Laserfiche WebLink
Administrative Hearing Officers <br />October 15, 2024 <br />Page 2 <br />4 <br />6 <br />0 <br />6 <br />with resolving all appeals received. The City has seen an increase in demand for <br />administrative hearings due to regulatory expansions from local or state directives. <br />Presently, the Santa Ana Municipal Code references administrative hearings and panels <br />in all of the following sections: <br />1. Code Enforcement: SAMC § 1-18.1 <br />2. Environmental Sanitation Violations: SAMC § 1-18.2 and SAMC § 1-21 <br />3. Buildings and Structures: SAMC Chapter 8 (Various Subsections) <br />4. Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance: SAMC § 8-3145(f) (Per <br />Ordinance No. NS-3052) <br />5. Refuse Violations: SAMC Chapter 16 (Various Subsections) <br />6. Public Safety Sensitive Business Establishments: SAMC § 18-90 through 18-105; <br />SAMC § 22-1 through 22-16 <br />7. Non-Regulatory Business License Tax: SAMC § 21-41 <br />8. Cannabis Business License Tax: SAMC § 21-41 <br />9. Hotel Visitors Tax: SAMC § 35-133 <br />10.Utility Users Tax for Electric, Gas & Telecommunications: SAMC § 35-173 <br /> <br />Due to the continuing increase in demand, representatives from various City agencies <br />collaborated to consolidate their efforts for administrative hearings. Request for <br />Proposals (RFP) 24-052 was issued on April 18, 2024 on the City’s online bid <br />management and publication system. A summary of vendor participation and results is <br />as follows: <br />Request for Proposals (RFP) 24-052 was issued on April 18, 2024 on the City’s online <br />bid management and publication system. A summary of vendor participation and <br />results is as follows: <br /> 427 Vendors notified <br />36 Santa Ana vendors notified <br />15 Vendors downloaded the RFP packet <br /> 6 Proposals received <br /> 0 Proposals received from Santa Ana vendors <br />Proposals were solicited, opened on May 28, 2024, and evaluated. Six proposals were <br />submitted by the RFP deadline and all six were determined to be responsive to the <br />specifications and met the City’s requirements. An evaluation committee reviewed and <br />rated the proposals according to the criteria listed in the RFP. The following summarizes <br />the responding firms and their rankings: