Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 4, 1996 (39)o COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Authorization to Negotiate Contract for Providing Transit Service to the City of Lodi MEETING DATE: September 4, 1996 SUBMITTED BY: Interim Deputy City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council direct the staff to negotiate an appropriate agreement with DAVE Transportation Services for transit services beginning October 1, 1996, and extending for a period of 2 314 years, with the provision that if a satisfactory and advantageous contract cannot be negotiated with DAVE that staff be authorized to undertake negotiations with Laidlaw Transit Services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Please see attached report. FUNDING: $558,997 in fiscal year 1996-97, $710,837 in fiscal year 1997-98, $736,431 in fiscal year 1998-99 for a total of $2, 006,265, to be covered by Federal Transit Funds. Respectfully submitted, Roberistoffer Interim Deputy C' Manager RC:br Attachment APPROVED: H. Dixon Flynn -- City • • �� goo u <iFOP`' �*l'l��l�0;fAit; 4; Lel &I k, a t7_L I K t A ' i * ' ol THE ISSUE: How can the City of Lodi provide transit services to its citizens in the most appropriate and cost effective manner? BACKGROUND: The City of Lodi has provided transit services to its citizens for almost 20 years, beginning with Dial -A -Ride service through the local taxi cab company, and with fixed route service being added in late 1995. The system has grown incrementally to the point at which the City Council, on May 1, 1996, decided to invite proposals from the private sector for the provision of such service, and later indicated that the City itself should also submit a proposal. Four proposals were received in answer to the City's call, three from the private sector and (pursuant to Council's direction) one from the City itself. Because of the nature of the variables, the complexity of making "apple -to -apple" comparisons, and the importance of the decision, the City's transit consultant, Jim Brown, and David M. Griffith & Associates, a leading firm in cost allocation, were asked to assist the City in the analysis of the proposals. A panel of interviewers was convened on August 21 to afford personal and overall evaluation of the proposals. The interview panel was comprised of Jim Brown, the City's transit consultant; Alan Smith, who prepared the analysis on behalf of David M. Griffith & Associates; Joe Donabed, Assistant City Manager of Tulare, which operates its own transit system; Terry Bassett, Executive Director of the Yolo Transit Authority, which utilizes a contractor to provide transit service; and Bob Christofferson, Lodi Interim Deputy City Manager, who has served as City Manager of several cities, operating transit under both contract and city operation. Representing the several proposals in the interview were: Dave Smith, Roy Glauthier, Claudia Campos, Curtis Myer and Walt Diangson, representing DAVE Transportation Services, Inc., James Wagner and David Phillips, representing ATC, Kevin Klika, Pam Evers, John Monson and Susan Spry, representing Laidlaw and Kirk Evans and Ron Burnett, representing the City. The conclusions and recommendations of the panel, discussed later in this report, were based on a composite of the interview, the analyses prepared by Mr. Brown and Mr. Smith, and an evaluation as to how best to serve the City and its citizens, not only over the three-year term of the agreement contemplated by the request for proposals but for the longer term. Alternatives Available to Council; Implications of Alternatives: The basic alternatives available to Council are 1) maintenance of the status quo, 2) selection of one of the private sector companies (and if this option is chosen, a selection from among the three companies), and 3) selection of the City, with a more permanent structure than the present one. Beyond these basic alternatives there are several sub -alternatives relating to maintenance, facilities, vehicle storage, insurance, and others, depending upon the initial decision. There are obviously cost and service implications inherent in each alternative, as well as the sub -alternatives, and these are complex enough that they do not lend themselves to quick summary in a report such as this one. Let it suffice to say that staff, with the input from the interview panel, has examined the various alternatives and their implications, beginning with cost, service, and probability for long-term success in serving the City, and we believe that the implications of the various alternatives may be summarized as follows: 1. Continuation of the status quo, while a possibility, clearly does not address the problems which generated the interest in inviting proposals in the first place, and we did not spend much time or effort considering this option, but list it only as a possibility. 