Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
C2011-022 - 2/8/2011 - Approved
CONTRACT Consultant Services Analysis on Privatization of City Fleet Services Service Agreement No. THIS Analysis on Privatization of City Fleet Services CONTRACT (this "Agreement") is entered into by anal between Mercury Associates, Inc (the "Contractor") and the City of Corpus Christi, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation (the "City"), by and through its duly authorized City Manager or designee, effective for alI purposes upon execution by the City Manager or his designee. WHEREAS Contractor has proposed to provide Anal sis on Privatization of Ci Fleet Services in response to Request for Proposal No. BI-0057-11 which is incorporated and attached as Exhibit A; WHEREAS the City has determiried Contractor to be the best valued proposer; follows: NOW, THEREFORE, Contractor and City enter into this Agreement and agree as 1. Services. Contractor will perform Anal sis on Privatization of Ci Fleet Services in accordance with Request for Proposal No. BI-0057-11. 2. Term. This Agreement is far approximately _six months commencing on February 9, 2011_ and continuing through August $, 2011 3. Contract Administrator. The Contract Administrator designated by the .City is responsible for approval of all phases of performance and operations under this Agreement including deductions for non-performance and authorizations for payment. All of the Contractor's notices or cornrnunications regarding this Agreement must be directed to the Contract Administrator, who is the Assistant City Manager of Public Works or his designee. 4. Independent Contractor. Contractor will perform the services hereunder as an independent contractor and will furnish such services in its own manner and method, and under no circumstances or conditions may any agent, servant or employee of the Contractor be considered an employee of the City. Mercury Associates 2011-022 M2011-041 0210SI11 Rev. 9-96 iNL~EXE.~3 5. Insurance. Before activities can begin under this Agreement, the Contractor's insurance company(ies) must deliver a Certificate of Insurance, as proof of the required insurance coverages to the Contract Administrator. Additionally, the Certificate must state that the Assistant City Manager of Public Works or his designee will be given at least thirty (30) days notice, by certified mail, of cancellation, material change in the coverages or intent not to renew any of the policies. The City must be named as an Additional Insured. The City Attorney must be given copies of all insurance policies within 15 days of the City Manager's written request. b. Assignment. No assignment of this Agreement or any right or interest therein by the Contractor is effective unless the City first gives its written consent to such assignment. The performance of this Agreement by the Contractor is of the essence of this Agreement and the City's right to withhold consent to such assignment is within the sale discretion of the City on any ground whatsoever. 7. Fiscal Year, All parties recognize that the continuation of any contract after the close of any fiscal year of the City (the City's fiscal year ends on July 31St), is subject to appropriations and budget approval providing for covering such contract item as an expenditure in said budget, The City does not represent that said budget item will be actually adopted as that determination is within the sole discretion of the City Council at the time of adoption of each budget. 8. Waiver. No waiver of any breach of any term or condition of this Agreement, or the Contractor's proposal to Request for Proposal No. BI-OOS7-il waives any subsequent breach of the same. 9. Compliance with Laws. This Agreement is subject to all Federal laws and laws of the State of Texas. All duties of the parties will be performed in the City of Corpus Christi, Texas. The applicable law for any legal disputes arising out of this Agreement is the law of Texas and such form and venue for such disputes is the appropriate district, county or justice court in and for Nueces County, Texas. 10. Subcontractors. The Contractor may use subcontractors in connection with the work performed under this Agreement. When using subcontractors, however, the Contractor must obtain priar written approval from the Assistant City Manager of Public Works or his designee. In using subcontractors, the Contractor is responsible far all their acts and omissions to the same extent as if the subcontractor and its employees were employees of the Contractor. All requirements set forth as part of this Agreement are applicable to all subcontractors and their employees to the same extent as if the Contractor and its employees had performed the services. 1 I. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by written Agreement duly authorized by the parties hereto and signed by the parties. AG22 ] 0.004.ajr Rev. 4-96 12. Termination. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement for Contractor's failure to perform the services specified in Request for Proposal No. BI- 0057-11. Failure to keep all insurance policies in force far the entire term of this Agreement is grounds for termination. The Contract Administrator must give the Contractor five. (5} work days written notice of the breach and set out a reasonable opportunity to cure. If the Contractor has not cured within the cure period, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately thereaf#er. Alternatively, the City may terminate this Agreement upon twenty (20) days written notice to the Contractor. However, the City may terminate this Agreement on twenty-four {24) hours written notice to the Contractor for failure to pay or provide proof of payment of taxes as set out herein. i 3. Takes. The Contractor covenants to pay payroll taxes, Medicare taxes, FICA taxes, unemployment taxes and all other related taxes according to Circular E Employer's Tax Guide, Publication 15, as it may be amended. Upon his request, the City Manager shall be provided proof of payment of these taxes within fifteen (15) days of such request. Failure to pay or provide proof of payment is grounds for the City Manager to immediately terminate this Agreement. 14. Drug Policy. The Contractor must adopt a Drug Free Workplace and drug testing policy that substantially conforms to the City's policy. The City has azero- tolerance drug policy. 1 S. Violence Policy. The Contractor must adopt a Violence in the Workplace and related hiring policy that substantially conforms to the City's policy. The City has a zero-tolerance violence in the workplace policy. 16. Notice. Notice may be given by fax, hand delivery or certified mail, postage prepaid, and is received on the day faxed or hand-delivered and on the third day after deposit if sent certified mail. Notice shall be sent as follows: IF TO CITY: City of Carpus Christi Attention: Assistant City Manager of Public Works or his designee P.O. Box 9277 Corpus Christi, Texas 78469-9277 Fax No.: (361) 826-3230 e-mail : OscarM@cctexas. com AG2210.004.ajr Rev. 9-9b IF TO CONTRACTOR: Contractor Mercury Associates, Inc Contact Randall G. Owen Address: i 6051 Com tint Circle City, State, Gaithersburg 20$77 Phone No.: '104-906-8898 E-Mail: rowen@mercury-assoc.com 17. Month-to-Month Extension. If the City has not completed the procurement process and awarded a new Agreement upon expiration of the original contract period or any extension period, the Contractor shall continue to provide goods/services under this Agreement, at the most current price under the terms of this Agreement or extension, on a month-to-month basis, not to exceed six months. This Agreement automatically expires on the effective date of a new contract. 18. Severability. Each provision of the Agreement shall be considered to be severable and, if, for any reason, any such provision or any part thereof, is determined to be invalid and contrary to any existing ar fixture applicable law, such invalidity shall not impair the operation of or affect those portions of this Agreement that are valid, but this Agreement shall be construed and enforced in all respects as if the invalid or unenforceable provision or part thereof had been omitted. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, HOLD HARMLESS AND DEFEND THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS (INDEMNITEES) FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL LL4BILITY, LOSS, CLAIMS, DEMANDS, SUITS AND CAUSES OF ACTION OF ANY NATURE ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH, PERSONAL INJURIES, PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE OR ANY OTHER KIND OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING ALL EXPENSES OF LITIGATION, COURT COSTS, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES WHICH ARISE OR ARE CLAIMED TO ARISE OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CONTRACT OR THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE INJURIES, DEATH OR DAMAGES ARE CAUSED OR ARE CLAIMED TO BE CAUSED BY THE CONCURRENT OR CONTRIBUTING NEGLIGENCE OF INDEMNITEES, BUT NOT BY THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF INDEMNITEES UNMIXED WITH THE FAULT OF ANY OTHER PERSON OR GROUP. CONTRACTOR MUST, AT ITS OWN EXPENSE, INVESTIGATE ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, ATTEND TO THEIR SETTLEMENT OR OTHER DISPOSITION, DEFEND ALL ACTIONS BASED THEREON WITH COUNSEL . SATISFACTORY TO INDEMNITEES AND PAY ALL CHARGES OF ATTORNEY AND ALL OTHER COSTS AND EXPENSES OF ANY KIND ARISING FROM ANY OF SAID LL4BILITY, DAMAGE, LOSS, CLAIMS, DEMANDS OR ACTIONS. THE INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTOR UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL SURVIVE THE EXPIRATION OR SOONER TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT. AG2210.OOA.ajr Rev. 9.96 SIGNED this 25 day of Jams 2411. Contractor Mercury_Associates, Inc ~awr~~t ~, 01~ Randall G. Owen Title: Senior Vice-President CITY OF ~ORI~U~ ~~-IR~~ ("CITY"} Michael ~arr~ra /" Assistant Director of Financial Services APFROVED THIS ~Z~ DAY OF ~r~~~cz-~ , 2011. CARLOS VALDEZ, CITY ATTORNEY By: Bri Narvae Assistant City Attorney Exhibit A: Request for Proposal No. BI-0057-11 Exhibit B: Consultants response to Request for Proposal No. BI-0057-11 Exhibit C: Insurance Certificate ~J~.