CC SR 20251007 K - Community Needs Survey
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/07/2025
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consider a Professional Services Agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz &
Associates (FM3) to conduct citywide Community Needs Surveys.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Approve a professional services agreement (PSA) with FM3 to conduct up to two
citywide Community Needs Surveys for a not-to-exceed amount of $60,000 over a
two-year term;
(2) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the PSA, in a form approved by the
City Attorney; and,
(3) Approve a budget appropriation of $60,000 from the General Fund, Non-
Department Program.
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed PSA with FM3 includes a not-to-exceed amount of
$60,000 for up to two citywide Community Needs Surveys. Funding for this PSA has not
been budgeted in FY 2025-26. As such, staff requests the City Council approve a budget
appropriation for this amount in the Non-Departmental Fund. VR
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: $60,000
Account Number(s): 101-400-2999-5101
(General Fund – Non-Dept – Prof. & Tech.) VR
ORIGINATED BY: Irantzu Pujadas, Administrative Analyst IP
Catherine Jun, Deputy City Manager CJ
REVIEWED BY: Vina Ramos, Director of Finance VR
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1) Professional Services Agreement with FM3 (Forthcoming via Late
Correspondence)
2) Proposal by FM3 (Page B-1)
3) Request for Proposals for Community Needs Survey (Page C-1)
1
BACKGROUND:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes regularly seeks community input through City Council
and committee meetings, town halls, direct correspondence, media, and community
events. While these channels provide valuable perspectives that help shape City policies
and programs, they may reflect only a subset of residents. To gather feedback from a
broader cross-section of the community, Staff has explored conducting one or more
citywide, statistically significant Community Needs surveys conducted by an impartial,
third-party consultant. This effort was initiated, following the establishment of a new City
Council Goal and Council Subcommittee on fiscal sustainability, which emphasizes
identifying revenue generating tools. These tools would be used to ensure sufficient
funding for high quality City services, projects, and policies that will sustain residents’
quality of life in the years ahead. The Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee is comprised of
Mayor Bradley and Councilmember Lewis.
These surveys would solicit resident opinions about their satisfaction with City operations
and identify the most critical areas for improvement, prioritization, or further investment.
The results would provide data to help ensure that resources and revenue are directed to
sustain the programs and services that matter most. If gaps in funding are identified, the
City would then explore ways to generate revenue to support those priorities.
By using robust surveys, the results would give the City Council and staff greater
confidence when using them to help make major policy decisions. The results may also
enhance transparency and accountability by demonstrating that decisions are grounded
in public input. Lastly, the survey data can also serve as an important tool in performance
measurement by providing an objective benchmark.
DISCUSSION:
On August 20, 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for qualified
consultants to conduct one or more citywide, statistically significant Community Needs
surveys that can be conducted on various platforms (i.e. phone, online) and in at least 1
other language. Staff received and reviewed 8 total proposals by the September 10, 2025
deadline and interviewed the two highest ranked firms: Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz &
Associates (FM3) and True North. All proposers are listed below from highest to lowest
ranking:
RFP Proposers
1 FM3
2 True North Research
3 ETC Institute
4 EMC Research
5 Polco
6 Great Lakes Marketing
7 Probolsky Research
8 ReconMR
2
The RFP Evaluation Panel consisted of the City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and the
Director of Finance, who evaluated each proposal and rated them in accordance with the
RFP rubric that assessed the following: proposer’s qualifications (25%), experience
working on similar projects (25%), approach to the RFP scope of work (25%), and cost
proposal (25%).
Based on the evaluation and interviews, the Evaluation Panel recommends awarding a
PSA to FM3, a California-based firm recognized for designing statistically valid surveys.
Their team has conducted surveys for cities across California, providing comparable
benchmarking data for policy and program development at a competitive cost.
Specifically, FM3 has conducted or is conducting surveys for various cities in the South
Bay including Palos Verdes Estates, Torrance, Lomita, Redondo Beach, Carson,
Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, El Segundo, and more. FM3 also conducted a parks
and open space survey for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in 2005 and has a working
knowledge of the City and the Palos Verdes Peninsula .
FM3’s proposed scope of work is summarized as follows (Attachment B):
• Survey Development & Design – Develop and implement up to 2 statistically
valid surveys in consultation with City staff and the Fiscal Sustainability
Subcommittee. Surveys must capture 400+ responses that are weighted to reflect
the City’s demographics. Surveys will be available online, via text, and telephone
in English and in Chinese (if needed).
o 1st Survey: A “Baseline Survey” of 15-20 minutes, depending on the number
of questions that the City wishes to include. Baseline surveys are the first
gauge of public opinion on Community Needs. Cost ranges from $27K to $30K
each.
o 2nd Survey (Optional) – A “Tracking Survey” ranging from 12-13 minutes and
conducted approximately 4-8 months after the Baseline Survey to assess any
significant changes in public opinion. Cost ranges from $23K to $25K each.
• Survey Administration – Implement and manage survey distribution with City
support for outreach through official communication channels.
• Data Analysis & Deliverables – Conduct statistical analysis of results (95%
confidence level, ±4.9% margin of error), and provide raw data, instruments, and
supporting documents to the City.
• Reporting & Presentations – Prepare draft and final survey reports, including
executive summary, methodology, results with charts/graphics, and
benchmarking. Present findings to staff, City Council, and the public.
3
• Staff Support & Coordination – Work with staff on survey development, assist
with communications strategies, and coordinate meetings with staff, Council, and
stakeholders throughout the project.
The proposed PSA with FM3 is for a term of up to two years; however, staff anticipates
the scope of work will be completed within the first year, as each survey is expected to
be finalized in approximately two months. The PSA includes a not-to-exceed amount of
$60,000, which covers the cost of both surveys and provides flexibility for potential
change orders if warranted and authorized by the City Manager.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The Fiscal Sustainability Subcommittee (comprised of Mayor Bradley and
Councilmember Lewis) is tasked with developing strategies and recommendations to
strengthen the City’s long-term fiscal health, including revenue generation and cost
control. By ensuring a solid financial foundation, the City can continue to meet the highest -
priority community needs identified in these citywide surveys. To achieve this, the
Subcommittee will collaborate with Staff and FM3 to carefully develop the survey
questions, ensuring they capture the information necessary to guide the City Council’s
policy decisions and, if needed, evaluate potential revenue-generating options for the City
Council’s consideration.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve the PSA with FM3 to provide up to two (2)
statistically significant Community Needs surveys, along with a budget appropriation
request in an amount not-to-exceed $60,000.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff’s recommendations, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Do not approve the proposed PSA.
2. Direct Staff to issue a new RFP.
3. Take such other action as the City Council deems appropriate.
4
Proposal to Conduct a
Community Needs Survey
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
September 10, 2025 921-7765
B-1
Page i
September 10, 2025
City of Rancho Palos Verdes:
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3 Research or FM3) is pleased to present this proposal to conduct
a community needs survey for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. We believe our firm is an excellent choice to
provide these research services for several reasons detailed in our proposal, including:
For more than four decades, FM3 has specialized in conducting resident satisfaction and strategic planning
surveys that help local governments make informed, actionable decisions. Our research supports city leaders
in areas such as resource allocation, public policy, and personnel management, while also tracking changes in
community sentiment over time. FM3 has conducted resident surveys for dozens of cities—as well as counties,
special districts, and other public agencies—throughout California. This includes past research for several
cities in the South Bay, such as Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, Carson, Lomita, Manhattan Beach,
and Torrance, among many other LA County clients. A number of FM3 clients begin working with FM3 to
better understand community priorities and satisfaction and then leverage the data to respond to perceived
needs and concerns through research examining the viability of potential revenue measures to address budget
priorities that residents communicated were not being sufficiently addressed. The culmination of this work—
in such cities as Bellflower, Lomita, Ontario, Torrance, and West Hollywood—has been successful revenue
measures providing cities with much needed funding to address resident priorities.
Our approach is focused on providing the best possible ongoing strategic consultation to our clients. We do
not simply conduct a poll, present the results, and leave you and your team to figure out how to put them to
use. Instead, we want to be a member of your strategic team. As a medium-sized research firm, FM3 provides
its clients with a level of personal attention and service from our senior staff that is more often associated
with much smaller organizations, while concurrently offering the wide range of services, adherence to
expedited timelines, and rigorous quality control expected from larger research firms.
FM3 features a local presence and accessibility. Our Los Angeles office is located just a short drive from
Rancho Palos Verdes. Southern California (and LA County in particular) is home not only to our firm, but also
to the residents and voters we know best. Our senior research staff is always willing to make the drive to meet
in person and discuss your project, present results, or help you leverage our research to achieve your goals.
FM3 understands that the City is seeking to conduct at least one community needs survey to help guide the City
Council and staff in strategic planning, community development, budgeting, and communication strategies. To
gather effective data while remaining conscious of any potential budgetary constraints, we recommend a dual-
mode (telephone and online) survey using phone calls, emails, and text messages to reach potential respondents.
This approach is described in detail in Section 3 of this proposal. FM3 will not be subcontracting any portion of
this work to other firms.
We appreciate the opportunity to be considered for this project. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with questions.
Dr. Richard Bernard, Partner
Bernard@FM3Research.com
(310) 428-1809 (cell)
B-2
Page ii
CONTENTS
1 FM3 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................1
2 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE .............................................................................................................................................2
3 PROPOSED APPROACH .............................................................................................................................................9
4 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH SPECIFICATIONS AND COSTS ................................................................................................ 13
5 CONTACT INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................................... 14
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A WORK SAMPLES .................................................................................................................................... 15
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: FM3’S SUCCESSFUL LOCAL FINANCE MEASURES IN THE SOUTH BAY AREA ................................................................. 4
FIGURE 2: SURVEY RESEARCH PHASES AND TIMELINE .......................................................................................................... 12
B-3
Page 1
1 FM3 BACKGROUND
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3 Research or FM3)
has been conducting public policy-oriented opinion research since
1981 on issues of major economic and social concern. The research
FM3 conducts goes far beyond simply documenting the knowledge,
views, and behaviors of various populations. Rather, our work
produces actionable data that provides a strategic roadmap for
policymakers to inform community outreach and communication
efforts.
Each of the research projects we do is led by one of our eight
partners, all of whom are nationally respected authorities on public
opinion research. As our client, you will have direct access to not only
the partner working on your project, but also several other key staff
members with advanced degrees in public policy, research methods,
and/or extensive experience working in state and local government.
An S Corporation, FM3 is a medium-sized research firm with 25 full-
time employees. While our firm is not so big that you will wonder
whom to call with your questions, we are big enough to have our own
in-house data analysis/processing team and graphic design resources. This means we can provide our clients with
a level of personal attention and service from firm partners and other senior staff more often associated with
much smaller organizations, while also providing rapid project turnaround and more sophisticated data analysis
and presentations tailored to client needs that one might expect from larger firms.
FM3 utilizes a variety of research tools designed to address each client’s unique circumstances. Some of these
tools are quantitative, such as surveys; some are qualitative, such as focus groups; and others fall somewhere in
between. In any given year, FM3 conducts 400+ surveys and 100+ focus groups, in addition to providing ongoing
consulting for key clients. We also actively monitor methodological developments through our industry’s trade
association—the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)—and continually experiment with
newly evolving online and digital research approaches.
