HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1999, 2 - RFP TO PREPARE FOR NOVEMBER 2000 REVENUE BALLOT MEASURE council "' is-.9
j acEnaa REpont '�"2
C I T Y OF SAN L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Prepared By: Bill Statler, Director of Finance UR�
SUBJECT: RFP TO PREPARE FOR NOVEMBER 2000
REVENUE BALLOT MEASURE
CAO RECOMN ENDATION
Approve the request for proposals (RFP) for assistance in preparing for a possible revenue ballot
measure in November 2000; and authorize the CAO to award the contract if the best overall
proposal is within the approved budget of$35,000 for this project.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
As part of the 1999-01 Financial Plan, the Council adopted Long Term Fiscal Health as a"Major
City Goal." An important part of the work program approved by the Council in implementing
this goal is using professional assistance in preparing for a possible November 2000 revenue
ballot measure. The Council appropriated $35,000 for this purpose in the 1999-00 budget. This
RFP will help achieve this goal by beginning the consultant selection process. We plan to
present the results of the consultant's work to the Council in March 2000.
DISCUSSION
Background
As discussed in the Financial Plan Budget Message, two things became clear in preparing the
City's budget for 1999-01:
■ The tough budget decisions we have made over the past years, especially during 1993-95,
were essential in preserving the City's fiscal health.
■ While our fiscal condition has significantly improved since then, major challenges
continue to face us in finding the delivery of essential services and achieving our adopted
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) goals. In short, it is unlikely that we can complete the
very ambitious work program initiated in the 1999-01 Financial Plan without new
revenues.
While the City's budget for the next two years is balanced, the fiscal challenges facing us are
highlighted by the significant differences in the four-year General Fund CIP costs for the first
two years (1999-01) versus the third and fourth years(2001-03):
2-1
Council Agenda Report—RFP to Prepare for November 2000 Revenue Ballot Measure
Page 2
■ For 1999-01,the General Fund CIP budget over two years is about $10.0 million.
■ For 2001-03,this grows to about$15.7 million—a difference of almost$6 million.
And even the CIP budget for 2001-03 does not tell the full story about the fiscal challenges
facing us in the future. For example, we are in the process of preparing a comprehensive update
to our flood management program. For this reason, there are few flood protection improvements
in the 1999-03 CIP. When this update is completed, we can expect new (and expensive)projects
to emerge.
Other General Fund areas with significant unmet needs that are not fully addressed in the
Financial Plan include:
■ Downtown improvements
■ Open space preservation
■ Parks and recreation facilities
■ Pedestrian and bikeway improvements
■ Cultural facilities and civic center improvements
Simple But Tough Choices Ahead of Us. As we look to the future,there are two straightforward
but difficult options available to us: reducing costs or increasing revenues. In a post-Proposition
218 era, increasing revenues will require broad-based community support—in evidence on
election day. Given the City's strong financial condition, and the absence of a"fiscal crisis,"two
things are necessary for this to happen:
■ A compelling vision of how additional resources would translate into programs and
projects that will make our community an even better plate to live and work.
■ Professional assistance in evaluating how the City can best communicate this vision and
prepare for a successful ballot measure.
1999-01 Financial Plan: Long Term Fiscal Beath As a Major City Goal
In responding to the dual need to maintain our long term fiscal health while at the same time
maintain current service levels, achieve our already-adopted infrastructure and facility
improvement goals, and respond to new initiatives resulting from Council goal-setting, the
Council adopted Long Term Fiscal Heath as a "Major City Goal"in the 1999-01 Financial Plan.
The detailed work program for this goal is set forth on pages B-61 through B-65 of the 1999-01
Financial Plan, summarized as follows:
Prepare Long Term Financial Plan. As part of our budget process,the City prepares a five year
fiscal forecast in providing us with an"order of magnitude"outlook on the City's fiscal position
2-2
Council Agenda Report—RFP to Prepare for November 2000 Revenue Ballot Measure
Page 3
before we begin preparing the two-year Financial Plan. However, it is not intended to assess our
long-term ability to deliver day-to-day services and achieve adopted CIP goals. In order to gain
a better understanding of our long term fiscal needs—especially in light of the long term effects
of Proposition 218 and Council goal-setting—we are in the process of preparing a
comprehensive ten year plan. In addition to taking a longer look at our finances, this plan will
take a more detailed look at CEP needs than the five year forecast. City staff will complete this
work, and we plan to present the results to the Council in December 1999.
