable housing. The goal is tempered by the sobering reality that local gap financing for 400 to 550 affordable homes is 3 of 11
estimated to range from $140 million per year (estimated gap financing for new construction of 400 deed-restricted homes) to $275 million per year (estimated gap financing for preservation of 550 existing apartments.) Given that the total General Fund budget is less than $350 million in FY 15/16, the laudable goal appears unachievable.
During 2015, the Housing Commission focused its efforts on receiving broad input regarding the community's support for affordable housing and possible funding mechanisms to achieve affordable housing preservation and production.
The Commission hosted a series of meetings, including presentations from local experts, to understand the historical efforts and achievements of Santa Monica's affordable housing policy and programs, as well as the current dilemma regarding the need for affordable housing and lack of funding sources. The Commission also created several opportunities for the community-at-large to provide input regarding the type and scope of affordable housing in Santa Monica, including a special weekend meeting.
The Housing Commission's efforts culminated in a report to Council (Attachment C).
Discussion
The Housing Commission's report addresses measures to help low-income Santa Monica residents stay in their rent-controlled apartments, as well as strategies to protect and expand the supply of deed-restricted affordable housing, including policy and program recommendations that do not require City funding.
Housing Commission Report
Given Santa Monica's high housing costs, the Housing Commission recognizes that there is a mismatch between housing costs and the ability to pay for housing even among households whose incomes exceed the median for the region. However, the Commission recommends that the Council first focus its efforts on the lower-income members of the community, given the extremely limited supply of housing in Santa Monica that is affordable to such households and the disproportionate likelihood that such households are severely rent-burdened. The Commission intends to spend the 4 of 11
coming year evaluating options to address the housing needs of moderate-income households.
With respect to helping residents stay in their rent-controlled housing, the Commission recommends that the City continue its efforts to protect tenants from harassment.
The Commission also recommends a pilot program to provide rental assistance to low- income residents of rent-controlled apartments whose housing costs may force them to vacate their homes.
With respect to existing programs, the Commission recommends strengthening monitoring of deed-restricted housing, increased efforts to connect local residents and workers with affordable housing, careful monitoring of expiring affordability requirements on existing housing, pursuing affordable housing on City-owned land, and maximizing inclusionary affordable housing associated with market-rate housing. Regarding new programs and policies, the Commission recommends incentivizing affordable auxiliary dwelling units, as well as exploration of private-market approaches to preserving existing housing for affordability.
Housing Commission Report: Affordable Housing Financing The Commission recognizes that maintaining Santa Monica's inclusive and diverse identity will require the City to continue to fund the preservation and production of affordable housing. The Commission also recognizes that trying to replace all long-term rent-controlled housing by preserving or producing deed-restricted housing is beyond the City's means. As a result, the Commission recommended that the City work to stem the tide by returning, at minimum, to funding approximately $15 million per year in housing, as was done prior to the dissolution of redevelopment. The Commission anticipates that local funds will continue to leverage outside funding sources, including low-income housing tax credits, California Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities grants, county funds, and other programs that are being considered at the state and county levels. With respect to new funding sources, the Commission 5 of 11
recommends that the City combine some repurposing of existing General Funds with the creation of a new General Fund revenue source. Regarding existing General Funds, the Commission recommends that the Council establish a policy to dedicate $7.5 million per year, or approximately two percent of the General Fund, toward affordable housing. Commission discussion and community input on the matter looked at the City budget cuts that were implemented as a result of the Great Recession, which resulted in minimal impacts on City services.
Regarding new revenue sources requiring voter approval, the Commission report focuses on three primary measures:
1. Sales Tax: A one-quarter of one-percent increase in the sales tax, estimated to increase City revenues by approximately $7.5 million per year, with a companion measure requesting that funds be spent on affordable housing. The Commission discussed the regressive nature of sales taxes, though given California's exemptions for food and medicine, the fact that a large portion of sales taxes come from visitors, and the universal nature of sales taxes, the Commission unanimously identified its preference for consideration of a sales tax increase.
2. Documentary Transfer Tax: Similar to the measure considered by the voters in November 2014, the tax would increase from $3 to $9 per $1000 of sales value for all properties sold over $1 million, with a companion measure requesting that funds be spent on affordable housing. Though extremely volatile, the measure could raise over $9 million per year. The Commission expressed interest in exploring whether the first $1 million of sales value could be exempt from the increase.