~ a ~ ~ `„~,M.. AtiT4i0~lIEI~ ~~ CQtl~043. ~~..~~~,~ .~_ . S~CR~1'A~~,~(. ~~T~ far'": w ~ _..,..m...,~....~. . aA.... .. ~. ~I".l' S~.G3'~~ i €1rs" AG2210.OQ4.ajr Rev. 9A6 City of Corpus Christi REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Business Case Analysis -Privatization BI-0057-11 Due Date : December 1, 2010, 5:OOPM 1.0 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Corpus Christi is soliciting Proposal(s) (REP'S) from consultant firms whom are interested and qualified to perform and develop various business case analyses on the privatization ofpre-identified functions of City services. Services will include research and analysis of assigned city functions in relation to the strategic objectives of the overall function of the city; an economic analysis of the cost, benefit and risk of privatizing the City function; determination if a commercial sauree is readily available to assume the City function; identification of possible funding sources including the departmental budget and or other programs affected by the City function and an estimate of the timeline that would be required for full i.rnplementation of privatizing such services. A single consultant andlor multiple consultants may be selected to accomplish the services outlined in this Request for Proposal, 2.0 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL Proposers will submit one original and five copies of the response. All responses will be marked as Request for Proposal for RFP # BI-0057-11: Consultant Analysis an Privatization of City Services. Response packages will be accepted unti15:00 p.m. on December i, 2010 and should be _. addressed to the following Procurement Officer; ; Michael Barrera Assistant Director of Financial Services City of Corpus Christi 1201 Leopard Street Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 mikeb@cctexa.s.com 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK 3.1 General Overview The City has identified four City functions/services that are potential candidates for a privatization effort. See attached list of City Functions, Exhibit A. In order to assist staff in determining whether these City functions would make a good business case for privatization, an analysis must be performed which encompasses a review of the City function as more fully described below. 3.2 S ecifc Re uirements When building a business case for privatization, the City has identified five major tasks that should be performed in order to determine whether the City function will make a good privatization initiative. They are as follows: 1) Options Appraisal 2) Strategic Fit ~) Commercial Aspects 4) Affordability 5) Achievability The consultant will be required to perform an analysis of the assigned City function that will consider the above tasks in determining whether the City function should be privatized. Each of these tasks is more fully identified in the Attached Exhibits B and C. Although the City has determined the above tasks are one method of identifying whether a City function would make a good privatization initiative, the City is not bound to this business case model and are open to other models that the consultant may prefer to use to accomplish the services. The City reserves. the right to add other City functions/services to be analyzed as deemed necessary. Additional work may be added to the scope of work described above to include 1) assistance with developing a Request fvr Proposal fvr privatizing a City functionlservice, 2) assistance with the evaluation of proposals received for privatizing a City function service 3) assistance with the full implementation of privatizing a City functian/service and/or 4) project management of the City functionfservice once it has been privatized. 4.4 DELIVERABLES The Consultant will be required to deliver a f na1 report of each assigned City function analyzed. Included in the report will be the supporting data and description of the methodology used in the analysis. A recommendation whether to privatize the City function will be included along with the reasons for making that determination. Consultant will be required to present such final report, and comprehensively support its findings before City Council on a date to be selected by the City. 5.4 EVALUATION Staff will evaluate the proposals on the following criteria. Proposers are requested to submit sufficient information on each criteria to allow staff to effectively determine their respective qualif cations and cost for services. 1) Experience of the firm in performing similar types of analysis. References shall be provided from at least three former clients. 2) Specific examples of government functions that have and/or have not been privatized at the recommendation of the consultant 3) Cost 3.1 Cost -Pricing should be submitted on a unit cost basis. Each unit is defined as the work required to accomplish a business case analysis of one city function. If price breaks are applicable for performing all four business case analyses, the City will consider such proposal as well. All costs, both direct and indirect, necessary to effect the work described herein shall be included in Proposer's proposal. Such costs include, but are not limited to; salaries, supplies, the cyst of the proposal itself, postage, travel, per diem, transportation costs, etc, The proposer shall not invoice and the City shall not pay any costs other than those set out by the Proposer in its proposal and agreed to by the City. Exhibit A List ofpre-identified City Functions for privatization 1) Facilities Maintenance 2) Fleet Maintenance 3) Comprehensive Grounds Maintenance (mowing and landscaping) 4) Municipal Information Services (MI5) aka -Information Technology Services Please refer to the City's website at: www]cctexas.com for a copy of the City's Annual Budget. Departmental summaries, goals and objective are included in that document. See Exhibit D for additional information and budget details. a Exhibit ~ Business Case Analysis -~ Qverview ~. Options appraisal: the economic case Thls aspec# of the business case deeurnents the wide range of options that have been considered within the broad scope identified in response to the City's existing and future needs. It aims to arrive at the optimum balance of cast, benefit and risk. Minimum content needed For this section: high level costlbenefit analysis of (Ideally} at least three options for meeting the business need {where applicable}; Include analysis af'svf#' benefits that cannot be quantified In financial #erms; identify preferred option and any trade-offs. Note that options appraisal must be carried out in detail before selecting a preferred option. Questions addressed: • Has a wide range of options been explored? • Have innovative approaches been considered andlor collaboration with okher departments? if not, why not? • Has the optimum balance of cast, benefit and risk been lden#ified? If not, what trade-offs need to be made e.g. foregoing same of the benefits in order #o keep costs within budget; taking carefully considered risks to achieve more substantial benefits? 2, Strategle fit: the stirategie ease This aspect of the business case explains how the scope of the City funetionlservice fits within the existing strategy of the City; and the compelling case for change, in terms of the existing and future opera#ional needs of the City. Minimum content needed far this section: description of the business need and iks contribution to khe City's strategy and objectives, why it is needed, key benefits to be realized, key risks, critical success factors and haw #hey will be measured; main stakeholders. Gtuestiens addressed: • Haw well does the proposed way of meeting the requirement support the City's objectives? and current priorities? • If it is a poor fit, can the scope be changed? • is the City functionlService needed at all? • Have the stakeholders made a commitment to the City functionlservice? 3. Gommerciai aspects: the financial case Where there is an external procurement, this section ou#lines the potential commercial arrangement. Minimum content required for this section: proposed sourcing option, with rationale far its selection; key features of proposed commercial arrangements {e.g. contract terms, contract length, payment mechanisms and performance incentives}; the procurement approachlstrategy with supporting rationale. Questions addressed: • Can value for money exchanged be obtained from khe proposed sources {e.g. partners, suppliers, service prodders)? • if not, can the City functionlservice be made attractive #o a wider market? 