Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Items distributed after posting of Agenda8/8/2016 8/8 /2016 8/8/2016 S18 :oil f I I t�� N i 3 4 1 8/8/2016 5 8/8/2016 8/8/2016 Next Steps ► Contractor will finish removing damaged decking and stringers ► Engineers from City & Insurance agency will inspect sub decking structural members to determine extent of damage below decking. ► Report will provide direction for remainder of demolition and sub - decking repair work. Questions? 8/8 /2016 9 Page 3 - City Council 7/25/16 PRESENTATIONS /RECOGNITIONS • Boeing Centennial Recognition • Local Emergency— Pier Fire Incident Update • Recognizing National Night Out ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Massa -Lavitt opened oral communications. Speakers: Robert Goldberg spoke regarding Item G. Scott Levitt requested that Item M be moved ahead of Item L. Paul Oradivitch stated concerns on Item O, regarding Heron Point increase tax levy. Schelly Sustrasic spoke on Item G. Joyce Parque distributed a document and spoke regarding her concern of the condition of the 7'h Street alley. Having no further requests to speak, Mayor Massa -Lavitt closed oral communications. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Craig Steele indicated that the City met in Closed Session regarding the matters as listed on the Agenda noting that there is no reportable action. CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Jill Ingram had nothing to report. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Deaton provided an update on the Little Blue House noting that funds have been donated for this project. Mayor Pro Tern Varipapa commented on the successful Junior Lifeguard Program which his daughter is attending and commented on the recent sewage spill. Council Member Sloan thanked Recreation Manager Tim Kelsey for the work being completed at Edison Park. Mayor Massa -Lavitt commented on the successful Lions Club Fish Fry and thanked the members for all that they do for the community. Council Member Miller urged everyone to give their support to our outstanding Police Department, which is very community oriented. PUBLIC HEARING L. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision CUP 15 -7 - Hold a de novo hearing regarding CUP 15 -7 and after considering all evidence and testimony presented, adopt Resolution No. 6670 approving CUP 15 -7 to construct and operate a 37,000 square foot fitness club at an existing shopping center at 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard within the Commercial General (CG) zoning area and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration. City of Seal Beach Memorandum DATE: August 8, 2016 TO: Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk FROM: 0ichael S. Ho, Deputy Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT REVISIONS TO THE AUGUST 8, 2016 STAFF REPORT ITEM F SENIOR TRANSPORTATION Please see the attached revised page two of the staff report. The revisions are under the Financial Impact to reflect the funding allocations to show Community SeniorSery at $8,700 and Golden Age Foundation at $18,000. Also, attached is a revised page from the Request for Proposal Exhibit F, price proposal. The revised page reflects the deletion of the "per- trip -rate' for line item 32. If you have any questions on any of the above matters, please contact me directly at (562) 431- 2527 ext. 1322. FJ qualified companies, for Seal Beach Senior Transportation Services. The following is the RFP proposed timeline schedule: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The approved 2016 -2017 Budget has the following funding allocation for the City's Senior Transportation Program: Fund Amount j Traffic Impact (049) $180,000 Air Quality Management 012 i $30,000 OCTA Senior Mobility Program ; $65,000 Community SeniorServe ; $8,700: Golden Age Foundation $18,000 Total $301,700 The contract will be for a period of thirty -six (36) months and the term of this contract may be extended for two additional one -year terms, at the option of the City. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt resolution No. 6678 to authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement C -1 -2487 with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for the Senior Mobility Program 2. Approve the Request For Proposal (RFP) for the Seal Beach Senior Transportation Services and 3. Authorize staff to solicit for proposals. Page 2 i' DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS City of Seal Beach EXHIBIT "F" - Price Proposal COST CATEGORY; Period 1 (11/1(160630117) Period 2 (7/1f1 7E30116) Period 3 ­&M/184730119) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 1. Management Wages 2. Fringe Benefits 3. Worker's Compensation 4. Liability