Prepare for a November 2000 Revenue Ballot Measure. It is clear that there are projects in the
third and fourth year of the City's CIP that cannot be funded with our current resources. Unless
there is an emergency, the soonest that the voters could approve any increased or new tax
revenues is November of 2000. Implementing any new or increased tax sources will require
significant community support. While many communities have been successful in gaining voter
support for new revenues, this has only occurred when there have been serious fiscal problems of
crisis proportions, or a compelling vision for the use of the new revenues coupled with hard work
by an active community-based group. Although they were driven by very different factors—
hopes versus fears—all of these successful efforts 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.
If the need is compelling—and City voters see the need—we believe this effort can be
successful. However, it will require: commitment, resources, 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
use their funds or staff resources for advocacy. 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.
In approving this work program,the Council considered three fundamental questions:
■ Should we go forward with a November 2000 revenue ballot measure?
■ If so,what should we focus on:
• Operating programs, like public safety or street maintenance?
• Or capital improvements, like a community center, athletic fields, civic center
improvements, flood protection, downtown enhancements, open space protection or
Laguna.Lake preservation?
■ What do we need to do to best assure voter approval?
2-3
Council Agenda Report—RFP to Prepare for November 2000 Revenue Ballot Measure
Page 4
We believe starting early and contracting_ for-professional assistance are the best answers to this
last question.
The following summarizes the`overall tasks and schedule for this project based on the work
program previously approved by the Council in the 1999-01 Financial Plan:.
a.
Prepare Long Term Financial Plan:City Staff
• Begin preparing long term financial plan and developing ten year CIP 9/99
• Present results to the Council 12/99
Prepare for November 2000 Revenue Ballot Measure:Consultant
• Identify goals;.request proposals from qualified consultants. 10/99
o Select consultant;start woik. 12/99
• Complete work program;present findings to Council. 3/00
• If the decision is to place a measure on the November 2000 ballot,begin taking recommended 3/00
actions.
• Place measure on the ballot. 9/00
• Hold ballot measure election. I 11/00
Consultant Workscope
As set forth in the attached Workscope excerpt from the RFP, the consultant's role is to provide
us with the research and outreach tools that will be needed for a successful revenue measure,
including but not limited to:
❑ Assess the overall feasibility of a ballot measure through research tools such as surveys
and focus groups.
❑ Identify programs and projects most likely to generate broad-based community support
17 Recommend a majority or two-thirds voter approval measure; and assess other options
such as the "AB" approach which separately asks advisory ballot questions on desirable
projects and programs, and a mandatory general purpose tax increase.
® Advise on the best increased or new revenue sources,and the amount they should raise.
13 Assist in drafting ballot measure language.
❑ Evaluate follow-on community group resource requirements,.and the likelihood that such
a group.will be formed.
2a.4
Council Agenda Report—RFP to Prepare for November 2000 Revenue Ballot Measure
Page 5
Evaluation and Selection Process
Proposal Review. A review team composed of the CAO, Public Works Director, Police Chief
and representatives from the Budget Review Team (Director of Human Resources, Director of
Finance, Revenue Manager and Assistant to the CAO) will consider the following factors in
evaluating proposals and making their contract award recommendation:
■ Understanding of the work required by the City.
■ Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
■ Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully
performing the work required by the City.
■ Recent.experience in successfully performing similar services.
■ Proposed approach in completing the work.
■ References.
■ Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project.
■ Proposed compensation.
As reflected above, we will not award the contract based solely on price,but on a combination of
factors that represent the best overall value in completing this work.
Proposal review and award schedule. The following summarizes our anticipated schedule for
proposal review and contract award:
Date
Task
Issue
. -
Issue RFP 10/20
Hold pre-proposal conference 11/1
Receive proposals 11/15
Complete"desk top"proposal evaluation;select finalists 11/23
Conduct finalist interviews 11/29
Finalize staff recommendation;award contract 12/1
Execute contract;start work 12/15
As noted previously, we plan to complete the work and present the results to the Council in
March 2000.
Prospective Proposers
In addition to publishing a formal notice requesting proposals, we will mail the RFP to a limited
number of firms specializing in this type of work. We compiled the attached list of prospective
proposers based on information provided to us by the League of California Cities as well as an
extensive state-wide survey looking for California cities that have done similar work in preparing
for revenue ballot measures.
2-5
Council Agenda Report—RFP to Prepare for November 2000 Revenue Ballot Measure
Page 6
FISCAL EM PACT
The projected cost for this work is $35,000. The Council has already appropriated funding for
this amount in the 1999-01 Financial Plan(pages B-65, D-19 and D-142).