2. City operation, under the somewhat revised system described in the City's proposal, at least has the advantage of permanence and a more institutionalized character, but this is a double-edged sword; with a degree of permanence imposed by federal regulations, City operation leads to less flexibility, and the ratchet only goes one way. That is to say, it is much more difficult to transition from City operation to contract operation in the future than vice versa. With respect to cost, City operation would be competitive with private sector contractors during the initial three-year period contemplated by our RFP, but the experience of other cities provides a strong warning with regard to rising costs and increasing overhead in the form of additional workload for other City departments, such as legal, human resources, administration and finance. The transit system's present contract personnel would become permanent City employees, which has its advantages (particularly from the employee viewpoint), but which represents a real impediment to future flexibility. City operation, while not a "bad' option, is one that should be undertaken only with full consideration of its implications, long-term as well as short-term. 3. Private sector contract operations -- on the right terms and with proper management controls and supervision -- offers a high degree of flexibility and responsiveness to policy direction, with a minimum of the overhead concerns mentioned above. Transition from contract to City operation, moreover, is much simpler than the other way around, should future circumstances indicate that it was in the City's best interests to do SO. Once it is determined that private sector contract operation is a viable alternative, the question then becomes one of evaluating the options available, and the City is fortunate in having attractive proposals from three experienced and capable contractors. Predictably, costs and other factors vary from one proposal to another, but there is sufficient similarity among the three that they tend to validate each other. After the evaluation of cost, service, track record and other considerations, we are in a position to make a recommendation for Council's consideration. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Although service is the City's business, and the transit system's level of service to the public (within constraints of available resources) is a prime consideration, cost is a more measurable variable and one that is better understood. A summary of the four proposals, prepared by Alan Smith of David M. Griffith and Associates is attached, along with a letter report from Mr. Smith discussing adjustments in the City proposal. While it would be inappropriate to view a service contract as a "low bid" situation, as we would in purchasing paper, chlorine, tires or automobiles, the following array of costs for the four organizations submitting proposals (equated by DMG to ensure comparability) is instructive: Organization Initial 314 Year Second Year ATC $659,957 $814,331 DAVE $558,997 $710,837 LAIDLAW $558,845 $679,592 CITY $509,426 $699,590 Third Year 2 314 -Year Total $823,580 $2,297,868 $736,431 $2,006,265 $689,660 $1,928,098 $720,560 $1,929,576 .................................................................... ................. The preceding summary does not represent the "total" cost of transit services so much as it is a comparison for purposes of this process. The cost of the Transit Coordinator is not included, for example, because this is a cost common to all alternatives. Fuel costs have been extracted, because the estimates varied rather dramatically from one firm to the other, and we can save a substantial amount by viewing fuel as a "pass-through" cost, using the City's fuel rather than paying a contractor