HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/15Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
Budget/CIP Workshop May 21, 2015
PROCUREMENT POLICIES
(City Manager Tom Bakaly)
Recommended Action:
City Council should consider directing staff to return with an ordinance to increase the formal bid
threshold for equipment and supplies from $5,000 to $15,000 and to consider increasing the City
Council approval threshold for professional services from $20,000 to $30,000.
Subject:
To review and update as necessary the City’s procedures for procuring supplies and equipment (Bid)
and procuring recurring professional services (RFP). Professional services are those activities
performed by a consultant who possess a high degree of expertise in a particular profession, such as
an Attorney, Certified Public Accountant, Auditor, Architect, Engineer, or other consultants engaged
in an occupation requiring advanced study or specialized training.
Summary and Analysis:
The City’s current procurement process for equipment and supplies is as follows:
Open market procedure for purchases of less than five thousand dollars in value.
Purchases of supplies and equipment of an estimated value in the amount of five thousand dollars
($5,000.00) or less may be made by the purchasing officer in the open market at the best prices
obtainable and to the best advantage of the city without a formal contract; provided, however, that
when practicable, bids or quotations shall be taken as follows:
A.Minimum Number of Bids. For purchases over one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), at least three
bids or quotations solicited by written requests to prospective responsible vendors, by
telephone, or public notice posted on a public bulletin board in the City Hall.
B.Record. A record of all informal bids and quotations shall be kept and be open to public
inspection for a reasonable period of time.
Formal contract procedure for purchases exceeding five thousand dollars in value.
Except as otherwise provided herein, purchases for supplies and equipment of estimated value
File #:REPORT 15-0406,Version:1
Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/20/2015Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:REPORT 15-0406,Version:1
greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) shall be by written contract with the lowest and best
responsible bidder. The following procedure is deemed to be in the best interest to the city:
A.Notice Inviting Bids. Notice inviting bids shall include a general description of the articles to be
purchased, shall state where bid blanks and specifications may be secured, and the time and
place for the opening of bids.
B.Published Notice. Notice inviting bids shall be given at least ten days before the date of
opening of the bids. Notice shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in the city, or it shall be posted in at least three public places
in the city that have been designated by ordinance as the places for posting public notices.
C.Bidders’ List. The purchasing officer shall solicit sealed bids from all responsible prospective
suppliers whose names are on the bidders’ list or who have requested that their names be
added thereto.
D.Bidder’s Security. When deemed necessary by the purchasing officer bidder’s security may be
prescribed in the public notices inviting bids. Bidders shall be entitled to return of bid security
provided that a successful bidder shall forfeit his bid security upon refusal or failure to execute
the contract within ten days after the notice of award of contract has been mailed, unless the
city is responsible for the delay. The city council may, on refusal or failure of the successful
bidder to execute the contract, award it to the next lowest bidder; the amount of the lowest
bidder’s security shall be applied by the city to the difference between the low bid and the
second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder.
E.Bid Opening Procedure. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the purchasing agent and shall be
identified as bids on the envelope. Bids shall be opened in public at the time and place stated
in the public notices. A tabulation of all bids received shall be open to public inspection during
regular business hours for a reasonable period of time. No bidder may withdraw his bid for a
period of at least thirty (30) days after the date set for the opening thereof.
F.Rejection of Bids. In its discretion, the city council may reject any and all bids presented and re
-advertise for bids or to exclude any item or items from the award of bid or waive any
informalities on a bid.
The City’s current procurement process for professional services is as follows:
1.Qualified List - Each City department will maintain a current, adequate file of qualified and
interested professional service providers for their area of responsibility.
2.Request for Proposal - A request for proposals (RFP) is required when fees for professional
Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/20/2015Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:REPORT 15-0406,Version:1
services are expected to exceed $20,000 on an annual basis. When the expected fee is
under $20,000, a less formal process may be used, however, principles of competitiveness
and fairness shall be maintained by providing comparative pricing and objective evaluation of
at least three providers of such services.
A.Preparation - The RFP is to contain sufficient information to permit consistent and
complete responses, including the following: objective of the proposal; scope of work;
format of proposal; profile of proposer, including items such as financial statements,
resumes, references and other information as applicable; fees; selection criteria; and
timing/insurance requirements. Recurring services should typically be proposed for
three to five years, with consideration of additional renewals by City Council action.