You don’t have to choose
between hiring a full-service
firm (with in-house data and
graphics resources) or a hands-
on firm where you’ll have
direct and consistent access
with the partners working on
your project.
With FM3 Research,
you get both.
B-4
Page 2
2 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Community Satisfaction Surveys
For more than four decades, FM3 has conducted hundreds of resident satisfaction and strategic planning surveys
for local governments throughout our home state of California. This research is designed to produce actionable
outcomes for clients and inform critical decisions such as those involving resource allocation, public policy, and
personnel management. We have worked with some cities over many years, tracking changes over time to
questions asked in each year’s research, as well as modifying past survey instruments to include questions that
are more pertinent to the time. FM3 also compares findings to other data, including from national studies and
other cities, where comparison is illustrative. Our vast library of research allows us to examine satisfaction ratings
and other resident opinions and compare them with similar communities. These comparisons can be particularly
valuable when making policy decisions and studying the decisions made in other jurisdictions on similar issues.
In this work, we explore awareness and attitudes toward a full range of local issues, including perceptions of
overall quality of life; the performance of city government generally and of specific city departments, employees,
and services; the management of public funds; how to enhance the public's trust in local government; the quality
of city infrastructure; the pace, scale, and regulation of development; crime and personal safety and disaster
preparedness; and any other important topics facing the city.
Additionally, many of FM3’s city clients begin by pursuing research to gauge budget priorities and measure
residents’ satisfaction with City services, programs, and infrastructure efforts, and later opt to use the research
findings to inform efforts to test the viability of revenue measures to address resident concerns and achieve policy
goals. Other city clients have used surveys to simultaneously examine community attitudes toward city
governances and services/programs as well as test public support for potential revenue measure options. To that
end, FM3’s research has contributed to the passage of more than 700 local finance measures approved for 160+
California agencies in every region of the state.
FM3’s past clients for these services include the California municipalities of:
Agoura Hills
Anaheim
Bellflower*1
Burbank
Camarillo
Capitola*
Carson*
Citrus Heights
Concord
Coronado*
Chico
Dana Point*
Delmar
Dublin*
El Monte
Fairfield
Folsom
Fremont*
Grass Valley
Hawaiian Gardens*
Healdsburg
Hemet
Hercules
Huntington Beach
Irvine
La Habra
Lakewood*
Larkspur
Lomita*
Long Beach*
Los Angeles
Manhattan Beach
Millbrae
Milpitas
Modesto*
Moreno Valley
Ontario*
Oakland*
Palo Alto
Palos Verdes Estates
Pasadena*
Pleasanton*
Rancho Cordova
Rancho Palos Verdes
Rancho Santa
Margarita*
San Francisco*
San José *
San Juan Capistrano
San Luis Obispo
San Ramon*
Santa Barbara*
Santa Monica*
Saratoga
Signal Hill
Southgate
Stanton*
Sunnyvale
Torrance*
Vallejo
Ventura
West Hollywood*
1 * Denotes cities where FM3 has conducted two or more constituent satisfaction surveys.
B-5
Page 3
Additionally, FM3 has conducted resident/customer surveys for various non-municipal public entities, including:
Counties such as Alameda County, Santa Clara County, Sonoma County, and Tuolumne County
Community college districts such as Kern CCD and Sierra Joint CCD
Water districts such as Eastern Municipal Water District, Irvine Ranch Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water
District, and West Basin Municipal Water District
Special districts such as Marin-Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park
District, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, and Tamalpais Community
Services District Survey
Ports such as the Port of Long Beach, Port of Los Angeles, Port of San Diego, and Port of Oakland
Transportation authorities such as Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Southern
California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)
Los Angeles County Experience
With an office located on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, FM3 has conducted hundreds of surveys and focus
groups among Los Angeles County residents and voters regarding their views on a vast array of issues, such as
public safety, homelessness, social services, parks and open space, water quality and supply, transportation issues,
and more. As you may be aware, FM3 conducted research assessing resident attitudes toward parks, recreation,
and open space for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in 2003. FM3’s other clients in the South Bay have included
the cities of Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Lomita, Palos Verdes Estates,
Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills Estates, and Torrance. We have also conducted research for El Camino Community
College District (both in the past and currently), Manhattan Beach Unified School District, South Bay Union
School District, and Beach Cities Health District. Notably, our research has contributed to the passage of 19
revenue measures for local jurisdictions in the South Bay area (see Figure 1).
More broadly, we have worked on behalf of the County itself; 50+ LA County cities; and a variety of public agencies
including County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office on
the Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative, Los Angeles Community College District, Los Angeles County
Registrar-Recorder, Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro), and Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District.
In 2016, our efforts for the latter two agencies resulted in the passage of the largest transportation sales tax
measure and largest local park and open space parcel tax measure, respectively, in U.S. history; in 2018, our
research for the LA County Flood Control District led to the passage of the largest-ever stormwater parcel tax in
U.S. history. Overall, FM3’s research and consulting services have helped guide Los Angeles County agencies and
departments on a total of eleven measure victories since 1990.
Our understanding of the physical landscape and the diversity of communities within Los Angeles County has been
further enhanced by our partnership with the Luskin School of Public Affairs at UCLA to conduct the Los Angeles
Quality of Life Index Survey. FM3 has been conducting this large-scale survey of Los Angeles County residents—
which assesses resident satisfaction with and the importance of a wide variety of aspects of quality of life in the
county—since 2016.
B-6
Page 4
Figure 1: FM3’s Successful Local Finance Measures in the South Bay Area
Agency Measure Mechanism Election
City of Redondo Beach Measure FP $6.28 Million Public Safety
Facilities Bond November 2024
City of Carson Measure R Utility User Tax November 2022
City of El Segundo Measure BT Cannabis Tax November 2022
City of Hermosa Beach Measure T Cannabis Tax November 2022
City of Torrance Measure SST ½ Cent Sales Tax June 2022
City of Carson Measure K ¾ Cent Sales Tax November 2020
City of Gardena Measure G ¾ Cent Sales Tax March 2020
City of Lawndale Measure L ¾ Cent Sales Tax November 2018
Manhaftan Beach USD Measure MB $225/Parcel Tax June 2018
City of Hawthorne Measure HH ¾ Cent Sales Tax November 2017
City of Carson Measure C Utility User Tax June 2016
City of Carson Measure C Utility User Tax March 2009
City of Gardena Measure A Utility User Tax March 2009
City of Redondo Beach Measure RB-A Utility User Tax March 2009
Manhaftan Beach USD Measure BB $67.48 Million School Bond November 2008
City of Hermosa Beach Measure H Utility User Tax November 2007
El Camino CCD Measure E $394.5 Million School Bond November 2002
City of Lawndale Measure A Utility User Tax April 2002
South Bay USD Proposifion B $8.5 Million School Bond March 1997
B-7
Page 5
References
City of Paramount
Most recently, in 2024 we conducted a dual-mode (telephone and online)
survey among 400 voters, in English and Spanish, to test the feasibility of
a revision to the City’s business license tax. In our research, we explored a
variety of issues related not only to the potential measure, but also to
people’s attitudes and opinions toward the City of Paramount more
generally. Ultimately, Measure LR was designed to ensure that smaller,
“mom-and-pop” businesses would not be unfairly burdened by the tax and
that larger business (based on gross receipts) would pay their fair share.
The super-majority measure was approved by 77% of voters in November
2024. Previously, our research also contributed to the passage of Measure
Y, a ¾-cent sales tax, in March 2020. Our research for that project helped
identify budget priorities and inform the development of a legally
permissible educational outreach program for the City.
Outside the electoral realm, in 2022 FM3 conducted an online survey among adult residents of the City of
Paramount to assess their priorities for federal funds the City had received for community betterment through
the American Recovery ACT Plan (ARPA). The results of our research were used to inform the City Council’s budget
and policy deliberations.
City of Palos Verdes Estates
Over the past six months, FM3 has conducted two dual-mode (telephone
and online) surveys for the City of Palos Verdes Estates to assess voter
budget priorities and determine the viability of a potential revenue
measure for the November 2026 election. Our first survey in March/April
included 300 voters and assessed whether they would be willing to renew
the City’s parcel tax—set to expire in 2027—to help fund police and fire
services. The survey also provided insight into how voters felt about the
direction the city was moving in and identified the public safety priorities
voters wanted the City to focus on. FM3’s key survey findings were
presented to City Council, and using the information from the survey, the
City conducted a number of Town Hall meetings to listen to the
community and help educate residents on the need for the funding
measure. Following these efforts and a revision to the possible ballot title
and summary, the City once again hired FM3 to conduct a follow-up
survey in August among a random sample of 315 likely November 2026
voters to reassess measure viability.
John Moreno, City Manager
(562) 220-2222
jmoreno@paramountcity.com
16400 Colorado Ave.
Paramount, CA 90723
Kerry Kallman, City Manager
(818) 470-9056
citymanager@pvestates.org
340 Palos Verdes Dr. West
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
B-8
Page 6
City of Torrance
The City of Torrance has been a longtime client of FM3, and we are
currently working on the City’s 2025 Resident and Business Strategic Plan
surveys, which follows our work on four previous strategic plans for the
City in 1995, 2007-08, 2013-14, and 2018-19. FM3 has worked closely with
City staff to track relevant questions over time, examining our data from
prior years in order to measure changes in resident satisfaction and
perceptions. We have also continually worked to ensure that survey
questions are hyper-localized to the City of Torrance, and we are always
open to developing new questions that may arise from burgeoning City-
related issues. Among other topics, our research has examined community
priorities, residents’ future aspirational goals for the City, and levels of
satisfaction with City services. Additionally, FM3’s work for the City has
helped inform two successful City ballot initiatives—a sales tax (Measure
SST) in June 2022, which garnered 54.95% voter approval, and a charter
reform (Measure TC) in November 2024, which garnered 71.12% voter
support. Notably, both election results were within the margins of error of
their respective survey results, demonstrating FM3’s ability to accurately
measure the pulse of the Torrance community.
City of Cathedral City
FM3 has worked for the City of Cathedral City on a variety of projects over
the past several years. In 2022, the City hired our firm to conduct research
related to its strategic plan—beginning with focus groups in December
2022, which then informed the development of a dual-mode survey among
adult residents in January 2023. This research explored general community
attitudes toward Cathedral City as a place to live, as well as satisfaction
with various City services and amenities, specific issues residents would
like to see the City address, and priorities for future planning. Later, in
March 2024, we parlayed initial research into an exploration of the viability
of a potential revenue measure to fund some of the improvements
residents sought from the City—ultimately resulting in the passage of
Measure W, a ½-cent sales tax, in November 2024.
FM3 also worked on two previous successful sales tax measures for the
City (Measure H, 2010; Measure B, 2014), a utility users tax (Measure L,
2008), and two non-revenue-related ballot measures for the City of
Cathedral City—a charter amendment (Measure HH, 2016) and limit on
short-term vacation rentals (Measure B, 2021).
Samples of reports from FM3’s work for Cathedral City can be found in APPENDIX A.
Aram Chaparyan, City Manager
(310) 618-5930
achaparyan@torranceca.gov
Danny Santana,
Assistant City Manager
(310) 618-5880
dsantana@torranceca.gov
3031 Torrance Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90503
Anne Ambrose,
Assistant City Manager
(760) 770-0331
aambrose@cathedralcity.gov
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
B-9
Page 7
Dr. Richard Bernard, Partner
Project Role: Project Manager
Education: Richard earned an Honors B.A. at York University, an M.A. at McGill
University, and a Ph.D. at UCLA in Sociology.