ALTERNATIVES
The Council considered the following alternatives as part of the 1999-01 Financial Plan process:
■ Do not hold a November 2000 revenue ballot measures Future operating programs and
CIP projects will be limited to existing revenues if the City does not explore new revenue
sources. As discussed in the Background section of this report, this option almost
certainly means that we will not be able to implement the ambitious work program
presented in the third and fourth years of the 1999-03 CIP.
■ Go forward with a November 2000 revenue ballot measure, but do not use professional
resources in planning for it. Based on the experience of other California cities, this
option is likely to result in an unsuccessful ballot measure.
ATTACHMENTS
■ Workscope excerpt from the RFP for preparing for a possible November 2000 revenue
ballot measure
■ Proposers list
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
■ RFP: Preparation for a November 2000 Revenue Ballot Measure
■ Major City Goal for 1999-01:Long Term Fiscal Health Work Program
■ White Paper.Long-Term Fiscal Health Financing Strategies (January 1998)
■ League of California Cities Publication: Securing Voter Approval of Local Revenue
Measures (1999 Edition)
G:Fina ce/RFP's and IFB's/Rcvcnue Ballot Measure Preparation/Council Agenda Report
2-6
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
OVERVIEW
The City wants to evaluate the feasibility of placing a revenue measure on the November 2000 ballot. To
do this, we want to contract with a qualified firm that specializes in doing this type of analysis, and in
recommending the steps the City and the community should take in order to improve the likelihood of
voter approval in the event that the City goes forward with the ballot measure.
BACKGROUND
1999-01 Financial Plan
In preparing the City's two-year budget for 1999-01,two things became clear:
■ The tough budget decisions we have made over the past years, especially during 1993-95, were
essential in preserving the City's fiscal health.
■ While our fiscal condition has significantly improved since then, major challenges continue to
face us in funding the delivery of essential services and achieving our adopted Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) goals. In short, it is unlikely that we can complete the very ambitious
work program initiated in the 1999-01 Financial Plan without new revenues.
While the City's budget for the next two years is balanced,the fiscal challenges facing us are highlighted
by the significant differences in the four-year General Fund CIP budget for 1999-01 versus 2001-03:
■ For 1999-01,the General Fund CIP budget over two years is about$10.0 million.
■ For 2001-03,this grows to about$15.7 million—a difference of almost$6 million.
And even the CIP budget for 2001-03 does not tell the full story about the fiscal challenges facing us in
the future. For example, we are in the process of preparing a comprehensive update to our flood
management program. For this reason,there are few flood protection improvements in the 1999-03 CIP.
When this update is completed,we can expect new(and expensive)projects to emerge.
Other General Fund areas with significant unmet needs that are not fully addressed in the Financial Plan
include:
® Downtown improvements
■ Open space preservation
■ Parks and recreation facilities
■ Pedestrian and bikeway improvements
■ Cultural facilities and civic center improvements
4-
Simple But Tough Choices Ahead of Us
As we look to the future, there are two straightforward but difficult options available to us: reducing
costs or increasing revenues. The City recognizes that in a post-Proposition 218 era,increasing revenues
will require broad-based community support—in evidence on election day. Given the City's strong
financial condition, and the absence of a "fiscal crisis," we believe two things are necessary for this to
happen:
■ A compelling vision of how additional resources would translate into programs and projects that
will make our community an even better place to live and work.
® Professional assistance in evaluating how the City can best communicate this vision and prepare
for a successful ballot measure.
Long Term Fiscal Heath Goal
In responding to the dual need to maintain our long term fiscal health while at the same time maintain
current service levels, achieve our already-adopted infrastructure and facility improvement goals, and
respond to new initiatives resulting from Council goal-setting, the Council adopted Long Term Fiscal
Heath as a "Major City Goal" in the 1999-01 Financial Plan. The following summarizes the workscope
for this goal.
Prepare Long Term Financial Plan. As part of our budget process, the City prepares a five year fiscal
forecast in providing us with an "order of magnitude" outlook on the City's fiscal position before we
begin preparing the two-year Financial Plan. However, it is not intended to assess our long-tern ability
to deliver day-today services and achieve adopted CIP goals. In order to gain a better understanding of
our long term fiscal needs—especially in light of the long term effects of Proposition 218 and Council
goal-setting—we are in the process of preparing a comprehensive ten year plan. In addition to taking a
longer-term look at our finances, this plan will take a more detailed look at CIP needs than the five year
forecast City staff will complete this work.
Prepare for a November 2000 Revenue Ballot Measure. It is clear that there are projects in the City's
four-year CIP that cannot be funded with our current resources. Unless there is an emergency, we
recognize that the soonest that the voters could approve any increased or new tax revenues is November
of 2000. Implementing any new or increased tax sources will require significant community support.
While many communities have been successful in gaining voter support for new revenues, this has only
occurred when there have been serious fiscal problems of crisis proportions, or a compelling vision for
the use of the new revenues coupled with hard work by an active community-based group. Although
they were driven by very different factors—hopes versus fears—all of these successful efforts 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.
If the need is compelling—and City voters see the need—we believe this effort can be successful.
However, it will require: commitment,resources,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,we know that cities have broad discretion in
using their fiords for professional assistance in researching issues, conducting surveys and developing
voter support strategies. However, we also know that once an issue becomes a formal ballot measure,
cities cannot use their fiords or staff resources for advocacy. In short, unless there is a strong
-2-
community-based group who is willing to aggressively raise funds and campaign for the measure, it is
not likely to pass.
In considering this work program,there are three fundamental questions we need to ask ourselves:
■ Should we go forward with a November 2000 revenue ballot measure?
■ If so,what should we focus on:
• Operating programs,like public safety or street maintenance?
• Or capital improvements, like a community center, athletic fields, civic center
improvements, flood protection, downtown enhancements, open space protection or Laguna
Lake preservation?
■ What do we need to do to best assure voter approval?
We believe starting early and contracting for professional assistance are the best answers to this last
question.
Related City Efforts
While not directly part of this work program, other efforts related to the City's long-term fiscal heath
include:
■ Economic Development While the primary focus of our economic development efforts is on
increasing the number of higher paying jobs in the community by retaining and expanding
existing businesses, and in recruiting targeted industries, there can also be favorable long term
fiscal benefits from this effort.
■ Legislative Advocacy. As a result of State take-aways from 1991-92 through 1993-94, we have
about $1.5 million less annually in our General Fund. These budget grabs included property tax
administration fees, jail booking fees, and transfers to the Educational Revenue Augmentation
Fund (ERAF). Of these, ERAF is by the largest State take-away, accounting for about $1.0
million annually in reduced property tax revenues. While past efforts to restore these budget
grabs have not been successful,we plan to work closely with the League of California Cities and
our State legislators in getting back what has been unfairly been taken away from us. However,
given how past support for this that has faded when it came time to actually adopt the State
budget, we should not be overly optimistic about the likelihood of any significant successes in
this area. In summary, while we will be strong advocates for restoring past State budget grabs
from cities,we cannot rely upon this as either a short or long term fiscal health strategy.
■ 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.
■ Cost of Services Study Update. A key factor in preserving the City's long-term fiscal health is
assuring that general purpose revenues do not inappropriately subsidize services that should be
paid by users. In short, any user fee subsidy directly reduces General Fund support for other
-3-
programs or CIP projects that do not have cost recovery opportunities. For this reason, the City
has adopted comprehensive user fee cost recovery policies and goals. In implementing them, it
is the City's policy to comprehensively evaluate our service costs every five years, and to make
cost of living adjustments in the interim based on changes in the consumer price index. We
performed our last comprehensive review of service costs and related revenues in 199495; as
such, it is timely to update this study in 1999-00.
■ Development Impact Fee Update. Ensuring that new development pays for its fair share of the
facilities needed to serve it is another key strategy in preserving our long-term fiscal health, and
the City's General Plan and Budget and Fiscal Policies reflect this principle. Development
impact fees are one of the main tools available to us in implementing this policy. Consistent
with our approach for service fees, it is the City's policy to comprehensively evaluate our
development impact fees every five years, and to make cost of living adjustments in the interim
based on changes in the consumer price index.
The City has adopted development impact fees in four basic areas: water, wastewater,
transportation and park in-lieu fees. All of these fees are scheduled for a comprehensive update
in 1999-00.
■ 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.
CONSULTANT WORKSCOPE AND TEAM
Workscope. The consultant's work is to provide us with the research and outreach tools that will be
needed for a successful revenue measure,including but not limited to:
■ Assessing the overall feasibility of a ballot measure through research tools such as surveys and
focus groups.
E Identify programs and projects most likely to generate broad-based community support.
■ Recommend a majority or two-thirds voter approval measure, and assess other options such as
the "A/B" approach which separately ask advisory ballot questions on desirable projects and
programs,and a mandatory general purpose tax increase.