B.Council Approval -The issuing department will use their discretion in determining
whether the City Council needs to review the RFP prior to issuance.
C.Distribution - Depending on the scale, scope, and degree of specialization of the
required work, as few as two or more than fifteen RFPs would be distributed. RFPs are
to be sent to all requestors. When appropriate, a “proposer's conference” is to be
scheduled prior to the response deadline date to respond to proposer inquiries
uniformly. A notice inviting proposals shall be published in newspapers of general
circulation or trade journals.
D.Proposal Opening - Sealed proposals are to be identified as such on the envelope and
submitted to the Office of the City Clerk on the date and time assigned in the RFP.
Proposals will be opened in public and available to public inspection for a reasonable
period of time.
3.Proposal Screening - Proposal contents should be reviewed for completeness by the
responsible department, with participation by other departments or staff members when
appropriate.
4.Evaluation - The sealed proposal method permits discussions after proposals have been
opened to allow clarification and changes in proposals provided that adequate precautions are
taken to treat each proposer fairly and to ensure that information gleaned from competing
proposals is not disclosed to other proposers.
Proposals should be ranked on the basis of both the written proposal and the interview (if an
interview is deemed necessary), according to the criteria included in the RFP that
demonstrates their ability to perform the work within a reasonable budget and on a timely
basis. Total cost is a factor considered, even though selection is not on a competitive bid
basis. Proposal evaluation uses judgmental factors to determine the most responsive and
Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/20/2015Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:REPORT 15-0406,Version:1
qualified proposer.
Typically, at least two firms are to be interviewed, based on the number of responsive
proposals. The interview should be conducted by the responsible department, with
participation by other City staff and sub-committee members, when appropriate. Any selection
committee should be composed of people knowledgeable as to the conduct of the project and
its purpose and involve more than just the staff that will work directly with the consultant.
References should be checked to corroborate past performance.
5.Selection - A recommendation to engage the most qualified proposer is made to City Council,
with review by the City Manager and City Attorney. A professional services agreement,
incorporating the RFP and response should accompany the recommendation. Upon approval
of the agreement, signatures are obtained and a copy maintained by the City Clerk and the
responsible department. Sample RFPs and professional service agreements are attached.
6.Exceptions for Emergencies - The City Council may suspend use of the RFP process in the
event of an emergency or short time frame required to solicit services.
A survey of procurement thresholds for South Bay Cities along with the additional Cities of Santa
Monica and Park City is attached for comparison.
Attachments:
1.Procurement Threshold - Survey of Cities
Respectfully Submitted by: Tom Bakaly, City Manager
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
Hermosa Beach Printed on 5/20/2015Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
C:\Users\anny\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PMMHBWZO\City
Council Benefit Survey Memo.doc
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
MEMORANDUM
May 19, 2015
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
RE: Survey of City Council Benefits, Current Council Benefits
At Midyear Budget Review, the City Council requested we provide a survey of
City Council benefits for other cities. Also it was suggested that we may want to
put the City Council’s benefits in the budget.
The survey is attached. Ralph Anderson provided some survey data for 7 cities
which we have combined with a survey of another 14 cities. As noted on the
survey, some cities did not provide responses to all requested information.
An update of the worksheet provided at Midyear for current Council benefits is
attached. We can incorporate this information into the Adopted Budget if
Council so desires.
