Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/19/2005, BUS. 4 - PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM
M fi4D� 7-19-05 counc�l . � [A] agcn6a Repom 6as. 4 CITY Of SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Information Technology SUBJECT: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM CAO RECOMMENDATION Consistent with the Council's major City goal work program for long=term fiscal health and past direction, approve moving forward with a comprehensive public education and community outreach program about the City's fiscal situation by: 1. Appropriating $132;500 from the unreserved General Fund:balance in funding an effective program. 2. Entering into an agreement with the The.Lew Edwards Group for professional assistance in conducting an effective program in the amount of$45,000. DISCUSSION Overview In light of the significant fiscal challenges facing the City combined with the results of the feasibility analysis presented at the May 17, 2005 meeting, the Council directed staff to return in July 2005 with an action plan, schedule and budget for proceeding with the next step of initiating a public information program in preparing for a possible revenue ballot measure in 2006. As noted at that time, while the analysis concluded that a general-purpose sales tax ballot measure is feasible, it also concluded that its success depends upon an effective public education and community outreach program. Consistent with previous analysis discussed with the Council, we believe that proposed workscope, budget and professional assistance provide essential building blocks in conducting the effective program recommended in that report. Background On May 17, 2005, the Council considered a report on the feasibility of a revenue ballot measure in 2006, which was prepared with the assistance of The Lew Edwards Group (LEG) and Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin and Associates (FMMA). The key findings from that report include: 1. There are early indications of voter support for a revenue measure. When initially queried, over half (52%) of the likely voters surveyed said they would favor a local ballot measure asking voters to "provide additional funds in order to maintain and protect the level of essential services currently provided by the City of San Luis Obispo." Thirty-one percent (31%) said they would oppose the measure, with 16% undecided. Public Education and Community Outreach Program Page 2 2. More Citizen 'Information: More Citizen Support. After hearing a brief paragraph providing the City's rationale for a possible revenue enhancement measure, support increased to 56%. Following a set of positive messages arguing in favor of a revenue measure, , support rose further to 59%. This.underscores the importance of providing, our community with FMMA is one of the leading public opinion research firms in the nation, accurate, non-partisan information about our with extensive experience in local fiscal situation. government. For example, they worked closely with "LOCAL"on the 3. Support for sales tar measure. Sales tax and very successful outcome of transient occupancy tax gained the most support Proposition IA. as funding mechanisms. A majority of the LEG has extensive experience in respondents supported either a '/a% or 1/z% sales assisting local agencies in California res P pp with public education programs in tax measure. preparation for possible revenue ballot measures. Over 90%of the 4. Sunset provision strengthens support. Nearly six revenue measures they have been in ten (59%) voters said they would be more associated with have been likelyto support the measure if it included a five- successful; and all their sales tax PP measures have been successful. year sunset provision. 5. Top voter concerns. Repairing and maintaining City streets, reducing traffic congestion, and improving levels of police, fire and emergency services are among the top funding priorities. 6. Favorable opinions about the community and City government pose a challenge as well as an opportunity. .96% of the respondents said that San Luis Obispo is an excellent (67%) or good (28%) place to live; and two-thirds said this would get better or stay the same over the next five years. A similar number(68%) said that the City is doing an excellent or good job providing services (only 4% thought we were doing a poor job). As noted by FMMA in their report, the high value that voters place on the quality of life.in San Luis Obispo and the confidence they have in City government should translate into support for a revenue ballot measure. On the other hand, this could also mean that voters might be less likely to believe there is a need to provide more money for current services. Again, this reinforces the importance of telling our fiscal story to the community in a compelling way through an effective public information pro rgram. 7. Conclusion: A general-purpose sales tax ballot measure is feasible. However, its success will depend upon strong fiscal accountability provisions-accompanied by an effective public information and community education/outreach program. Based on the findings of this feasibility analysis, and the significant fiscal challenges facing the City in providing essential services and adequately maintaining basic infrastructure, the Council directed staff to return in July 2005 with an action plan, schedule and budget for proceeding with the next step of initiating a public information program, which is the purpose of this report.. y- z Public Education and Community Outreach Program Page 3 Proposed Program Workscope The proposed public education and community outreach program is consistent with workscope identified in the May 17 report to the Council, and includes the following key elements: 1. Direct Mail. Implementing a direct mail program that includes a return card or other mechanism to allow citizens to ask questions, provide input or otherwise comment on the City's proposal. With this approach, we can identify and address questions early in the process while educating our community about the fiscal challenges facing us. LEG recommends six informational mailers over the next year (about one every two months). Sample mailers from other successful public education and outreach programs carried-out by cities with assistance from LEG are provided in Attachment 3. 2. "Earned"Media. Placing informational update storiesin local papers, radio and television news, and other media, as well as other communication vehicles such as our website and the City's public access cable television channel. 3. Community Meeting Outreach. Creating a speakers bureau for community group meetings and holding `-`town halls" and other community meetings. 4. Public Opinion Research Update. At the end of the education program, updating our public opinion research before formally placing the measure on the ballot. Along with evaluating the success of the education program, this will help focus on specific local issues, problems and opportunities that will need to be addressed for a successful measure. As discussed below, based on the experience in other California communities in successfully preparing for revenue ballot measures, we believe that an effective public education and community outreach program requires the assistance of an experienced professional that specializes in this type of work. For this reason, we recommend contracting with LEG for assistance in developing and implementing this program. Proposed Program Budget As set forth in the major City goal work program for Long-Term Fiscal Health adopted by the Council as part of the 2005-07 Financial Plan (Attachment 1), we estimated that an effective public education and community outreach program would cost $75,000 to $150,000. Based on the proposed workscope, the recommended budget of $132500 is consistent with this estimate, summarized as follows: Task Cost Public Education Program Advisor 45,000 Voter Data 2,500 Direct Mail: Postage and Printing for Six Mailers 55,000 Public Opinion Research Update 18;500 Other Costs 5,000 Contingencies @ 50% _ 6,500 Total $132,500 G1-3 Public Education and Community Outreach Program Page 4 As shown in the sidebar, this budget is comparable Comparable Public Education to that used recently by other cities (ranging in Budgets in Successful Communities population size from 19,000 to 210;000) that City of Fremont $235,000 successfully prepared for revenue ballot measures. City of Escondido $161,000 City of La Mesa $135,000 Agreement with LEG City of Visalia $97,000 City of Dinuba $95,000 As noted above, we believe that an effective public City of Los Banos $81,000 education and community outreach program requires the assistance of an experienced professional that specializes in this type of work. Based on their outstanding record of success, and their effective working relationship with the City in the past, we recommend contracting with LEG for this assistance. As detailed in the proposed agreement with them(Attachment 2), their services include: 1. Developing an overall public education and outreach plan to expand community awareness and seek input on the City's needs before placing a measure on the ballot. 