Insurance 5. Other Use Additional Sheets OPERATING COSTS 6. Supervisor Wages 7. Drivers Wages 8. Dispatcher Wages 9. Fringe Benefits 10. Uniforms 11. Training 12. Licenses 13. Other Use Additional Sheets MAINTENANCE COSTS 14. Mechanic Wages 15. Mechanic Fringes 16. Training 17. Parts/Supplies/Tires 18. Shop Materials 19. Building/Shop Building/Shop Maintenance 20. Towing 21. Other Use Additional Sheets OTHER EXPENSES 22. Start-up Costs 23. C4 & Other Fees or Taxes 24. Capital Costs - Specify 25. Other Costs - Specify 26. Utilities 27. Overhead 28. Profit 29. Total Costs (Sum of Numbers 1 through 28 30. Vehicle Service Hours Est. 3,000 Est. 4,200 Est. 4,200 31. Hourly Rate ( #29 divided'by #30) ` Annua Mi ams wi0 not esceetl We mWnal CPl o M whrceverlawesl. in these or umm am c _ ADDITIONAL HOURLY RATES 32. Sedan /Taxi Prevailing wages are required on this contract. SEAL BEACH SENIOR TRANSPORATION RFP Page 25 of 25 Robin Roberts From: Jill Ingram Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 2:28 PM Cc: Craig A. Steele (CSteele @rwglaw.com); Robin Roberts; Jim Basham; Michael Ho; Vikki Beatley; Patrick Gallegos; David Spitz Subject: RE: August 8, 2016, Agenda Item E and F Comments and Questions Attachments: PW - RFP Seal Beach Senior Transportation Services.pdf; RFP - Exhibit F Rev. 8.8.16.pdf BCC: CITY COUNCIL Please see responses below to Councilmember Miller's comments /questions regarding Agenda Items E and F. As always, staff will address any additional questions at the meeting tonight. Jill R. Ingram, City Manager City of Seal Beach - 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 431 -2527 Ext. 1300 For Information about Seal Beach, please see our city website'. http:ilwww,sealbeachca.gov NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you From: miller.sbcc(a)earthlink. net [ mailto :miller.sbccc&earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2016 1:29 PM To: Jill Ingram Subject: August 8, 2016, Agenda Item E and F Comments and Questions Jill Below, I have comments and questions regarding Agenda Items E and F: Thanks, Gary E. LA Fitness The staff report states that there is no Financial Impact. However, denial of the CUP will result in a loss of revenue of $160,580 to the Traffic Impact Fund. Per email from the City Attorney this agenda item will be pulled tonight given that the applicant is withdrawing their project application. F. Senior Mobility The Fiscal Impact section of the Staff Report shows the various non - General Fund sources of funding. It indicates one of these is $18,000 from Community SeniorServe. At the Council meeting in March 2016, we were told this is a reimbursement for our cost to transport seniors to the lunch nutrition program. However, the current budget (acct # 001 - 016 - 30993) shows this reimbursement amount to be only $8700. $8.500 for Community SeniorService needs to be added to the funding list. Correct? The staff report will be revised to reflect the funding allocations for Community Senior5ery at $8,700 and Golden Age Foundation at $18,000. Please see attached. The Fiscal Impact section does not list any funding from the Golden Age Foundation (Leisure World). However, the budget shows this to be $18,000 (acct # 001 - 016 - 30994). Was this incorrectly titled "Community SeniorServe? on he funding list? The staff report will be revised to reflect the funding allocations for Community SeniorSery at $8,700 and Golden Age Foundation at $18,000. Please see attached. The use of Traffic Impact Fees to fund the program first began in the FY 15 -16 budget. However, the authorizing resolution for these fees (Resolution #4234) specifies in Section 3 (H) that "The fee established by this resolution will be used solely to fund roadway and intersection improvements that will increase the capacity of the arterial street system within the City of Seal Beach." The Senior Transportation program does not include capital projects to improve arterial roadways and intersections. Traffic Impact Fees cannot be used for the Senior Transportation Program. Per the City's Municipal Code, 4.10.010 (1) Transportation Programs, and 4.10.015 (3), traffic impact fees can be used for transit and transportation programs. We currently pay our transportation provider based on two rates: an hourly rate for bus service and an hourly rate for the dial -a -ride van. The bids we are soliciting in the RFP should be equally simple. However, the Price Proposal table in the RFP (Attachemnt D) directs the bidders to provide detailed accounting of 28 vehicle - related business expenses that are then totaled (line 29) and divided by the estimated vehicle service hours provided by the City (line 30) to yield an hourly rate per Vehicle (bus) Service Hour (line 31). Since only this "bottom