CITY MONTHLY SALARY CELL PHONE PROVIDED
CELL PHONE
ALLOWANCE CAR PROVIDED CAR ALLOWANCE LAPTOP PROVIDED IPAD PROVIDED
TRAINING/SEMINAR
ALLOWANCE Deferred Comp
Agoura Hills *$300.00 $200 $70
Beverly Hills $785.81 No No No No No No No
Calabasas *$566.00 $250
Carson $1,722.38 Yes (if selected)$75 No $700 per mo Yes Upon request No
Match up to $2000
per year
Culver City $485.11 No $60 per pay period No No Yes No Yes for membership
El Segundo $900.00 Yes No No No No No No
Gardena $650.00 $200 per mo
Hawthorne $750.00
Inglewood $5,055.01 No No No No No No No
La Canada Flintridge *$300.00
La Verne *$519.00
Laguna Beach *$749.00
Lawndale $450.00 No No No No Yes--computer or
Ipad
As budgeted part of Flex benefits
listed in next column
Lomita $390.00
Long Beach Mayor= $11,346 per
month; Council= $2837
per month
City provided phone or
$30 per month
No Yes, $450 per month Yes NO Business expense
reimbursement
Manhattan Beach $500.00 $400 per mo
Palos Verdes Estates None No No No No No No As voted at mtgs No
Rancho Palos Verdes *$400.00
Redondo Beach $927.31 No No 12% paid by City
Rolling Hills Estates $0.00 No No No No No No No No
Santa Fe Springs *$971.00
South Pasadena *$300.00
Hermosa Beach $530.00 No1 No No No No Yes
Mayor- $5k; Council-
$2,500 2 No
City Council Compensation and Benefits Survey
Salary, Training, Deferred Comp, and Other Benefits
CITY MEDICAL INSURANCE COST TO MEMBER
FAMILY
COVERAGE?
DENTAL
INSURANCE COST TO MEMBER
FAMILY
COVERAGE?
VISION
INSURANCE?COST TO MEMBER FAMILY COVERAGE?LIFE INSURANCE?Other
Agoura Hills *$1,222.00 $160 $59
Beverly Hills CalPERS $1964.72 allowance Yes Guardian 0 Yes VSP 0 Yes Yes; $300k Disability insurance
provided; enrolled
in PERS retirement
Calabasas *$1,725 Included Included
Carson CalPers $1542.63 Allowance Yes Premier Access Yes MESC $7.07/$12.73/$18.39 Yes Yes; $250k PERS retirement
Culver City CalPERS $1472 allowance Yes Delta Included w/allowance Yes VSP Included w/allowance Yes Yes; $50k
El Segundo $1200 benefit for
CalPERS
Yes Delta Included w/
allowance
Yes VSP None Yes No Council excluded
from PERS but may
elect optional
enrollment
Gardena $1060 benefit
Hawthorne $521 benefit
Inglewood Aetna PPO/HMO, Kaiser Yes Delta PPO/DMO Yes MESC Yes No PERS Retirement
La Canada Flintridge *$875 Included Included
La Verne*$1,514 $33
Laguna Beach *$0
Lawndale $1180 provided for
purchase of benefits
through CalPERS
Yes; $100k
Lomita
Long Beach Yes Max of $223 per month
for family
Yes Yes Max of $20 per month
for family
Yes MESC None Yes $65k for council;
Mayor -$50k plus 3x
annual salary
PERS retirement
Manhattan Beach $1550 benefit
Palos Verdes Estates No No No No No No No
Rancho Palos Verdes *$1,875 Included Included
Redondo Beach
Up to $1232 paid by
City
Rolling Hills Estates No Yes No No No No PERS
Santa Fe Springs *$1,000 $130 $54
South Pasadena *$0 $0 $0
Hermosa Beach Blue Shield HMO/POS
Employee covered
100%. Additional
coverage $287-
$1,365.56,Optional
California Dental
or Princial Dental
$13.77-$226.30,
based on coverage
selected Optional Medical Eye Services
$8.28- $21.38, based on
coverage selected Optional Yes, $52,000 PERS/PARS
* Information provided by Ralph Andersen & Associates
1 2015-16 Budgets includes proposed cell phones and monthly service for Council Members
2 2015-16 Budgets includes a proposed increase to the training/conference budget to $5,000 per Council Member
Note: Fields left blank indicate no reponse provided
Medical Benefits and Retirement/Other
City Council Compensation and Benefits Survey
FY 2014-2015 CITY COUNCIL BENEFITS SUMMARY
DIVIRGILIO TUCKER BARRAGAN PETTY FANGARY
Retirement: Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)Yes No Yes No Yes
Retirement: Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS)No No No Yes No
Employer Cost (Percentage of Payroll)20.882%N/A 6.25%N/A 6.25%
Cost to the City
Retirement $55.34 $0.00 $16.56 $0.00 $16.56
Dental $125.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $226.30
Medical $0.00 $0.00 $798.72 $0.00 $798.72
Life $0.00 $0.00 $12.48 $12.48 $12.48
Conference/Training Budget $3,750.00 1 $3,750.00 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
1 Conference/Training budget for Mayor position was split due to transition from Mayor DiVirgilio to Mayor Tucker. Proposed budget for 15-16 is $5,000
per Council Member.