2. Conceiving, writing and producing pre-election, informational (non-advocacy) media, including brochures, letters, mailers, community radio and newsletters as appropriate. (Sample mailers from other successful communities are provided in Attachment 3). 3. Working with the City to finalize a detailed timeline. (A draft schedule of tasks and timeframes is provided on page A-5 of the proposed agreement.) 4. Working with FMMA and City staff in updating public opinion research. 5. ,Working with the City's legal counsel on the ballot question and other submittals, to ensure that effective communications as well as legal requirements are met. 6. Training City staff, volunteers and other stakeholders on non-partisan, information-only speakers bureau activities and community outreach. 7. Developing an earned(non-paid) media plan for press coverage on our needs. 8. Identifying and working with data base vendors and specialists to refine, code and develop specialized demographic files. As set forth in the proposed budget and recommended agreement, compensation for these services is $45,000, plus actual travel expenses not to exceed$5,000. FISCAL IWACT As discussed in the work program provided in Attachment 1, funding for this program is not appropriated in the 2005-07 Financial Plan. The work program states that "any funding decisions in preparing for a revenue ballot measure should wait until the Council decides to do' so, which is likely to occur after the Council approves the 2005-07 Financial Plan." The work program also notes that in the event that the Council approves going forward with a public information program as "Step 2" in this process, that this would be an appropriate use of the General Fund reserve as a one-time cost that positions us for an improved long-term fiscal outlook. Based on the approved Financial Plan and modest reductions in multi-dwelling fire y-y Public Education,and Community Outreach Program _ . Page 5 inspection fees since then, the'projected ending General Fund balance for 2005-07 will be 15.4% of operating expenditures if the Council approves the proposed appropriation, which is consistent with the budget balancing strategy approved by the Council. In summary, moving forward with the next step in preparing for a revenue ballot measure in 2006 will require us to make a modest investment of our resources in the near term. However,. this added investment was anticipated in the 2005-07 Financial Plan; and there will be significant adverse fiscal consequences in the long-run if we are unsuccessful in educating our community about the need for added revenues in funding essential services. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not move forward with a public education and community outreach program. Given the importance of undertaking an effective public information and outreach program for a successful revenue ballot measure, we do not recommend this option. Moreover, this would be inconsistent with the Council's action at the May 17, 2005 meeting directing staff to return in July 2005 with an action plan, schedule and budget.for proceeding with the next step of initiating a public information program. 2. Reduce the workscope. There are several options for reducing the workscope and related program costs, such as not using professional assistance, eliminating or reducing mailers, and not following up with public opinion research at the conclusion of the public education program. However, we believe that the most effective way of increasing our chances for success is to the follow the actions taken by others who have been successful in telling their fiscal stories; and this is the basis for the proposed workscope. Accordingly, given the importance of this step in preparing for a .successful revenue ballot measure, we do not recommend a reduced workscope, which would significantly reduce the likelihood of success. 3. Expand the workscope. Based on the experience of others who have conducted successful public education programs, we believe that the proposed workscope is adequate in effectively telling the City's fiscal story. ATTACHMENTS 1. Major City Goal Work Program: Long-Term Fiscal Health 2.. Agreement with The Lew Edwards Group 3. Sample Mailers from Other Successful Public Education and Community Outreach Programs .AVAILABLE IN THE COUNCIL READING FILE Council Agenda.Report, May 17, 2005: Results of Revenue Ballot Measure Feasibility Analysis G:Ballot Measure Preparation/2006/Agreements and Budget/Council Report,7-19-05 i Attachment 1 PoLiCIES AND OBJECTIVES MAJOR CITY GOALS—LONG-TERM FISCAL HEALTH OBJECTIVE Continue developing and implementing a long-term plan that will deliver desired service levels, adequately maintain existing infrastructure and facilities, and preserve the City's long-term fiscal health. DISCUSSION Overview Accomplishing the Major City Goals for 2005-07 will require a continued commitment to protecting the City's long-term fiscal health. Given the significant fiscal challenges facing us based on the recently prepared five-year forecast, this will mean developing a comprehensive strategy for delivering desired service levels and adequately maintaining existing facilities and infrastructure, while at.the same time protecting the City's fiscal health. Since the forecast is based on a"maintenance-only"Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),the challenge becomes even greater in achieving other important.CIP goals such as implementing the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan;relieving traffic congestion, preserving open space and improving sports fields. Background Results of the Five-Year Fiscal Forecast.. As part of the goal=setting process for 2005-07, a detailed five-year forecast for the General Fund was prepared and presented to the Council in December 2004 in order to assess the City's fiscal environment and gain some initial insights on the "order of magnitude" difficulty we would likely experience in balancing the budget for 2005-07. The results showed that the City is facing another difficult fiscal future. The forecast projected an annual average budget gap of$2.4 million for the 2005-07 planning period and an ongoing short-fall of approximately $700,000 for each year after that, even if all we do is maintain current service levels and continue to severely limit infrastructure and facility maintenance. This is excluding a one-time shortfall of $1.4 Forecast Budget Cap:2005-10 million in the City's minimum reserve in 2004-05 that will carryover into 2005-06 as 2005-06 2006-07 zoos os zoos-oe x003-io the result of taking our reserve level to 16% $250,000 1_1 _ of operating expenditures rather than the .