Dr. Richard Bernard is one of California’s foremost public opinion researchers on issues related to public agencies,
their services, and the funding they need to provide those services. Richard provides strategic advice for a diverse
set of clients, including cities, counties, special districts, K-12 and community college districts, nonprofits,
businesses, and labor unions. He has been the lead researcher on projects examining resident satisfaction with
local government services, as well as branding and marketing public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and
development projects.
Working from FM3’s Los Angeles office, Richard has extensive familiarity with clients in Los Angeles County,
including the South Bay. In 2003, Richard led FM3’s community survey research for the City of Rancho Palos on
issues related to parks, recreation, and open space. More recently in the region, he conducted two surveys this
year for the City of Palos Verdes Estates. Richard’s other South Bay clients have included the cities of Carson,
Hermosa Beach, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. Richard has also conducted surveys
and/or focus groups on behalf of many larger Los Angeles County agencies, including the County of Los Angeles
Chief Executive Office, the LA County Department of Public Health, the LA County Department of Public Works,
the LA County Regional Park and Open Space District, and the LA County Flood Control District.
More broadly, Richard’s municipal clients on such topics as resident satisfaction, strategic planning, general plan
updates, finance measure feasibility, and budget priorities surveys have included the cities of Agoura Hills,
Alhambra, Artesia, Buena Park, Bellflower, Burbank, Calabasas, Camarillo, Cathedral City, Chino, Coronado, Costa
Mesa, Diamond Bar, Downey, Dixon, Duarte, Elk Grove, Folsom, Fontana, Fresno, Galt, Goleta, Grover Beach,
Hawaiian Gardens, Hemet, Hermosa Beach, Huntington Beach, La Cañada Flintridge, La Mesa, Lakewood,
Livermore, Lomita, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Montebello, Montclair, Monterey Park, Moreno Valley, Morro Bay,
Norwalk, Ontario, Palo Alto, Palmdale, Palm Springs, Palo Alto, Paramount, Pasadena, Pomona, Rancho Palos
Verdes, Rancho Santa Margarita, Riverside, San Clemente, San Diego, San Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, San Luis
Obispo, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Santa Paula, Seal Beach, South El Monte, Torrance, Taft, Tehachapi,
Ventura, Visalia, Vista, Walnut, West Hollywood, Wildomar, Whittier, and Yucaipa, among many others.
Richard joined the firm after being on the faculty at the University of Toronto from 1999 to 2002. While at the
University of Toronto, Richard taught research methods and statistics. He has published in such journals as East
Asian Pacific Migration Journal, International Migration Review, and the Canadian Journal of Sociology. Prior to
joining the faculty at University of Toronto, Dr. Bernard was a Sloan Foundation post-doctoral fellow at the
National Opinion Research Center (NORC) based at The University of Chicago, where he both designed and tested
quantitative and qualitative research related to family, work, and educational issues.
B-10
Page 8
Adam Sonenshein, Senior Vice President
Project Role: Researcher
Education: Adam received his bachelor’s degree in political science from Tufts
University in 1998 and his Master of Public Policy (MPP) degree from the UCLA
Luskin School of Public Affairs in 2005 with awards for Outstanding MPP Student of
the Year and Outstanding Academic Achievement.
Senior Vice President Adam Sonenshein came to FM3 Research in 2013. He has conducted opinion research and
evaluation and provided strategic advice for dozens of clients including candidates running for political office, K-
12 school and community college districts, local governments, nonprofit organizations, business associations, and
ballot measure campaigns. Adam is a lead member of the research teams for the UCLA Quality of Life Index
project, a multi-year public assessment of quality of life in Los Angeles County.
Adam’s current and recent clients within Los Angeles County include Los Angeles Community College District, City
of Los Angeles Bureau of Street Lighting, City of Los Angeles Housing Department, Los Angeles Department of
Transportation, Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk , Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works, and Los Angeles County Flood Control District, among others. Adam has also conducted opinion research
and provided strategic advice for several cities throughout LA County, including Arcadia, Bellflower, Burbank,
Carson, Commerce, Downey, Hawthorne, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Montebello, Palmdale, Paramount, Pasadena,
Santa Monica, Sierra Madre, Temple City, Torrance, and West Hollywood, as well as numerous local school
districts.
Prior to joining FM3, Adam spent over a decade working on behalf of nonprofit organizations and political
candidates in California. He spent eight years with Los Angeles Universal Preschool, a county-wide nonprofit
organization focused on building public will for expanding access to quality preschool education. He was
responsible for developing the organization’s public policy, advocacy, and community involvement strategies.
Further, he has served as a consultant for political campaigns, coalitions, and public awareness campaigns in the
San Francisco Bay Area.
B-11
Page 9
3 PROPOSED APPROACH
Research Design
The research process will begin with an initial kickoff meeting between FM3 and the City’s project team, which
FM3 will lead. This meeting will provide an opportunity for an extensive review of relevant background
information and context, as well as a detailed discussion of your objectives for the project. In designing the
research, FM3 will draw from its knowledge of public opinion survey methodology, our comprehensive review of
Rancho Palos Verdes’s past public opinion research, your current and future objectives and needs, and FM3’s own
vast library of past research. FM3 will also train City staff on survey development.
Sample Preparation
FM3 will construct a sample by randomly selecting a subset of addresses from a list of all residential addresses in
Rancho Palos Verdes. We recommend a sample size of 400, which has a margin of error of ±4.9% at the 95%
confidence level. While acquiring and preparing the sample, we will establish demographic and geographic quotas
of your residents ages 18+ using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. FM3 will use those quotas as necessary
during the data collection phase—and after the interviews are completed—to ensure the final sample reflects the
city’s overall adult population, both in terms of geography and demographics. FM3 will then match the addresses
in the sample against public and commercial databases to acquire residents’ contact information, then analyze
the sample to select which contact method to use for each address.
As a slightly more cost-effective alternative, FM3 could construct a sample of registered voters based on
information provided in the voter file. Sample preparation would be similar to that of a resident sample, except
that the demographic and geographic quotas FM3 would set would be based on the City’s voter population, rather
than its adult resident population.
Questionnaire Design
For this project, we recommend a survey that takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete on average. In
designing a survey questionnaire, we typically proceed through several drafts, incorporating feedback from your
team before each revision, to develop a research instrument that will successfully obtain all the desired
information. Although FM3 will develop the survey questionnaire collaboratively with your project team, a typical
community needs survey would include the following:
Measuring satisfaction with Rancho Palos Verdes city government and with specific services, as well as the
importance residents place on those services
Assessing whether the City needs additional funds to provide the services that residents need and want
Exploring what people like most and least about living in Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as their most serious
concerns about the city
Gathering opinions about public facilities, public safety, the economy, and residents’ sense of community
Gauging satisfaction with community amenities and overall quality of life
Asking how residents prefer to receive communications from the City
B-12
Page 10
In addition to behavioral, attitudinal, and situational questions, the survey will ask a variety of relevant
demographic questions such as race/ethnicity, age, educational attainment, family type (does the respondent
have children, and if so, what age(s) and do they live with them), household income, and homeownership status
(homeowner/renter), among others.
Before interviewing commences, FM3 will secure approval from the appropriate representative on the final
version of the questionnaire. As requested in the RFP, the questionnaire will also be translated into Spanish, as
well as any other language(s) the City might be interested in, such as Chinese. FM3 is happy to discuss language
options with the City upon request.
Telephone interviewers will also be prepped and thoroughly trained in the survey questionnaire's structure and
design, as well as in any unique or unfamiliar pronunciations. Once approved for fielding, the survey questionnaire
will be pre-tested with a sample of respondents to ensure ease of administration and flow. Such testing will also
verify the length of the questionnaire as well as the clarity and comprehensibility of survey questions. If necessary,
FM3 will bring to your attention any questions that appear to be generating confused responses and suggest
potential questionnaire modifications to address those issues.
Data Collection
Online Interviews
Based upon the final sample specifications, we will set a target number of interviews to be completed online. We
will then estimate an email invitation response rate based upon your community's demographics and send a
random selection of potential respondents either an email or a text message invitation containing a unique link
(which can only be used once) inviting them to take the survey online. Depending on response rates, we may also
send out reminder emails to recipients who have not yet taken the survey, or we may send new email invitations
to additional addresses in the sample.
Telephone Interviews
Within several days of the initial invitation distribution, we will compare the demographic and geographic
characteristics of the online completes with our Census-derived quotas. We will then begin conducting telephone
interviews to balance out the sample and target underrepresented subgroups. The telephone interviews are
completed—and the online survey is closed—when both the overall target number of interviews is reached, and
the demographic and geographic quotas have been sufficiently filled.
Data Verification
Throughout the fielding of the survey, FM3 will review frequencies, generate a “partial” topline (percentage of
respondents who chose each answer option for all survey questions), and review and clean the data. This allows
us to check for illogical answers and data anomalies—both deliberate (such as straight-lining, when a respondent
picks, for example, the first option in every question in the survey) and unintentional (taking the survey twice,
online and by phone, for example). These checks also help ensure the sample is representative of the population
of interest and our interviews are reaching established quotas.
B-13
Page 11
A note on survey distribution: We understand that the City is interested in distributing the survey through various
communication platforms, such as social media, the City newsletter and website, and other printed materials. In
order to provide truly representative survey results, however, FM3 does not recommend using these additional
distribution methods as part of our primary survey data collection. Certain types of people (i.e., those who are
more civically engaged) would be much more likely to engage with the survey than others, and therefore the results
would be biased toward the opinions of especially involved or civic-minded people—as compared to a survey
conducted among a truly random sample in which everyone in the community has an equal opportunity to
participate in the survey, regardless of whether they follow the City’s social media, read the newsletter, etc.
That said, once we have finished collecting data for the random-sample survey, FM3 would be happy to provide a
link to the survey that the City can distribute across various communication platforms in order to gather additional
input from the community. FM3 would then provide topline results of this non-random survey (but not crosstabs
nor analysis). This data would not be statistically representative nor generalizable to the overall community, but
could still provide useful information for the City to consider.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Data Analysis
All survey responses will be analyzed by FM3’s Data Processing and Analysis department staff using a customized
installation of SAS software, a well documented and widely used data analysis software package. Open-ended
responses will be further reviewed, coded, and grouped into thematic categories.
Within two days after interviewing has been completed, the topline survey results will be generated, and FM3's
initial analysis will begin. These results will show the overall percentage of respondents that chose each answer
option for all survey questions. Within three days, a comprehensive set of cross-tabulated results will also be
generated. The cross-tabulated results will make it possible to detect how responses differ, if at all, among various
subsets of the sample. For example, it will be possible to compare answers provided by men and women; residents
of various age categories, income levels, and ethnicities; homeowners and renters; parents and non-parents;
residents living in different communities; and many other subgroups.
Reporting and Deliverables
FM3 will generate a detailed report of the survey results in a PowerPoint presentation, including demographic
breakouts and summaries of key findings and recommendations, including recommendations for developing
communications strategies regarding topics of community and organizational importance. These results are
typically presented in draft format to the client team and then further refined based upon feedback from that
group. A version of this presentation will also be developed in a format suitable for FM3 to present to a public
audience, which may not be familiar with statistics or survey methodology. We can also produce more detailed
and lengthy written reports upon request for an additional cost.