BENEFITS
P:\SCANDOCS\2015\05-21-15\Supplemental Measures to Council 05-21-15.docx.doc
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
MEMORANDUM
May 21, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
RE: Performance Measures
Attached is the first presentation of performance measures. Ultimately, our goal
would be to present the measures in each department’s section of the budget.
Compiling effective citywide measures is an ongoing process, which we will
explain tonight. Nico De Anda-Scaia has shepherded this project and will
present a couple of brief slides as he walks through current measurements.
Performance Measurement
In 2014, the City began compiling and reviewing performance measures on a pilot basis for the following
departments/divisions: Community Development, Community Resources, Fire and EMS, Police, Public
Works, Human Resources, Information Technology, Finance and Treasurer, and City Clerk. As FY
2014/15 marks the first attempt at presenting outcome-based performance measures for City
departments, City staff will continue working to expand and develop more comprehensive performance
measures in collaboration with the ICMA Insights program.
The Performance Measures below provide a snapshot of how departments are doing. Where information
is available, the measures are benchmarked against other communities and/or trended over time to
highlight areas for improvement. Trend assessment illustrates direction in a positive (green) or negative
(red) direction. Where a target of “met or exceeded” is used instead of a trend assessment, the indicator
is a check-mark ().
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) – Unit used to measure the hours in an employee’s contract based on a 40
hour work week.
Community Development
Community Resources
Above (+) or
Performance Measure FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Below (-)Trend
Cohort Avg.Actual Actual Avg.Assessment
Code Enforcement FTE's per 1,000 Population 0.12 0.03 0.06 -Positive
Code Enforcement Expenditures per Capita $5.42 $3.26 $3.60 -Negative
Code Enf. Cases Resolved: % Resolved Through
Voluntary Compliance 44%75%78%+Positive
Code Enf. Cases Resolved: % Resolved Through Forced
Compliance 12%20%19%+Positive
Code Enf. Cases: % Closed Without Resolution 2%6%3%+Positive
Code Enf. Cases Resolved: % Resolved by any means 64%94%97%+Positive
Unresolved Code Enforcement Cases from Prior Year 22 21 10 -Positive
Expenditures per Permit $116 $161 $172 +Negative
Expenditures per Inspection $51 $38 $42 -Negative
Average Response Time (Calendar Days from
Application to Issuance): Residential Permits 7 60 60 +Neutral
Total Building Inspections Conducted 2,356 2,633 2,503 +Negative
Above (+) or
Performance Measure FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Below (-)Trend
Cohort Avg.Actual Actual Avg.Assessment
Expenditures per Capita $95.24 $87.02 $89.98 -Negative
Park Operating and Maintenance Expenditures per Park
Acre $1,718 $15,407 $16,009 +Negative
Developed Park Acres per 1,000 Population N/A 5.64 5.62 N/A Neutral
Special Events per 1,000 Population N/A 2.4 4.1 N/A Positive
Average Revenue per Rented Hour: Community Theatre N/A $37.23 $43.11 N/A Positive
Fire & EMS
Police Services
Above (+) or
Performance Measure FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Below (-)Trend
Cohort Avg.Actual Actual Avg.Assessment
Full-Time Equivalents per 1,000 Population: Fire + EMS
Sworn Staff 2 1.45 1.46 -Neutral
Expenditures: Total Fire/EMS Personnel and Operations
per Capita $199 $279 $273 +Positive
Percentage of Incidents where Flamespread was
Confined to Object or Room of Origin: 1-2 Family
Residential Structures
51%96%82%+Negative