3. Construction Tax: A tax that would equal five percent of calculated value of all commercial and for-profit multifamily construction, with a companion measure requesting that funds be spent on affordable housing. Early estimates identify the potential to raise up to $7.5 million per year.
Potential Funding Sources
Staff agrees with the Housing Commission regarding the funding sources that hold the greatest potential. The following are key considerations with respect to the potential funding sources.
• General Fund: The General Fund portion of the FY2015-16 budget is $348 million.
Reallocating two percent of that amount would provide approximately $7 million.
The projected five percent variation between revenues and expenditures in the FY 13/15 Budget was addressed by cutting approximately two percent in departmental 6 of 11
operating budgets, cutting one percent from the capital improvement budget, and increasing revenues by two percent from new and increased fees. Over the long run, reallocating another two percent of the budget toward affordable housing could begin to impact existing programs or services. In the near term, however, staff believes that Council could allocate funds, in the amounts recommended by the Housing Commission, toward affordable housing without significant reductions in other programs. Doing so would require a Council policy decision to allocate all funds received by the City, from repayment of loans made to the former Redevelopment Agency, toward affordable housing. In November 2015, the California Department of Finance approved the repayment of a City/Agency loan with an outstanding balance of over $36 million. The loan is expected to be repaid over the next four to five fiscal years. The annual repayment, combined with the $1.2 million that Council has directed to be allocated to affordable housing annually from redevelopment residual funds received by the City (i.e. redevelopment "boomerang" funds), would meet or exceed the $7.5 million annual amount recommended by the Housing Commission over the next four to five years. In the longer-term, once the City/Agency loan is repaid, reductions in other programs or designation of General Fund revenue growth toward affordable housing would be necessary to maintain the pace of funding.
Sales Tax: A sales tax increase requires majority voter approval. Each quarter- percent increase results in approximately $7.5 million of additional revenue to the City. The City's current sales tax rate, including the transaction and use tax adopted by voters in 2010, is 9.5 percent. The maximum allowed sales tax rate in California is 10 percent. If the County electorate adopts a sales tax increase to support transit on the same ballot that a sales tax increase is adopted in Santa Monica, both sales tax increases would be valid, though there could be voter antipathy toward two sales tax increases on the same ballot. Currently, fewer than ten cities in California have sales tax rates of 10 percent. Culver City's rate of 9.5 percent matches Santa Monica's, while the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills impose rates of 9.0 percent. Some community members have advocated for a one- half percent sales tax increase in Santa Monica, with a companion measure that asks Council to allocate 50 percent of the funding toward school maintenance. The advocacy reflects concern that while approved school bonds are financing new and renovated school facilities, funding for maintenance of existing school facilities continues to be a challenge. Sales tax ballot measures in a variety of California communities over the last several years have largely been successful. However, there could be concern among local voters that the local sales tax was increased four years ago.
• Documentary Transfer Tax: An increase in the documentary transfer tax, a one-time tax paid upon sale of a property, requires majority voter approval. Every $1.50 increase in the documentary transfer tax is expected to raise approximately $2.4 million per year, though transfer tax receipts are extremely volatile in any year. For example, over the last six years, transfer tax receipts have ranged from a high of $7.9 million to a low of $2.7 million. Santa Monica's current tax rate is $3 per $1,000 of sale value, in addition to the County rate of $1.10 per $1,000. While some 7 of 11
Northern California cities have transfer tax rates of up to $15 per $1,000 of sale value (including a San Francisco rate that goes up to $25 per $1,000), the rates in Culver City and Los Angeles are $4.50 per $1,000, while Beverly Hills maintains the general County rate of $1.10 per $1,000. Polling of Santa Monica residents during April 2014 (Attachment A) indicated majority support for a transfer tax increase, as well as using the increased revenues for affordable housing. However, in November 2014, Santa Monica voters rejected an increase in the documentary transfer tax, following a well-funded opposition campaign by the California Association of Realtors.
• Construction Tax: Imposing a construction tax would require majority voter approval.