line" bid of cost per hour (line 31) is used to score the cost proposal, why is staff requiring all of the detailed accounting? This appears to be quite burdensome to bidders. Staff selected this methodology to be transparent to the bidders that their bid must include all items. l Line 30 shows estimated vehicle service hours per year which is provided by the City and given as 4200 hours per full year. However, based on a review of invoices, this figure represents the total service hours for two bus shuttle routes (the daily nutrition /shopping shuttle that goes north, and the Thursday shuttle that goes to the pier) plus the service hours for the Dial -a -Ride van. The total annual hours for just the two shuttle bus routes is about 2500. Shouldn't estimated Vehicle Service Hours be in the ball park of 2500 rather than 4200? No. Staff estimated the number of hours for all three programs, Senior Nutrition, Dial -A -Ride and the Shopper Shuttle and concluded that the estimated service hours is significantly over 2,500 and closer to 4,200 hours per year. Line 32 in the Price Proposal table then requests a Sedan/Taxi (dial -a -ride) "per- trip- rate ". Due to the high volume, we are currently paying for this on an hourly basis. Why aren't we requesting an hourly rate for dial -a -ride? The RFP has been revised to reflect an hourly rate for the Sedan /Taxi. Please see attached. On May 9, 2016, staff presented a new program from County Office of Aging — Senior Non - Emergency Medical Transportation -- available through the County. However, there was no mention of this program in the summary of the Senior Transit program in the Fall Shoreline that was just mailed out in the last couple of weeks. Is staff planning to promote this program which provides for 10 mile trips into LA County and Orange County. This is at no cost to the City. Staff is planning on meeting with OCTA to gather more information on the this program. The Fall Shoreline again incorrectly address Dial -A -Ride, which was correct last year. Dial -A -Ride service can only go out of the City for medical reasons in Los Alamitos. The next Shoreline will be revised to reflect the current operations of the Dial -A -Ride program. When people call in it will be corrected. The functionality and operations will remain the same. qualified companies, for Seal Beach Senior Transportation Services. The following is the RFP proposed timeline schedule: Date Release and circulate a- aroposalconference September 1, 2016 Deadline to submit written questions September 8, 2016 Prro sals due date _ October 10. 2016 Tentative City Council Award Date November 1, 2016 Contract ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The approved 2016 -2017 Budget has the following funding allocation for the City's Senior Transportation Program: Fund Amount The contract will be for a period of thirty-six (36) months and the term of this contract may be extended for two additional one -year terms, at the option of the City. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt resolution No. 6678 to authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement C -1 -2487 with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for the Senior Mobility Program 2. Approve the Request For Proposal (RFP) for the Seal Beach Senior Transportation Services and 3. Authorize staff to solicit for proposals. Page 2 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS EXHIBIT "F" - Price Proposal City of Seal Beach COST CATEGORY Period 1 (1111116 - 06/30/17) Period 2 (7/1117 - 6/30118) Period 3 (7/1/18.6130119) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 1. Management Wages 2. Fringe Benefits 3. Worker's Compensation 4. Liability Insurance 5. Other Use Additional Sheets OPERATING COSTS 6. Supervisor Wages 7. Drivers Wages 8. Dispatcher Wages 9. Fringe Benefits 10. Uniforms 11. Training 12. Licenses 13. Other Use Additional Sheets MAINTENANCE COSTS 14. Mechanic Wages 15. Mechanic Fringes 16. Training 17. Parts/SuppliesfTires 18. Shop Materials 19. Building/Shop Building/Shop Maintenance 20. Towing 21. Other Use Additional Sheets OTHER EXPENSES 22. Start-up Costs 23. City & Other Fees or Taxes 24. Capital Costs - Specify 25. Other Costs - Specify 26. Utilities 27. Overhead 28. Profit 29. Total Costs (Sum of Numbers 1 through 28 30. Vehicle Service Hours Est. 3,000 Est. 4,200 Est. 4,200 31. Hourly Rate ( #29 divided by #30) Mnealinaeeses willnote%c fheregional CPIorM whbhemrbwesf, in these orluwre 9. ADDITIONAL HOURLY RATES 32. Sedan/Taxi Prevailing wages are required on this contract. SEAL BEACH SENIOR TRANSPORATION RFP Page 25 of 25 Robin Roberts From: Jill Ingram Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:22 PM Cc: Craig A. Steele (CSteele @rwglaw.com); Robin Roberts; Patrick