Percentage of Incidents where Flamespread was
Confined to Floor or Structure of Origin: 1-2 Family
Residential Structures
20%4%14%-Positive
Total Fire Incidents (Structure + Non-Structure) per
1,000 Population 4.8 2.7 2.6 -Neutral
Emergency Fire Calls Responded to within 5 minutes 56%69%60%+Negative
EMS Response (from Primary Safety Answering Point to
arrival was less than 8 min.)64%95%95.4%+Positive
Percentage of Medical Emergency: Total Response
Time (7 Min or Less)N/A 91%91%N/A Neutral
Percentage of Medical Emergency Effective Response
Force: Total Response Time (11 Min or Less)N/A 95%92%N/A Negative
Percentage of Fire Emergency: Total Response Time (7
Min or Less)N/A 75%82%N/A Positive
Percentage of Fire Effective Response Force: Total
Response Time (11 Min or Less)N/A 89%89%N/A Neutral
Percentage of Fire 1st Alarm: Total Response Time (14
Min or Less) N/A 67%67%N/A Neutral
Above (+) or
Performance Measure FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Below (-)Trend
Cohort Avg.Actual Actual Avg.Assessment
Full-Time Equivalents per 1,000 Population: Police
Sworn Staff 2.20 1.73 1.82 -Positive
Police Responses per Sworn FTE (Full-time Equivalent)700 709 729 +Negative
Top-Priority Calls (Requiring Immediate Response) as a
Percentage of Total Police Calls 13%5.6%5.4%-Neutral
Top-Priority Calls (Requiring Immediate Response) per
Sworn FTE 61 40 39 -Neutral
Injury-Producing Traffic Accidents per 1,000 Population 7 3 3 -Neutral
DUI Arrests per 1,000 Population 6 13 11 +Positive
Reported Violent Crimes per 1,000 Population 5 2 2 -Neutral
Reported Property Crimes per 1,000 Population 27 31 27 +Positive
Average Response Time (Top Priority Calls) from Call to
Arrival on Scene - In Seconds 241 205 226 -Negative
Public Works
General Administration – City Hall
Where a target of “met or exceeded” is used instead of a trend assessment, the indicator is a check-mark
().
Above (+) or
Performance Measure FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Below (-)Trend
Cohort Avg.Actual Actual Avg.Assessment
Administrative/Office Facilities: Total Custodial
Expenditures per Square Foot $0.88 $1.43 $0.97 +Positive
All Facility Types: Total Custodial Expenditures per
Square Foot $0.98 $0.94 $0.89 -Positive
Preventive and Other Maintenance Expenditures per
Vehicle: All Vehicles $2,881 $3,383 $3,408 +Negative
Percentage of Alternative Fuel Vehicles in Fleet 1%7%20%+Positive
Potholes Repaired as Percentage of Potholes Needing
Repair 63%100%100%+Neutral
Paved Lane Miles Assessed as Satisfactory as
Percentage of Total Paved Lane Miles Assessed 51%77%77%+Neutral
Sweeping Expenditures per Swept Lane Mile $29 $31 $25 -Positive
Expenditures: Paved Road Rehabilitation per Capita $31 $41 $74 +Negative
Average Response time for Pothole Repair (Working
Days)2.1 5 5 +Neutral
Street Sweeping: Total Lane Miles Swept 1,053 7,385 8,719 +Positive
HUMAN RESOURCES
Above (+) or
Performance Measure FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Below (-)Trend
Cohort Avg.Actual Actual Avg.Assessment
Number of Full-Time Equivalents Jurisdiction-wide per
1,000 Population 11.10 9.29 9.85 -Positive
Turnover Rate: ALL Employees 7%3%4.6%-Negative
Number HR Staff per Jurisdiction-wide Full-time Regular
Employee 0.007 0.012 0.012 +Neutral
Average Days for External Recruitment, Requisition to
Conclusion of Interview (Testing Not Required) 24 45 45 +Neutral
Average Days for External Recruitment, Requisition to
Conclusion of Interview (Testing Required)30 60 60 +Neutral
Average Number of Full-time Regular Employees on
Payroll 147 126 130 -Positive
Accidents per 100,000 Miles Driven (Police Patrol
Vehicles)1 1 3 +Negative
Worker Compensation Claims per 100 Jurisdiction FTEs