approximately nine to thirty-seven cents a gallon more. HDF JACM1JANETITRANS10.D0C 2 The relatively tight clustering of the four proposals ($1,928,098 to $2,297,868) over the 2 3/4 -year period suggests that it may not be as important to take the absolute low price (since this is not a bidding situation) but rather to use some judgment in arriving at what we believe will provide the best overall package for the City, considering service, probable long-term cost and other factors. That is what the interview panel attempted to do on behalf of the City, and that judgment forms the basis for our conclusions and recommendations. In addition, Jim Brown made reference checks on the three private sector contractors, and Bob Christofferson made an independent check with several transit experts, and all three firms enjoy very positive reputations as transit contractors. There are, of course, some important qualitative differences, such as the person assigned as the local manager, the firm's sensitivity to customer service, the nature of the contractor's experience, the ready availability of management and maintenance back-up, the contractor's transition arrangements and other factors that are less quantifiable but perhaps more important than a relatively small difference in cost. Transit consultant Jim Brown initially warned of several major considerations (other than immediate cost and comparability of service levels) that tend to be considered when a decision of this type is pending, and they relate to long-term costs and the degree of control over the system. We share his concern that, if the City continues to operate its own system, labor costs will rise more sharply in future years than under a contract operation. If the City continues its present operation on more permanent footing, it is predictable that current contract personnel in transit will expect to be treated as regular City employees, and it is also likely that the City Administration and City Council, as a matter of equity, are likely to concur in such action. Compensation, both salary and benefits, are likely to rise, as a reflection of internal and external public agency comparisons. In addition, Mr. Brown warns, is the difficulty (under federal regulations) of moving from City operation to contract operations. Movement in the opposite direction is not nearly as difficult, perhaps reflecting a federal policy favoring contract operations. Another caveat relating to federal regulations in City operation is the prospect of binding arbitration arising in the future, taking decision making in critical areas out of the Council's hands and giving it to arbitrators who are really responsible to no one. Reviewing the above cost comparisons in light of the preceding factors, it is apparent that, on the basis of cost alone, the four .proposals are extremely close, and in fact, the imponderable factors (such as the probable amount of pay increases that would be likely under City operation) are greater than the difference. (Each additional dollar per hour under City operation, for example, raises the cost by over $60,700 annually, and Lodi's approximately $8 per hour rate is on the low side compared with other nearby transit operators). Service issues and a demonstrated ability to provide a sound transit operation therefore become the overriding considerations. Based on all information available, including analysis by our transit and financial consultants and the judgment of the interview panel, we respectfully recommend that Council direct the staff to negotiate an agreement with DAVE Transportation System, based on their modified proposal, to reflect DAVE's operation of the transit system, utilizing the City's equipment, with City maintenance and City provided fuel. DAVE's regional office is in Fairfield, headed by Regional Manager Roger Glauthier and Assistant Regional Manager David Smith. Their maintenance facility is in Stockton, and Area Maintenance Manager Curtis Myer is available for consultation whether we use their maintenance services or not. Claudia Campos would be the local manager, and she receives high marks in our background check. She is presently Operations Manager in Union City, and also has experience in the U.C. Davis bus system. DAVE has current operations in Tracy, Turlock, Madera, Roseville and most recently Lake County