-$500,000 _ policy minimum of 20%. $1,250,000 Tough Fiscal Past, Tough Fiscal Future. -$2,000,000 The fiscal situation facing the City two years -$2,750,000 - ago in 2003-05 was the toughest in over ten -$3,500,000 years, since the "one-two punch" of the -$4,250,000 recession and State budget takeaways of the mid-1990's. We were facing a General Fund 45.000,000 budget gap of $7 million-about 20% of our t]Annual Gap p Carryover Gap f rom 2004-05 General Fund revenues—which we successfully closed through a combination of expenditure reductions in operations and capital improvements, new revenues and use of reserves. Because of added State takeaways totaling $1.5 million, we had to revisit the General Fund budget in 2004-05. To accommodate this, we made further expenditure cuts (most notably in our paving program);reinstated the hiring and training chill; and for the first time since we adopted our minimum reserve policy fifteen years ago of 20% of B-61 y_ Attachment 1 POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES MAJOR CITY GOALS—LONG-TERM FISCAL HEALTH operating expenditures, we went below this level to 16%. While this. is significant in signaling the tough fiscal times facing us, it is also consistent with the strategy adopted as part of the 2003-05 Financial Plan: to maintain reserves at policy levels as our fust line of defense against even more State budget grabs. Fewer Budget Balancing Options Remain. While the amount of the gap is significantly lower than the one facing us two years ago, there are aspects of the current situation that are even tougher. In closing the$7 million budget gap two years ago, we: 1. Reduced operating expenditures (and related 2003-05 Budget Balancing Strategy services)by $1.7 million. Closing the General Fund Gap 2. Implemented$1.1 million in new revenues o Reserves (primarily user fees). 11°x° 0 Revenues 3. Significantly reduced our capital improvements 15% v QP (by about$3.5 million from target levels). 49% 4. Used$800,000 in reserves. l Expendnures:74% ❑Operating Programs In short; we have already used these budget- 25% balancers and they are now part of our current base: - we can't "count them twice." Coming on top of these, this means that any further service reductions will be much more difficult to implement, especially in light of the fact that police and fire protection accounts for over 50% of General Fund operating costs; and new revenue options under Proposition.218 are few and far between.• Lower Reserves. As noted above, we went below our policy level in 2004-05 for the first time since we adopted our minimum reserve policy fifteen years ago. While this was consistent with our adopted strategy of using reserves as our first line of defense against even more State budgetgrabs; it means we will go into the 2005-07 Financial Plan process with a lower level of reserves than we did two years ago: we began 2003-05 with General Fund reserves that were 30% of operating expenditures, compared with our current projection of 16% at the end of 2004-05. In summary, the gap facing us in 2005-07 follows a series of tough budget-balancing actions over the past two years. One Bright Spot. Passage of Proposition IA. The recent passage of Proposition IA on November 2, 2004 significantly improves our fiscal situation by shielding us from more State budget raids, and thus provides us with greater certainty and stability on this front than we've experienced in many years. However, it is important to stress that it only helps prevent added State budget cuts to cities in the future: it doesn't return any past takeaways, which currently cost the City over$3 million each and every year(and total over$22 million over the past sixteen years). It is also important to note that Proposition IA does not create an impervious firewall from more State raids:they are still possible, but they are much harder to do. The Ground Rules: If two-thirds of the legislature declares a fiscal emergency, then funds can be taken away from local government, but only as a loan that must be repaid within three years; the amount cannot be more than $1.3 billion; it cannot occur more than twice in a ten-year B-62 L4-"-7 Attachment 1 POLICIES AND—OBJECTIVES MAJOR CITY GOALS—LONG-TERM FISCAL HEALTH period; and no new takeaways can be:made if a past takeaway has not been repaid. This is a high hurdle to overcome,certainly,but not an impossible one. In exchange for this reasonable assurance (but not guarantee) of "no mas, no mas" in the future, local goverrunents agreed to give the State $1.3 billion per year for two years (in 2004-05 and 2005-06), for a total of$2.6 billion. The City's share of this is about$680,000 per year, or$1.36 million over two years. After this, we should return to our prior situation, which, as noted above, is continuing to lose $3 million per year to the State. In short; while passage of Proposition IA was essential for our future fiscal health and stability, it does not improve our current fiscal situation: it simply deters the State from making it worse. Preparing for 2005-07. Steps Already Taken. In addition to the budget-balancing actions taken as part of the 2003-05 budget process, we have taken a number of steps in positioning the.City for 2005-07. We have a Fiscal Health Contingency Plan in place, and have already taken a number of cost saving steps, including a hiring freeze, ongoing reductions in operating costs and deep cuts in CIP projects. Additionally, while many people say that they want"less government,"the fact is that our surveys—and our daily experience—show that we face requests for more service, not less. So, while our immediate goal for 2005-07 is to bring expenditure and revenues into balance for the next two years, we will have to continue to work on ways of "re-tooling" the organization and developing new revenues if we want to meet our community's needs and hopes for the long term. Challenges We Will Face in Achieving this Goal Our short-term strategy for balancing the 2005-07 budget and closing the projected $2.4 million annual gap consists of the following four components- 1. omponents:1. Developing a General Fund CIP that is the lowest possible in reasonably maintaining our existing infrastructure and facilities. Z. Strategically using our reserves. 3. Implementing selected new revenues as allowed under Proposition 218.. 4. Reducing operating program costs and related service levels. Each of these components will be evaluated further and refined as we prepare the Preliminary Financial Plan. However, this short-term strategy will not serve us well in the longer term if we want to deliver desired service levels, adequately maintain existing infrastructure and facilities, and achieve longer-term, already-adopted CIP goals. As such, we need to identify and implement other strategies for preserving service levels; achieving CIP goals and maintaining our fiscal health. These include: 1. Organizational. Vitality. Making our organization more productive; delivering current or higher levels of service for less in response to community needs. 2. Economic Development. Helping our economy perform better than our forecast projections. Generating additional revenues from two of our top three General Fund revenues—sales tax and transient occupancy tax—are both the topics of a separate Major City Goal. B-63 y = -Attachment-1. I-POLICIESAND OBJECTIVES MAJOR CITY GOALS—LONG-TERM FISCAL HEALTH 3. User Fees. Ensuring that the City's user fees recover costs in accordance with adopted user fee policies. 4. Legislative Advocacy., Working closely through our legislative program to prevent further adverse fiscal impacts on the City by state,federal or County agencies. 5. Citizen-Supported Revenue Options.. Developing strategies for a possible revenue ballot measure in.June or November 2006. ACTION PLAN In concert with the related Major City" Goal of generating additional revenues from sales tax and transient occupancy tax, there are five proposed components to this action plan for long-tern fiscal health: O Increase Organizational Productivity Staffing costs are the largest part of the City's budget, accounting for 75% of operating costs in the General Fund. Continuing our Organizational Vitality program, which identifies and supports methods of improving organizational effectiveness and customer service on an ongoing basis, is a key component of our long-term fiscal health strategy. A Continue Legislative Advocacy " We need to continue"working closely with our employee associations, the League of California Cities, other local governments, professional associations and other groups to prevent further State raids on city revenue sources, unfunded mandates, reductions in key grant.programs such as the Community Development Block Grant and other State or federal actions that limit our fiscal independence: A Review and Monitor the City's Fiscal Condition Effective reporting and monitoring of the City's fiscal condition on an ongoing basis is an essential, fundamental component of managing our finances and assuring our long-term fiscal health. O Update the 2000 Cost of Services Study Under the City's user fee policy,a comprehensive cost of-services study should be prepared at least once every five years in ensuring an appropriate cost insetting City fees. In the interim, fees are adjusted by changes in the consumer price index as-well as adjustments due to significant changes in the method,level or cost of delivering specific services. We performed our last comprehensive review of service costs and related revenues in 2000;as such, it,is timely to update this analysis for 2006 by an independent cost accounting firm specializing in this type of work. This update will answer four basic questions: 1. How much does it cost us to provide various City services? 