Gallegos; Joseph Stilinovich; Joe Miller; Steve Bowles; Vikki Beatley Subject: RE: August 8, 2016 Comments and Questions Regarding Agenda Items C and D Attachments: August 8 2016 Comments and Questions Regarding Agenda Items C and D_Final.pdf BCC: CITY COUNCIL Please see attached responses to Councilmember Miller's questions regarding Agenda Items C and D. As always, staff and the consultant will be available to address any additional questions at the meeting tonight. Jill R. Ingram, City Manager City of Seal Beach - 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 431 -2527 Ext. 1300 A- For Information about Seal Beach, please see our city website: htto: / /www.sealbeachca.aov NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. From: miller.sbodaearthlink. net [ mai Ito: miller.sbccCdbearthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2016 7:46 PM To: Jill Ingram Cc: csteeleCa)rwglaw.com Subject: August 8, 2016 Comments and Questions Regarding Agenda Items C and D Jill, Attached are my comments and questions regarding Agenda Items C and D. Please provide me with answers by early afternoon on August 8. Thanks, Gary Item C: Contract with Nu -Park In accordance with Council Rules of Procedure, Item 10.F. staff should show the economic benefit of going from the current process to the proposed NuPark process, e.g. a cost comparison of Data Ticket services to NuPark services. It is not a valid comparison to compare services between Data Ticket and Nupark. They offer different services, which are not comparable in terms of services provided nor is a cost comparison an equitable comparison. Here are the differences: Data Ticket only provides billing and collection services for citations, they do look -ups for vehicle owner, and the records management for appeals. Nupark does all these same things, plus they provide the handhelds and LPR equipment and software for electronic citation issuance. They provided electronic chalking for time limit enforcement and their system communications with the Parkeon machines so that Parking Control Officers have information within their handhelds and LPR about payment for parking in the Beach Lots and downtown lots. None of those systems and services are provided by Data Ticket. So while no valid comparison can be made, staff is estimating a cost savings of approximately $10,000 per year, a savings on staff time, increased work productivity, and better customer service to residents and visitors. The new system for enforcing parking time violations will be based on electronic geo- positioning of vehicles. a. What is the accuracy of this positioning? In other city locations where this equipment is operational, the accuracy is about 98 %. To avoid a citation, a requirement would be made that a vehicle needs to be moved 25 feet, which is the approximate equivalent of 1 car length. b. Will enforcement require changing the Municipal Code to require vehicles to be moved some minimum distance at the end of the time limit? Yes, this change as outlined in the previous question, along with other needed updates will be prepared and submitted for City Council consideration prior to implementing the ALPR enforcement system. This is part of the reason the permit processing was moved back so that this timeline could be accommodated. c. How parking permits be issued for visitor parking where license plates will change? Residents will be establishing accounts with their permit issuance that will allow them from any smart phone or computer to input guest license plate information along with date and length of expected stay. Additionally, enforcement staff using LPR system will verify whether a permit is displayed on a vehicle, with time line violations prior to issuance of a citation. Please provide the components of the $543,300 for each of the four years, i.e., showing total annual license fees and variable costs. Year 1: $116,100 Year 2: $118,635 Year 3: $121,297 Year 4: $124,092 A placeholder of approximately 10% was added per item or fee to cover any unanticipated implementation costs The Staff Report states that the NuPark contract will replace multiple third party services costing the City approximately $260,000 /year currently. What are the names of the vendors whose contracts will be cancelled and estimated annual savings for each vendor? Data Ticket - $80,000 ABM - $140,000 City of Long Beach - $14,000 Various Parking Permit Vendors for all permits and equipment - $26,000 Seal Beach is receiving a 20% reduction in variable costs from NuPark, but not in Subscription License Fees? The 20% reduction applies to all costs for subscription license fees, as well as equipment leases. Page 4 of the Staff Report and Section 3.0 of the Professional Service Agreement both