in this general area, in addition to operations elsewhere in the state and nationally. Under the recommended scenario, we would also explore the potential for use of Municipal Service Center facilities (possibly expanded) for storage and related transit functions, as well as interagency arrangements with the School District and private facilities to achieve optimum economies of operation. DAVE can meet the October 1 start-up date contemplated, especially with the City retaining the maintenance function (which incidentally is the most economical solution, at least for the foreseeable future) although they feel that they could do a better job of employee training and transitioning if more time were available. All current transit personnel would be given preference in hiring, assuming that they meet appropriate standards, and existing pay rates would be met or exceeded. HDF J:1CM\JANETITRANS10.DOC 3 Under this arrangement, the City would enjoy the advantages of a guaranteed cost of operation, and the substantial backup that DAVE affords in the way of specialists that no small transit operation can afford. With respect to a companion issue, Council will recall that the Heavy Equipment Mechanic and Equipment Service Worker were hired on a contractual basis pending finalizing of the City's permanent maintenance arrangement. In view of the fact that we are suggesting that the City retain the maintenance function, it would be appropriate as part of this total package to place these employees on a permanent full-time basis. This would entail a nominal added cost for increased salary and benefits, as there was some part-time work involved, and we will submit such an item for your consideration separately should you concur in our recommendations. Because the two best proposals are so close in cost and quality, we further respectfully recommend that, should we not be able to negotiate an appropriate agreement with DAVE that we have Council direction to shift to Laidlaw. The questions raised by Council in your "Shirtsleeve" Session of August 27 have been addressed in a separate memo, and we would welcome the opportunity to respond to any further questions you may have. We believe that we have gotten some excellent proposals from several very competent and respected transit operators and we are optimistic that your action lay the foundation for a continuation and improvement of our transit service to the public. Attachment DMG Financial Analysis HDF JACMIJANETITRANS10.DOC 4 Transportation Analysis Comparison of all Proposers Base Cost la. Management Wages lb. Management Benefits 2a. Dispatcher/Clerical Wages 2b. Dispatcher/Clerical Benefits 3. Facility 4. Utilities 5. Other Equipment 6. Insurance 7. Performance Bond 8. Other Services 9. Office Supplies 10. Marketing Svcs/Supplies/Printing 11. Other Materials and Supplies 12. Other Expenses Start-up Expenses Management Fee and Profit Subtotal $ 91,891 $ 106,249 $ 228,830 $ 53,040 $ 121,364 15,425 49,472 63,651 18,010 52,317 254,379 182,025 102,960 129,025 103,409 53,305 41,231 33,044 45,015 53,729 34,459 17,140 3,650 3,926 30,709 13,803 21,538 10,642 12,638 19,538 12,750 - 16,500 10,038 33,000 - 48,274 27,031 13,750 15,435 18,650 16,092 8,828 2,250 1,628 10,051 1,435 2,150 6,898 16,010 9,800 93,742 16,167 3,120 137,500 117,832 37,643 56,412 21,401 59.644 135.750 405.000 - - la. Drivers' Wages 1b. Drivers' Benefits 2a. Maintenance Wages 2b. Maintenance Benefits 3. Contract Maintenance Fees 4. Vehicle Equipment and Parts 5. Fuel & Lubricants 6. Recruitment and Training Expense 7. Physicals 8. Uniforms 9. Other Services 10. Other Materials and Supplies 11. Other Expenses Subtotal Grand Total 767,259 690,756 982,457 415,875 464,846 860,645 900,870 935,970 987,120 954,733 326,522 298,716 332,604 323,535 461,700 690 12,317 5,740 - - 10,722 10,769 29,080 - 4,014 17,629 8,066 2,310 - 5,356 17,629 6,605 9,707 - 10,440 - - 9,281 - - - - 11,408 5.169 - - - 7.798 1,239,006 1,237,342 1,315,411 1,310,655 1,464,730 S 2,006,265 S 1,928,098 S 2,297,868 S 1,726,530 S 1,929,576 Notes: 1. The fuel was taken out of all proposed costs. Fuel will be expended as a pass-thru cost Transportation Analysis Comparison of all Proposers Alternative I Vehicle Maintenance Ia. Management Wages 1b. Management Benefits 2a. Dispatcher/Clerical Wages 2b. Dispatcher/Clerical Benefits 3. Facility 