2. Are these costs reasonable? 3. What are our current revenues and cost recovery levels? 4. What should our revenue levels be given our adopted user fee policy? B-64 Attachment 1 POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES MAJOR CITY GOALS—LONG-TERM FISCAL HEALTH © Consider Preparing for a Revenue Ballot Measure in 2006 As noted above., the recommended budget balancing strategy for 2005-07 will go a long way towards stabilizing our budget situation for the long-term, assuming the problem stays about where it is as of March 2003. However, it is based on a significantly reduced General'Fund CIP that will not be good for the community over the long term. In short, without draconian reductions in day-to-day services, additional resources will be needed to address our long-term CIP goals—both to adequately maintain what we already have as well as to make reasonable progress in achieving our General Plan objectives. Proposition 218: The Need for Voter-Supported New Revenues.. Under Proposition 218, which was approved by California voters in November 1996, new or increased general-purpose taxes require majority voter approval, and the measure must be held at the same time as Council elections unless the Council unanimously decided to hold a ballot measure sooner. Special taxes require two-thirds majority approval, but the election can be held at any time. This means that any significant new revenues require community support—in evidence on Election Day. Gaining this support requires more than a compelling need: it also requires communicating this need in a compelling way. And this requires effective preparation by the City before placing the measure on the ballot; and an effective community-based group that will campaign for its passage afterwards. The first pre-condition—effective preparation—is within the control of the City; the second one—an effective community-based group—is not. Stated simply, the City will need broad-based community support– in evidence on Election Day-to implement new revenue sources. Creating support among elected officials and community leaders – even if it broadly crosses a number of interest groups – is no longer enough. With these profound changes in voter approval requirements, cities must communicate a compelling vision for new revenues at a grass roots level among likely voters. Even though this may seem a high-hurdle, many cities throughout the State have been successful in gaining voter approval for revenue measures,even at the two-thirds level. However, based on the experience of many other communities, achieving this-support at the ballot box (the only place it matters) requires two key ingredients: a compelling vision of how the new revenues would be used; and an effective way of communicating this vision to likely voters. Although they were driven by very different factors, communities in California that have been successful in generating broad-based voter support for new revenues share one thing in common: they were the result of extensive community-based efforts, which included a combination of outreach tools, and professional assistance to use them effectively. Based on the experience of many cities and other local government agencies throughout the State, if the need is compelling and is effectively communicated, this effort is likely to be successful. However, it requires commitment, resources (more on this later), time, and most importantly, a strong community-based advocacy group that will aggressively raise funds and campaign for the issue once it is on the ballot. This last issue cannot be stressed enough. Under State law, cities have broad discretion in using their funds for professional assistance in researching issues, conducting surveys and developing voter support strategies. However, once an issue becomes a formal.ballot measure, cities cannot participate as an advocate in any way. In short, unless there is a strong community-based group that is willing to aggressively raise funds and campaign for the measure, it is not likely to pass. B-65 y_� Attachment 1 POLICIESP OBJECTIVES MAJOR CITY GOALS—LONG-TERM FISCAL HEALTH Elements of a Successful Revenue Measure. There are three major steps in preparing for a successful revenue measure: 1. Feasibility assessment. Conduct scientifically-based public opinion research and assess the likelihood.of a successful revenue measure. 2. Public information program. If the public opinion research is favorable, develop and implement a public information educational program on why new revenues are needed. 3. Ballot measure. Place the measure on the ballot if there is a community-based group that will aggressively campaign for its passage. As noted above, it is important to stress that while the City can take the lead on the first two tasks in preparing for the measure, once it is placed on the ballot we can no longer be an active participant in the process or commit resources to its passage in any way. For this reason, even though the results of the fust two steps may have been very positive, placing the:measure on the ballot should only occur if a community-based group has emerged that will campaign for its passage. Summary. Gaining voter support for a revenue measure—in evidence on Election Day—requires more than.a compelling need: it also requires communicating this need in a compelling way. And this requires effective preparation by the City—doing our homework, and allocating adequate time and resources to this endeavor— before placing a revenue measure on the ballot (which is within' the control of the City); and an effective community=based group that will campaign for its passage afterwards(which is not). Tasks and Schedule Task D6te 1: Organizational Productivity. Continue organizational vitality program in improving Ongoing productivity and customer service. 2. Legislative Advocacy. Continue working closely with our employee associations, the Ongoing League of California Cities,other local governments; professional associations and other groups to prevent further adverse fiscal impacts on the City by State, federal or County agencies. 3. Review and Monitor the City's Fiscal Condition. Continue to effectively review and Ongoing monitor the City's fiscal condition on an ongoing and timely basis; including on-line access to financial data,quarterly newsletters,focused reporting on key revenues, mid-year budget reviews and preparation of annual financial reports in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and nationally recognized excellence in financial reporting guidelines. 4. Update the 2000 Cost of Services Study. Consistent with the City's user fee policy of preparing a comprehensive cost of services study at least every five years: a. Develop workscope and issue request for proposals. 10/05 b. Select consultant, award contract and begin preparing study. 12/05 c. Complete draft report. 3/06 d. Present findings to Council. 4/06- e. Implement cost recovery policies. 7/06 B-66 j�_ Attachment 1 POLICIESOBJECTIVES MAJOR CITY GOALS—LONG-TERM FISCAL HEALTH Task bate 5. .Consider Preparing for a Revenue Ballot Measure in 2006. Complete analysis of the 7/05 feasibility of a revenue ballot measure and present the results to the Council for a"go/no-go" decision in taking the next step in preparing for a revenue measure in 2006. If the.Council decides to go forwardi follow-up action steps will be determined at that time. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS All departments play a critically important role in ensuring the City's long-term fiscal health through their management and use of City resources; however, Administration, Human Resources and Finance & Information. Technology will be especially involved in achieving this goal. FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL I. Updating the cost of services study will cost$47,500 in 2005-06. 2. Analyzing the feasibility of a 2006 revenue ballot measure has already been funded in the amount of$35,000 as part of the 2004-05 Mid-Year Budget Review. Depending on the results of this analysis,.an additional $75,000 to $150,000 will be needed if we proceed to the next step in this process of conducting a public education program. If the Council decides to place a measure_ on the ballot, then $20,000 to $60,000 will be needed in contracting with the County to hold this election. 3. All other tasks can beachieved within existing resources. Cost Summary O stint;Programs IL capital lm fovement Plan F 1 2005-06 1 2006-0711 - 2005-06 1 200677- U date-2 o Cost of Services Study 1 47,500 .$47,500 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 Only funding for the cost of services study is recommended at this time as part.of the 2005-07 Financial Plan. Any funding decisions in preparing for a revenue ballot measure should wait-until the Council decides to do so, which is likely to occur after the Council approves the 2005-07 Financial Plan. In the event that the Council approves going forward with a public information program as "Step 2: in this process, we believe that this would be an appropriate use of the reserve as a one-time cost that positions us:for an improved long-term fiscal outlook.. GENERAL FUND REVENUE POTENTIAL Each of these action plans is designed to enhance General Fund resources. OUTCOME—FINAL WORK PRODUCT Strategies, programs and systems for assuring our long-term fiscal health in delivering desired service levels, adequately maintaining existing infrastructure and facilities,and accomplishing important community goals. B-67 Attachment 2 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on July 19, 2005, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO;:a municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as City,and THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP, hereinafter referred to as Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City wants to contract with a professional, well-qualified firm in conducting a_public education and community outreach program regarding the City's fiscal.situation;and WHEREAS, Contractor is qualified to perform this type of service and has submitted a proposal to do so, which has been accepted by City. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above,until acceptance or completion of said services. 2. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed $45,000, plus actual travel expenses not to exceed$5,000. 3. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to provide services as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement. Contractor further agrees to the contract performance terms as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement. 4. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment,modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Administrative Officer of the City. 5. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. .No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. �1- i3 Attachment 2 Agreement -- _ - 009e2 6. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States[nail,postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Contractor The Lew.Edwards Group 5454 Broadway Oakland,CA 94618 7. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written: ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,A Municipal Corporation By: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP By: - - - - - - Ci Attor y _ - - - - - - Attachment 2 ExhlbB A.Contractor Services Page A-t To: Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Information Technology City of San Luis Obispo From: Catherine Lew, President & CEO Lew Edwards Group Date: July 1, 2005 Re: Proposal to Provide Pre-Election Feasibility and Communications Services to the City of San Luis Obispo for a potential November 2006 Municipal Sales Tax Measure CONSULTANT BACKGROUND As Councilmembers will recall, the Lew Edwards Group (LEG) began working with the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) in 1999. These past efforts have offered the City unique insight and expertise through a consistent "tracking model" in evaluating both consistent and changing attitudes, issues, and perspectives among City residents as SLO continues to assess, evaluate and plan for a potential November 2006 General Purpose Sales Tax Measure, LEG'S familiarity with the City, its unique demographics, issues, and needs along with the firm's expertise in municipal finance measures, will continue to be an important foundation on which to base the City's next phase of education and outreach efforts. The Lew Edwards Group specializes in passing tough two-thirds and simple-majority requirement finance measures throughout the state and Southern California. The firm has now passed a total of more than $10 Billion in California finance measures. LEG has w_on every municipal sales tax measure represented by The-Lew Edwards Group. The following are some of the many qualities that the Group continues to offer to the City of San Luis Obispo: ✓ Extensive experience and a proven track record of success on California finance and sales tax measures, whether they require a simple majority or two-thirds vote; ✓ Experience in both urban and rural communities and an understanding of the social, demographic, and political context of the City and County of San Luis Obispo; Attachment 2 Exhibit A:Contractor Services Page A-2 ✓ Professional, experts with substantive experience and expertise in preparing public agencies during their Pre-Election Planning phases; for difficult finance measure campaigns; and ✓ A team-building management style and enthusiastic and committed dedication to the City of San Luis Obispo's needs. What follows is a proposal to meet the City's continued assessment, feasibility and public education/outreach needs during the Pre-Election preparation phase implemented by the City before a partisan, volunteer-driven election. The overwhelming majority of LEG's finance measure clients take a minimum of one year -- and ideally a year and a half in advance of a partisan election -- to prepare their successful measures. If a potential November 2006 election continues to be contemplated, the City is well served to methodically continue its efforts by progressing to the Public Education and Outreach Phase of its planning. Background on The Lew Edwards Group The Lew Edwards Group (LEG) is uniquely qualified to serve the needs of the City of San Luis Obispo as it plans for a potential November 2006 sales tax measure. LEG is a California leader in providing public communications, public education, finance, and strategic services to public agencies throughout the State. Our team specializes in preparing public agencies for difficult tax, bond or finance elections during the .pre-election, public information/assessment (nonadvocacy) stage. Our clients include fire districts, counties, school districts, community college districts, cities and libraries. The firm has an extensive municipal finance measure practice throughout the State of Califomia. LEG's most recent sales tax wins include measures on behalf of. The City of Clovis; the City of Visalia; the City of Los Banos; the City of Stockton; and Fresno County. In addition, LEG conducted recent successful finance measures for the City of Escondido, City of La Mesa, and City of Grover Beach. The firm is currently representing the cities of Dinuba, Laguna Beach, San Ramon, Fremont, Atascadero, Porterville, and Big Bear Lake in their finance measure planning efforts. Our firm's philosophy and mission is to improve the quality of life in local communities. In order to ensure that the City of San Luis Obispo is effectively positioned for a potential November 2006 sales tax measure, LEG will continue to provide overall direction for the City's project planning. LEG prides itself on providing individualized, quality service to each of our clients. Our firm