4. Afforctabllity: the financial case Assessment of affordability and available funding. Links proposed expenditurefailocatlons to available budgek and existing commitments. Minimum content far this section: statement of available funding and broad es#imates of projected whole-Iffe cast of the Clfy functionlservice, includiing departmental costs {where applicable). Questions addressed: • Can the required budget be obtained to deliver the Ci#y functionlservice? • If not, can the scope be reduced or delivered aver a Eonger period? • Could funding be sought from other sources? 5 Achfevabllity: the project management case This section addresses the 'achievability' aspects of privatizing the City functionlservice. Its primary purpose is to set out the City functionlservice organization and actions which will be undertaken to support the achievement of intended outcomes including procurement activity twhere applicable} or detailed study with existing providers. Minimum can#ent for this section: high lava! plan for achieving the desired outcome, with key milestones and maJor dependencies {e.g. inter#ace with other city functionslservices}; key tales, with named individual as the project's owner; outline contingency plans e.g. addressing failure to deliver service on time; major risks identified and outline plan for addressing them; provider's plans for the same, as applicable, skills and experience required. Questions addressed: • Can the privatization of the City functionlservice be achieved with the City's current capability and capaci#y? • If not, how can the required capability be acquired? • Can the risks be managed - e.g. scale, complexity, uncertainty? • Does the scope or tirnescale need to change? Exhibit C business Case Analysis -Detailed OPTIONS APPRAISAL 7.O tlons a sisal 7o is Areas to consider 1.9 Long and short list of options • Outline opticns identified for analysis {described more fully below); where appropriate, each sub]ected to SWOT analysis against cantribukion fa key abJecllves and critical success factors; includes a do minimum option - at feast two but no mare than seven other optlons. 1,2 ppportunilias far innovation andlor collaboration with others . + Describe the opportunities for Innovative approaches such as a new way of providing a particular seNlce or explplking new ways of saving ongoing costs on buildings. • Outline opportunities For collaboration wltf~ others perhaps sharing the costs of developing a new system or colfabarating with private sector partners to share casts. • IF no opportunillss exist andlor there are essential reasons for avoiding Innovation andlor collaboration wlkh others, oukline the reasons. 1.3 5enrice delivery options=who will deliver the project? • Investigate aptfons rangtng (rpm in-house dallvary to degrees of partnership with the private sector and wiktr others In the public sackor: wlih brief description of each, advantages/disadvantages and conclusions. Include optlons far collaboration where appropriate {see 1.2 above). '1.4 Implementak[an options • ~xamine optlons forthe pace at which the project could be implemented, In terms of the tlmescafes and degree of change required; consider whether the project could Da broken down into more manageable components e.g. Implemented In incremental phases or Introduced on a small scale to start and than rolled out to a larger scale. 1.5 petalled options appraisal • Pravlde an explanatlan of the general approach taken la the calculation of costs and benefits, together with overview of khe key findings Ehat result from each of the short-Ilslad options. Include details of'soft' benefits; these are benefits that do not have a direct financial value, such as improved quality of service. 1.6 Disk quantification and sensitivity anatysis • For risk quantlflcatlon, show the cost of each risk, whe-evar possible -- that is, the casts incurred in dealing with a risk if it materializes or putting in countermeasures to ensure that the risk does not occur, Identify who will be responsible for each risk and state why they are the party best placed ko manage It. • For sensitivity analysts, show the effect of changes fn critical factors to each option, Fvr example, what would be the effect of delayed planning permission far a new building? Whaf would be the impact if a serolce came on stream much sooner or later than expected? 1.7 Benefits appraisal • Show results of identifying key beneflis eriterfa, wsiehing their tale#lve Importance, snoring short-listed options against those criteria; where required derive a weighted benefits scone-for each option and undertake an analysis of the sensltivlEy of the assessment la ohanges in weighting and scoring. 1,8 Preferred option • Summarize findings from economic appraisals, benefits evaluation, asnsitlvKy analysis and overall ranking, STRATEGIC FIT 2. 3tt'ate iC fit To !c Arias to consider 2.1 Business need •Descrlbe the business need that will be met by the project and why if is needed - e.g, a new building to accommodaie a call center-to meet the needs of citizens requiring telephone support for Inquiries; needed because current facilities cannot cape with demand, 2.2 Organizational ovenviaw • Descrlbe the organization's main gams, organizational structure and key responsibilities. • Descrlbe fhe main aspects of the strategy: strategic v]sion, strategic plan and aontinuing goals. • Outline the main themes, where relevant (such as delivering Information electronically to the public), key programs and projects, 2.3 Contribufton la key objectives • Descrlbe how the function will contribute to key objectives- e.g. 'supports target forX by providing Y'; 'supports modernization agenda by providing expert #raining for key staff In front tine delivery'. 2,4 Stakeholders • Outline the main stakeholder groups and their contribution to the function; note any potential conflicts between different stakeholder groups and their demands. 2.S Existing arrangements • Outline the current service delivery arrangements, major contrects with service providers, the in-house function, where applicable, Include details of technical standards where relevant andlor technical constraints that need to be addressed (such as refurbishment of a building; requirement fo Integraie with existing Infrastructure]. 2.6 Scope: minimum, desirable, and optional • Summarize the potential scope of the function: o do minimum (the rnlnlmum scope to meet the Immediate need] o intemtediate options o full scope of proposed change (the widest potential change that would meat the need, perhaps taking a longer term view). • Suggested number of options: up to seven at a high level, to ensure that the scope has been #horoughly explored, 2.7 Constraints • Summarize the main constraints, such as the willingness of senior management to absorb fundamental change, the affordability of proposals, existing contractual carnmitments. 2.8 [7ependencies • Outline fhe internal and externs! factors upon which fhs successful delivery of this function are dependent, such as olherfunctions and programs already in existence. 2.9 Strategic peneflts • Outfine high-level strategic and operational benefits such as batter use of workspace, more reliable service fo citizens. Show how these benefits are linked to key objet#ivas - e.g. better use of workspace is one of the contributory factors that support mute efficient warkforcrr, which con#rlbutes to key objective of better services to citizens. 2.10 Strategic risks • Outline the main risks such as continuing need forihe functlan and changes in direolton; service risks such as the lack of Internet skiils tv implement the required function; external environmental risks such as ahangas in the supplier marketplace. 2.91 Critical success factors • Define the crl#icel success factors far the function =what will oonstltuie suceess7 e.g,, citizens will want fo use the new service In preference to the previous way of delivering it. Cefarmine how supcess wi11 be measured e.g., percentage take up of a new service over x years, with milestones for each annual Improvement In take up. COMMERCIAL ASPECTS 3. ColrxtmercEal as eCfB Topfc Areas fo aor:sider 3.9 Outpuk Based Specification • Summarize the requirement in terms of outcomes and outputs; supplemenfed by lull speciflcalion of need, 3.2 Sourcing options • OuUlne the options for sources of provision of sen+icea to meet the business need - e.g. parfnershipa, Framework, existing supplier arrangements, with ratlanale for selecting preferred sourcing option. 3,3 Payment mechanisms • Outline the proposed payment mechanisms that will be negotiated with the providers - e.g. linked to performance and avallablllly, providing incentives for alternative revenue streams. 3.4 F'tiak allocation and transfer • Summarize an assessment of haw the Types of risk might be apportioned or shared, with risks allocated to the party best placed t0 manage them. AFFORDABILITY 4. Affordabill! ToA[e Arass to consider 4.1 Budget based on whole Ilfe costs • Produce estimates of the whole life costs of the function Include the costs #hat wi11 be Harried by the customer as well as these that will be carried by the City. Note that savings or,benefits achieved in one part of the organization may add to costs elsewhere In the organization or delivery chain. This is espeoially sigrit8cant where the organization has to maintain patella! channeis for service delivery. • Provide details af: o the expected casts a when they wit! occur a haw they will be monitored o who will pay for each cost o any risk allowance that may be needed {in the avant of things going wrong). • Additional areas that may need to be considered in detail are outlined below. Gom lotion rind Inoome and ex enditure account Balance sheet Cash flaw ACHIEVAB~LITY 5. Achievabilit To tc ~ Areas fo consider 5.1 evidence of similar projects, where available • 1f possible, provide evidence of similar functions that have been successfully implemented, to support the recommended approach. I# nc similar projects are available for comparison, outline the basis of assumptions for delivery of fhls tuna#ion- e.g. comparison with industry averages for this kind of work, 5.2 Project roles • Sat cut key roles; o who will be responsible far making the Investment decision (typicaiiy'a management group rather than an . Individual) o the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) as the named individual who will be personalty accountable for the success of Ehe project o the project manager a the main stakeholders o key members of the oversight committee, where applicable 0 other essential roles as required. • Confirm that the SRO and project manager have appropriate skills and experience for the project, with access to specialist expertise to supplement their skills if required. 