4. Utilities S. Other Equipment 6, Insurance 7. Performance Bond 8. Other Services 9. Office Supplies 10. Marketing Svcs/Supplies/Printing 11. Other Materials and Supplies 12. Other Expenses Start-up Expenses Management Fee and Profit Subtotal S 91,891 S 106,249 S 228,830 S 53,040 $ 121,364 15,425 49,472 63,751 18,010 52,317 254,379 182,025 102,960 129,025 103,409 53,305 41,231 33,044 45,015 53,729 103,378 189,526 66,000 - Maintenance Benefits 65,472 51,689 27,430 3,650 3,926 53,578 18,665 74,030 - - 10,642 12,638 19,538 24,220 - 162,540 - 16,500 10,038 33,000 6,322 13,281 67,341 27,031 13,750 15,435 10,722 20,373 18,974 8,828 2,250 1,628 - 10,051 1,435 2,150 S. Uniforms 10,239 16,010 9,800 10,440 126,067 17,374 3,120 137,500 117,832 50,672 69,730 28,440 - - 101.960 205,243 405,000 Other Expenses 5,169 1,032,979 1,027,074 1,129,848 415,875 464,846 'si8'a.= '�::'<'e >• ai:<..... :.'c,Y•:Cz:3'r i::a'?Fs&' ::::.:-:f.::•:::::.....J..:...r..n.........::::.:�.:�::::::::.�:.:�:.�n......�i:: <':•.Y:•::�}::•}}:'•:t ........n: -�.�::::.�:: w:::::::•v: is ..rr ...... ... }.<Y?.vh:�}::i}n: .l.��.� ....................... ra...•..................v .:•:::::::•:•::: v:.::�:. �::.�:. �.:..0 r.. J......::..x�`Ci f ...:.a..... � :....i x...... .........:.... i. ..........+........... ... dr...........................::.� :.:.:�::::::.................. r..:,:. ::.:.±:•>:..:..:.. n.:.:....:::.::..: r:,: : :.,:}:::::: Y?}. �iitti i'ij: n.r..... r..............:r.:. Ia. Drivers' Wages 860,645 900,870 935,970 987,120 954,732 lb. Drivers' Benefits 326,522 298,716 332,604 323,535 461,701 2a. Maintenance Wages 183,336 166,626 153,983 - 382,234 2b. Maintenance Benefits 53,850 32,279 43,100 - - 3. Contract Maintenance Fees 82,330 149,445 - - - 4. Vehicle Equipment and Parts 139,643 214,181 162,540 - - 5. Fuel & Lubricants 6,322 13,281 - - 6. Recruitment and Training Expens 10,722 10,769 30,940 - 4,014 7. Physicals 18,922 8,066 2,760 - 5,356 S. Uniforms 22,795 6,605 10,547 - 10,440 9. Other Services - - - - 9,281 10. Other Materials and Supplies - - - - 11,408 11. Other Expenses 5,169 - - 156,700 7,798 Subtotal 1,710,256 1,800,838 1,672,444 1,467,355 1,846,964 Grand Total S 2,743,235 S 2,827,912 $ 2,802,292 $ 1,883,230 $ 2,311,810 Notes: 1. The facility line Item for all private firms Includes costs for maintenance, administration, and parking. Facility charges are not included In the City's proposal. 2. Fuel is shown as a pass-thru cost KO'd TTTO S3V 9T6 9T:9T 956T-9?-9i1U DAVID M. GRIFFITH dt ASSOCIATES, LTD_ Proresaional Servkes for the Public Sector 4320 Auburn Boulevard, Sulte 2000 �.A Sacramento. Califorrla 151141 DMG $16.185•6102 Fm:916.185.0111 August 26, 1996 Mr, Dixon Flynn City Mattager City ofLodi 221 west Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Dear Mr. Flynn: We have concluded our review of the City' a proposal for the management and operation) of the City of Lodi Fixed Route and Dial -A Ride Transportation Services. The analysis section includes our recommended changes to the City's proposal. Scene of Services Our analysis consisted of reviewing the City's proposal and analyzing the figures associated with each category of costs. In order to conduct our analysis, we performed the fallowing: a Reviewed the Scope of Work in the Request For Proposal (RFP) • Met with and discussed the City's proposal with Mr. Jerry Glenn • Met with and discussed City costs with Mrs. Vioky McAthie, Finance Director, Mr. Dirk Evans, Assistant to the City Manager, Mr. Bob Christofferson, Deputy Interim City Manager, and Mr. Dennis Callahan, Maintenance Superintendent • Reviewed various City expenditure reports, City-wide central service allocation schedules, depreciation schedules, and budgets Tice expenditure reports, central service allocation schedules, depreciation schedules, and budgets used to prepare our cost estimates of operating the transportation services were providers by the City, and were not reviewed as part of our analysis. `_jW(I LJd0T :C,-1 6, 9? )fly 20,0 TTTO S8t 9T6 9T:9T 9661 -9? -911H I& Dix= Fly= City of Lodi Pap An&ivsls The fallowing pages describe our analysis of the City's proposed figures. We have also summarized, in a spreadsheet form, the City's original proposed figures as well as DMG' a recommended adjusted numbers (see attached spreadsheets A and $). After discussions with the Finance