Upon conclusion of the survey project, the City will have received from FM3 the following deliverables.
Final survey questionnaire
Topline survey results
B-14
Page 12
Full cross-tabulated results (responses to every survey question, broken down by dozens of demographic,
geographic, behavioral, attitudinal, and situational subgroups of the population)
Verbatim answers to any open-ended questions
Detailed PowerPoint presentation (including graphic presentation of key findings, detailed results,
conclusions, and actionable recommendations)
Presentations of results to staff, City Council, or other stakeholders (in person if desired)
FM3 typically does not provide raw data beyond toplines and crosstabs; however, if the City would like the full raw
dataset, FM3 can strip identifying information from individual survey responses and provide that data on request.
Finally, after FM3’s final deliverables have been completed, we will remain available to answer follow-up
questions and to present results to additional key stakeholders. We view the responses to the survey as an ongoing
data resource; if needed, FM3 can conduct further analysis to provide answers to any follow-up questions.
Timeline
FM3 is prepared to begin work on this research project immediately upon contract approval in October. As shown
in Figure 2, the entire process would take approximately six to eight weeks from kick-off, though we would be
happy to extend or compress the timeline to best meet your needs.
Figure 2: Survey Research Phases and Timeline
•Kick-off meeting/confirmation of research specifications
•Review necessary background materials
•Draft, refine, and finalize survey questionnaire and invitations
•Finalize sample parameters and order/prep sample
•Translate survey questionnaire
•Program and test survey questionnaire
Phase 1: Research Design (2-3 weeks)
•Send email and text invitations and reminders (as necessary)
•Analyze demographics of online survey respondents
•Initiate and conduct telephone interviews
•Continually review responses and sample quotas
•Begin development of cross-tabulated report structure
Phase 2: Data Collection (2 weeks)
•Generate topline and cross-tabulated results
•Conduct statistical analysis
•Generate PowerPoint presentation of key findings, conclusions, and
actionable recommendations
•Present findings
Phase 3: Data Analysis and Reporting (2-3 weeks)
B-15
Page 13
4 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH SPECIFICATIONS AND COSTS
Methodology Dual-mode survey using a combination of telephone (cellular and landline) and online
(email and text-to-web) interviews
Sample 400 adult residents of Rancho Palos Verdes
or
400 registered voters in Rancho Palos Verdes
Margin of
Sampling Error
±4.9% for a sample of 400 interviews
at the 95% confidence level
Survey Length 15-20 minutes
Language(s) Telephone interviews will be conducted in English and Spanish, with the option of offering
Chinese or other languages, as well. We have found people are less likely to respond to an
online survey in a non-English language; therefore, for maximum cost efficiency, online
interviews will be conducted in English only.
Costs The chart below contains the total estimated costs for a survey conducted among either
adult residents or registered voters. These prices are comprehensive and include all costs
for questionnaire design, sample acquisition and preparation, Spanish translation,
programming, email and text invitations, survey hosting, bilingual (English and Spanish)
telephone interviewing, data entry and analysis, and reporting. If the City wishes to offer
telephone interviews in any additional languages, there will be an added translation fee of
$2,000 per language.
Additionally, if the City wishes to distribute the survey link through its own channels
following FM3’s administration of the statistically valid survey, with FM3 providing toplines
post-distribution, there will be an additional fee of $1,000.
Survey Length Resident Sample Voter Sample
15 minutes $29,500 $28,500
20 minutes $33,000 $32,000
B-16
Page 14
5 CONTACT INFORMATION
Thank you for taking the time to review our proposal. Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Dr. Richard Bernard
Partner
Bernard@FM3Research.com
(310) 428-1809 (cell)
Adam Sonenshein
Senior Vice President
Adam@FM3Research.com
(310) 569-3653 (cell)
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90025
www.fm3research.com
B-17
Page 15
APPENDIX A
WORK SAMPLES
B-18
Page 1
Work Sample #1
Cathedral City Strategic Planning Survey
B-19
Highlights of a Survey of Cathedral City Residents
320-1059
Opinions on Services and
Plans for Cathedral City
B-20
2
Survey Dates January 4-17, 2023
Research Population Cathedral City Residents Ages 18+
Total Interviews 572
Margin of Sampling Error (Full Sample) ±4.4% at the 95% Confidence Level
(Half Sample) ±6.2% at the 95% Confidence Level
Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
Languages English and Spanish
Note Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding
Pre-Survey Focus Groups Focus groups conducted on December 5 and 6, 2022 to inform
survey development and broaden community participation
Research Specifics and Methodology
Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
B-21
3
Pre-Survey Focus Groups
3 focus group sessions:
o Residents in neighborhood between Landau Blvd. and Date Palm
Drive; Dinah Shore Drive and 30th Ave.
o Seniors
o Spanish-speakers
Many participants thought of Cathedral City in comparison
to its neighbors: more affordable, but less activities
Different perspectives on the vision for Cathedral City’s
future which were tested in survey
Almost all participants felt the City should be doing more to
communicate with residents with many unaware of the
tools the City uses now
B-22
4
General
Community Attitudes
B-23
5
Q4. Overall, would you say things in Cathedral City are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that they are pretty seriously off on the
wrong track?
Right
Direction
57%
Wrong
Track
27%
Don't
Know
16%
By more than two-to-one, residents think things
in Cathedral City are headed in the right direction.
Demographic
Group
Right
Direction
Wrong
Track
Don’t
Know
Age
18-39 59%31%9%
40-64 56%26%18%
65+57%23%20%
Race/Ethnicity
Whites 50%28%22%
Latinos 63%26%11%
Gender
Men 59%28%13%
Women 56%25%18%
Residence
Homeowners 59%28%13%
Renters 52%24%24%
B-24
6
Q5. I’m going to read you a list of local public institutions. I’d like you to tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable,
or strongly unfavorable opinion. If you have never heard of one, or you have heard of it but cannot rate it, please just say so.
14%
13%
17%
43%
39%
31%
18%
18%
10%
7%
6%
13%
19%
21%
5%
17%
Cathedral City
city government overall
The Cathedral City
City Council
The Desert
Recreation District
Strng. Fav.Smwt. Fav.Smwt. Unfav.Strng. Unfav.Heard of/Can't Rate Never Heard of/Don't Know Total
Fav.
Total
Unfav.
58%26%
52%24%
48%13%
Nearly six-in-ten residents have a favorable opinion of City
government and approximately half view the City Council
and Desert Recreation District favorably.
(Ranked by Total Favorable)
B-25
7
Q6. Generally speaking, how would you rate Cathedral City as a place to live: is it an excellent place to live, a good place, just fair, or a poor place to live?
21%
51%
23%
4%
Excellent
Good
Just fair
Poor
Excellent/
Good
72%
More than seven-in-ten residents think
Cathedral City is an excellent or
good place to live.
B-26
8
The most commonly offered reason for liking living in
Cathedral City is the convenience of its location.
Q7.
(Open-ended; Multiple Responses Accepted; 2% and Above Shown)
What do you like best about living in Cathedral City? %
Location/Other cities/Convenience 32%
Affordability 11%
Friendly/sense of community 11%
Access to shopping/activities 8%
Safe/less crime/good Police and Fire departments 7%
My neighborhood/house/HOA 6%
Quiet/peaceful 6%
Diversity/acceptance/inclusion 5%
Weather/climate 4%
Small/quaint/small town feel 3%
Appropriate development/growth 3%
Clean neighborhoods/parks 2%
General positive 2%
Access to parks and recreational activities/clean parks 2%
Access to arts, culture, entertainment 2%
Other 5%
None/nothing 6%
Refused 3%
B-27
9
Verbatim Comments from Respondents
Q7. What do you like best about living in Cathedral City?
Located centrally for easy access
to all shops and entertainment
The central location in the Coachella Valley; Having access
to all the amenities in the Valley; Well-priced compared to
Palm Springs and other communities nearby.
It's in the middle of Palm Desert
and Palm Springs so it's not that
far of a drive to get to either
Good services, safety,
good mixture of lifestyles.
It’s more affordable than Palm
Springs, Rancho Mirage or
Palm Desert
The quiet neighborhood and
family atmosphere
It is an open and
free place to live,
not like gated
places
Friendly and diverse people live here
B-28
10
Issues for the
City to Address
B-29
11
The most top-of-mind issues that residents want City government
to address are homelessness, crime and safety,
and the condition of roads and other infrastructure.
Q8. What do you think is the most serious issue facing the residents of Cathedral City that you would like to see City government do something about?
(Open-ended; Multiple Responses Accepted; 2% and Above Shown)
Serious Issues %
Homelessness 20%
Crime/safety/drugs/gangs 16%
Condition of roads/bridges/infrastructure 15%
Economic development/blight/vacant buildings 10%
Cost of living 7%
Affordable housing 5%
Traffic/speeding 5%
Taxes 4%
Government 4%
Police presence/policing 3%
Cleanliness/trash 3%
Sidewalks/crosswalks 2%
Condition/lack of parks and recreation 2%
Code enforcement 2%
Noise/nuisance/fireworks 2%
Flooding 2%
Other 9%
None/nothing 3%
Don't know/unsure 4%
Refused 3%
B-30
12
Q9. I am now going to mention a list of issues that some people have mentioned are problems in Cathedral City. Please tell me whether you personally
consider that issue to be an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, somewhat serious, or not too serious in Cathedral City today.
^Not Part of Split Sample
36%
27%
25%
25%
22%
27%
19%
23%
22%
20%
31%
32%
33%
31%
31%
26%
32%
26%
25%
27%
24%
23%
24%
23%
27%
27%
31%
32%
29%
26%
8%
18%
14%
19%
16%
19%
15%
16%
23%
25%
5%
^Homelessness
^The condition of local streets and roads
Property crime, like burglaries andcar thefts
Speeding and unsafe driving
The number of vacant storefrontsand buildings
The cost of living
Crime in general
Cost of housing
The visual appearance alongmajor roads
^Flooding of local streets
Ext. Ser. Prob.Very Ser. Prob.Smwt. Ser. Prob.Not Too Ser. Prob.Don't Know
When choosing from a list of issues, homelessness
continues to rate as the most serious problem.
Ext./Very
Ser. Prob.
67%
59%
57%
56%
54%
53%
51%
49%
47%
47%
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Serious Problem)
B-31
13
Q9. I am now going to mention a list of issues that some people have mentioned are problems in Cathedral City. Please tell me whether you personally
consider that issue to be an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, somewhat serious, or not too serious in Cathedral City today.
^Not Part of Split Sample
Continued
Ext./Very
Ser. Prob.