5.3 Procurement strategy (where applicable) • Set out indicative tirnelabla and justification for the proposed approactr. 5.4 Project plan • Outline the main phases of the project plan, EXHIBIT D Maintenance Services Fleet Maintenance is. a division of the General Services (Maintenance Services) department of the Gity of Gorpus Christi. It is' a full service entity that is charged with maintaining a Gen#ralized fleet with 1,860 vehicles with the capability of performing maintenance on all 2,154 vehicles in the entire City Fleet. Fieat Main#enance ensures the availability of tits police fleet, the refuse collection fleet, the brush colleotlon fleet, and ail other C1ty vehicles and equipment to 'include the utility fleet. There are 22 mechanics and i Q service teohniolans who accomplish this task. Also, included are parts, personnel, and adminiatr~tive personnel. Despite the fac# that 68% of the fleet is past the service life, the operational ready rats for fleet vehicles and equipment Is 80°l°. Fleet Ogeratians is responsible for fuel contracts '($5m}, parts purchases ~ ($2.5m), outside repairs ($1.Om}, and capital equipment specifications development, and purchases. Alsa, two' motor pools are managed, atone with an accompanying refueling station. The organization performs both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on all City vehicles and equipment with the exception of Fire, CMS, and airport equipment. Facility Maintenance . is a division of the General Services- {Maintenance . 5ervlces} department of the Clty of Corpus Christi. It has a ~ small staff of 23 employees, consisting of custodial, clerical, elec#ricians, carpenters, plumbers, painters, one I-IVAC technician, and one ~ mechanic. Facility Maintenance is in the. first phase of a preventative maintenance program. Staff performs maintenance in Corpus Ghristl and up to 90+ miles away at city facHlties in the surrounding area {darns}, Over X450 properties are maintained by Facility Maintenance. Misslfltt frleet Maintenance Scrvices• Fleet Maintenance Scrvicps' mission is to provide easterners with iha highest gasilty repair, inspect#on, servicing artd operational support services in a safe, efficient, and cost-effective manner, lacility Nlaintenence Servica• Facility Maintenance Services' ntissian is to provide internal and external austomora with tits highest quality service and professionalism in a site, efficient, and east-effective manneE: Danis Float Mnhttenance Services • Acquisition of equipment Uased an iifecycie cost model tltat maximizes atria#encies and reduces cost to operating departments • Perform and establish preventive main#enenne schedules to suritass llfooycle costs so that we may receive a higher salvage value when sold at aaetifln, which perpetuate an going acquisition schedules. • Manage Rroi program to ensure timely fuel doHvories that eliminate downtime for users $ieling at fire! station and tninimi2e delivery fees paid to the ataty Facility Maintenance Services • Perform preventive maintenance schedules ou all assets • Pibvidc arnargency and rautirto tnaintenanco of #lacilitles Resale of elcetricity Vehicle Pool allacntiona ]ff'ieet repair fees Repai,• fees - uan riser Gas artd oi! sales Direct part salsa Bu[iding ,nnintcrrance allocatia 13ttll~ling mnluteuancc Electrieai nt>iiutannnce A!C ,nalrttenmtce interest on investments Net lac/Dec itt i(<'~ of ]uvesunen Net gain ou sale of assets Recovery or, tirEUtngc claims Snlo of scrnltlcily in•opcrty Trattaf il' Geuernl Lla1f Fd '7'ransY fr Wa,•lcutan'a Camtt ~ • Trttsl'r cap o!1-Cart Ted Tt•ttsfr cap o!l-Gas Tr-Esfr cais all-~Nflstattinter TrrtsO• cap v!i-1'1'ater Trusfi• cap aft-Sto,•,mratcr Trnsfr cap r•eplacament l}ev Svc Trnafl• cap replacen,ettt Water Trns@• cap rcitlncemeul•Sh•tnwn• Trnsfr cap repiaccmeut-Wstewtr Trnsfr cap t•eplncemeutaGns Trmsfr Cap t•eplacttrnt-CartrnlFrl T,•ansfer from MIS litrntl Transfer f,• Croup I•fealtlt ins I~u,td Total 10,621 10,000 8,354 11,000 2,145,120 x,247,396 2,247,396 2,305,884 6,661,332 ti,833,628 6,833,630 7,157.,284 10,505 0 4,324 0 3,831,941 4,316,884 4,316,884 5,062,613 12,872 0 2,030 0 2,655,948 2,744,580 2,744,580 $,912,140 3,596 15,000 1,071 x,000 1,813. 15,000 550 2,400 2,349 20,000 7:97 3,000 95,174 45,011 77,040 15,440 (8,125) D (938) 0 ~ 0 0 266,427 0 97,663 10,000 45,8'32 0 15,662 100,000 3,651 0 0 115,379 115,379 0 0 108,346 108,344 0 1,169,000 1,450,180 1,450,180 0 433,Z{i0 247,$24 247,824 554,000 69L,500 717,504 71'!,504 786,04D 283,000 847,OOB 847,008 227,059 0 390,OOD 390,000 773,000 26,000 26,OOD 26,000 2fi,000 10,500 34,867 3d,$b7 162,448 71,010 98,547 95,547 137,702 17 3,00 l 184,001 184,001 203, 831 52,976 88,577 88,577 135,363 492,000 0 0 9$5,655 0 22,1 G8 22,768 0 0 15,493 15,493 0 18,87$,657 20,700,393 20,834,244 21,468,38b ~ Timely respond to wont order requests )pee•sonnelServices - 3,7G6,210 4,393,927 ~l,i]0,301 4,370,OS4 Matet•lnis5trpplles 7,057,283 6,283,746 8,239,08'1 6,47'5,131 Contrnctunl Servltes 4,326,I27 -3,512,587 3,BGi,b45 x,984,915 Other Ci-Argos 2,912 0 366 0 Rasw•vc AppYOpriatlm~s 0 0 0 640,400 Dabt Sar~~i~ 82,Sh$ 0 . 0 0 $cltaolslSerninarsl'fralntng A,04i 27,000 1T,741 17,000 )I IIt$r]tAI SCTYiceS AIIOCntI411S 760,842 641,020 641,fl2p 738,706 1'rausPer Ont 0 60,858 60,658 0 Cai~itnl0utlay 2,850,553 A,5Ax,067 A,A23,4S3 2,350,059 'rota) 18,670,gb5 21,GGX,204 x1,554,473 20,125,867 I+'ull Time ~qulvalcnts: 87 67 8S Avallal-ifity of Rcquiead Marked Polito VoHiafee 119.8A 12A.05 >_' 100.00 . hlvailabfl lty of Rcquiretl Solid Waste Side Loading Refltso Tnwks 87.AG 112,89 >=100,00 Avnllability of Reggired Wastewater Vacuum Trucks 219,53 2GG.8? >_ !00,00 Avallolaility of Raquired 5tarm WAtor Movrcj~s 104,81 93.04 >R 100.00 nn--Time Response to Work Otdo!'3 100.OQ 100A0 >~ 45.OU MAYNTENANCE S1iw~VICE FUND. (5110} REVENUE DETAYL ACC©UNT ACCd131~1'X' A.CTUALB B1;1pGET ESTIMAxED ADOP'1'ED NUL5+1B>>iR I1fSCitIpTION 2008-2009 , 20092010 2009.2010 20]0.2011 Unresas~vecl 2,OG7,f23 1,354,356 7$3,57'6 Resa~°veti f'ar ~ncumbraiices 1,473,222 776,441 0 Rese~•voclforConnniteaants ~,-525,214 w., 1,940,853 2,569845 11•L~GINNIIVG pAC.ANCB 4,045,559 4,073,450 3 353 421 OPLcRATING RL+VBNUE l+leot Me~taBentont 326000 VehiolePaalallacations 2,145,120 2,247,396 2,247,394 2,305,884 326010 Fleetragairfecs ~ 4,661,332 6,$33,628 6,833,630 7,151,280 326020 Repair fens -non llcet 10,505 0 4,324 0 326040 Gus and ail sales 3,831,941 4,314,884 4,316,884 5,062,515 326050 Direct part sales ! 2,872 0 2,030 0 343540 Stria Of SCI'aplcity pl'ope~'ty 1S,6G2 _ 0 3,45 i 0 1 Totai l~Jt:at Mti~ttc8ettlout 12,677,432 13,397',908 13,407,916 14,519,779 Building Mnlntenance 326070 Building maiutenanae allocatio 2,655,448 2,744,580 2,744,580 2,912,100 326080 Building maiotananaa 3,596 15,000 1,071 4,000 326090 131ectrical maintoneuce 1,813 15,00{1 S50 2,000 326100 A/C ntaintena~tce 2,349 _ 20,000 „^ 297 '3 000 'focal Bnilcling Maicttenance 2,463,706 2,794,580 2,746,496 2,921,100 TO'1'ALt;'p1;RA'fING1tEVENUE 15,341,138 16,192,488 i6,1S4,414 17,440,$79 NON•OP1yItATING R>;VCNUE Gcterest Itacoute 340900 lntarest on invcstlnettts 95,17A 45,01 I 17,040 15,440 340995 Net InciDec in f~V of ll-vesttnen ~8,1~~ 0 {938 0 Total tutarest Iucante • $7,049 4s,0! 1 16,103 15,ddo 323030 Utlter Revanua - Resete of elsckriaity 10,621 !0,000 6,354 11,000 343200 Net gain on sale of assets 0 1D0,000 .244,627 0 343300 Reaovaty on cincnaga clpims 97 GG3 10,000 45,B52 0 Tatnl Otber Ravenue 108,284 120,x00 32D,833 11,000 TOTAL NON-dri>;RATYr1C R)EVEl~UIJ 195,332 165,011 336,936 26,440 IN7'LRFUNB CONTR1I3I17'[flNS 3SO40x `fcpnsf fr Goneral I.iab Fd 4 115,379 115,379 D 35x415 'Iyansf fr Workman's Comp 0 108,346 108,346 0 M.A~.XNTENANCE SERVICE FUND (SZ10) REVENUE DETAIL • ACCOtu1~'f ACCOUNT ACTI]A~.B 1sUDGET lsi8"1'IMAT~D ADpPTBD HUMH1Rit Df~$CRirTION 2fl08-2009 2009.7A10 2U0~1.2010 2010.2011 350500 71'nSfi'cap011•©onFd l,1G`J,uuU 1,9JV,1aV i,~V,iau U 350520 71'ns1'respo/l-Gea 433,206 ?h7,$24 ~ ?A7,SZ4 564,000 3SpS30 T~'na#1'ca}~n/l•UVestewntar ' ' 591,500 2$3 000 717,504 847 00$ 717,504 847 406 786,000 227 45'9 350540 1ti'itaD' aflp olt•Wato- , , , , 3,Sp~50 'fE•nsfi~ cap olbStodnwate~• 0 390,00fl 390,000 773,000 350700 Trnsfl• tali raplacament•Aev Saa 26,OOD 25A00 26,000 xG,~Oo 350710 'FrnBfi' C9p I'OpIflC@IilOnt•WBtCI' 14,500 34,867 34,$67 142,448 350720 Trnsfi• cep replacetnent-Stmiwir 71,010 95,547 95,547 137,7b2 330730 TrnsfrcapraplacaEiient-Wstowtr 113,001 184,001 #84,001 203,$31 350740 Trnsfi' aap ~'aplacemaiot-t3as , 52,975 88,577 88,577 13S,3G3 354750 Ti•nefi~ cep raplaanmWQonerAl lid 492,000 0 0 985,665 352486 Ti'attsfcr from MI5 Rund 0 Z2,1G8 22,16$ O 352500 Transfar 1f• araup Health 1ne F'd ~ 0 t5 493 15 493 0 TOTAI, iNTL~RFUNA CO1V'I<'RiBUT10i~IS 3,342,#$6 4,342,894 4,342,894 ~ ~t,001,OG7 'TOTAL RL+VL+NU~ 8c 1NTRItI~C]ND CO1~fTRIi3 18,876,657 _ 20,700,393 20,8.34,244 21,468,386 TOTAL FUNDS A•YAILAIa~R 22,94+4 216 20700393 24 907 894 x4,621 807 DcpnE•rmc~ita! ~xl~cnillttu•es t 1030 TMitS Retirenknt 0 b~ 0 0 +40050 DieccloroFt7encral Soivieos 238;971 251,192 2SI,I92 233,G10 40100 Mechanics! repairs 1,942,429 2,008,888 1,981,888 1,914,624 401 l0 Centralixecifloet 1G3,~Q70 [54,644 157,416 150,219 401x0 13yuip~neatPurahasas•I+Ieet 2,387,952 4,400.453 4,400,453 2,350,059 40130 NotwoPlL8ySf411111161ipteRAltCO 99,IS3 101,557 97,$b2 98,693 80140 Setvicc station 4,225,023 S,I31,340 5,054,111 5,786,510 40170 Fleet Opci'a#ions 2,056,b13 1,911,429 1,912,929 1,411,667 40180 Poets Roon~ a~e~tian 2,62$,875 2,914,278 2,903,S0G 2,941,581 40194 CityF4ali VchiclcPool 339,161 253,857. 