Director, Transit Coordinator, Assistant to the City Manager, and after reviewing the budget and various reports from Finance, we recommend the City include 21 full-time staff in the proposal and 4,160 part-time hours. The 21 full-time staff should include 9 fixed route drivers, 9 Dial -A Ride (DAR) drivers, 2 dispatchers, and 1 supervisor. Tn addition, 30% of the Transit Coordinator's salary, benefits, and materials/supplies should be included. The differences between our recommendation and the City's proposed figures include the following: The City's proposal accounts for 22 full time positions, including vacation and sick leave time which it is assumed covers the part-time hours. Our recommendation consists of one less full-time employee than was stated in the City's original proposal. Mr. Glenn and Mr. Evans both mentioned that the system zould be operated with 21 employees plus part-time assistance. There were 22 employees prior to August 14� but was reduced to 21 after one employee terminated employment. • The City's proposal does not include any costs for the Transit Coordinator. Mr. Glenn's feeling is that the Transit Coordinator's time would be the same regardless of whether the City or a private firm operated the system. We feel the time spent by the Transit Coordinator would be greater if the services were operated by the City. 2. If the City hires the current transit etnploy= as full-time City employees, benefits will meed to be included in the employment package. In reviewing employee benefits in the City's original proposal, we noted the following: • Employee portion of PERS was omitted • Workers compensation was included in the City's proposal at 4% of the payroll. In our conversation with the Stats Compensation Fund, we found the workers compensation rales range from 9.6% to 18.86% depending on various t1O'd TTTO S8V 9T6 LT:9T 966T-9?-9nu- I& Dime Flynn City of Lodi Page 3 classification of employees such as city employee, school bus driver, bus driver, truclomen. The rate is discounted after certain increments of mats are paid to the fund. We increased the workers compensation percentage from 4% to 10% ■ There were mirror changes made to medical, dental and vision insurance costs since the City's original proposal was prepared 3. We rmin wed the transportation department's expenditure summary for fiscal year 95196 and compared the annual expenditures to the estimates in the City's proposal, It is our understanding that the City's proposal was prepared asing a "prior to year-end" expenditure summary and that costs were extrapolated to a full year. Given a final year-end report, we were able to compare current annual expenditures to the proposed estimates. DWG's adjustments included changes to some of the supplies and material and services accounts to bang the proposed figures to the level of the prior year's annual expenditures. We used a 3% inflation factor to increase the 95/96 costs to a fiscal year 96/97 level. A 3% factor was also used each year during the term of the proposed transit service contract to increase all costs for inflation. 4. The City's proposal includes a central service cost allocation to the transportation department of about $50,000 per year. In analyzing the City's records, we noted the actual allocation to transportation was $79,030 in fiscal year 95/96. Using the actual allocation, the increased cost over the term of the proposed transit service is $93,752. The wage rates used in the City's proposal and the wage rates used in our analysis include $9 per hour for the Transit Manager, $S per hour for the full and part-time drivers, and $8.75 for the dispatchers. City employees with the classification of Maintenance and Operators are scheduled for a 3% salary increase in July of 1997. As was referred to previously, our adjustments include a 3% increase in each year of the term of the contract for inflation; therefore, the 3% scheduled raise is taken into consideration. A survey was performed by Mr. Jerry Glenn where various transit agencies were phoned to determine the range of wages paid to drivers and dispatch employees. The table on the following page outlines the results of the survey: `_A,IQ LddT T : E0 se, q-7 �-,nH SO',d S'd It is difficult to determine the affect hiring the employees will have on the proposed wages. There is a possibility that the employees could join one of the collective bargaining units. Our calculations show that a one dollar increase in wage for the 21 51-lI IddZT :ECS %, 92 `inn- TTTO C;8b 9T6 LT:9T 966T-9Z-9nb Ar. Dixon Flynn City of Lodi Pegs 4 e.