The idea entails applying a surcharge based on the valuation of property improvements associated with building permits. For example, if the total valuation of a new construction project was $1 million and the construction tax rate was one percent, the surcharge would be $10,000. Building permit valuations fluctuate significantly from year to year. For example, over the past five years, annual permit valuation has ranged from approximately $250 million to nearly $390 million, meaning that receipts from a construction tax could be volatile. The Housing Commission report recommends a rate of five percent, with an exemption for single- family improvements. The City Attorney's Office is investigating possible legal obstacles to implementing a construction tax, including any limitations on applying the tax to multifamily development and any restrictions on double taxation, as most construction projects pay sales taxes on materials. If a five-percent construction tax had been applied to commercial construction (including tenant improvements) over the past five years, the expected annual receipts would have ranged from a high of $12 million to a low of $3.6 million, with an average of $6.8 million per year.
Other potential revenue measures are not recommended as prime candidates at this time for the following reasons:
• Transient Occupancy Tax: While increasing a tax that is charged only to visitors provides appeal at the ballot box, each one percentage point is estimated to raise approximately $3 million per year, well below the goals identified by the Housing Commission. The hotel industry could wage a fierce battle against a potential measure, particularly in the same year that Council is expected to adopt a hotel living wage.
• Utility User Tax: Tax receipts are gradually declining as use and telecommunication services eligible for the tax decline. In addition, a one percentage point increase is estimated to raise approximately $3 million per year, well below the goals identified by the Housing Commission.
• General Obligation Bond: While a General Obligation Bond creates the opportunity for an immediate infusion of money into the Housing Trust Fund, past polling has shown that the two-thirds voter threshold is likely too high to achieve success. • Parcel Tax: Similar to a General Obligation Bond, the two-thirds voter threshold would be very difficult to surpass.
8 of 11
• Parking Tax: As a large portion of the parking tax is raised from City parking facilities, an increase in the parking tax would simply shift City revenues. In addition, a very large increase in the tax would be required to meet the Housing Commission's goals.
Survey of Santa Monica Voters
Community support for the various funding mechanisms can be gauged through polling.
For example, a poll could test support for a sales tax increase compared with support for implementation of a construction tax. The recommended poll would survey 600 Santa Monica voters. A split survey is proposed in order to gauge reactions to the different potential ballot measures.
The poll could also gauge voter preferences regarding the use of new City proceeds.
For example, the three primary ways to support affordable housing are direct rental subsidies, new construction, and acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings.
Although a broad and robust affordable housing program includes all three components, the proposed resident survey could gauge resident support for the different elements of the program.
The survey could also gauge support for homeownership assistance programming as another potential use of any new affordable housing funding. The housing measure that was recently approved by San Francisco voters included homeownership assistance and it could be useful to understand whether such assistance resonates with Santa Monica residents.
Finally, the City's survey research firm cautions against asking about too many funding sources or too many programs, as the survey would need to be of a manageable length in order to find participants and its reliability would be increased with fewer options.
Ideally, the report would ask questions regarding two potential funding sources, rather than three. In that regard, staff recommends that the survey focus on the sales tax increase and the imposition of a construction tax, given that the 2014 election showed that the documentary transfer tax is difficult for many voters to understand and that there is a well-funded organization ready to fight the increase. 9 of 11
Vendor/Consultant Selection
In late 2014, the City issued a request for proposals seeking a public opinion and research consulting firm to conduct the citywide telephone survey. Following review of proposals by an interdepartmental evaluation committee, on July 28, 2015, Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Goodwin Simon Strategic Research to complete two citywide surveys over the next four years.
Given the firm's familiarity with Santa Monica, as well as the need to coordinate the regular citywide survey with the proposed revenue survey, staff recommends an amendment to the existing contract with Goodwin Simon.
Next Steps
With Council approval, the polling of residents regarding support for various funding sources and affordable housing approaches would be anticipated to occur during February or March of 2016. Staff would then return to Council with results of the polling and recommended strategies, including a potential revenue measure for the November 2016 ballot. November 2016 may be an ideal juncture for voters to consider a potential measure, given that it is a presidential election that is expected to yield high voter turnout, which typically produces more progressive voting in Santa Monica.
With Council support, staff would continue to review the other recommendations included in the Housing Commission staff report and return to Council with recommendations as part of the upcoming budget preparation process.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The proposed contract modification with Goodwin Simon Strategic Research is for an amount not to exceed $40,000. Funds are available in the FY 2015-16 budget at account SO015202.589000.