253,857 254,813 40200 PalicellieavyEgwiptnealPae! 912,743 1,1OQ015 1,100,QIS 1,IOI,4IS 4030p Facility Maaagemaat&Maiert l,S7S,935 1,363,474 1,470,873 1,263,798 40305 Facility Maint, 17av Ceiater/6C3C G1G,43? 693,774 625,247 463,818 40314 Racilityrnaintenaaca-Cltyl•Iall 1,379,124 1,315,485 ~ 1,2$6,267 l,2b5,OG0 80065 Reserve Approp • Maint Seev Fd ~ 0 0 0 690,000 Total Depat'ttncz~tal L~xlsondltue'es 1$,76S,4BS 21,600,346 21,493,615 20,125,867 Nos-1)epart3n¢ntal 1ixpendiqu'es 14729 ~lurrieanc+ Ike • 2008 22,483 0 ~ 0 0 55010 Intt~~est 82,598 0 D 0 60444 Ti~nsfer to Visitor' Facilities 0 GO 858 60 858 0 Total tVon•pelrartmeutssl Rxpe»dltnres (05,080 60,858 60,856 0 TOTAL MAI(YTENANC~$CRVIC138FUND(5110) 1$,870,565 21,66],204 2] 554,473 20,I2S,8G7 [t115RRVLrfD I~OIt ENCUMB1tAlYC>ES 776,441 0 0 12FSLrIiVL~D 0413 CQMMITMRMI'S 1,940,853 2,569,$48 4,420,833 U1V11CS1~1tVL+t) 1,356 SG 783 876 275 087 C1.Q5IE~iG gALANCI± 4,073 GSO 3,353,421 4,693,440 1VIAINTENA,NCE SERVICES ~UNI~ (5110} EXPENAITURE OETAI~, BX ORGA.NIZAT~ON Comprehensir-e Grounds Maintenance (Mowing & Landscaping) Comprehensive grounds maintenance Is per#armed by several city departments including, but not limited to the following: Parks & Recreation, Stormwater, Water, and Wastewater. • Parks & Recreation staff perform parks mowing and landscaping of various parks and medians, including 199 sites plus additional easement, and right-of-way - malntenance as may be required. • The Storm Water ©epartment Is responsib4e #or mowing and maintaining approximately t,B16 acres of right-of-way (ROW). In addition, mowing under contract' is as follows. 568 acres of unimproved street RQW mowing; 252 acres of maJor ditch ROW mowing; and 156 acres of improved street RaW mowing. . Storm Water crews mow ~~1Q acres of minor ditch strea# ROW and A00 acres of maJor ditch ROW (all rough cut, minimal- trim). Storm Water has six (B) slope mowers, five (5) fiat mowers and two (2) bat-wing mowers - 'l 3 total mowers. Storm Water has two mowing contracts; • Rough Cut, Minima! Trimming: tJn-improved street ROW mowing $181,000 year maJor dHch ROW mowing $ 261,000 mar $ 442,(100year (one aontractar} s t.andscape (tine-out} with Extenelve Trimming: improved street ROW mowing $ 454,OD©year (four acntractors) (ccntrects have expired and the bid is currently out) Storm Water (Pump Station staff) also mows grounds at two downtown storm water drainage pump stations. twitter pick-up is done ahead of at[ mowing operations irf- house or contracted. • The W®ter Department performs mowing at various treatment plants, and pump statlans throughout the city, including two darns located approximately 40 and 90 miles away near Mathis, Texas and Three Rivers, Texas, respectively. Mowing also occurs along various water pipeline rights-of~way, including the 110-tulle long Mary Rhodes Pipeline which begins in lake Texans. Mary Rhodes Pipeline (MRP): Mowing on the MRP is already contracted out, The contractor assumes all 11&bility and risks. Mowing. Is paid for by the acre mowed and mowed twice a year, (in the spring and fall). The contract terms allow cancellation of a cycle -~ such as during a drought. No two mowing schedules are alike. Conditions on easements are evaluated prior to mowing --- so that mowing takes place only when necessary. The easement is 50' wide and not all properties are mowed in the 101 miles of easement where the average mowing is~ 276 to 376 sores depending on aondltior~s encountered. In addition to mowing, th8 contractor Is required to weed-eat around a#I above ground appurtenances air release valves, test Stations, and gates. The Rlncon gayo~ easement is also mowed. At the reservoirs all at the grounds maintenance is performed by Clty employees. When trey are not mowing, thQSe employees are either performing maintenance or operating the gates at the reservoir. Until March of this year, the remainder of the Water department's grounds maintenance was contracted out. In ~ianuary of this year, the Water Department began purchasing equipment; in March, temporary employees, supervised by a Cfty~ employee, began performing the work. This scenarlc allows for adjustment of the frequency of cuttings and minimizes labor casts. When the temporary labor I$ not cutting grass, they are utilized to assist with. maintenance. atharwise, the temporary labvr-Is released until they are needed again, • The llllastewater Department presentiy maintains six wastewater treatment plants, 96 lift stations, and a few city lots. via mowing and strfng weeder. The amount of work depends on the season, amount of rain, and on ~ the work Iced that maintenance staff has at particular sites. Riding mowers and push mowers are used at the treatment piants and lift stations, respectively, . Miaslon Ta eansislentiy n3eet the sooial, physioal,and -recreatlonal needs ofthe Qommunity tvba19 GcnoralResonreos • ]1,4ib,771 11,591,635 11,166,035 1.1,032,272 Beach Parking i'el'--ti#s 51$,141 SOD,000 654,914 S75,DD3! Nueces Co - P & ~ -'almi- 17,?4$ 0 7,148 Q Gr10-beach clcaiihig 73,279 75,400 73,000. 73,000 Ca-tor 2entsls 52,x09 52,OOD 50,000 55,000 H~i3 Tenets Centel' 34,418 33,000 33,537 35,122 Ht;B Tennis Ctr pro shop sales 15,594 12,000 12,463 13,135 AI Kruac Tctuils Couter 16,412 15,800 15,920 1T,904 Al ICrtieo Tanis Ctr pro shop 6,130 6,000 6,353 7,115 Swim-uhtg Pools 259,783 207,400 z12,72G 27s,127 Swimming lustrnction fees 129,158 113,000 125,145 128,146 A,thleticevents Iz2,493 110,ODD il{~,164 123,450 Athletic rentals 17,553 34,80D 34,665 x6,966 Athlotie instruction ices 40,9G6 35,000 35,112 44,849 lRecreatlott center rentals 6,132 11,282 10,076 10,535 Res-'eatlO)i tklStl'uCtlDii feo8 3$,7x0 44,07] 37,76D 39,337 Skate Pnrlc troncesatens 1,725 0 1,750 3,500 lato]alcoy x,32$,354 2,43D,9i0 2,430,664 2,569,03.8 Isatebicoy instractioa fees 0 0 250 D Summer l~rogrnm rsg fees 17,995 0 245 0 Her]tagc Pnrl: revenues 9,976 7,OOD 7,728 3,99D Tou=•lst 41st-•ict rentals 13,G89 13,D00 13,585 79,050 Otha• recreation r~evenuc 5,700 0 4,000 0 iiuc Dnys / 13sytest 27,25$ 30,000 9,76G I $,OOD Park earl Aecreatlo:a cost reto-~ 0 208,172 208,2$7 197,351 3-itordepar#n-eutal &ervlces 405,3G9 407,712 4D7,751 ~ _ 3B4~762 't'otal 15,575,583 15,539,983 lS,G92,0~s2 15,709,]82 ttzpen[titures: Personnel Sc~wices 8,949,344 9,178,596 8,842,651 B,5i4,234 Material Sutspttes 1,447,075 i,3D7,$23 1,370,043 1,164,545 Contraetiial Serviees 2,293,7$3 1,977,59E 2,004,83! 1,BA$,442 Other Ciinrges 33,708 ~ 1,468 1,417 250 iliesQr~o Apprvprlntions 0 0 0 0 pobt Sorvices 4 0 0 0 Schools/Seinhiars/Trahihig 21,679 6,247 4,855 0 Zstfei•nal5erviceAllucn#lotis 2,565,770 3,105,336 3,105,336 3,D[9,992 7'i•ansfcr0ut 156,G00 144,dD0 166,6DD 1,]41,719 GApItA! OUiiny 116,574 19G,317 196,317 D Total 15,575,583 15,939,983 15,492,052 1$,709,382 i?u3! Time Cgnivetc~its: 301 280 263 Provide pragrains and services far all res[dents and veaitoi~; develop and maintain publio open spaces; and provide superior custamor service. • d/ of Glistotners Sstisficd wit4i I,a#chlcoy Prr»grntn. , ~. of Seniors Surveyed who were Satlsf5esl with Services Pravlded % of Maiirtenaiice Casts Spent on Proactive Maintenance Ratio o#'Actual Wa'kload to Budgeted Lnbot' f 91.98 97.48 ~~ 90.00 56.32 SS.12 >~ 10.00 64.61 80.67 ~~100 Mission (1) To opci~ta a drainage system that provides safe, dependable surface dreiuage in finch neighborhood that can bo tnaintainod easily end al a reesonnble cost; (z)'to have a pt•oactlve planning process that will ensut+e that new daveloptnettt does not have a negetivc lntpact an exlstlug ncigltiborhacds; (3) to have a flood prataotifln system that will protcat•tho residents of our ounununlly; and (4) to lmptove the environment by {reproving the quality of alarm water runoff by remaining in aompllttnca wltlt 13nvironmontal Pt'oteation Agcttcy end TCBQ Regulations. Goals + Ta protect hotnes, buinesscs and other personal and real property f`r'om (lauding during a prolong and intense * To employ at least the minimum level maintenance needed to keep inPlagkructure fltnotional and to stabilize ftra tnateriai ftOm deteriArat€vn due to back}og. + To maintain ettviranmorrml eontpiianea with TPDI33 MS4 permit by employing best tnanagetnont practices to Improve water quality flawing into receiving waters. interest Income 30,763 0 32,942 0 Sale afsc~•nitltlty propet'ty 0 8,899 &,899 p ' Prn•chase diacvuuta 18 0 0 0 - Transf ft• Gcncrai l,lab Ircl 0 7x,523 72,523 0 _ Traust' fi' Wor1<ntatt's Cnutp 0 91,491 91,492 0 Tt'ausfet`t'r Watat'Aivieian xD,Sx;i,000 x1,844,Iga 21,A44,18d 22,940,901 Ttnrtsferiiata iV115Fuud D 19,111 19,11# 0 Trac~sPer fr Group 1~lealtit ins)ici 0 ~ 13,x12 13,21 _0_ Total • x0,555,781. 