principals and consultants have decades of experience in media relations, community outreach, government affairs, election campaigns, and grassroots organizing. Our suggested scope of services includes: Attachment 2 Exhibit A.Contractor Services Page Ati3 • Development of an overall Public Education and Outreach Plan to expand community awareness. and seek input on the City's needs, prior to placement of any measure on the ballot. • Conceiving, writing and producing all pre-election, informational (nonadvocacy) media, including brochures,letters, mailers, community radio and newsletters as appropriate. • Working with the City to finalize a timeline and project budget. • Working with your pollster, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, to update its public opinion research. • Working with the City's legal counsel on the ballot question and other submittals, to ensure that effective communications as well as legal requirements are met. • Training City staff, volunteers, and other stakeholders on nonpartisan, information-only speakers' bureau activities and community outreach. • Developing an earned (nonpaid) media plan for press coverage on your needs. • Identifying and working with data base vendors and specialists to refine, code and develop your specialized demographic file.. Uitigue_Challenges for San Luis Obispo Our analysis of the updated Public Opinion Research conducted by FMM&A shows that a San Luis Obispo general-purpose sales tax measure (requiring a simple majority) to support essential services is feasible among November 2006 voters, provided that it is properly focused to reflect community priorities. In the initial ballot question, the measure demonstrates just over the simple majority threshold when combining those who "strongly and somewhat" favor it. After some information and education about the needs, potential support reaches 59%. However, support is evenly split between those who "strongly" favor such a measure versus those who only "somewhat" favor it. Therefore, a comprehensive city-funded,.nonpartisan Public Education program, as typically implemented by other cities considering such measures, must be conducted in San Luis Obispo to further educate the City's constituents. Additionally, after hearing possible concerns about the Measure, support drops back down to just over 51%. This also seems due to a lack of urgency, stemming from the City's excellent management of its funds and ongoing efforts to shield San Luis Obispo residents from the effects of state budget cuts. Uid(Rie Opportunities for San Luis Obispo The following messages and themes should be used on behalf of an effective public education campaign: • Calls for fire and paramedic services have increased by 65 percent in the last decade, but San Luis Obispo's emergency services have not been able to keep up. 11-17 Attachment 2 Exhibit A:contractor Services Page A-4 • For the first time in 15 years, the City has been forced to use millions of dollars from its emergency reserves to provide essential City services. Without additional funds, the City will no longer be able to provide important services. • The State of California has taken 22 million dollars of City revenue from San Luis Obispo over the past 15 years. • San Luis Obispo needs more local control over its revenue, and keep local tax dollars here to pay for essential services such as police and fire protection, senior programs, park maintenance, and street repair. ACTION STEPS FOR SUCCESS General Considerations As you know, by law, no public funding can be spent on campaign or partisan activities. However, the law allows public education of your constituents on the fiscal challenges and needs facing the City of San Luis Obispo. A City-funded Public Education Program is designed to build additional awareness of the City's financial challenges and needs prior to any election being conducted. The approach as outlined below has been critical to other cities in their pre-election planning. No matter what, your public will need assurance that any funds generated by a potential measure will be spent as promised, and on projects that they view as being necessary to their quality of life.. Our recommended nonpartisan, Public Education/Outreach Program will include the following components/scope of services: Measure-Refinement. LEG will collaborate with your city staff and legal counsel on the proper wording and structuring of the measure, to address the public's priorities and concerns. We will work closely with the City's legal counsel to refine the ballot question and develop other submittals so that they are understandable to the average person. Your r legal counsel will officially transmit all official documents to the Registrar of Voters related to your measure, but we will collaborate with him or her to help prepare these materials in an effective and timely fashion. Pre-Election (nonpartisan) Communications Plan: We will work with City staff to implement a direct mail program that includes a return card or other mechanism to allow citizens to ask questions,provide input, or otherwise comment on the City's proposal_. We will advise the City on how to respond effectively to your constituents in the information- only phase of your effort. By using this type of direct mail, you can identify and address questions early in the process, while educating your public: We are recommending 4-6 informational mailers to educate your constituents: We also recommend placing informational update stories in your local papers, and LEG will work with the City team to design an earned (nonpaid) media plan. Other communications Attachment 2 Exhibit A Contractor Services _Page" vehicles include information on your website, maximizing the use of community television, and developing and refining PowerPoint presentations in a Speakers' Bureau program. Community Meeting Outreach-Plan- Our firm has designed Speakers Bureau trainings, "town halls," and community meetings for participants as small as 25-50 and as large as several hundred. LEG will design a comprehensive community outreach plan strategically directed to key stakeholders and provide ideas training to City staff on how to provide information in these small group settings to your constituents. Assist in Undatine.Public Opinion Research In updating your public opinion research, the City's pollster will focus on the specific local issues, problems and opportunities that make your sales tax concept unique. As we have in the past, work sessions will be scheduled with city staff and led by LEG to identify key issues, problems and opportunities. We anticipate one additional tracking survey prior to the Council's action to place a potential sales tax measure on your November 2006 ballot. Fee for.Services Our $45,000 fee is the City's cost to retain The Lew Edwards Group's (LEG'S) strategic expertise, including overall project management, strategy, planning and conceiving media materials from July 20, 2005 through the City's action to place a measure on the ballot, or no later than July 31, 2006. Our fee is for strategic services only and do not include "hard" project costs such as mailing data, postage, printing and design of informational materials, mailers, or brochures. Please note that our firm does not charge on an hourly or monthly basis. This fee does not include travel expenses; which are reflected separately in a project budget prepared by City staff.. Conclusion We have valued our collaboration with the City of San Luis Obispo in its finance measure feasibility and education effort to date, and look forward to a continued, effective collaboration. Few consultants can match the expertise of our firm in revenue measure feasibility and communications services, grassroots organizing, community involvement, strategic planning, and media/marketing services. SAMPLE NOVEMBER-2006 ELECTION TIMETABLE JULY - AUGUST ❑ Authorize expenditures for the City's Public 2005 Information Program ❑ Finalize Strategic Communications Plan ❑ Develop/Refine Communications Messages/Themes ❑ Refine Database of Opinion Leaders ❑ Conduct Speakers' Bureau/Messaging Training Brainstorm Community Advisory Group Members ❑ Identify Speakers' Bureau Hit List and launch S eakers' Bureau l� Attachment 2 Exhibit A.Contractor Services Page A-6 ❑ Issue Opinion