(All depts.)11 8 15 +Negative
Worker Compensation Days Lost per 100 Jurisdiction
FTEs (All depts.)32 103 155 +Negative
Total Worker Days Lost Due to Injury (All departments):
Per FTE 0.4 1 1.6 +Negative
Liability Claims Opened N/A 16 27 N/A Negative
Liability Claims Closed N/A 15 22 N/A Positive
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Above (+) or
Performance Measure FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Below (-)Trend
Cohort Avg.Actual Actual Avg.Assessment
Percentage of Help Desk Calls Resolved: At Time of
Call 25%24%39%+Positive
Expenditures: IT Personnel and Operations per Capita $24.42 $17.27 $15.92 -Positive
Total Help Desk Calls Received/Number of requests
received 832 1,112 1,111 +Neutral
Total Help Desk Calls Resolved at the Time of Call 273 263 428 +Positive
FINANCE
Above (+) or Target
Performance Measure FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Below (-)Met or
Cohort Avg.Actual Actual Avg.Exceeded
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
Prepared within six months of Fiscal Year-end N/A Yes Yes N/A
CAFR Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting
Awarded N/A Yes Yes N/A
Government Finance Officers Assoc. (GFOA) Excellence
in Budgeting Award Achieved N/A Yes Yes N/A
Unqualified (clean) Audit Opinion Received N/A Yes Yes N/A
CITY TREASURER
Above (+) or Target
Performance Measure FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Below (-)Met or
Cohort Avg.Actual Actual Avg.Exceeded
Average Interest Rate N/A 1.05%1.02%N/A Neutral
Average Yield to Maturity N/A 1.11%1.10%N/A Neutral
Investment Policy Submitted in First Quarter of each
Fiscal Year N/A Yes Yes N/A
CITY CLERK/ELECTIONS
Above (+) or Target
Performance Measure FY 2012/13 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Below (-)Met or
Cohort Avg.Actual Actual Avg.Exceeded
Post/make Public List of Qualified Candidates and
Measures within One Week of Qualification N/A N/A Yes N/A
Post/make Public the Semi-Official Election Results
Next Day Following the Election and the Final Results N/A N/A Yes N/A
Post/make Public all Campaign Finance Statements
within 1-day of Filing N/A Yes Yes N/A
Log and Appropriately Route Claims and Subpoenas
within 24 hrs of Submittal N/A Yes Yes N/A
Set up DVDs in the Loop for Televised Replays within
24 hrs of Meetings N/A Yes Yes N/A
South Bay Cities
# City 2014
Population
Formal Bid
Amount
Council
Approval Notes
1 Hermosa Beach 19,750 $5,000 $20,000 Council approval amount
last revised from $10,000
to $20,000 in 2003
2 Redondo Beach 67,717 $35,000 $35,000 Revised amounts from
$5,000 to $35,000 –
Pending approval at May
19, 2015 Redondo Beach
City Council meeting. If
approved, this would be
implemented July 1, 2015
3 Manhattan Beach 35,619 $20,000 $20,000 Unless specifically listed in
Budget, then limit is
$25,000 before requiring
Council approval
4 Torrance 147,706 $40,000 $40,000
5 Gardena 60,082 $50,000 $25,000
6 Carson 92,636 $25,000 $25,000
7 Rancho Palos Verdes 42,358 $25,000 $25,000
8 El Segundo 16,897 $10,000 $25,000
9 Inglewood 111,795 $20,000 $20,000
10 Lawndale 33,228 $10,000 $10,000
11 Rolling Hills Estates 8,184 $10,000 $10,000
12 Lomita 20,630 $15,000 $5,000
Additional Cities
# City 2014
Population
Formal Bid
Amount
Council
Approval Notes
13 Santa Monica 89,736 $80,000 $80,000 The Formal Bid threshold:
Professional Services -
$80,000
Contractual Services -
$175,000
14 Park City, UT 7,558 $25,000 $25,000 Formal Bid Thresholds:
Professional Services -
$25,000
Building Improvement -
$40,000
Public Works projects -
$125,000 (proposed to be
$178,220 for FY15)
Council approval required
for items over $15,000 that
are not anticipated in the
current budget