22,049,4x1 22,482,352 z2,t40,901 ~xpenditttras: 1'ersaanai 5crvlcas 3,304,437 3,638,866 3,3G6,79S 3,995,iS1 _ Materiels Supltiics 492,344 557,031 540,b37 730,645 Contt^aeittnl5m'vlcas 2,908,741 4,260,1x5 3,900,518 4,2SS,7'37 _ 4t6et•Cttxtges 8,262 0 25 0 Reserve Approprlntions 0 1,0#2,875 0 200,000 - Debt Service 74,067 68,362 50,597 t7,sa2 SchoalslSctuittarsf'i'rnlnitsg 14,607 22,363 7,851 17,913 ` Internal ScrvicesAllocatians 1,850,4$9 2,080,224 2,052,2#5 2,090,892 Tt•nnsferoet 7,784,SD9 9,583,463 9,583,463 #7,?35,473 - Cnltltnl OuHny 121,885 347,307 340,407 150 000 Tatstl 15,551,341 x1,S80,ti17 19,843,120 29,223,353 irnll Tlrtte fTgnivnlcnts: 75 76 75 -- -- q/ pfTatget lnietsCieaned 131.28 >= °1° Reslranses to Fiaod Water in Home or Business ~ 2 hr 100.00 66,67 >~ 95.00 °1° 0n-time J'ollutiott Prevention Responses 66.67 33.33 ~m 90.00 of Actual LaUor that was Planned and Scheduled GS.07 63.00 >+'70.00 Ruda of Actual Worlclaad to liudgercd Lahor 108.43 112.60 ~= iU0.00 GEI~IER.,A~, FUND (~.~20) YtE'L~EN'[]'E DETAIL ACCOUNT A,CCQUN'f ACTUAYwiS BUDGET ESTIMAT1s,Y) ADQp'~~rb WUMBE1t DESCIZ1PT1ON 2006.2flOtJ 2x09-2014 aaa9.2010 20lD-201! Unsasarved 27,147;21b 27,469,373 25,1~G,060 Itescrvocl for 1>'ncumbrances 3,168,444 1,978,239 p l2esorvgl for Commlttnonta l 332 712 957 964 1 067 600 OI~GINIVING I3AlLA1VCi4 31648 372 30005 576 2B 263 660 Gcn~ersl Pr»pst•ty TRZOB 300010 AdveforenttsXes-Current 46,860,765 46,DG5,77G 48,679,109 4$,979,1D8 300100 Advaloretniaxes-delinquent 1,1b8,41x 1,100,OD0~ 1,200,000 1,200,000 300200 Penalties & lntcrost an taxes 1,103,759 913,673. . , 925~32~ _ 925,329 Tots! Propat•ty Tares 49,132!937 50,079,449 50,804,436 51,104,437 Other Taxes 300300 IndustrtalDistrict-In-lieu G,002,b44 6,210,453 6,104,418 6,111,389 300450, Sp Inventory Tax Nsceuw ltcfitnd 14,570 20,000 10,269 15,000 300600 C;tysalesiax 44,416,163 38,301,986 AO,G81,659 41,086,474 300700 I.Iquorbythadrinktax I,039,30G 1,I40,41G 993,151 1,017,883 3008D0 i3ingotax 323,53] 316,000 289,094 286,134 300970 Idousiitg Anthorlty -lieu of taxes 19 169 22 554 16,432 19,944 TotntQtitcr'1'nxot; 51,$15,379 45,911,409 48,095,023 48,538,$!9 1^rss~ochlse Tees 3009DD 8lsctric lYauchise -CAL 8,988,43D 9,051,624 9,376,D$4 9,37b,083 300410 f3feulrie franchise - Nuoces Coop 260,1 S4 254,09! 338,056 338,055 300520 'I'efecvmmunications fees 4,485,384 4,517,2D4 4,137,576 4,220,298 300940 CATV franahise 2,337,72D 2,958,000 2,814,997 2,$92,108 300964 'i'axicaG ftanchises 53,516 48,000 48,OD0 48,000 300980 ATBtTROW lease fco 1,200 ! 200 120D 1,200 TofaE Trnueltisa Foes IG,12G,OD5 16,$30,119 16,715,914 16,875,749 5oli[t Waste Scrvlces 300942 MSW 5S Charge - BF1 1,554,452 2,D71,417 1,911,717 1,912,400 300943 MS W SS Charge - CC Disposal 501,247 668,664 641,265 601,400 300944 M5W SSChg • Trailct'TrashlSkidOKan I2,479 0 27,518 48,DOD 300945 MSW S5Gtarge-trElptRin 1•Iat)k 12,107 t5,030 iD,001 14,500 300947 MSW SS Charges - Misc Vendors 121,117 192,562 197,686 197,000 300948 MSW SS Charge -Absolute Industries i 14,329 153,758 149,850 144,000 300949 MSW S5 Charges -Dawson 68,702 68,400 !02,417 89,000 309250 Residential 14,447,597 t4,540,DD0 14,436,146 15,77fl,537 309260 Commercial sad industt•ial 1,709,915 1,710,000 I,G79,097 1,684,000 3D927D MSW Service Chsrge -utility billings 3,436,495 3,414,700 3,434,088 3,450,DD0 30930D Refuse disposal charges 1,754,366 1,754,336 1,754,366 1,754,336 309301 Refuse dispossi charges ~ J[3FI 3,976,320 4,DOG,500 4,D06,500 4,OD6,500 309302 Refuse disposal cltRrges - CC Disposal I,D5G,88S 1,058,533 1,221,422 1,100,000 309303 Refuscdisposel-Tinifer'I1~nshlSkidOKan 0 0 0 E18,537 309304 Refltsc disposal - Calatain Hook 36,326 37,000 30,849 33,000 3093DG Refiisc dispossl - Misc vendors 1,365,654 !,304,000 1,371,456 861,000 309311$ Rofusc disposal - Dawsatt 373,9D6 352,000 474,620 386,000 309309 Refuse Disposal - AbSa1l11C Wash D 0 0 329,230 309320 Raf«se collection permits 19,455 19,040 1G,D00 16,000 GENERAL FUIQD (100) REV'ENUE' DETA.X~ A~CCg1JNT ACCOUNT AC3'C1A,I,S 13UACE~ ES'FII41A,T1QA AbUI'7`11;D N11M]911r1Z ACSC12IpTItON 2008.2049 x049-x010 2009 x010 2410-2t}I1 309330 Special do}~rls p[ckup 314,248 322,500 ~ 322,500 354,692 309331 SW - Mulch 12,963 14,000 10,000 23,81ti 304338 SW - Drush-Mist Vendara 27,636 15,000 15,000 I x,000 304340 12ecycliug 30,474 3D,000 48,000 50,000 304341 Recsyoling eoliection the 0 D 0 450,000 349342 ttecyclitig bank aetvice charge 0 D 0 32G,gOp 309343 Recycling bank incentive fee Q 0 4 120,400 349345 Recycling containers 32,930 40,OOD 23,000 6,x50 309360 Unsocured load -Solid Waste S 25 25 p 324220 Late fces on returned cheolc payment 1,530 0 1,+125 1,425 Total Solid Waste Services 3Q,981,1 S6 31,?78,625 31,847,469 33,849,223 Otttor Poe+nlls 8a 1~lacnses 301310 Atnusetnent licansos 14,D24 18,000 11,685 85,002 301316 Pipeline-licenaefees 38,164 38,164 38,164 38,164 301340 Atttcwreckerpermits 16,923 17,000 17,x14 16,988 301343 Taxi DriverPertvits 4,250 7,GS4 7,654 S;ODO 301600 Othcrbusinesslicense&perattits 21,289 23,780 21,080 23,OD0 301650 Tex Gtconotive App! Fees 5,000 fl 0 0 302040 Ocoupnncy of public 1t-O-W 38,3$4 L2,000 14,500 12,000 302150 Billbnardfeo 17,044 12,200 0 p 302200 Vaonnt 13nllding tic-inspection Fes 800 4,300 I,300 2,000 302330 Street blockages pertttits 5,5,64 0 4,SOD 4,000 302340 aannerpersnits 525 400 4fl4 400 302350 Special event lferntits 1,295 3,400 4,400 1,900 302360 Bosch Psrleing Permits 518,141 500,000 654,914 575,pOp 302400 Pipeline License Agreements 446,650 0 fl 0 309400 Pat licenses 79,514 70,D00 50,OS4 52,000 3p441 l Atlapta Konncl fees 0 375 300 225 309415 Mfcrochipping foes 95 300 760 960 3De1G1D Ambulancepertttits 3,675 2,000 2,725 x_Sp0 Total Permits & 1.teettses !,248,326 710,069 829,452 619,139 Muuiell>til Cottrt 32900D Moving vehicle tines 2,644,732 2,546,434 2,871,542 2,871,542 329010 Parking fines 249,057 346,365 252,011 252,011 329015 ]tedlight Pltoto L~nforcement 1,062,048 0 0 p 329020 Gcnornl Cncs $21,420 791,615 717,520 717,520 329030 Officers fees 189,24a 196,710 224,787 224,787 329040 Uniform tmtl'ic act Ones 77,352 81,750 95,346 95,346 329050 War+•antFces 235,1.86 325,133 274,839 274,$39 329060 Scltaetl ct~ossing guat~d program 93,106 83,506 118,112 118,112 329070 Muni Court state feo discount 252,4]3 215,545 267,863 267,863 329071 Mond Court Time Pay free - Conn 26,713 23,671 20,774 20,774 . 329072 Mufti Court Time Pay 1'ec -City I OG,852 94;946 83,354 $3,354 329077 Muni Court-technology fco 153,762 15$,556 179,094 179,440 329084 Muni Court - buitdistg sccurlty - 117,064 118,317 131,805 t31,8as 329085 Muni Court - duvesnile Case Mgr Fund 96,767 1x2,449 144,5$2 19x,582 329090 Failure to appearrevcnue 694,367 663,159 b1x,383 6]4,383 329095 Muni Conrt - duveni Ee 1*xpungcment Fee 273 4 30 p 32+1100 Animal control tines 9,014 2.4,766 11,377 11,377 329110 Specistl parking onforcentent 436 531 0 0 329120 'Peen court city fees 1,351 2,374 2, l22 2,122 G~NER,A,~., TUNA (X020) AVENUE D~'~AI~. ACCOUi~T ACCi•;7UNT A~CTUA1.,8 11U1DGET I1;fiTIMATI/A A,bO~T>,D NUMIIGIt F)I±;SCRiPTION 2008-2009 20042014 2009 2D10 2010.2011 329150 Other court flues 157,230 l 65,013 186,381 L 86,38 I 329! 60 Munl count tr~isc revenue 1 830 IOD 0 0 TatnlMnttlcipalCaurt 6,990,184 6,182,441 6,191,916 C,191,88b Gcncrsl Govcrttmettt Scrvlce 308350 Atlorneyfbes-demolition Itens 29,159 19,246 41,518 28,779 308351 Attorney Etas -paving liens D 0 30 0 308390 Salc of City publications 846 350 721 3,300 308440 1Vonprafit ragfstration fees ~ '700 1,T28 1,128 1,235 3D8450 Candidate filing fljos 2,150 0 0 2,500 308460 i3og track sdutission fees ~ 538 D _ _ 6,743 _ 7,35b Totn[Gcuct~dGavcrttmentServlce 33,393 20,774 50,140 43,170 (•Jcnlth 5ervlccs 307200 SIN I?ag Spey 18,389 15,000 17,680 17,500 3o72a1 slrl CAtBpay 7,67s B,ooo 7,705 a,oo0 307202 S1N pog Neuter ]0,330 8,000 !0,225 10,000 307203 S/~! Cnt Neuter 3,345 3,000 2,370 2,600 307204 SM Rabies 9,310 8,000 G,9S7 8,000 307205 S/N Parvo/1}ist 7,465 6,OD0 5,045 6,000 307206 SIN FVRCI' 2,015 3,000 • 2,105 2,500 307207 Adopt Dog Spay 2,445 3,OD0 2,544 2,000 3072D8 Aclopl Cat SIsAy 870 1,000 320 550 3072D9 Adopt Dog hlcutcr 1,930 1,000 1,200 1,500 307210 Adopt Gat Ncotcr 550 400 340 400 307211 Adopt !tables 1,600 2,500 1,806 2,000 307212 Adopt 1'arvo/Dist !,035 650 945 1,000 307213 Adopt FVftCP 306 500 400 350 309420 ~lnimai pound fees 8c bundling chargas 49,433 46,000 25,651 30,000 309430 Animal trap fees - 0 0 SG 0 309440 Shipping fees -lab i, l42 1,000 328 200 309550 Pest Control Sawices 0 '0 0 115,854 309560 Pcst Control - intorfund scrvfces 35,170 i3,OD0 14,144 32,582 349580 5wimtnhtg pool inspections 37,500 40,000 40,125 40,000 309590 Food servicepermi#s 663,297 bS6,847 653,339 591,600 304615 Vital t'ecords office safes 8,899 7,000 7,170 7,260 309620 Vi#a1 slatlstics tea=s 58S,2D~] 623,072 566,898 567,000 309621 Vital recerrlsreterttion fee 2,053 0 23,186 0 309625 Child CAre racilities Fevs 7,8IS _ 9,650 9,650.__._ ., 7,200 Totn1 F[enM1t Services 1,437,784 1,45$,619 1,d00,23G 1,554,292 Museurn 303020 Sehoal Dist - m«seum education pragt~tns 22,000 22,000 22,OOD 22,000 308471 Musew'n - adntissiatt fees 1 J8,049 104,553 123,841 131,657 30848D Muscutn-tsaililyrantals 23,775 17,423 17,234 21,403 306490 Museum • special pragrmru fv~s 12,OD0 6,000 !2,000 6,000 308491 (?ducatiou gractp progratr-s 1,664 771 1,561 1,S6I 308442 Parties and recitals 5,270 4,816 5,33D 7,672 30$500 Museuttt -McGregor rcprorl fees 8,019 3,13! 