Leader update#1 ❑ Implement Earned Media SEPTEMBER- ❑ Continue,Speakers' Bureau deployment OCTOBER 2005 ❑ Implement nonpartisan public mailer#1 (September) Convene first meeting of Community Advisory Group ❑ Issue Opinion Leader update#2 Implement Earned Media NOVEMBER- ❑ Continue Speakers' Bureau deployment DECEMBER 2005 ❑ Issue Opinion Leader update#3 ❑ Implement nonpartisan public mailer#2 (December) ❑ Implement Earned Media JANUARY- ❑ Continue Speakers' Bureau deployment F_ EBRUARY 2006 ❑ Convene second meeting of Community Advisory Group ❑ Implement nonpartisan public mailer#3 (February) - 0_Im lement Earned Media MARCH—APRIL ❑ Continue Speakers' Bureau deployment 2006 ❑ Convene third meeting of Community Advisory Group El Implement nonpartisan public mailer#4 (April) ❑ Finalize ballot question and impartial analysis ❑ Earned Media. . - MAY—JULY ❑ Final Citizen's Task Force Meeting 2006 ❑ Finalize Speakers' Bureau outreach efforts ❑ Implement nonpartisan public mailer#5 (June) 0 Conduct Tracking Poll for feasibility (July) ❑ Finalize all resolution and voter hand-book materials_ ❑ Plan for City Council Presentation E3If feasible, City Council acts to place Measuft on November '06 Ballot AUGUST 2006 0 Final informational Community Mailer(July/August) ❑ Work transfers to a non-City sponsored volunteer campaign committee for all partisan activities ❑ Ballot ar urnent is submitted on behalf of Measure Attachment 2. Exhibit B:Contract Performance Terms Page B-1 1. Business Tax. Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate prior to execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax program may be obtained by calling (805)781-7134. 2. Ability to Perform. Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and.regulations. 3. Laws to be Observed. Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and. comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances,regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. 4. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that Contractor is required to pay. 5. Permits and Licenses. Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary. 6. Safety Provisions. Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety. 7. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever Contractors operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades,lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures.as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury" to the public and employees. 8. Preservation of City Property. Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged as a result of Contractors operations, it shall be replaced or restored at Contractor's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Contractor began work. 9. Immigration Act of 1986. Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-contractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder. 10. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, Contractor agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub-contractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation,or religion of such persons. 11. Work Delays. Should Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. y�� _ Attachment 2 Exhibit B:Contract Performance Terms Page B-2 12. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the services provided by Contractor(Net 30). 13. Inspection. Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of Contractor are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished; if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements. 14: Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment to Contractor. 15. Interests of Contractor. Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest direct or indirect or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. Contractor further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub-contractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. 16. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to Contractor's employees, agents or officers which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of Contractor,. and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigatingand defending against same, provided, however, that Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, off vers or employees. 17. Contract Assignment. Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right; title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City. 18. Termination. If, during the term of the contract; the City determines that Contractor is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify Contractor in writing of such defect or failure to perform; which notice must give Contractor a 10(ten)calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. If Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written notice to Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party_ shall have any further duties, obligations,responsibilities or rights under the contract. In said event, Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such.payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by Contractor as may be set forth in the Agreement ra. Z Z Attachment 2 Exhibit B:Contract Performance Terms Page B.9 payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by Contractor shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope. The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.. 19. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings,plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. 20. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information,data, or other material given to, prepared by or assembled by Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of City, and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without the prior written approval of the City. 21. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what Contractor is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, Contractor shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate Contractor for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense. 22. Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or sub-contractors. a. Minimum scope of insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: • Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). • Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). • Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employers.Liability Insurance. b. Minimum limits of insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: • General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. • Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. • Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. y^�3 Attach>nent.2 Exhibit B:Contract Performance Terms _Page B4 C. Deductibles and self-insured retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations„ claim administration and defense expenses. d. Other insurance provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: • The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Contractor; products and completed operations of Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its off cers, official, employees,agents or volunteers. • For any claims related to this project, Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. • Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches.of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials,employees, agents or volunteers. • Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. • Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)days'prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,has been given to the City. e. Acceptability of insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than ANIL f. Verification of coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements, are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. Attachment 3 Sample Mailers from Other Successful Public Education Programs A. City of La Mesa B. City of Visalia C. City of Grover Beach All of these are examples from public education programs developed and implemented with assistance of The Lew Edwards Group. While they all tell different stories from our own (everyone's story is different, which is why a "cookie cutter" approach won't, work), they do show the general approach and type of information that is provided in effective information mailers. y-�s hment 3-�A low Fill o 0 5 — N V1 N GJ Q X 10 of N t+ b ato Q Al O b Al ami � w O. v' 0 .0 > o w 3 OI u •r .Vr 0 r. w ran •E .