indicate this is a three -year arrangement, not a four -year arrangement. These need to be corrected. This will be corrected prior to companies signing the agreement. The Staff Report shows there are Attachments B and C. The attachments appear to be the same. How are they different? This was an error and will be corrected. The attachments should include a resolution and professional services agreement. Within the agreement are two exhibits: the scope of services and the pricing. These were inadvertently combined. Section 4.2 indicates the Subscription License Fees shall be recalculated each year, but these annual fees are stated in NuPark proposal. As noted more specifically above, the Subscription License Fees Items 1 -4 in the price quote on page XX exhibit B of the contract will be increased each year with a 5% annual increase. The transaction fees (Items 6 -11) are set for the term of the contract. We will revise the text in section 4.2 to clarify. Annual subscription license fees shall be established each year during the term by Exhibit B. Staff proposing to pay for these parking services as a capital improvement project. However, the payment of $543,300 does not involve the construction or purchase of any tangible property. Most of this expenditure is for licensure of software and leasing of hardware. Typically, the City pays for such expenses as General Fund operating costs. Furthermore, the contracts that we currently have for all or most of these parking services are currently paid as General Fund operation expenses: Data Ticket is paid by Police Support Services (Acct #001 - 023 - 44000), and ABM Parking Services is paid by Public Works Beach Maintenance (Acct 4034 - 863 -44000). a. Why does staff believe these parking services fit the definition of a capital improvement project? Per the 5 -year CIP document our guidelines for a CIP is comprised of construction projects and equipment purchases (excluding vehicles) which cost $10,000 or more. The CIP also includes activities that can be planned for or occur on an irregular or one time basis. Minor capital outlays of less than $10,000 and reoccurring maintenance activities will be included with the operation and maintenance budget. Generally speaking, when a project includes the purchase of equipment purchased greater than $25,000 a CIP is created. In the case of the Parking Project, a CIP was created as a way to capture all of the costs associated with the program. The fact that a CIP is created does not imply that there are other funding sources, necessarily, than the General Fund. When placing a new asset into service, the entire cost of consultants, etc. are considered part of the asset's value. b. If a Capital Improvement Project, what source of funds is staff proposing to use pay for it? Staff is proposing this comes from General Fund Reserves. Regarding the cost of the contract, the "Summary of Request" on the first page of the staff report states that Resolution 6675 limits costs to not exceed $543,300 over four years. However, the "Recommendation" section on page 4 gives the time period as three years. Then Section 3.0 of the proposed contract (Attachment A) states that the City is only obligated to pay a maximum of $480,124 over the course of three years. Finally, the actual text of the Resolution immediately increases the budget for the Capital Project Fun for the current FY by the full amount of $583,300. All references to "three years" should state "four years ". The full amount of $583,300 is the contract price plus the full 10% contingency. a. What is the best estimate for how much this contract going to cost in total per year? Year 1 - $116,100 + plus contingency (software customization plus office equipment and improvements to provide space for customer transactions and staff to have equipment at front counter) Year 2 - $118,635 + plus contingency (software customization) Year 3 - $121,297 Year 4 — $124,092 b. Why does the Resolution not include a time frame for the expenditure? Resolution 6675 approves a contract, which has a specific four year term. Attachments B and C is the proposed Scope of Services. It makes repeated references to the ability of the NuPark software to support various tasks that will be done by "your authorized administrators" and "your authorized staff' such as processing appeals (page 13), letters and notifications (page 15), collections (page 17), and appeal reviews (page 22). However, the cost quote in Attachments B and C includes a listing of per "widget" fees for tasks such as processing citation payments, letters, and appeals. a. Is it staffs intention to use NuPark to provide all of the handling and processing of tickets, appeals, and collections services that are currently being done by our vendor Data