$. LUSD Driver 8.95 10.88 Dispatch 10.00 12.19 SMART Driver 8.25 12.36 STKK Unified Driver 10,09 12.28 Dispatch 10,91 13.21 Fairfield (PF) Driver 7,05 8.95 Modesto (PF) Dmre' 7.45 12.00 Dispatch 10.00 10.00 Benicia (PF) Driver 7.05 5.30 Vacaville (PF) Driver 7.54 8.76 Santa Rosa Driver 14,18 15.73 Tulare Driver 7.30 Contra Costa County Driver 11.77 11.71 Cify of Lodi Driver 7.50 8.50 (Current Wage Range) Dispatch 8,75 8.75 (PF) = Operated by a Private Firm S'd It is difficult to determine the affect hiring the employees will have on the proposed wages. There is a possibility that the employees could join one of the collective bargaining units. Our calculations show that a one dollar increase in wage for the 21 51-lI IddZT :ECS %, 92 `inn- 90 ' .I T T TO GOV 9T6 8T :9T 966T-9-_- Jonu Mr. Dixon Flynn City ofLam page 3 full-time (not including pari -time) positions proposed in the transit system equates to a $55,650 increase in annual salarylbenefit costs. 6. The 95196 city-wide central service allocation to Transit, excluding the maintenance costs, was $75,767. A portion of this allocation would remain regardless of whether the City or a private firm operates the system. A significant amount of time would be required to analyze the cost aliocations in detail. Given this project's short time- frame, we reviewed the allocations and estimated the cost difference incurred as a result of the City operating the system compared to a private firm. The number calculated reduced the $75,767 allocation to 537,006. 7. Tice CWs original proposal estimates a vehicle maintenance cost of $156,700 over the term of the contract. In reviewing the 95/96 maintenance figures, we noted the City currently allocates the costs of maintenance to user operations. The Transit allocation for 95/96 was $115,223. We were informed that this allocation includes salaries, benefits, operating costs and minor capital expenditures. Based on records kept in the Maintenance Department regarding parts and labor charged to Transit vehicles during the fust 10 month's of 95/96, parts and labor are calculated at $64,460 per year. We used the $115,223 figure, plus a 3% inflation factor, as our base figure in calculating the cost of maintenance In addition to the $115,223 figure, the following was also included in the calculated cost of maintenance: A one-time cost of equipment inventory for Transit vehicles in the amount of $5,000 • Two transmission rebuilds during the term of the contract at a cost of $960 each s Transit's portion of a city-wide central service cost allocation to the maintenance department in the amount of $13,241. This number was calculated by DMG using the percentage of maintenance salaries compared to total city- wide salaries multiplied by the city-wide central service costs The total cost of maintenance during the term of the contract is calculated at $382,234. 541Q L 6-42T :;-'n eye„ 97 `_lnu 2,8'd TTTB S8b 9T6 8T:9T 966T-9F-..9nu I& Dixon Flydn City of L" Page 6 Conclusion Our analysis of A the factors associated with the City's transportation proposal indicates that the original base cost proposal should be increased $203,046 to $1,929,576. This increase reflects both direct and indirect costs, and could be significantly affected depending on future wage scales. We appreciate the opporhl pity to be of service to the City of Lodi and look forward to working with you in the future. Sincmly, Alan F. Smith Project Manager •.:j 90'd TTTO 5:31' 9T6 8T:9T 966T -9Z -911U CITY 4F LODI Anabwik Band cola Schedule A 1a Management Wag" 1b. Management 8ene4ita 2a. DispatcherlCkrlcal Welles 2b. DispatcherfClorkal Benefits 3. Facility 4. Utilities & Otber Equipment 6. Insurance 7. Pedarummee Bond & Other Services 9. Ofoce Supplies 10. Marketlag SvcslSupplicelPrinting IL Other Materials and Supplisa 12. Othor Expenses Start-up Eipeoses Management Fee aad Profit 1 a. D rivers' W ages lb. Dri#rs' Benetita 14L Maintenance Wages 2b. Maintenaaet: Benefits 3. Conlract Maintenance Fe" 4. Vehicle Equipment and Parte S. Fuel & lAtirkants 6, Recruitmenurrxining Ezpenses 7. Pbysicab & Ungarms 9. Other Service 10. Other