4,763 6,002 308550 Columbus Ships - Adtuissions 130,203 117,927 136,641 144,457 308552 Columbus Ships - Facility Mental 1,600 700 735 435 Total Museum 322,629 277,323 32x,105 391,187 GLfNERAL FUND {1020) REVENUE DETAYL ACCOUI~fr ACCOUIV7' AC~'UALS ~U.DGI,T' RSTIMATIi:D AbOpTEIS i~tU1V1111Lt1t n1vSCR1pTIO1V 2008.2009 2009-~©10 2009.2010 201tF X011 Liurary SBrv1CC6 309706 Library fines 309720 Lost book cAarges 309740 Copy ntnehina sales 309760 Other llbrsiy r~evertur3 TotA1 Library Services Recrantlvri Services Parris: 310000 Switnmingl'ools 310156 Swhnming insb°ttetion fens Subtofsl Tc~uda; 309800 I•IBI3 Tannic Canter 309804 11$13 Tennis Canter pro shop sales 309900 AI Kruse Tennis Center• 3099D4 At KrusaTennis Center pro shop $uBtatel Otl-er Recreation lhevenne: 30GS94 Center Rentals 310300 Athletic events 310400 Alhleticmntals 31041 D Athlafic instruction fees 3 f OG00 Rooreatlon center t'antals 316610 12ecreation inshuction fees 310721 Skaie Park Concessions 3 ! 6806 Latchkey 310801 Latchkey instruction fees 311250 Surrmrer progrAr,r r~cgtstration thes 31 t 520 tferirage Park revenues 312000 Paviliar rentals 3 12010 Tourist district rcr~tais 312030 Other recreation revenue 343697 13uc Days /BAyfest Subtatni 350000 350D30 350D40 350050 350060 35007'0 350090 350100 350110 Total Recreation 5crv[ces Aclmiostrative Chnt•ges Adm svc chg - Viaitat~s Facilities' Fund Adm svc c1~g -Gas Division Adm sve chg- Wastewater Division Adm svc chg • Water Division Adm svc chg.- Stotrnwater Adm sve elig -Airport Fund Adm svc chg - Lozano Qolf Adm svc chg - Oso Golf Adm svc ehg -Marina F~u-rd 423,330 122,921 11$,133 11$,133 20,011 21,911 15,697 20,698 32,35] 33,009 34,167 34,166 5 599 4 368 5 689 5,688 181,291 182,209 I73,G 67 178,685 259,785 207,600 212,726 275,127 129,158 ~ ] 15,00 126,166 _ _ 1281, 4G 388,843 322,GQD 338,892 403,273 34,418 33,OOD 33,517 36,122 13,594 12,000 12,443 13,13 5 ] G,4i 2 15,800 15,920 17,404 6 130 G 000 6,353 ~ 7 i lS 72,554 GG,800 68,253 73,776 52,249 52,006 50,600 SS,D00 122,493 110,000 I l 0,1 G4 123,+}50 17,551 34,800 34,665 24,966 40,966 35,000 35,112 44,864 6,132 11,282 10,076 10,535 38,720 44,071 37,740 39,357 1,725 0 1,750 3,500 2,328,351 2,540,914 2,430,660 2,569,033 0 4 250 0 17,995 0 245 0 9,976 7,900 7,718 3,990 15D 0 0 0 13,689 13,000 13,585 79,050 5,700 0 6,000 0 60,281 58,318 _ 27,766_ 46,000. 2 715 941 2 906 381 2 765,751 3,001,747 3,177,438 3,295,781 3,172,897 3,478,196 82,547 170,112 170, l ] 2 147,708 '710,990 536,452 536,452 496,884 856,592 749,945 749,945 745,380 1,986,641 1,231,392 1,231,392 1,372,52$ 17$,170 294,711 294,711 4~8,G3G 240,87D 229,630 229,630 296,748 109,962 129,93 8 129,938 ISD,8A0 109,962 129,938 129,938 15D,840 1 G3,7GG 120,323 120,323 80,628 GENERAL )FUND (1420) RTVENUE DETAIL ~ICCOUNT NUM131aR ACCOUN')r ULSC1tI1''1'ION ACTUALS 20{t$»2009 BUAGET 2009-2040 RSTIMAT~D 2009-2010 AIDOI~T~U x010-x01 i 350170 Adnt svc cl+g -Development Service Pund 476,999 435,947 435,497 368,7 i2 350300 Jndirectcoatreovvery-grt+nts •171,559 wwmwur+-~ .- _ 172,IS3 __ _~ 152,812 iG00D4~ - ~ ~1~ 'PotalAclmikrsh'ntivoChat~ges 4,586,OS7 4,200,591 4,181,250 4,332,904 tnterest on Investments 340900 htterest on investments 606,454 332,520 [87,000 135,962 340995 Net 1nclDoe in FV of Investments 1,936 0 {15,938) 0 341000 Intereatearnod•othertltsniuvostments 72,044 16,272 9S,7G4 56,112 341020 I+ttei'est earned - ]nto+'fitnd bart'vwed 23 426 ~ 0 4 550 0 Tots) lutercet at Investkucrtts 703,874 346,792 271,377 192,074 Pnlrlln Sntcty Sokvlee8 303065 Kingsville Police Dept • CAri/RMS 15,004 IS,000 15,000 IS,040 304466 Sexual Assault t3xfl-n 114;142 80,000 80,000 80,004 34$510 Special Events Sugport Services 11,4U5 0 6,043 0 308700 Police towing & storage cha+ge 951,082 !,032,000 877,129 916,$00 308708 Vehicle lmpotknd Co+'tified Mai] recove+y 58,034 62;400 61,83 i 58,600 30871 D Police accident reports $0,125 7G,b38 b8,S81 80,125 308715 Police 5entu•ity Services 1d,395 25,861 25,OD0 25,000 308720 Proceeds of auction -abandoned vohicies 604,) 2l 672,885 580,849 603,000 308725 DWI VidevTaping 1,511 G7S 1,126 700 308730 Parl<i+tgntctercallcctivns 160,572 170,000 160,000 160,000 308740 Police open record +'etlttests 2,664 3,813 2,230 2,$14 30$750 Police suUpvenas 385 750 448 3+45 308760 Fingerprinting fees 5,277 5,076 5,076 5,076 308765 CtistomslFlil 162,2!8 218,845 129,784 16D,529 308766 DfRce of Justine Awa+d 4,970 0 0 0 308770 Alerm system permits and services 430,5GD 440,400 412,381 770,665 308800 800 MHz radio- interdcpart+nenial 243,742 246,268 x46,288 248,544 308810 800 MHz rxdiv -outside city 191,339 1 BG,825 186,825 194,369 306850 9[ 1 Wireless Service Revenue 1,251,897 1,264,000 1,263,674 1,2S6,9b9 308851 911 Wircline Service Revenue ~ 1,395,D15 1,398,174 1,519,148 1,476,000 308860 t;,A.D. calls 312 204 321 274 30$680 Reatitutivn 3,50! 9,000 5,442 0 308900 F1re prevent[on germils 199,513 180,D00 I86,OOD 217,530 308910 I'IflZrnflt I'CapO11Se CaI15 4,698 0 3,666 2,500 308915 Safety Oducation Revenues 4,280 2,500 3,150 9,000 308920 Fire hydrant+naintenflncc 327,472 .327,472 327,472 327,472 308925 Honor Gaard 0 D 0 4,000 308935 8mergeocy Mgntt A1crt Sys Fees 0 L4,000 15,000 0 308950 Pipeline reporting fldrninistration 38,300 33,004 33,OD0 41,250 321000 @+net'gencycafls 5,693,132 6,600,000 G,SSO,ODO 6,946,000 321015 futcrlocat Agree - Port A 10,000 ]O,OOD l0,OD0 10,000 321020 Nucces County 4CL clkarges ~_~ 24,681 7,000 7,000 _ _ 7,000 Totu1 FuUiic Safety Sorvltes 12,002,445 13,082,403 12,782,986 13,619,759 lntergovarrmeutal 303010 State ofTexas -expressway Ilghting 184,992 204,000 204,000 204,000 303022 CrOSSJtig t:rilfl+~da 7,670 7,670 7,670 7,670 303030 Nucces County - ]iealth Administration 129,796 172,454 107,732 181,477 303032 Nucces Cv - N & Tt reim~ 17,748 0 7,168 D 303035 Nuecas County • Metrocorn 979,210 ],U6G,255 1,066,255 1,138,481 cE~rEitaz F~r~rn {~aza~ REVENUE AETA~~U ACCOUNT ACCOUNT AC'I'UA1~1S IiUIJG]~T 3ES'~1MATED AI)131i'TIED NIJM138R 1l~SCRIPTION 2069-x049 2009.2010 2009~61D 201fl-2011 30307D #t~1~H - stroa# sesv~ces conn•launons 303514 (3L0 - beach cleaning 345710 813QCcantribuiion . 305715 HUD Intrirn Ag+'ecmnt ltcim/C3rnts 327300 33nginearing svcs • oti~er gouts 327301 13t+gtncaring svos~- C1P plbjects 327302 33nginearhtg svcs - Inter~tepartmontal 343585 Hulnnn Itsslatians - lralr Flouring l,t~ts,aau i,uaa,ui~ 1,V8'J,Ui~L i,uav,vix 73,279 75,000 73,040 73,000 G5,95D 59,804 60,$40 44,580 47,400 112,sOD 129,4DD p 329 ~~ D D D 84,132 84,798 84,796 84,79& 44,212 64,716 U4,71b G4,71G 0 B,OOD _-__ -_ D .122,700 Totnl lntc!•govcYntnentnl ptllcr ltevcnues 3030130 RTR • 37t18 AdYC!'tl9ing Cevennes 305700 p13MA - conlrlb to emergs:lscy management 307600 ~ Ali - Alnerloo Taxak~lo Salos 308722 1'Cacecds of Rue#ion - onlino 309280 Recovery oFchar$ed off accounts 311934 Naming ItlgUts Revenue 320360 Asltomated teller machistics 32920D Graffiti Control 340000 Contributions and donations 34flDD$ TimeWaleer-1h+blicAcoossl3quipn~ant 3x3D00 Racova'y of prior year expenditures 343100 ltecoveiy of prior year oxl~onses 343300 1Zecovcry on damago clniins 34340D Pro}te+7y rentals 343535 Convenlascc Foe 343550 pemolitian liens and coca+ni#s 343360 lZeturned check rovenue 343590 5ttle ofsaraplci#y p!'ape!'ty 3436 10 Adminstratlve Plbcessing Charge 343630 Copy sales 34365D Ptu~chasediscounts 343664 Vending machines sales 343G7D City 1.1x11 food service commission 343680 Fo+•fcited plans de}~osits 343890 Sslbdivision sheet Tight parts 343700 Claim sct#IeJncnts 344004 Miscellaneous 34411 U Spcec# humps 344(20 5traatdivisionchttrges 344 [ 2I 5b'eet t~ecove+y fens . 344326 ('ark and Itecrea#ion Cost ltecovory Toial Oti3er Revenacs x,789,274 2,944,305 2,895,151 3,400,$34 22,084 18,500 26,093 20,0D0 414,672 GD,OOD 71,962 70,000 4 0 0 300 26,446 20,OOD 16,483 24,000 0 0 9,415 fl 0 175, 0 00 l 75, 4 0 4 175,0 0 0 1,206 1,200 1,240 1,200 4bS D 1,983 0 142,891 67,252 7+1,314 60,251 3,500 .3,506 7,000 3,500 0 400,000 389,9x5 0 9,15D D a a 89,914 192,138 2!2,162 90,000 151,29 146,438 142,43$ 206,238 180,85 8 127,873 138,115 160,000 152;x71 85,606 173,262 239,820 3,707 4,104 3,450 33,257 11,197 90;796 47,182 6S,OD0 16,796 17,004 17,417 26,990 8,779 5,117 6,313 6,000 ! 40,691 162,561 164,354 143,843 4,521 4,104 4,524 4,196 1,518 1,884 1,a2a 1,335 15,325 G,pOD G,DOD 3,OOD 12,6x6 50,000 34,000 56,004 166,124 D D 4 132,472 38,876 37,947 47,126 5,295 6,004 6,000 6,000 715,223 640,573 UD8,811 555,575 860,3377 775,265 807,427 718,080 0 208,172 208,287 _ . 397,351 3,309,722 3,307,957 3,528,580 2,876,662 ~i,EYENUE DETAIL ACCOiIl~iT ACCULIIV'I' A.C'ttTALS BU1;1GlEx' ESTIMATED ADt31PT~;D NUMBBn OBSCR1PTiD1V 2048•Z009 2009-2D10 Z009•xD1,0 x010.21111 tnterttutcl Charges 344170 75'at91e Bngitteering Cost Reanvet'y - C1P 344220 Capitsl l3trdget Cast Recovery -CIA 344270 i~inance Cost Reoovery - CI1P 344290 Humsn itelntians Cast Recovery C[h 344400 lntot•dopsrtnteutal Services 350350 lrxlircct castrccavea•y - CCCIC 350400 Traasfvrfl'om t3cner•ai I.itel~ility Fund 350415 7~1a8fE~'f{'Olt! W01'ILOI'S~Cvmp 952210 '! ranafer 0•otn City lull CIP Fund 352280 Transfer fl'om Sireat C11' Fund 352480 'Ilr'ansFer f1•am MiS Fand 352500. Transferf['am Employee Denet'fts Fund 352520 Transfer tlom Other Funds 'l'btal Ilttek'1VIn(1 Cllargvs 7,334 6,000 6,004 6,000 177,307 242,634 242,634 256,197 709,475 864,524 869,527 788,922 0 0 5,000 82,512 5,031,522 4,5cI3,OBS 4,327,070 3,931,582 6,439 5,8D0 S,80D 3,500 0 2,858,492 2,716,737 0 fl ~ 2,4$3,525 ~ 2,483,525 0 129,073 0 0 0 fl 340,944 i 70;47x o 0 •513,283 513,283 0 0 3 96,000 196,400 0 0 S75,D00 __ 575,Ofl0 G,20Qfl00 6,OG0,94S 12,684,287 (2,13!,048 11,268,713 Total Revtnues 8c IntertYntii Cilnrpes 190,860,798 1935,653 !95,375,66'] _ __ 198,266,324 Toinl Cantle Available 222 509,170 l93 245 6S3 225 38i 243 224 529985 GENERAL FUND (I,Q20) EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY OXtGANIZATI4N ~Y.)I4JB ~'l~t (.. ------ O1tCr~1~IM~3'IiQN I ZO 8-20139 I 20€19 X010 ~Z8€t9. OfDD 2D Op p~A Gattt:t•sl Covoritmant 10001 Mnyor 14?,102 ]28,172 121,818 125,212 In010 Clty Cot--tef1 97,239. 