43%
43%
42%
40%
39%
38%
35%
33%
30%
27%
17%
16%
20%
16%
12%
17%
12%
12%
13%
8%
26%
27%
21%
24%
26%
21%
22%
21%
18%
19%
28%
28%
33%
30%
25%
27%
25%
25%
24%
21%
28%
28%
25%
17%
31%
26%
28%
33%
43%
49%
13%
5%
9%
13%
9%
The visual appearance of neighborhoods
Lack of walkable neighborhoods
Traffic congestion on local streetsand roads
A lack of good-paying jobs
The lack of parks and recreation programs
Lack of safe bike lanes
Lack of public transportation
The condition of local parks
^Lack of entertainment anddining options
Too much growth and development
Ext. Ser. Prob.Very Ser. Prob.Smwt. Ser. Prob.Not Too Ser. Prob.Don't Know
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Serious Problem)
B-32
14
Importance of and Satisfaction
with City Services
B-33
15
Q10. I would like to ask you some more questions about the services provided by Cathedral City’s city government. Please tell me how important that service is
to you personally. We will use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT and 7 means VERY IMPORTANT. *Split Sample
Mean Score
6.1
6.1
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.7
5.7
Many services are considered highly important,
including public safety and addressing homeless
*Enforcement of City rules and regulations to keep neighborhoods safe and quiet
(Ranked by Mean Score)
73%
71%
69%
67%
69%
67%
65%
61%
59%
58%
15%
12%
15%
17%
17%
15%
22%
21%
23%
24%
6%
8%
7%
7%
9%
10%
7%
9%
9%
10%
5%
6%
9%
8%
5%
7%
5%
5%
6%
8%
Fire protection and paramedic services
911 emergency response
Police protection
Addressing homelessness
Street and local road maintenance
*Pick up of trash, bulky items, yard waste and recyclables
Emergency preparedness
*Storm drain maintenance
Maintenance of street medians and other public spaces
6-7 (Very Impt.)5 4 1 (Not at All Impt.)-3 Don't Know
B-34
16
Q10. I would like to ask you some more questions about the services provided by Cathedral City’s city government. Please tell me how important that service is
to you personally. We will use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT and 7 means VERY IMPORTANT. *Split Sample
Mean Score
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.1
4.9
Continued
(Ranked by Mean Score)
*Enforcing City rules and regulations requiring owners to keep their properties well-maintained
*Special events like holiday celebrations, the Hot Air Balloon Festival, and other community celebrations
57%
56%
54%
53%
52%
55%
51%
52%
44%
46%
42%
23%
25%
24%
22%
24%
17%
25%
18%
26%
21%
24%
11%
9%
12%
10%
13%
13%
10%
12%
13%
16%
12%
7%
7%
8%
12%
8%
13%
12%
17%
14%
14%
21%
Communication with residents
*Traffic management
Programs to retain, expand, and attract local businesses
Programs that protect the environment
Sidewalk maintenance
*Graffiti removal
Park maintenance
Parks and recreation programs
*Cultural and performing arts programs
6-7 (Very Impt.)5 4 1 (Not at All Impt.)-3 Don't Know
B-35
17
Q11. I am going to mention each service again. This time I would like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing in providing that
service. We will use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you are NOT AT ALL SATISFIED with the service and 7 means you are VERY SATISFIED with the service.
*Split Sample
Mean Score
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.1
5.1
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.7
Residents are most satisfied with fire protection and 911
response, special events, trash pickup and police protection.
(Ranked by Mean Score)
*Special events like holiday celebrations, the Hot Air Balloon Festival, and other community celebrations
50%
47%
45%
45%
43%
33%
30%
30%
28%
29%
25%
25%
20%
22%
22%
25%
20%
24%
24%
30%
9%
12%
13%
14%
13%
19%
17%
18%
14%
18%
6%
9%
8%
16%
15%
13%
17%
16%
16%
19%
9%
9%
14%
6%
10%
16%
13%
19%
Fire protection and paramedic services
911 emergency response
*Pick up of trash, bulky items, yard waste and recyclables
Police protection
Park maintenance
Programs that protect the environment
Parks and recreation programs
Emergency preparedness
*Traffic management
6-7 (Very Satisfied)5 4 1 (Not at All Satisfied)-3 Don't Know
B-36
18
Q11. I am going to mention each service again. This time I would like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing in providing that
service. We will use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means you are NOT AT ALL SATISFIED with the service and 7 means you are VERY SATISFIED with the service.
*Split Sample
Mean Score
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.1
3.8
Continued
(Ranked by Mean Score)
33%
27%
27%
30%
29%
29%
28%
20%
25%
26%
20%
24%
26%
25%
23%
24%
18%
25%
27%
20%
22%
17%
14%
15%
15%
18%
19%
20%
17%
15%
19%
16%
14%
23%
21%
22%
26%
22%
20%
23%
24%
28%
34%
41%
5%
11%
12%
6%
13%
6%
13%
8%
6%
*Graffiti removal
*Cultural and performing arts programs
Maintenance of street medians and other public spaces
Communication with residents
*Storm drain maintenance
Sidewalk maintenance
Programs to retain, expand, and attract local businesses
Street and local road maintenance
Addressing homelessness
6-7 (Very Satisfied)5 4 1 (Not at All Satisfied)-3 Don't Know*Enforcement of City rules and regulations to keep neighborhoods safe and quiet
*Enforcing City rules and regulations requiring owners to keep their properties well-maintained
B-37
19
Comparison of Importance of and Satisfaction with
Services/Features
Q5 and Q6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I J, K, L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
3
4
5
6
7
3 4 5 6 7
Sa
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
S
c
a
l
e
Importance Scale
A. Cultural and performing arts programs
B. Special events like holiday celebrations, the Hot Air
Balloon Festival, and other community celebrations
C. Enforcing City rules and regulations requiring
owners to keep their properties well-maintained
D. Parks and recreation programs
E. Graffiti removal
F. Park maintenance
G. Sidewalk maintenance
H. Programs that protect the environment
I. Programs to retain, expand, and attract local
businesses
J. Maintenance of street medians and other public
spaces
K. Communication with residents
L. Storm drain maintenance
M. Traffic management
N. Street and local road maintenance
O. Enforcement of City rules and regulations to keep
neighborhoods safe and quiet
P. Emergency preparedness
Q. Pick up of trash, bulky items, yard waste and
recyclables
R. Addressing homelessness
S. Police protection
T. 911 emergency response
U. Fire protection and paramedic services
(Importance and Satisfaction Mean Scores)
High Importance,
Low Satisfaction
High Importance,
High Satisfaction
Low Importance,
High Satisfaction
Low Importance,
Low Satisfaction
B-38
20
Services/Features with Higher Importance and
Higher Satisfaction Ratings
Q5 and Q6
•Fire protection and paramedic services
•911 emergency response
•Pick up of trash, bulky items, yard waste and recyclables
•Police protection
•Emergency preparedness
•Traffic management
B-39
21
Services/Features with Higher Importance and
Lower Satisfaction Ratings
Q5 and Q6
•Addressing homelessness
•Street and local road maintenance
•Communication with residents
•Storm drain maintenance
•Maintenance of street medians and other public spaces
•Enforcement of City rules and regulations to keep
neighborhoods safe and quiet
B-40
22
Services/Features with Lower Importance and
Higher Satisfaction Ratings
Q5 and Q6
•Special events like holiday celebrations, the Hot Air
Balloon Festival, and other community celebrations
•Parks and recreation programs
•Park maintenance
•Programs that protect the environment
B-41
23
Priorities for
Future Planning
B-42
24
High/Med.
Prior.
83%
85%
82%
82%
77%
80%
Q12. I am going to ask you about some new ideas that could be considered for some of the City government’s long-term plans. These are ideas that are not
part of the City’s planning, but could be worked on over the next few years. Keeping in mind that not every idea can be a high priority, please tell me how
much of a priority that idea is to you personally: a high priority, medium priority, low priority, or not a priority at all. ^Not Part of Split Sample
52%
51%
46%
45%
45%
41%
31%
34%
36%
37%
32%
39%
13%
10%
11%
12%
16%
13%
5%
^Adding another homelessness team, including a Police Officer and mental health professional
Improving equipment and technology so the City can respond during emergencies/natural disasters
Partnering with the local school district and community college to increase trade and vocational programs
Increasing Gang Unit staffing
Renovating a vacant building to serve as a community recreation, senior and emergency cooling center
High Prior.Med. Prior.Low Prior.Not a Prior.Don't Know
Engaging and maintaining police community partnerships such as Neighborhood Watch and Citizens on Patrol
Several ideas are considered high priorities including adding a police/mental health
homelessness team, emergency preparation, trade/vocational programs,
police-community partnerships and gang unit staffing.
(Ranked by High Priority)
B-43
25
High/Med.
Prior.
76%
76%
74%
72%
75%
67%
54%
Q12. I am going to ask you about some new ideas that could be considered for some of the City government’s long-term plans. These are ideas that are not
part of the City’s planning, but could be worked on over the next few years. Keeping in mind that not every idea can be a high priority, please tell me how
much of a priority that idea is to you personally: a high priority, medium priority, low priority, or not a priority at all. ^Not Part of Split Sample
41%
35%
35%
34%
33%
29%
18%
34%
41%
38%
38%
42%
39%
36%
16%
17%
19%
17%
15%
21%
25%
7%
6%
5%
8%
5%
9%
19%
5%
Installing wiring for ultra-high-speed internet for homes and businesses
Building a community recreation, senior and emergency cooling center
^Offering grants to retain and attract small businesses
Making City buildings more energy efficient and better maintained
Replacing and upgrading Fire Department trucks and equipment
^Improving the East Palm Canyon and Downtown Arts and Entertainment District
Replacing City-owned cars and trucks with electric vehicles
High Prior.Med. Prior.Low Prior.Not a Prior.Don't Know
Continued
(Ranked by High Priority)
B-44
26
Very
Much/
Smwt.
94%
96%
90%
86%
86%
76%
Q13. I would now like to read you some phrases and ask you to think about what you personally want the City of Cathedral City to be like in the year 2028.
First, how much do you personally want to see Cathedral City be _______ in 2028? Do you want that very much, somewhat or not at all? Split Sample
60%
57%
50%
47%
34%
29%
33%
39%
41%
39%
52%
47%
5%
7%
9%
11%
18%
5%
6%
A great place to retire or raise a family
An affordable place to live
An environmentally-friendly city
A city that benefits from the diversity of its population
The most digitally-connected city in the Coachella Valley
The arts and culture capital of the Coachella Valley
Very Much Smwt.Not at All Don't Know
Residents most strongly respond to the idea of Cathedral
City being defined as “A great place to retire or raise a
family” and “An affordable place to live.”
(Ranked by Very Much)
B-45
27
Satisfaction with
Community Amenities
B-46
28
Q14. I am going to read you a list of amenities and services that can be found in many cities. Please tell me how satisfied you are with your ability to find that
amenity or service in Cathedral City: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ^Not Part of Split Sample
45%
31%
26%
20%
20%
18%
16%
39%
49%
51%
46%
43%
45%
45%
11%
12%
13%
18%
13%
18%
14%
5%
7%
16%
6%
8%
9%
9%
8%
13%
17%
Grocery stores
Casual restaurants
Family-friendly restaurants
Entertainment and nightlife
Fine dining restaurants
^Recreation activities
Arts and cultural activities
Very Sat.Smwt. Sat.Smwt. Dissat.Very Dissat.No Opin./Don't Know Total
Sat.
Total
Dissat.
84%15%
80%17%
77%14%
66%25%
63%29%
63%24%
61%22%
There is more satisfaction with the availability of
grocery stores, casual restaurants and family-friendly
restaurants than other community amenities.