Materials and SuppUes 11. Otbei Eipenses Subtotal Grand Total .'d S 14,040 S 19.240 S 19,760 S 53,040 4,880 6,525 6,505 18,010 34,125 46,800 48,100 129,025 12,195 16,310 16,510 45,015 970 1.340 1,340 3,650 4,475 S,345 5,615 15,435 750 750 750 2,250 600 750 800 2,150 2,625 3,500 3,675 9,800 37,500 50,000 50,000 137,500 112,160 150,560 153,155 415,875 254,810 356,735 375,575 987,120 86,580 117,890 119,065 323,535 341.390 4741625 494,640 1,910,655 3 453,850 S 625,1ti'i S 647,795 S 1,726,530 54111 IddET :EFS '9h. 92 9f9 6©'d TTTO SOP 9T6 6T:9T 966T-97--E)nH CITY OF LrODI Trttltspwfadatt Are*sk d'as&d base Cast Schedule B la. Mama"Cutwages ib. AGoagemoat Beneflta 2a, DirpateberMerkalWag" 26. blspateherlCkrical Benefits 3. Faallity 4. Utilities 5. Other Equipment 6. Insurance 7. Perfertmance Fond & Other Serriew 9. Office Supplies 10. Marketing gvicet9uppMeslprinting M OtherMateriale and Supplies 12. Other Expenses start-up Ezpcns" Management Fos and Ptollt suawtel S 32,040 S 44,002 5 45,322 $ 121,364 13,812 18,968 19,537 52,317 27,300 37,442 38,617 103,409 14,185 19,450 20,064 53,729 1,037 1,423 1,466 3,926 2,810 3,558 3,974 10,642 444 592 $92 1,628 31,108 42,721 443003 117,832 122,736 168,536 173474 464,846 Y M-�7.�.C.3.�c9 b'• �iLi��l��j�� Y�T,�Yiwi � J:.-.�7 !, �4i� �y,� .ate In. Drhrem' Wages Ib. Drwere' Benefits 2a. Maintett x" Wages 2b. Maintenance Bersefits 3. Contract Maintenance you 4. Vebl le Equipment and Parts S. Fuel do Lubricants 6, Recrukmead Training E=pensee 7. Physicals 9. Uniforms 9. Other Services 10. Other Materials and Supplies 11. Other Expenses submAd Grand Total 6 ' ,� 252,050 346,149 356,333 954,732 121,889 167,395 172,417 461.701 1,060 1,455 1,499 4,014 1,414 1,942 2,000 556 2,756 3,785 3,899 10,440 2,45.0 3,365 3,466 9,281 3,012 4,136 4,260 11,406 2,059 2,827 2,912 7,798 386;690 531.054 546,946 1,464,730 S 509A26 S 699,590 $ 720,60 51929.576 By signing this petition we would like to voice our opinion to the City Council. We use the transportation system in Lodi on a regular basis, and feel that we would be better served if the city retains the contract for the transportation system instead of,awarding the contract to a private firm. We appreciate the quality of the service we recieve now, and remember the lower quality service of transportation when the service was handled privately previously. C /0- /Z&I /-4 L /PT '� VY, MME Ll4rl-5jlt2,C, A Rob m44,06,- ADDRESS (-j m c - Lodi, c -c&, q-91LIO 41 %-57 k'b �1{ (JO r- � I .1vi �cb') q5IQ 1� 0 03 ;r2_41P NAME firvl� ae,\��z &reOr �l � ADDRESS IMO CLI e- A7� 5�3 C Loci} 5f NAME ADDRESS IC ..-� W OT"SS �z oo XYL, wvd; Oat, -41 4� k)- � 3r cA 6uu ell ���-� a 414f v -3CA S , .l NAME ADDRESS bllg DC -W -?j La VVCAS LI? 3 FIN -N COO(( 01116 04h CA q5 Ltq Kel I y Dr. 3�s 'CA5, 5 2 3 bt-> t I-,- ce-f I J � �ai� c� �G�G�,s.Curtr�l �� cd � 115 orrq a2 L By signing this petition we would like to. voice our opinion to the City Council. We use the transportation system in Lodi on a regular basis, and feel that we would be better served if the city retains the contract for the transportation system instead of awarding the contract to a private firm. Weappreciate the quality of the service we recieve now, and remember the lower quality service of transportation when the service was handled privately npreviously. 1 LIVC�I�Ji, rj� rAj Ac. LLrA T w NAME 1�11�' 1-2 Vc ADDRESS to 36 -5. Z-6 t14 A,". C112t)-t,Cjj ) 1-7 �Yi 4-� (I Of t1i NAME ADDRESS oA, 1J / I PA Alra ul'd I NAME ADDRESS �' u kv c-, J- ��j i �C/(',ICS s �9-b�xd 1t1 -,f 7 oA Ln NAME ADDRESS CX, -/Ill J-,(-" -, � /, /; � I V//Q *yyl 0--,-� " c -&Ke G-4 ADDRESS -2 /,' y fooit �"- -7 4p -2-0 9 A),5 � 61 C C �rctf .�a �� L5&cA 2-7 ADDRESS By signing this petition we would like to voice our opinion to the City Council. Iie use the transportation system in Lodi on a regular basis, and feel that we would be better served if the city retains the contract for the transportation system instead of -awarding the contract to a private firm. We appreciate the quality of the service we recieve now, and remember the lower quality service of transportation when the service was handled privately previously. �y �� L cure C t�o l Gl L�ur� aU a+5 L�Urf— ,�;.. 7 �... E) U �L (! 5 Lee— a S• R.� NAME ADDRESS IBJ 1,70 f Je. 0 rl NAME ADDRESS I P I � 50O -On Q'O A k I s � � � ( VI, �� fyl?-o 61 e� / ZOO,( ct)-