■ Advise on the best increased or new revenue sources,and the amount they should raise.
■ Assist in drafting ballot measure language.
■ Evaluate follow-on community group resource requirements, and the likelihood that such group
will be formed.
Consultant Team. We recognize that this workscope may require skills from professional disciplines
that are not necessarily found in one company. For this reason, sub-consultants or joint proposals may
be required in performing this work. However, the City prefers to contract with one firm, with the lead
firm taking responsibility for sub-contracting with others as may be required.
240
-4-
TASKS AND SCHEDULE
The following summarizes the overall tasks and schedule for this project:
ram I
Prepare Long Term Financial.Plan:.City Staff
e Begin prepariag long tern financial plan and developing tea year CIP 9/99
a Present results to the Council 12/99
Prepare for November 2000 Revenue Ballot Measure:Consultant
a Identify goals;request proposals from qualified consultants. 10/99
Select consultant;start work. 12%99
o Complete work program;present findings to Council. 3/00
o If the decision is to place a measure on the November 2000 ballot,begin.taking recommended 3/00
actions.
o Place measure on the ballot 7/00
o Hold ballot measure election-.. 1'1/00
The City's proposal evaluation and consultant. selection_ process are provided in Section C (Special
Terms and Conditions)of this RFP.
PROJECT COMPLETION
.As reflected above, we would.like to complete this project-including presentation of findings .and
recommendations to the Council—by March 2000. ..
PROJECT BUDGET
The City has budgeted$35,000 for consultant assistance.in completing this work.
:5:
PROPOSERS LIST
NOVEMBER 2000 REVENUE MEASURE PREPARATION:
SPECIFTCATION NO. 900
Center for Community Opinion Townsend,Raimundo,Besler Solem&Associates
231 Market Place,Suite 235 and Usher 550 Kearny Street,Suite 1010
San Ramon,CA 94583 1717 I Street San Francisco,CA 94108
Phone:(800)827-1466 Sacramento,CA 95814 Phone:(415)788-7788
Fax:(800)827-1046 Phone:(916)444-5701 Fax:(415)788-7858
Email: Fax:(916)444-0382 Email:solem@solem.com
brad@communityopinion.com Email:trbu@trbu.com
Crotty Consulting
Gene Bregman and Associates Strategy Research Institute 3560 First Avenue,Suite 11
5 Third Street,Suite 328 1190 N.Raymond Avenue San Diego,CA 92103
San Francisco,CA 94103 P O Box 6548(zip 92834) Phone: (619)291-0407
Phone:(415)957-9700 Fullerton,CA 92831 Fax:(619)291-0480
Fax:(415)957-9723 Phone:(714)447-4884 Email: crottyinca@aol.com
Email:gbandassoc@aol.com Fax:(714)447-4537
Email:snmary@aol.com BHI Consultants
School Political Services 16880 West Bernardo Drive
784 Ulloa Street,Suite A Fairbank,Maslin,Maullin& Suite 100
San Francisco,CA 94127 Associates San Diego,CA 92127-1616
Phone:(415)759-6070 2425 Colorado Avenue Phone: (619)451-6100
Fax:(415)759-6072 Suite 180 Fax:(619)451-2846
Email:sps@slip.net Santa Monica,CA 90404 Email:www.bhimc.com
Phone:(310)828-1183
Godbe Research and Analysis Fax:(310)453-6562
225 South Cabrillo Highway Email:finTn@crl.com
Suite 200,Building B
Half Moon Bay,CA 94019 MuniFinancial
Phone:(650)712-3137 28765 Single Oak Drive
Fax:(650)712-3131 Temecula,California,92590
Email: Phone:(909)699-3990
alison@godberesearch.com Fax:(909)699-3460
Email: lyng@muni.com
GLS Research
233 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite Moore Methods
290 1127 11"Street,Suite 1050
Santa Monica,CA 90401 Sacramento,CA 95814
Phone:310-587-3474 Phone:(916)4442727
Fax:(310)587-0098 Fax:(916)4446457
Email: Email:none
75717.3160@compuserve.com
The Lew Edwards Group
Telesis Management 5251 Desmond Street
24560 Nandina Avenue,Suite 7 Post Office Box 21215
Moreno Valley,CA 92551 Oakland,CA 94620
Phone:(909)485-2045 Phone:(510)5940224
Fax:(909)485-2046 Fax:(5 10)420-0734
Email:aaron@tmgonbne.com Email:lewedgrp@pacbell.net
2-12