(Ranked by Total Satisfied)
B-47
29
Communicating with Residents
B-48
30
Q15. I am now going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about programs, events and issues in Cathedral City. I’d like you to tell
me how often you use it to get information about such issues: frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. ^Not Part of Split Sample
30%
35%
21%
15%
11%
12%
15%
15%
37%
25%
37%
34%
31%
29%
24%
21%
17%
19%
20%
20%
21%
23%
17%
25%
13%
19%
18%
28%
32%
30%
38%
36%
5%
5%
5%
6%
Word of mouth from friends or family
Local TV news
^City mailers sent to your home
The quarterly activity guide sent by the Desert Recreation District
^The City’s website
Local radio stations
^The Nextdoor website or app
The Desert Sun newspaper, online and/or in print
Freq.Occas.Rarely Never Don't Know Freq./
Occas.
67%
60%
58%
49%
42%
41%
39%
36%
Residents most often get local information from
word of mouth, local TV news, and City mailers.
(Ranked by Frequently/Occasionally)
B-49
31
Q15. I am now going to read you a list of sources from which people get information about programs, events and issues in Cathedral City. I’d like you to tell
me how often you use it to get information about such issues: frequently, occasionally, rarely, or never. ^Not Part of Split Sample
11%
12%
11%
7%
7%
6%
5%
23%
21%
19%
23%
18%
15%
13%
15%
15%
22%
19%
22%
21%
22%
15%
11%
45%
38%
43%
43%
48%
54%
57%
60%
6%
7%
7%
6%
6%
10%
11%
The Coachella Valley Independent newspaper, online and/or in print
^The City’s weekly email newsletter
The Discover Cathedral City website
^The City’s official Facebook page
A Cathedral City City Council meeting in-person or streaming online
Cathedral City’s YouTube channel
The City’s official Instagram account
Freq.Occas.Rarely Never Don't Know Freq./
Occas.
34%
33%
31%
30%
25%
20%
18%
18%
Continued
(Ranked by Frequently/Occasionally)
^The Cathedral City Neighborhoods Facebook group or other groups run by local residents
B-50
32
Conclusions
B-51
33
Conclusions
•By two-to-one residents think things in Cathedral City are headed in
the right direction.
•A small majority has a favorable opinion of the City government and
City Council, but in both cases, those opinions are fairly soft with
less than 15% who have “strongly favorable” opinions.
•There is a sense of Cathedral City as an affordable community
compared to nearby cities, where residents have convenient access
to many of the community amenities they need, but at least
somewhat by going to those other places.
•Most residents are satisfied with the availability of grocery stores
and casual/family restaurants, with the sense that the city does not
have as much entertainment and nightlife, fine dining restaurants, or
recreation, arts and cultural activities.
B-52
34
Conclusions; Continued
•Three concerns are most common:
Homelessness
Crime
The condition of roads and other infrastructure
•There is a broad sense that the services offered by the City
are important.
•At least pluralities are satisfied with the way the City is
providing all of the services tested in the survey, except for
addressing homelessness.
•Residents are most satisfied with several of the services
they rate as most important, particularly public safety
services.
B-53
Page 1
Work Sample #2
Cathedral City Ballot Measure Survey
B-54
220-7115
Highlights of Cathedral City
Resident Satisfaction and
Budget Priority Issues Survey
B-55
2
Survey Dates March 20-26, 2024
Research Population Dual-mode Voter Survey
Survey Type Cathedral City Likely November 2024 Voters
Total Interviews 433
Margin of Sampling Error (Full Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
(Half Sample) ±6.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
Survey Tracking June 2008, February 2012, December 2013, May 2016,
November 2020, April 2022 & January 2023
Languages English and Spanish
Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding)
Survey Methodology
B-56
3
Overall Mood and Perception of
the Need for Additional Funds
B-57
4
Q. Would you say that things in the City of Cathedral City are generally headed in the right direction or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the
wrong track?
54%
57%
62%
58%
52%
23%
27%
18%
18%
26%
23%
16%
20%
24%
22%
2024
2023
2022
2020
2016
Right Direction Wrong Track Don't Know
In a challenging environment statewide,
a majority continues to view
the direction of the City favorably.
B-58
5
Almost three-quarters continue to perceive the City
needs additional funds – though perceived great need
for funds has increased since 2022.
Q. In your personal opinion, do you think the City of Cathedral City has a great need for additional funding, some need, a little need or no real need for
additional funds to provide the level of City services that Cathedral City residents need and want?
40%
33%
36%
38%
38%
33%
41%
28%
31%
35%
8%
8%
9%
7%
7%
10%
10%
19%
19%
14%
9%
9%
9%
5%
6%
2024
2022
2016
2012
2008
Great Need Some Need A Little Need No Real Need Don't Know
Great/Some Need
A Little/No Real Need
73%18%
74%18%
64%27%
69%26%
73%21%
B-59
6
Interest in Service Priorities and
Potential Funding Solution
B-60
7
Hypothetical Measure Language Tested
Q. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
(As Approved by Legal Counsel)
Cathedral City Services Measure
Shall the measure providing funding for Cathedral City’s services
such as maintaining 911 medical emergency/ambulance/fire/
police response; repairing neighborhood streets/potholes;
preparing for/responding to and recovering from
rainstorms/natural disasters; keeping parks clean/safe;
addressing homelessness; providing park/recreation afterschool/
youth/senior programs; and for general government use by
establishing a ½¢ sales tax providing $5,000,000 annually until
ended by voters; requiring audits, spending disclosure, funds
locally controlled, be adopted?
B-61
8
39%
22%
3%
1%
8%
22%
5%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
64%
Q. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
61%
Total
No
31%
Slightly more than 6-in-10 initially support this 50%+1
measure, with almost 4-in-10 strongly supporting it.
(Margin of Error = ±4.9%)
B-62
9
Support exceeds the simple majority requirement for
passage Citywide, with respondents in City Council
Districts 2 and 4 the most likely to vote yes.
Q. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
59%
68%
57%
71%
64%
35%30%34%
25%30%
6%3%9%4%5%
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
Total Yes Total No Undecided
(% of
Sample)(17%)(20%)(17%)(23%)
Opinions by City Council District
(23%)
B-63
10
Perception of funding need strongly impacts
support for a measure.
Q. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
75%74%
30%
20%22%
65%
5%4%5%
Great Need Some Need A Little/No Real Need
Total Yes Total No Undecided
(% of
Sample)(40%)(33%)(18%)
Opinions by Perceived Funding Need
B-64
11
Ext./Very Impt.
93%
93%
91%
90%
87%
84%
84%
84%
83%
Maintaining 911 emergency response, fire protection services, and
repairing streets and potholes are leading priorities for uses of funds.
Q. I am going to read you a list of possible projects, features, and provisions that might be included in this local ballot measure. Regardless of how you feel
about this measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each provision or use of funds is included in the measure: extremely important,
very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample
^Preparing for, responding to, and recovering from rainstorms and other natural disasters
67%
65%
61%
60%
49%
55%
53%
49%
48%
26%
28%
30%
30%
38%
30%
31%
34%
35%
6%
6%
7%
8%
11%
13%
10%
12%
15%
6%
^Maintaining 911 medical emergency ambulance, fire and police response
Maintaining fire protection and paramedic services
Maintaining fire protection services
^Recruiting and retaining well-trained paramedics and firefighters
^Repairing neighborhood streets and potholes
Maintaining gang prevention programs
^Protecting Cathedral City’s long-term financial stability
Removing debris after rainstorms
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./Don’t Know
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
B-65
12
Ext./Very Impt.
82%
81%
81%
80%
80%
80%
79%
77%
77%
Q. I am going to read you a list of possible projects, features, and provisions that might be included in this local ballot measure. Regardless of how you feel
about this measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each provision or use of funds is included in the measure: extremely important,
very important, somewhat important, or not too important. Split Sample
Continued
59%
47%
45%
53%
50%
41%
50%
45%
34%
23%
34%
36%
27%
30%
39%
29%
32%
43%
12%
16%
14%
14%
17%
15%
15%
18%
20%
6%
5%
6%
6%
6%
5%
Helping prevent property crimes, including thefts and burglaries
Keeping public areas and parks safe and clean
Maintaining city services
Maintaining police protection
Helping prevent property crimes
Cleaning up illegal dumping
Addressing homelessness in parks
Addressing homelessness
Keeping parks safe and clean
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./Don't Know
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
B-66
13
Ext./Very Impt.
76%
75%
74%
73%
73%
72%
72%
71%
69%
Q. I am going to read you a list of possible projects, features, and provisions that might be included in this local ballot measure. Regardless of how you feel
about this measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each provision or use of funds is included in the measure: extremely important,
very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample
Continued
40%
46%
34%
39%
35%
43%
36%
46%
39%
36%
28%
39%
34%
38%
28%
35%
25%
30%
19%
18%
20%
22%
23%
21%
21%
20%
20%
5%
8%
7%
5%
5%
7%
7%
8%
11%
^Retaining and attracting businesses
Maintaining gang enforcement programs
Improving city services
Helping ensure children have safe places to play
Maintaining neighborhood parks
Maintaining neighborhood police patrols
Enhancing youth drug and gang prevention
Maintaining safe drinking water at parks
Addressing mental health and addiction challenges
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./Don't Know
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
B-67
14
Ext./Very Impt.
69%
67%
66%
66%
66%
66%
66%
Q. I am going to read you a list of possible projects, features, and provisions that might be included in this local ballot measure. Regardless of how you feel
about this measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each provision or use of funds is included in the measure: extremely important,
very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample
Continued
34%
38%
36%
35%
31%
30%
30%
35%
28%
30%
31%
35%
36%
36%
25%
23%
19%
20%
22%
28%
27%
6%
10%
15%
14%
12%
7%
6%
Improving traffic safety
^Offering an emergency cooling center for seniors and other residents during extreme heat days
Providing park and recreation afterschool and youth programs
Requiring owners to keep their properties well-maintained
Improving access to affordable housing
Maintaining and improving neighborhood park safety
Repairing sidewalks
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./Don't Know
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
B-68
15
Impact of Information
B-69
16
45%
44%
47%
32%
30%
25%
76%
74%
71%
Much More Incl.Smwt. More Inc.
Q. I am going to read you some statements from people who may support the potential Cathedral City Services Measure you considered earlier.
Please tell me if this makes you more inclined to vote Yes on this measure. ^Not Part of Split Sample
(RESPONSE TIMES - MEDICAL) Last year alone, approximately 77% of calls to Cathedral City Fire Department have been related to medical emergencies. In a medical emergency, seconds count. This measure will ensure that Cathedral City’s Fire Department’s medical emergency personnel have the lifesaving equipment needed to maintain its emergency response times and continue saving lives.
^(STREETS) Prior to this year’s rainy season, independent engineers rated nearly two-thirds of Cathedral City’s streets and roads as “fair,” “poor,” or “very poor”; the roads have only gotten worse. It is time we fund these needed street and pothole repairs before the problem gets even worse and more expensive to fix.
^(ACCOUNTABILITY) This measure includes tough accountability provisions such as public disclosure of all spending and annual independent financial audits. These fiscal safeguards will ensure that funds from this measure will be used efficiently, effectively and as promised.
Similar to budget priorities, information on 911 emergency
response and streets, as well as ensuring accountability,
resonate most with respondents.