Ticket? Yes — Nupark will provide and replace all services currently provided by Data Ticket. b. If so, does NuPark currently provide this citation handling and processing service to any of their other clients? Yes, these services are provided to a number of agencies around the country. Citation handling and processing is the basic core technology and services of the system. c. If so, what is the estimated total monthly fee for this service? The staff report provides the "widget" costs, but does not multiply this times the number of expected "widget" costs per month. These costs are based on the number of permits issued per permit cycle (most will be issued in the September /October/November time frame, but some permits expire 12 months after they are issued, thus the renewals occur throughout the year). The citations issued is based on the volume issued permit month by Parking Enforcement Officers. The current citation issuance patterns fluctuate throughout the year, with peak volumes occurring during summer peak months when the beach activities are higher. It is impossible to predict and establish a set monthly fees for these services due to the changing patterns of the City's demands and uses of parking spaces and lots. One of the "different" fees in the cost quote in Attachments B and C is issuing permits at $2.00 each. We currently issue about 7000 permits per year. Are we going to have NuPark, or continue to do this in- house? The $2.00 fee is for the Nupark software fees; staff will continue issuing the permits via use of the Nupark System. Currently all permits are issued manually with manual records being maintained and manual payments being collected. Permit holders must come to City Hall to purchase permits. Thus, use of the NuPark automated system will provide a significant labor savings for staff. This allows residents to apply for permits online and make payments online. It allows staff to review and approve permit applications and issue permits from online resident files. Permits can then he mailed or picked up by the resident at the Police Department. The NuPark system provides services not previously available to residents and allows for simplified work processes for staff and thus allows the entire permit system to be integrated into the parking system for use in the LPR technology. The Quote V2 of Attachments C& D have 1 through 4 for Subscription License Fees in 6 through 12 for variable costs, what is number "5 "? Number 5 was for an option from an earlier price quote and the numbers in this items were not re- configured for this proposal. The optional item for the City to purchase additional equipment for use by all Police Department line officers. This optional item was not selected as an option to include in the package. We simply missed having Nupark, re- number their price quote when that option was deleted. Proposed Resolution # 6675 does not set a limit on the City Manager's authorization of extra work as identified in Section 1.4 of the Professional Services Agreement. Resolution 6675 approves a total budget amendment in the amount of 543,300. The 10% contingency included within that amount is the limit on the City Manager's authorization. Item D: Purchase of Parkeon Parking Payment Machines Staff is asking for a budget amendment to our Capital Project Fund of $131,500. However, the contract gives the cost of the equipment and warranty at $71,600 with monthly management fees of $570 ($6840 /year). Over the five -year potential length of this contract, this would total only $105,800. a. Why is the budget amendment request higher than the anticipated contract cost? There are also costs for site preparation, removal of current equipment and disposal of current equipment, sign changes, etc. Most of the required work is to the downtown lots with some work for equipment removal and additional signs in the Beach lots. These expenses occur in year 1 only for the installation and improvements in the downtown lots. c. What does staff propose as the source of funds for this expenditure? Staff is proposing this comes from General Fund Reserves. Purchase of the parking machines is a capital improvement. However, staff is also asking Council to pay for monthly management fees for operating costs as a capital improvement project. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider these fees as an ongoing General Fund operating expenditure? Per the 5 -year CIP document our guidelines for a CIP is comprised of construction projects and equipment purchases (excluding vehicles) which cost $10,000 or more. The CIP also includes activities that can be planned for or occur on an irregular or one time basis. Minor capital outlays of less than $10,000 and reoccurring maintenance activities will be included with the operation and maintenance budget. Generally speaking, when a project includes the purchase of equipment purchased greater than $25,000 a CIP is created. In the case of the Parking Project, a CIP was created as a way to capture all of the costs associated with the program. The fact that a CIP is created does not imply that there are other funding sources, necessarily, than the General Fund. When placing a new asset into service, the entire cost of consultants, etc. are considered part of the asset's value. The proposal indicates that the payment machines will only accept credit cards. This could potentially create parking hardship for visitors without credit cards. a. Will the machines also accept debit cards? Yes, these machines accept debt cards, credit cards, pre -paid cash cards, etc. They do not accept EBT cards as a form of payments b. Has staff discussed this access issue with Coastal staff? Since this is not a change in rates or a change in use of the public lands, staff does not believe that this needs to have a Coastal Staff review. The City's parking users are shifting more and more to credit card payment only (this year it is moving to the 70 -75% range). The City's current meters accept credits, bills and coins. This only changes the method of payment. Many coastal cities are shifting to credit card payment only system and have not sought a Coastal staff review for implementing those changes. In March 2016, the Council accepted a "Notice of Completion" for the $51,179 project to install underground hard -wired electric and data lines to our beach lot pay stations. This project was recommended by our parking consultant because of the slowness of the solar powered pay stations with cellular communications. The quote sheet in for the Parkeon machines indicate that they are solar powered with wireless connectivity. We will be paying a monthly fee for this connectivity. In 2014, ABM recommended this update to extend the life and improve performance of the current parking equipment. The NuPark and Parkeon equipment was not contemplated at that time. a. Can the new Parkeon machines be configured so that power and communications utilize our new hardwire connections? The improvements made to the lots were to allow the current older Digital Payment machines to function properly. The current equipment in the lots were functioning with batteries that failed every 1 -2 months and payment transactions were being transmitted via 2 G modem boards. This meant that customers were repeatedly faced with trying to make payment to non - functioning machines or that the payment transaction was so slow the transaction timed out before payment was complete. This resulted in issues for customers, enforcement issues and overall loss of revenues to the City. The standard operating methodology for the Parkeon machines is the solar powered/battery back -up system and wireless (using 4 G networks) communications. To request that the machines us the City's power and communications system that was installed for the Digital machines will require Parkeon to custom design the power and communications boards within the machines and will increase the cost of the machines by several thousand per machine as well as delay the manufacturing and delivery of the machines. Additionally, increased costs will be incurred due to the fact that the downtown lots will also have to be reconfigured for power and communications costs. Based on the costs that were done in the Beach lots, the estimated cost for this downtown lot improvement would be $30 K. The costs for these types of improvements to the downtown lots has not been factored into the program with the actions being proposed to the City Council. b. If so, what would be the revised monthly management fee? The monthly fees would be about the same — The City would be incurring AT &T phone charges which are estimated to be about $60 per month per machines or a total estimated annual expense of $7200. It is not known what the cost would be to reconfigure the Parkeon equipment to use the City's existing communication portal. That configuration is not Parkeon's standard configuration and it's unclear whether the two systems would work together. The system would still need to communicate in the "cloud" to Parkeon's cloud based management system and to Nupark's system for communication to the LPR system. Those costs would still be incurred and are already estimated in the two proposals. In summary, the costs to use the City's power and communication systems are more mostly for the additional installation required for the downtown lots, equipment modifications that will be required, and adds a layer of communications costs that the City will incur as an on -going expense.