Prepared By: James Kemper, Housing Administrator
10 of 11
Approved Forwarded to Council
Adecaitis ick
Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Dírector 12/30/2015 Rick Cole, City Manager 174/2016 Andy Agle, Director 12/30/2015
Attachments:
A. Weblink Summary of City of Santa Monica Issues 2013 Survey B. Weblink Staff Report 8.25.2015
C. Final Housing Commission Report
D. Written Comments
E. PowerPoint
11 of 11
Minutes from
the
January 12, 2016
Council Meeting
Councilmember suggest
increasing the PSA by
$60,000 instead of the
requested $40,000. All
voted in favor.
See yellow highlights.
(NOT APPROVED)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 2016
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Vazquez at 5:32 p.m., on Tuesday, January 12, 2016, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street.
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Tony Vazquez
Mayor Pro Tem Ted Winterer
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Sue Himmelrich
Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Councilmember Pam O'Connor (arrived at 6:15 p.m.)
Councilmember Terry O'Day (arrived at 5:55 p.m.)
Also Present: City Manager Rick Cole
City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie
Acting City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:32 p.m., with all Councilmembers
ANNOUNCEMENT Assistant City Manager read an announcement from Sarah Gorman that she will be stepping down from her position as City Clerk for personal reasons, and will be working as a Senior Advisor to the City Attorney and City CLOSED SESSIONS Members of the public Denise Barton commented on closed sessions.
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:37 p.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 7:12 p.m., with all members present, to report the following:
Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation:
Anticipate significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) - 2 cases - 1) Part 16 re leasing policy, landing fees and loans 2) Voting Rights Act
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.
1 January 12, 2016
Motion by Agency/Councilmember McKeown, seconded by
Agency/Councilmember Himmelrich, to approve the Consent Calendar, reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Agency/Councilmembers O'Connor, O'Day, Himmelrich, Davis, McKeown, Chair Pro Tem/Mayor Pro Tem Winterer,
Chair/Mayor Vazquez
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MINUTES 3.A. The minutes for the November 24, 2015 City Council, were approved.
MINUTES 3.B. The minutes for the December 8, 2015 City Council, were approved.
MINUTES 3.C. The minutes for the December 15, 2015 City Council, were approved.
SANTA MONICA 3.D. Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Access Agreement to Airport COLLEGE BUNDY Avenue from Santa Monica College Bundy Campus, was approved.
CAMPUS
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute five-year Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Access Agreement No. 10236 (CCS) with Santa Monica Community College District ("SMC") to allow for pedestrian ingress and egress, and continued vehicular egress from the north vehicle gate at SM's Satellite Campus to the intersection of Donald Douglas Loop South and Airport Avenue.
BID #4225 3.E. Bid Award for Purchase of One Compressed Natural Gas Rear Broom Street Sweeper, was approved
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award Bid #4225 to Ray Gaskin Service, a California-based company, for the purchase and delivery of one Compressed Natural Gas Rear Broom Street Sweeper.
2. Authorize the Purchasing Services Manager to issue a purchase order with Ray Gaskin Service for one Compressed Natural Gas Rear Broom Street Sweeper in an amount not to exceed $339,123.
POLICE UTILITY 3.F. Purchase of 22 Police Interceptor Utility Vehicles, was approved.
VEHICLES
3 January 12, 2016
Recovery and Recycling division of the Public Works department;
2. Authorize the Purchasing Services Manager to issue a purchase order with Reynolds Buick for the purchase and delivery of four Bin Trucks in an amount not to exceed $234,554.
VEHICLE RENTAL 3.J. Bid Award for Vehicle Rental Service for Police Department, SERVICE was approved.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award Bid #4210 to Enterprise Rent-A-Car, a Missouri-based company, for Vehicle Rental Service.
2. Authorize the Purchasing Services Manager to issue a purchase order for the Police Department with Enterprise Rent-A-Car for Vehicle Rental Service in an amount not to exceed $118,484 for one year, with two additional one-year renewal options to extend at a 3% price increase for a total not to exceed $366,223 with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
3. Authorize the Purchasing Services Manager to issue a purchase order for Fleet Management with Enterprise Rent-A-Car for Vehicle Rental Service in an amount not to exceed $133,700 for one year, with 2 additional 1-year renewal options to extend at a 3% price increase for a total not to exceed $413,253 with future year funding LOW CARBON TRANSIT 3.K. Adopt a Resolution for the Low Carbon Transit Operations OPERATIONS Program, was adopted.
PROGRAM
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 10929 (CCS), entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER FOR THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTION OF
THE CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES FOR THE LOW
CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP)."
FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.L. Award of Bid for Fire Department Equipment, was approved.
EQUIPMENT
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award Bid #4231 to two vendors: L.N. Curtis, a California-based 5 January 12, 2016
1601 LINCOLN BLVD. 7.B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2508 (CCS) DEVELOPMENT entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
AGREEMENT OF SANTA MONICA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND FSTAR 1601, LLC", was
presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.
Motion by Councilmember Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers O'Connor, O'Day, Himmelrich, Davis, Mckeown, Mayor Pro Tem Winterer, Mayor Vazquez
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MINIMUM WAGE 7.C. Introduction for First Reading an Ordinance Setting a Minimum Wage to be Effective in the City of Santa Monica, was presented
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance setting a minimum wage to be effective in the City of Santa Monica with a phased approach to reach $15 per hour by 2020 for most businesses; and to reach $15.37 per hour by July 1, 2017 for hotel workers.
Members of the public Richard Hilton, Jason Islas, Hunter G. Hall, Beth Schrader, Laurel Rosen, Richard Peterson, Colby Goff, Carl Hansen, , Robert Huddock, Paloma Nicholas (time donated by Claudia Batista), Austen Ariniello, Jasmine Joffe, Renya Orellana, Andy Moss, Linda Piera- Avila, Jonah Breslav, Maritza Ponce (time donated by Joseph Silva), Melanie Luthern, Alexander Weyman (time donated by Andrew Cohen), Vivian Rothstein, Jim Conn, Abby Arnold, Jackie Martin, Lupe Stevenson, Rose Marie Molina, Sion Roy, Cathy Gentile, Janet McKeithen, Sophia Cheng, Eleutario Sanchez, Derek Smith, Bridie Roberts, Oscar de la Torre, Maria Loya, Sarah Braff, Matthew Lehman, Francis Engler (time donated by Maria Zamora), Ira Gottlieb, Marcy Winograd, Jennifer Kennedy, Jeremy Blasi, Denny Zane, (late) Jeramy Stutes, Robin Welner, and Sonya Sultan spoke generally in favor of the recommended action. 7 January 12, 2016
some sort of public testimony.
Council directed the City Manager, and staff to be responsible for convening the Working Group to prioritize the amendment items, and come back with an ordinance.
STAFF 8.A. Potential New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing, ADMINISTRATIVE was presented.
ITEMS:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review, comment, and provide direction regarding a report prepared by the Housing Commission regarding potential sources of funding for affordable housing;
2. Review, comment, and provide direction regarding a narrowed list of potential sources of financing for affordable housing, and
3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to professional services agreement No. 10141 in the amount of $40,000 with Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, a California-based company, to conduct a resident survey to gauge support for various potential affordable housing funding strategies, resulting in a four-year amended agreement with a total amount not to exceed $123,400.
Members of the public Denise Barton, Michael Soloff (time donated by Ed Hunsaker), Richard Hilton (time donated by Zina Josephs), Jim Conn, Art Casillas, Denny Zane, Sarah Letts, People of California, and (late) Jennifer Kennedy, spoke on the recommended action.
Questions were asked of staff regarding polling options, and how many questions should be included on the survey for wording for a possible ballot measure; increasing the sample size enough to assess more options; and, clarification that this would be an advisory tax.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to polling about prioritizing affordable housing and all of the possible ballot measures to consider possible voter fatigue, resistance to a documentary transfer tax.
Motion by Councilmember Davis, seconded by Councilmember O'Day, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to professional services agreement No. 10141, in the amount of $40,000 with Goodwin Simon Strategic Research to conduct a resident survey.
Comments and direction given to staff for possible survey questions, include: documentary transfer tax and transient occupancy tax in Los 9 January 12, 2016
ELLIS EXPANSION 13.E. Request of Mayor pro tem Winterer and Councilmember McKeown that Council direct staff to explore expanded Ellis and other involuntary relocation protections for households which include school-age children, similar to the augmented protections afforded to avoid the trauma to vulnerabl
seniors and persons with dised force to avoid the arad me to vulnerabl There were no members of the public present on this item.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Winterer, to give direction to staff to investigate whether we locally have the ability to do something to protect young children, and that Council support the statewide efforts that are underway to make minor amendments to the Ellis Act that would extend the protection time for people, and would also require landlords to notify the public agency, and tenants when the units come back on the market.