B-70
17
42%
37%
43%
29%
34%
27%
71%
71%
70%
Much More Incl.Smwt. More Inc.
Q. I am going to read you some statements from people who may support the potential Cathedral City Services Measure you considered earlier.
Please tell me if this makes you more inclined to vote Yes on this measure. Split Sample
(PROPERTY CRIME) Most recent crime data reports for Cathedral City found a five-year high with over 825 reported burglaries and thefts, including more than 250 car thefts. This measure will help maintain 911 emergency response times, and police patrols in neighborhoods and business areas to keep residents and their property safe.
(VISITORS) A significant amount of the funding from this measure will be paid by visitors from surrounding areas who work in Cathedral City, snowbirds who stay in the Valley, and others who visit our City to shop at Target, eat in our restaurants, or partake in community activities like the Hot Air Balloon Festival. This means people who are not Cathedral City residents will contribute their fair share to keeping the roads they drive on in good condition and our community safe while they are in our City.
(LOCAL CONTROL) In the last five years alone, Sacramento politicians have taken away $30 million in funding from the City. All funds raised by this measure are legally required to be spent in Cathedral City, which will ensure local control of this revenue and provide a guaranteed source of funding for city services that cannot be taken by Sacramento.
Continued
B-71
35
Conclusions; Continued
•Of the ideas tested for future strategic planning, many are
considered high priorities. The top priorities are:
Adding a police/mental health homelessness team
Preparing for emergencies and natural disasters
Partnering with local education agencies to offer
trade/vocational programs
Improving police-community partnerships
Increasing gang unit staffing
•A variety of information sources of commonly used,
including word of mouth and local TV news, while
relatively few are getting the City’s weekly email
newsletter.
B-72
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS:
COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY
RFP Release Date:
August 20, 2025
Deadline for Written Questions:
August 29, 2025 by 4:00pm
RFP Submittal Deadline:
September 10, 2025 by 4:00pm
C-1
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 2
1. About the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California was incorporated in 1973 and is the largest of
four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County. The City is known for its
sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean, coastal bluffs, temperate year-round climate, and a
1,500-acre Nature Preserve that provides protected open space and recreational
opportunities for all.
Rancho Palos Verdes is a semi-rural community that is home to approximately 42,000 civic-
minded residents and a diverse array of community organizations, businesses, and
stakeholders who actively engage with City government. This robust community engagement
remains a top priority for the City Council and plays a vital role in advancing its vision of
Rancho Palos Verdes as a premier coastal community defined by the health of its people,
infrastructure, environment, finances, and government.
Rancho Palos Verdes is a general law and contract city that is governed by a five-member City
Council elected at large. The City organization includes 150 full-time and part-time
employees across five departments: Administration, Community Development, Finance,
Public Works, and Recreation and Parks. In addition, public safety services are provided by
the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Fire Department. Collectively, these
efforts support the City’s ongoing commitment to excellence in the community’s quality of
life.
2. Purpose of the RFP
The City invites all qualified firms (and their subconsultants) to submit a proposal to develop,
administer, tabulate/analyze, and present a comprehensive, statistically valid survey on the
services and needs of the community. The City envisions that this survey will provide a
deeper understanding of the community’s priorities and satisfaction with current City
services. This information will help guide the City Council and staff in strategic planning,
community development, budgeting, communication strategies, and other City purposes in
order to be more responsive to the community and enhance its quality of life.
A contract with a selected firm is anticipated to commence in October 2025 for a term of one
year, with the option to extend for an additional two (2) year term if necessary. Additionally,
the selected firm may conduct other community surveys for the City as requested. However,
the City also reserves the right to issue additional solicitation(s) during the term of the
Agreement(s) if services are needed for related projects.
All correspondence and questions regarding this RFP should be submitted via email to:
Catherine Jun, Deputy City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 544-5203 | Email: cjun@rpvca.gov
To be considered for this RFP, submit an electronic copy of the proposal to Planet Bids by
September 10, 2025 by 4:00pm.
C-2
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 3
3. Scope of Work
Interested firms are invited to submit their proposals in accordance with the requirements of
this RFP. These firms will have extensive experience in the following areas:
• Knowledge of and experience executing projects related to the Purpose of the RFP
including but not limited to designing, conducting, tabulating, and analyzing
statistically valid municipal community surveys.
• Demonstrated understanding of survey design and statistical analysis
• Ability to produce and conduct surveys in multiple languages (survey may need to be
available in at least English and Spanish) and on a variety of platforms (mail, phone,
text, online, etc.)
• Demonstrated ability to quickly understand and execute project goals fully engaging
the elected officials and City staff and have the capacity to meet the City’s required
schedule
• Ability to train City staff on survey development
• A clear timeline and plan with specific deliverables
The selected firm will be asked to work with the City Administration Department to plan and
implement the following:
A. Surveys
• Provide a comprehensive, statistically significant Community Needs Survey.
• Develop survey instruments, work plans, and schedules in consultation with City staff
to measure resident satisfaction focusing on overall quality of life, City services and
programs, and other topic areas as desired by the City. Surveys must include
geographic and demographic representations of Rancho Palos Verdes.
• Lead City staff to determine the most cost-effective, reasonable, and productive
survey methodology to be used. Recommend appropriate methodologies and
strategies for providing statistically significant results including one or combined
mediums such as phone, mail or online/web-based instruments.
• Develop survey questions to gauge community perceptions on various topics such as
community needs, quality of life, City services, and/or important issues facing the
City.
• The City will provide feedback in the process of developing survey goals and questions
and assist in coordinating planning meetings.
B. Survey Execution
• Conduct the survey(s) in a timely manner:
o Up to two telephone surveys that are statistically valid
o The City will assist with the distribution of the survey through the City’s various
communication platforms such as social media, newsletter, website, and other
printed materials.
C-3
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 4
C. Data Analysis and Findings
• Conduct statistical analysis and prepare a report of the survey’s findings.
• The City desires a confidence level of 95% with a standard deviation of +/- 5%.
• All raw data, survey instrument, and any other relevant documents must be
submitted to City staff at the conclusion of the project.
D. Reports/Presentations
• Submit an administrative/preliminary draft report with key survey findings to City staff.
Final reports must incorporate feedback from the City.
• The final Community Needs Survey report must be presented in a clear manner for a
public audience, who may not be familiar with statistics or survey methodology.
• The report must include an executive summary, description of the methodology,
discussion of results with charts/graphic illustrations of significant findings, cross-
tabulation of results and comparison of previous survey data or relevant benchmark
data available, and any conclusions/recommendations drawn from the findings.
• Make at least two presentations on the final Community Needs Survey report to City
staff, City Council and/or the public.
E. Staff Training, Communications Strategies, Policy Development, and Project Coordination
• Assist the City with developing communications strategies regarding topics of
community and organizational importance.
• Lead all meetings with the City in preparing for and completing the Survey.
• Participate in meetings with City Council and staff as necessary.
The proposers are encouraged to include any other creative and innovative methods beyond
the aforementioned items to achieve the RFP objectives.
4. Submittal Content
Responses submitted to the City should include the following components and
demonstrate extensive experience in the Scope of Work.
A. Cover Letter
• A signed cover letter providing an introduction, contact information of the project
manager, outlining the proposer’s understanding of the project and executive
summary of the approach.
• The letter should list all potential subconsultants who will be engaging in this project.
If none, please indicate as such.
• Limit it to no more than two (2) pages.
B. Firm Qualifications
C-4
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 5
• An overview of qualifications for the firm, which should include the type of
organization, size, professional registration, and affiliations of the company.
• Relevant project experience that includes project name, scope of work, costs,
partnership structures, duration, and applicability to this RFP. All relevant project
experience should fall within the Scope of Work.
• Resumes/bios and backgrounds of the project manager and principal staff who will
be working directly and regularly on this project as well as their roles. Clearly identify
the project manager who will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the
project.
• Three (3) references for whom the proposer has executed similar projects for state or
municipal governments within the past five years. Include the name, address of the
organization, email and phone number of a contact person, with a brief description of
the services performed.
C. Technical Approach and Work Plan / Methodology
• Detailed work plan with specific task descriptions, timeline, and deliverables to
demonstrate that the proposer has considered all aspects of the project. The work
plan must identify the main elements of the project, anticipated completion dates,
and expected outcomes per each element. Please include assumptions or
disclaimers as needed.
D. Cost Proposal
• Provide a detailed not-to-exceed cost / flat fee proposal for the entirety of this project,
including basic fee structure and breakdown of any other charges and hourly rates
relating to your firm’s proposal. Also include estimated hours dedicated to this
project. Please include assumptions or disclaimers as needed.
E. Work Samples
• Provide two brief descriptions of municipal surveys that proposers have completed in
the last five years, along with the final reports as examples.
5. Submittal Timeline and Assessment
Please limit the total proposal packet to no more than 15 pages, excluding resumes/bios and
work samples.
Complete written proposals must be submitted electronically in PDF file format via the City’s
PlanetBids.com website no later than 4:00 p.m. PST on September 10, 2025. Proposals will
not be accepted after this deadline. Faxed or e-mailed proposals will not be accepted.
Direct all questions or requests for information about this RFP in writing through the
PlanetBids Q&A tab no later than 4:00 p.m. PST on August 29, 2025 for response.
From the date that this RFP is issued until a firm is selected and the selection is announced,
C-5
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 6
firms are not allowed to communicate for any reason with any City employee or officer other
than the contracting officer listed above in this RFP. The City reserves the right to reject any
proposal for violation of this provision. No questions other than written will be accepted, and
no response other than written will be binding upon the City.
It is important to note that the City reserves the right to reject any and all responses. The City
will not be liable for, nor pay for any costs incurred by responding firms relating to the
preparation of the response. An explicit provision of this RFP is that any oral communication
is not binding on the City’s RFP response process or selection criteria.
RFP Assessment Process
The City will coordinate a review and evaluation of all responses received by the City in
response to this RFP. As part of the assessment process, the City will place particular
emphasis on the qualifications/experience of the firm; the ability for the firm to undertake the
management of the RFP scope of work; each firm’s understanding and proposed approach
to the project; and cost and references.
The following specific criteria will be used in the evaluation process:
a. Technical Approach and Work Plan / Methodology / Understanding of Project (25
points)
b. Qualifications and experiences of the firm and key individuals/subcontractors
including but not limited to demonstrated ability to perform high quality work, control
costs, and meet schedules and recent experiences in conducting similar scope,
complexity, and magnitude of services provided to other public agencies (25 points)
c. Relevant work experience and references (25 points)
d. Cost Proposal (25 points)
Proposal Timeline / Selection Process
After assessing all of the responses received, the most qualified respondents may be invited
to participate in an interview with City staff. Following that interview process, the City will
identify a selected firm to partner with on this project. The selected firm will be asked to
enter into a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with the City. A sample PSA is available
under Attachment A.
C-6
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 7
TASK DEADLINE
Submit Written RFP Questions August 29, 2025 by 4:00 p.m. PST
Responses to RFP Questions Distributed September 5, 2025
RFP Submittal Deadline: September 10, 2025 by 4:00 p.m. PST
Interviews w/ Selected Firms:
Week of September 15, 2025, or if necessary, on a
mutually agreed upon time between the City and
the identified firms
Anticipated Selection of Firm(s): October 2025
The City reserves the right to amend this timeline at any time. Proposers will be notified of any changes
to this timeline accordingly.