� .Li O u y vui G •• -o w � c 000rA of h .V y rA60,y 04 CD cm y C a[i 1 c cd aS 'o W y .0 q obi d (g W:, O dA E O U �' eC A = rj.� , 04 A v q k -b oj tv A Ut ¢ y I�1 p .rr" W Tf� cu U tv Qa o � � C� � � 0 xaoy cc Dn ao � � > .c '� o u y -a e Ooy w � 'uao w3 � r Hod a > > > O 0 Attachmeo � h m WD � ° # 4h c b f m 1,6 ca tl 60 10 10 m m o a m d p b m qp B O OD d w ° J.7 c0 g OIj Q •p, V 7 V 1 o 2) d m m "O tic 7 =0°O r S 0 Q ° w q y u > I d o a m d tto to 49 6 t°'. C w a d m v 3 o. c9 In. A ard .° U A l u E o e �l E v cc 03w O ro h }� r • C �'� "O C C d w E6 is a � w o a • .�.� d 6p ..y h w (j S cE ct A. O C C L U a e A o e d q w C ' .�. o :: a' s u d H m . d o a c ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ w° 3 � « � Eu° CSE 16Z£6 d:) 'DIIDSI olnbaoy .M LOL ja6ouoW till�4ndad wooj0 Apuo� O DSM P/40 aiaq dDzels asea�d �Sn'Da'DI�DSiKIYMMM I6ZE6 y:)'D!Psln ombwy.M LOL 011OSI^}O/40 1MWpV .A. x QNd aaeuod Sri Q.LS Q.LUSIdd VSA Qom,.,. PDATE 3 � ° Is" � COMMUNITY UPDA&F�Q�@ - YOUR VISALIA POLICE AND FIRE CHIEFS Dear Neighbor: We are working to improve Visalia's 9-1-1 safety services and need your input. Visalia's 9-1-1 Emergency Dispatch Center, serving both the police and fire departments,was built in 1970. It hasn't been significant y ungraded in nearly 2.Q years.This building is now completely inadequate,and is in need of important upgrades. Our community has also grown dramatically in the last three decades.In order IQ meet the needs of a growing population.and continue the fight against gang activity and drug trafficking.we must expand our safety personnel. Additional neighborhood-based fire stations and beat officers are needed to ensure rapid response to all areas of our city. Unfortunately, budget problems created by Sacramento have only made our job harder. Visalia, along with many other California cities, is facing budget cuts in the millions. With the support of the City Council,we have developed a team that is working closely with community members and staff to study a potential Public Safety Revenue Measure that would address these urgent needs. In order to ensure a Safety Plan that addresses community priorities and needs,please take a moment to provide your input on the attached card. If you have any questions,please feel free to call either of us at: Police Chief: 559- 713-4215, Fire Chief: 559-713-4218 .Thanks for your help. Sincerely, 4'a Chief George Sandoval Chief Jerry Barker Visalia Fire Department Visalia Police Department Please take a look at some of the public safety improvements we are considering and check those that you agree are priorities. ❑ Adding neighborhood fire stations to ensure rapid medical and emergency response to every neighborhood ❑ Improving police and medical response times to reach victims Noma faster ❑ Upgrading Visalia's 30 year-old 9-1-1 Emergency Dispatch Center Address ❑ Adding neighborhood beat officers to reduce gang violence and drug trafficking City/State/Zip ❑ Other: Phone(cloy) ❑ I have the following questions: Phone(eve) ❑ Keep me informed. Email /� �j Attachment�0 I ILI) M October 2004 L From the ity of Grover Beach residents could expect City Manager significant changes in We are concerned about City services if Measure O is t. s.; the City services that may not approved in November be at risk if the City's 2004. , existing Utility Users Tax A 1% Utility Users Tax (UUT) is not continued (UUT) begun in 1991 has through Measure O. been an essential component r This report answers several of the City's General Fund questions about Measure O Our Community Center provides many q to maintain police, fire and services to local seniors. and how it affects city emergency medical services or guaranteed rapid State budget cuts to City for programs and services and The City of Grover Beach response in emergencies, to California's own budget has been recognized by repair streets and fund other crisis means that there is no national and California important city services. help coming from experts several times for Measure O simply affirms excellent fiscal continuation of the existing Sacramento. The City is relying on funds provided by stewardship. We have put UUT. It does not increase existing taxpayer funding '; taxes. Measure O to ensure the to good use over the past continuation of essential 13 years and seek to services such as our full time continue to provide fire department. excellent services you deserve and expect Please take a moment to read this information and visit our website at www.Grover.org, or call my office at 473-4567 to learn more about city services and how they are funded. + , Ronald C. Ander T, The Fire Department now includes professional firefighters for City Manager rapid response to 9-1-1 calls. . For Your Information Atta�chme�t What is Measure O? AMeasure O simply extends the existing 13- year Utility Users Tax with no increase in taxes. Revenues from Measure O will be used to maintain police, fire and emergency medical r services and facilities, to repair streets and fund other important City services. Why do we need Measure O? Without Measure O, City resources The egg toss Acurrently used for a variety of essential City sponsored by Parks &Recreation is services will be reduced. enjoyed by local families. I -; What is a Utility Users Tax? Abills The UUT is a 1% tax on certain utility such as electric,gas,telephone or cable television. Grover Beach created this funding } mechanism in the early 1990s to maintain local control over services when state and federal governments reduced their support for local s services. Can the City provide the same level of Fire Department trench rescue. �[ services without Measure O funding? Aems• No. State budget cuts to City programs and services and California's own budget crisis mean that there is no help coming from Sacramento. In fact,the City's share of funding from the state, like many other cities, has only decreased over time. y-3/ Attachment 3-C For Your Information QWhat services could be affected by Measure O? AWithout continued funding from Measure O, Grover Beach could be forced to cut police officer positions, firefighter and engineer positions, half the allocation for local r, street rehabilitation, maintenance worker J" positions, or Parks & Recreation Department E� 4 Y y^^ services. + ' �^ QHow do we know Measure O funds : . will continue to be spent responsibly? AThe City of Grover Beach has been recognized by national and California experts several times for excellent fiscal 3 Measure O urill continue funding for essential services such as street repair stewardship. We have put existing taxpayer and maintenance. funding to good use over the past 13 years. QHow will Measure O affect my current utility bills? ' WIN - isIt will not change your bill, because it , ' is not an increase. Measure O is simply a continuation of the existing tax already contained in your utility bills. s rr QWhy is Measure O on the ballot now? „nom Measure O will continue funding Voter approval is required to continue to ensure city parks facilities are properly maintained Athe UUT, although Measure O simply j extends current funding with no increase in taxes. Measure O mandates voter approval is also required in the future before the measure can be increased. i Ant chm int 3-0-- City Manager PRESORTED * 154 South Eighth Street STANDARD Grover Beach, CA 93433 US POSTAGE PAID GROVER BEACH CA F PERMIT NO. 7 Excerpts from the Impartial Analysis of Measure 0 by the City Attorney The City adopted UUT in 1991.The City Council now proposes this measure to allow the voters to validate the 1991 UUT ordinance. The UUT accounts for 2.8% of the City's ongoing General Fund revenues. The City uses UUT proceeds to provide police and fire protection, recreation, street rehabilitation and other community services funded through the City's General Fund. The Measure does not increase the rate of the ULTT or make any changes to the existing UUT. The City Council would be authorized to repeal or reduce the UUT or to amend the ordinance in other ways that do not increase taxes. However, any future increase in the UUT would require voter approval. �/- 33