Councilmember Davis made an amendment to the motion to broaden the language to include households with children under the age of 18. The motion was accepted as friendly by the maker and seconder of the motion.
The amended motion with direction to staff was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.
PUBLIC INPUT: Members of the public Denise Barton, People of California, Jonathan Foster, and Art Casillas commented on various local issues.
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 12:19 a.m. in memory of Steve Demmer, Warren Long, Haskell Wexler, Rachel Bendacourt Peterson.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Tony Vazquez
Acting City Clerk Mayor
11 January 12, 2016
July 28, 2015
Staff Report
Requesting PSA with
Goodwin Simon
Strategic Research
City Council Report
CHy ol
Sania Monies
City Council Regular Meeting: July 28, 2015
Agenda Item: 3-E
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Elaine Polachek, Asst. City Manager, Community & Government Relations Subject: Professional Services Agreement with Goodwin Simon Strategic Research to conduct Bi-Annual Citywide Resident Satisfaction Surveys Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award RFP #16 to Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, a California-based company to provide professional services in the field of public opinion polling/research consulting to conduct the City's Bi-Annual Citywide Resident Satisfaction Survey
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional service agreement with Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, in an amount not to exceed $38,250 for one bi-annual resident survey, with one-additional renewal option in the amount of $45,150, for a total amount not to exceed $83,400 to conduct two bi-annual resident surveys over a four-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
3. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report
Executive Summary
This agreement would provide professional services to conduct one bi-annual resident survey with the option to renew for one additional bi-annual resident survey. In December 2014, the City published an RFP for professional services to conduct the City's bi-annual resident surveys. After reviewing the proposals received, staff recommends Goodwin Simon Strategic Research (GSSR) be awarded the contract for an amount not to exceed $83,400.
Background
The City of Santa Monica conducts a bi-annual telephone survey of Santa Monica residents to assess attitudes about City services and to identify changes in attitudes compared to similar studies conducted in previous years. Goodwin Simon conducted this survey five times for the City between 2001 and 2009. Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) conducted the two subsequent surveys. On November 25, 1 of 3
2014 (See Attachment A) staff recommended contracting with FM3 for one additional survey, however, Council directed staff to go out to bid for the survey.
Discussion
In previous resident surveys, 400 surveys were conducted by telephone to landline and cellular phone numbers of Santa Monica residents. Certain questions were asked year- over-year to allow for comparisons of results. Additional questions were also developed to address emerging issues, meet operational needs of City departments for more in- depth information, and to establish new benchmarks on key services. A similar approach would be utilized in the next bi-annual resident survey to ensure that the survey results provide interesting and useful information that will help identify service priorities and guide development of work plans. During the development of the survey portions of the methodology, such as the number of surveys and percentage of cellular phone surveys, will be reviewed to ensure a representative sample of the diverse and ever changing resident population.
Vendor/Consultant Selection
On December 22, 2014, the City issued an RFP seeking a public opinion polling/research consulting firm to conduct the bi-annual citywide telephone survey to gauge satisfaction levels amongst residents in regards to programs and services provided by the City of Santa Monica. The RFP was posted on the City's on-line bidding website and notices were advertised in the Santa Monica Daily Press in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code provisions. 102 vendors were notified and 41 vendors downloaded the RFP. Responses for the RFP were due February 4, 2015. A total of eight proposals were received.
City Manager's Office and Community and Cultural Services department staff evaluated the eight proposals based on criteria listed in the RFP and then interviewed four finalist firms. Based on the selection criteria in SMMC 2.24.073, GSSR was recommended as the best qualified firm to conduct the bi-annual resident survey. GSSR was selected 2 of 3
based on the firm's expertise as an independent opinion research firm, the depth of their experience with similar projects, their knowledge of the community, and their experience conducting this survey for the City in the past. Following Council approval, the City will work with GSSR to develop the survey which is anticipated to be conducted this fall/winter.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The agreement to be awarded to GSSR is for an amount not to exceed $83,400. Funds for this agreement were designated in the FY 2014-15 budget in the City. Manager's Department. Award of this agreement requires the appropriation of $38,250 in FY 2014-15 savings to account 012071.555060. Future year funding is contingent on Council budget approval.
Prepared By: Melissa Lindley, Community Relations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
« AN . P
Elaine M Polachek, Asst. City Matiagt2015 Elaine M Polachek, Asst. City Mahiage2015 Attachments:
A. November 25, 2014 Staff Report (web link)
3 of 3