6. Terms and Conditions
The following terms and conditions apply to this RFP:
1. All responses shall become the property of the City.
2. Due care and diligence has been exercised in the preparation of this RFP and all
information contained herein is believed to be substantially correct. However, the
responsibility for determining the full extent of the services rests solely with those making
responses. Neither the City nor its representatives shall be responsible for any error or
omission in this response, nor for the failure on the part of the respondents to determine
the full extent of their exposures.
3. The City reserves the right to select firms from the responses received; to waive any
or all informalities and / or irregularities; to re-advertise with either an identical or revised
scope, or to cancel any requirement in its entirety; or to reject any or all responses
received.
4. A response to this RFP does not constitute a formal bid, therefore, the City retains the
right to contact any / all proposing firms after submittal to obtain supplemental
information and/or clarification in either oral or written form. Furthermore, an explicit
provision of this RFP is that any oral communication made is not binding on the City’s
response process.
5. Proposer must acknowledge that, upon awarding of the contract, they/their organization
will be able to provide sufficient insurance documents described in Attachment A.
6. The City will not be liable for, nor pay for any costs incurred by responding firms relating
to the preparation of any response for this RFP.
7. City may disqualify a Proposer if:
• References fail to substantiate Proposer’s description of services and deliverables
provided; or
C-7
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 8
• References fail to support that Proposer has a continuing pattern of providing
capable, productive, and skilled personnel; or
• City is unable to reach the point of contact with reasonable effort. It is the
Proposer’s responsibility to inform the point of contact(s) of normal City working
hours.
• Proposer(s) contacts any other City staff or elected officials with questions or
comments related to this RFQ, or any other regard.
C-8
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 9
ATTACHMENT A
Sample Professional Services Agreement
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
________________
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (herein “Agreement”) is made and
entered into on ___________________, 2024, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, a municipal corporation (“City”) and ___________________ (“Consultant”).
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
Scope of Services. In compliance with all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement,
the Consultant shall perform the work or services set forth in the “Scope of Services” attached
hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant warrants that it has the
experience and ability to perform all work and services required hereunder and that it shall
diligently perform such work and services in a professional and satisfactory manner.
Compliance With Law. All work and services rendered hereunder shall be provided in
accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any
Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
California Labor Law. If the Scope of Services includes any “public work” or “maintenance
work,” as those terms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California
Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more,
Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in
California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws.
Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and
expense such licenses, permits, and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the
services required by the Agreement.
Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are
made a part hereof are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and
incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit
“B” and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.
COMPENSATION
Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant shall be
compensated in accordance with the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C”
and incorporated herein by this reference, but not exceeding the maximum contract amount of
$_______________ (______________________ Dollars) (“Contract Sum”).
Invoices. Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work
performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director
of Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying
compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall contain all information
specified in Exhibit “C”, and shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the
following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-
C-9
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 10
contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant
shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the
work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement.
Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed
by City, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within forty five (45) days of
receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and
agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur
within this time period. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original
invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and
payment by the City of any invoice provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any
rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.
Additional Services. City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the
services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the
Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such
extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the
Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual cost of the
extra work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to
the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of
the Contract Sum but not exceeding a total contract amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or
in the time to perform of up to sixty (60) days may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater
increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. No claim
for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures
established in this Section are followed.
PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
Schedule of Performance. Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this
Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time
period(s) established in the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and
incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time
period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract
Officer but not exceeding thirty (30) days cumulatively.
Force Majeure. The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for
performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any
delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the
Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe
weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight
embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the
Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the con Officer in
writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of
delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when
and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s
determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall
Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this
Agreement, however caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant
to this Section.
Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding
________ years from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance
C-10
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 11
(Exhibit “D”). [The City may, in its sole discretion, extend the Term for ___________________
additional one-year terms.]
COORDINATION OF WORK
Representative of Consultant. _____________ is hereby designated as being the
representative of Consultant authorized to act on its behalf with respect to the work and services
specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith. All personnel of Consultant and
any authorized agents shall be under the exclusive direction of the representative of Consultant.
Consultant shall utilize only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement.
Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of
Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, and shall keep City informed of any changes.
Contract Officer. __________ [or such person as may be designated by the City Manager]
is hereby designated as being the representative the City authorized to act in its behalf with respect
to the work and services specified herein and to make all decisions in connection therewith
(“Contract Officer”).
Prohibition Against Assignment. Consultant shall not contract with any entity to perform in
whole or in part the work or services required hereunder without the express written approval of
the City. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or transferred, voluntarily
or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. Any such prohibited assignment
or transfer shall be void.
Independent Consultant. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control
over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services
required herein, except as otherwise set forth. Consultant shall perform all services required herein
as an independent contractor of City with only such obligations as are consistent with that role.
Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees
are agents or employees of City, or that it is a member of a joint enterprise with City.
INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
Insurance Coverages. Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of City, and prior to
commencement of any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and
maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type
and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in
an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury,
personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not
been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be
accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and
property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Services to
be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented
vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
C-11
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 12
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under
its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor.
All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City
as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved
by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance
shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right
to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration
of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which
may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder by Consultant, its
agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary
and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to
contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of
primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be
endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be
called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced,
City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid
by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay
premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or
that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned
policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in
accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the
City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
C-12
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 13
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive
their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against
City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its
subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City
nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is
not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a
waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the
City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant.
Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and
coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required
coverage.
(j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be
endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall
be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella
liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
(l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability.
The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all
responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of
this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors,
and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving
the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in
C-13
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 14
substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant’s
compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice
of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance under
this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability
policies.
(q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own
cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary
for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
Indemnification. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend
and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and
will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial,
administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs,
penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened that may be
asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent
performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents, subcontractors, invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is
legally liable (collectively, “Indemnitors”), or arising from Indemnitors’ reckless or willful
misconduct, or arising from Indemnitors’ negligent performance of or failure to perform any term,
provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, except claims or liabilities occurring as a result
of Indemnified Parties’ sole negligence or willful acts or omissions. The indemnity obligation shall
be binding on successors and assigns of Indemnitors and shall survive termination of this
Agreement.
RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
Records. Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of
accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as shall
be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to
evaluate the performance of such services and shall keep such records for a period of three years
following completion of the services hereunder. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access
to such books and records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to
inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records.
Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such
reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement or as the Contract
Officer shall require.
Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such
C-14
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 15
information or work product to persons or entities other than the City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract
Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations,
letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information
concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall
not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives the City notice of such court order or
subpoena.
(c) If Consultant provides any information or work product in violation of this
Agreement, then the City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for
any damages, costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of
Consultant’s conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify the City should Consultant be served with
any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories,
request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding
this Agreement and the work performed thereunder. The City retains the right, but has no obligation,
to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant
agrees to cooperate fully with the City and to provide the City with the opportunity to review any
response to discovery requests provided by Consultant.
Ownership of Documents. All studies, surveys, data, notes, computer
files, reports, records, drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, documents and other
materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Consultant in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of the City and shall be delivered to the City upon request of the
Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for
further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by the City of its full
rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Moreover,
Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as “works made for hire”
as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed “works made for
hire” for the City.
ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
California Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to
validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement
shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. In the
event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of
California, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
Disputes; Default. In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this
Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for
any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the
default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant
may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, if
circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold
all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. If
Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement
under this Article.
Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action,
in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to
compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to
obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any
C-15
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 16
contrary provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code
Sections 905 et. seq. and 910 et. seq., in order to pursue any legal action under this Agreement.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of
one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different
times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.
Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. This Section shall govern any termination of this
Contract except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The
City reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon fifteen
(15) days’ written notice to Consultant, except that where termination is due to the fault of the
Consultant, the period of notice may be such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract
Officer. In addition, the Consultant reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or
without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to
the fault of the City, the period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine.
Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services
hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the
Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services
rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by
the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may
be approved by the Contract Officer. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the
Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product
actually produced hereunder, but not exceeding the compensation provided therefore in the
Schedule of Compensation Exhibit “C”. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this
Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to
cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
Termination for Default of Consultant. If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant
to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of
Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and
the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required
hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable
efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the
purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
MISCELLANEOUS
Covenant Against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs,
executors, assigns and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no
discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color,
creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or other
protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to
ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without
regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, ancestry, or other protected class
Non-liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of the City shall be
personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach
by the City or for any amount, which may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for
breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.
Notice. Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either
party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and
either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City
Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of
C-16
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 17
Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, California 90275, and in the case of the
Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement.
Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing.
Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72) hours
from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
Integration; Amendment. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the
parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all
previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties,
and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended at any time
by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing.
Severability. In the event that part of this Agreement shall be declared invalid or
unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining portions of this Agreement which are hereby
declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless
the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of
their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by non-defaulting party
on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. A party’s consent to
or approval of any act by the other party requiring the party’s consent or approval shall not be
deemed to waive or render unnecessary the other party’s consent to or approval of any subsequent
act. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any
other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
Attorneys’ Fees. If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a
party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party
in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, whether or not the matter proceeds to
judgment.
Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the
meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the
authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion. No official, officer, or employee of City has
any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or
employee of City participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her
financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which
(s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any corporation, partnership, or
association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any State or
municipal statute or regulation. The determination of “financial interest” shall be consistent with
State law and shall not include interests found to be “remote” or “noninterests” pursuant to
Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant warrants and represents that it has not paid
or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official,
officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a result or consequence
of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant further warrants and represents that
(s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result
in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including,
but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or
being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s),
C-17
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 18
omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of
value will render this Agreement void and of no force or effect.
Consultant’s Authorized Initials _______
Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto
warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute
and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party
is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agreement
does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement
shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[Signatures On The Following Page]
C-18
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey Page 19
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the
date and year first-above written.
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
Ara M. Mihranian, City Manager
ATTEST:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William Wynder, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
____________________________________
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
Address:
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from
each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any
Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURES
SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY
BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
C-19
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following services:
A.
B.
C,
II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work
products to the City:
A.
B.
C.
III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services,
Consultant will keep the City updated of the status of performance by delivering the following
status reports:
A.
B.
C.
IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the
Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by
City.
V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
A.
B.
C.
C-20
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey
EXHIBIT “B”
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
C-21
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey
EXHIBIT “C”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following Services at the following rates:
TASK RATE TIME SUB-BUDGET
A. Task 1 ___________ ___________ $
B. Task 2 ___________ ___________
C. Task 3 ___________ ___________
II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract retention to
be paid as a part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of services.
III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract Officer,
funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the Contract Sum is not
exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are approved per Section 2.3.
IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of a valid
invoice. Each invoice is to include:
A. Line items for all the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the hourly rate.
B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.
C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting
documentation.
D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and travel
properly charged to the Services.
V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as provided in
Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
VI. Consultant’s billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.
C-22
Rancho Palos Verdes – RFP for Community Needs Survey
EXHIBIT “D”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following schedule:
Days to Perform Deadline Date
A. Task 1 ______________ ______________
B. Task 2 ______________ ______________
C. Task 3 ______________
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the following dates.
A.
B.
C.
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with
Section 3.2.
C-23