93,683 93,173 65,880 10500 Clty Attorney 2,133,499 2,242,984 2,215,816 2,144,520 101D0 Clty Mauager'st3Flice 759,799 469,513 461,409 4GO,U12 10150 ACMofAdntinServicas 1$3,597 162,292 ]66,343 157,572 14250 J--rcrgovcrnmentalltalatlons 224,179 255,497 252,004 253,925 I02GD ACM - CummuniiyServJccs 228,479 228,971 227,301 I$S,43b 10265 Clears City lnitJalives 0 48,000 39,636 65,624 t027D 6co-~ontia 1?avolopntent OfFtice 359,056 318,647 317,728 0 I0330 J3ducatian Advisor 96,323 0 0 0 11470 Publfe Jni'orntstion 526,547 487402 • 438 90B 2911 l29 C1ty Ma--ngar 2,378,D41 1,9'10,322 1,423,525 1,413,297 10020 City 3cca'atary 1,009,229 SGO,D99 557,124 1,046,759 J"Inn--ae 1070D Directo-•af>?inanca 307,157 330,344 321,693 358,687 10751 Accounting Opei~tions 2,048,313 2,086,716 2,072,368 2,077,337 10830 Cash Managemcnt 363,367 335,486 324,6$0 32$,040 10840 Central Cnshlering 568,512 877,629 646,328 841,672 1 I OOD Management & Budget 570,296 589,209 569,249 560,793 I IDIO Capital Dudgclie-g 84,273 171,665 171,666 181,640 11030 Performance Ope+tttions Reviaws 0 0 0 (600,000) l 1040 Salttry SAVings 0 t) 555 0110 1rlnn--ea 4,241,938 4,391,057 4,345,944 3,143,169 1 1450 Hunters 1Zclntiats 942,084 470,109 420,319 323,430 11451 11u-ttan Reletict-s -Fair Housing 0 0 0 63,980 E 1452 A1]A Cont}tAsnce 75 862 78 3D3 83,836 8G 869 HatEtnn Rclatlo-ts 517,947 498,412 304,156 474,279 11400 Human Jteson-res 1,294,974 ],]49,132 1,131,2x3 1,109,242 1410 ~tudcnt lntcrn 1}ro$ra+n 26,745 0 0 0 11415 'Ii~ining 216,313 211478 211,978 203 089 Eltt-nntt Rosourcas 1,558,029 1,361,110 1,343,201 1,312,331 Mt+-riclpnl Ca-tt•t ]0400 Muni Court-Judicial 433,7L] 910,289 908,154 925,E9G 10410 B-tviromnental Court ]75,008 4 0 0 10420 1)otention Facility 1,345,345 ],137,548 1,155,958 1,129,?GS 10430 Mu-ticipal 3uvcnile Court 236,748 34,488 34,488 0 10440 Muni Court-Administration 2,353,639 2,427,358 2,4D0,038 1,991,502 10475 Mtini Court-City Maesl-als 719,554 672,737 63'1,305 5G 1,492 t 2899 Assessment Ccnter 177,273 48,348 31,872 t} 13670 Volunteer Ct;ntar 8,450 23 594 23 594 IO,OOD MtnttciltAl Court 5,449,688 5,254,362 5,143,410 4,617,954 L. ..~ ..... ~ .. - G~N~RA.~ ~u~rn t~a~a~ . ~XI'E~IDITURE D ~'TA,~L BX OR~,A,1-1IZ,A.TION ©RG 011GAi41ZATIOIV AGTUAI,S DC7DG~'I' 17,51'IMAT1gD ADflP1'~A NUMIIT~R NAML~ 2008•Z009 2009 x010 2009-x010 2R10.2D11 Muaeutns 13490 Coypus Christi Musemn [,530,3x3 1,574,066 1,567,895 1,527,636 13493 CalurrtbusShips 109 465 160 225 135 329 150 614 Nlasettnts ~ 1,639,78$ 1,734,292 1,703,224 1,678,251 Totnl General Co~e1•t~mcnt 14,172,480 18,234,495 17,961,392 1 6,091,651 Public Snl'cty Flt•e 11950 BmergeracyManagonient 352,601 449,674 416,848 419,105 l ! 955 Pipeline Transpartatio» 38,028 ~ 0 0 0 12000 . Fit+C Adntiaislration 1,402,717 1,533,637 1,605,640 1,440,$34 I2010 Fine Stations 31,363,566 33,2G3,?14 33,169,833 36,658,549 12020 Fi{tiNrovcntiot~ !,3!8,823 1,378,886 1,364,425 1,440,154 12030 FireTrniaiing 1,!63,443 1,140,828 1,090,308 1,10!,168 12040 sire Cotrmunicutions 30t,34I 295,392 296,840 294,921 1205D Fire Apparatus & Shop 720,786 719,588 674,868 679,156 12060 FirC Dept, Spooia[ Serv[ces 199,396 21$,771 207,510 226,1 G9 12460 Firs Support Services 149,522 154,341 14S,G77 129,2~J4 35100 City At~~balance Opcratiorts 1,896,832 1 800 467 1479 +109 2 020,422 Ftt,a 38,907,455 40,952,649 40,952,148 44,409,76$ Police 10493 Recllight Phota 13rtfot•cement 736,041 0 0 0 1 ] 700 Polito Administration 3,222,7$4 3,Iti0,339 3,159,901 3,236,983 i 1720 Crit~iinsr! Ittvestigptian 5,798,898 5,966,139 G,20D,273 6,005,422 11730 Spscinl Services 2,7$4,033 3,399,822 3,3$8,400 3,270,464 11740 lJnifar~ipivision 33,468,465 35,818,952 3G;E75,927 35,925,058 11750 Centl'al information 1,403,846 1,651;425 1,578,888 1,449,620 11770 Veliielc Povnd Operation 99D,248 9$7,74? 873,004 883,334 11780 Forensics Services Ai~isian 1,3G4,47S 1,395,209 1,316,981 !,406,51 G 11790 PoiiaeTrnlning 1,SS3,710 1,322,263 1,300,31E 1,261,066 11800 ivletroCom 4,679,075 4,746,613 4,890,770 5,107,526 1 t 801 1'olioe Camputar Support 755,9GS 726,418 741,260 740,252 11802 9-I.1 Cal1 Delivery Wireline 390,992 403,324 413,617 403,05 11803 9-f~l Call Delivery Wireless 233,903 497,43( 467,294 268,613 11830 Criminallntoiligeuae 725,758 981,895 93$,124 !,081,333 11850 School C~'ossing punrds 802,237 781,197 655,397 S10,13B 11860 Pm•lcing Conrt+ol 250,003 229,980 226,273 217,334 11870 Police [3u[iding Mainz & Operations 1,712,'746 1,3G8,29S 1,393,087 1,346,441 11$80 Beach Safety 114,190 159,391 159,391 156,204 11885 Paliee Special Scents Overtime 265,558 217,175 217,175 215,557 12335 71'at7ic Safety - SB 11 19 59,x59 0 d 0 60035 Transfer-Police Grants Csh Matoh 133 376 G9 412 G4 412 G1,GG7 Police 63,444,983 63,785,046 64,!65,691 63,748,624 TotnlXiublie3afety !02,352,038 104,737,745 !05,717,840 108,158,391 Hestlth Scrvlcas GL~NT•1RAL FUND (1020) Ii1XPT;NDITY~Y~ bETAIL B'Y OR.~ANIZA~`I4N ORG 01tGANIZATJQI~1 ACTUALS BUI1GIti'I' 1G19T'IMATED ADgi!'I'Ir'n NUM1B]E12 IVAM13 2008-2flfl9 2069-2014 2069-2010 2410 xOSI 12610 I2G15 12630 tZGaO 12650 12660 12670 12680 L248I 12690 12700 12800 12810 12820 32830 12840 1285q [2070 124$0 12900 12910 (2915 129ao 129a0 32950 13005 13022 13023 13025 13026 33028 13030 13041 13105 13127 13210 13222 13310 13445 13700 13$25 60031 Izaoo Houltll AGrointstratton 794,798 JU7,i3z tf4tl,uUJ 809,77D HcalthOfiiceF3wllding 452,492 354,761 354,389 491,593 T13CIinic•Healthl]eparhncnt 80,469 101,391 101,422 70,16] Vital StatlaNcs 148,443 161,314 149,236 168,503 6avlrantnontaE Health inapsctiolta 279,499 342,716 398,819 404,450 STp C11plc 102,466 113,039 113,129 110,733 lnnttuniuttlon 89,624 78,426 114,629 133,813 Vector Cflntrrol 447,121 439,668 $07,630 403,776 Animal Conttbl 1,3$1,290 1,402,396 1,402,231 ~ 1,3 15,884 Low Cost Spay Tlouter Clinic 155,105 154,872 143,242 192,889 ]dwsing Health Scrvlcas 550,263 541,394 515,069 417,506 Laboratory ~ 131,592 155992 1S6lS2 147,064 11aa1tG 5et•viees 4,412,742 4,753,499 ' 4,723,973 4,576,140 I,i~rar'y ServlCes Central Library 2,5$8,289 2,327,158 2,242,932 2,094,349 Anita & WT IVeyland Public L,ibj•Itry 439,434 432,918 412,722 41t),g~8 Greenwood Branch 362,$47 39S,GG0 390,390 394,701 i~orthwos#Htrrnch 340,788 359,734 349,915 358,443 Janot F~ Fla~'tp nwblic Library 307,641 323,069 321,944 332,469 dr. C. P. Garcia Pubflc Lihrary 224,384 297,196 294,b12, 313494 I,IbrnryServlcps 4,2G3,S84 4,135,73E 4,012,514 3,904,453 Pnrlts Ri ltecrentlplt Life Gtiard3nglFirst Response Beach Mairltcnancel8afety OffICC Of Dll'eCtGr Park Operations Tourist 1]istrict Park CCttstruptipll Beach Operations Beach Parking 1'euttits Plrogram Services Administration Oso rZeereat[pn Centcr Llndalp Recreation Center Oak Parlcltecreation Center Joe Ga-xa Recreadon Center Coles Recreation Centcr Senior Community Servioos Athletics Oporations Aquatics Operations Nalatol9um Pvol FIBB Tctulls Center Opar'etlous A! Kruse Tennis Center C7porations Snmrner I'~vgrams Operations Latchkey Operations Ctrlttn'al Services Arts Swbgrantiug ?'rnnsfer far Senior' Community Services PAr1ts & Recreation Stt'CCt SCI'VICL'S Strcot Office & Yard 389,191 383,659 390,208 413,116 G,S50 4,390 4,390 4,390 805,047 911,46$ 884,439 681,819 5,336,490 4,962,448 4r9G1,GG0 4,664,681 906,322 1,007,724 988,345 1,376,870 0 348,971E 348,970 409,427 835,835 866,078 674,214 764,533 ]?9,670 127,868 125,252 130,924 1,033,144 465,289 AG4,824 487,416 0 143,580 135,978 101,223 0 124,968 118,669 123,784 0 1112,495 71,846 22,913 0 107,140 94,104 50,433 0 102,583 105,091 G 1,620 1,195,223 1, I A 1,999 1,155,891 1,168,160 828,220 760,233 766,376 723,999 1,D15,G03 949,857 932,438 951,779 161,694 150,535 150,535 150,532 127,273 l 72,871 173,23 I 1 G2,03S 69,277 63,832 63,874 G3,3t}0 72,576 0 0 0 2,036,096 2,524,286 2,413,454 2,426,620 349,576 291,510 241,664 208,608 60,995 40,000 40,D00 0 l 66,600 166,600 166,644 166M 15,575,563 15,939,963 15,692,052 15,539,898 1,071,253 ],186,593 1,155,221 1,040,318 GLN~EAL FUND (1020) EXPENbITYJRE DETAXL B'~' ORGANXZATION O><tC OI2GAT1I2ATION ACTIJAL$ Bi7DG11ix ~ST1MA'1`ED ADOPTED NUM161~12 NAMIG 20082409, 1009-201<0 2D119-2010 2010.201! ~24f0 Strcptltecanatruct€on ~ 3,547,275 1,670,324 1,870,326 3,340,955 12420 St~~eet Utility Cut Repairs 468,147 386,275 .393,796 461,772 12430 Asp)ralt Maintenance G 114 989 6,674 445 G 674 32 6 004 356 Sp•cet Servlcas 11,201,665 11,362,923 ] 1,338,627 1 D,847,401 5alltl Waste 12500 Solid Waste Adminisn•ation !,439,364 !,151,034 ],157,7'15 1,412,595 12504 dC Blllatt 7'ransfor Station 993,589 1,?00,016 1,698,042 2,323,789 12505 CeFe Valenzuela Laudflll Operations 708,798 4,683,575 4,680,834 7,701,821 12510 Refliso Colleptian 6,208,925 6,215,718 5,9$4,006 6,941,864 1251 I B~•usl~ Collection 2,282,533 2,604,841 2,606,688 2,416,414 12512 Recycling Collection 1,073,035 1,035,807 1,073,812 71'7,082 12520 Rcfusel)lsposal 8,128,874 5,467,674 5,499,703 1,775,817 12530 Elliott Closurefl'ostclasu+•a expense 95,371 1$2;765 182,765 120,404 13870 Graffiti Glean•up PrajcGt l41 438 243 690 243 695 282 754 Solid Wagt¢ 20,671,926 23,285,197 23,127,321 23,292,637 Davelol~mant Sarvicas Ca~nrnturlty p¢velopmcnt 11500 l+lcJgl~borhood Serv€ccs 11510 Ncigl~borhoad 1nit1A1€ve Program 60470 Trattst'ar to Davalo~nt¢nt 5prviccs Fund Community Aav¢lopntcnt )vngluaer~4rg Services 11155 Engineering Support Services 12300 Trafllc 13ngiireering €2310 Traffics€gnnJs 12320 Sighs & Markings 12330 Residcrttial'1'raffic Management 12460 5tix~et Lighting IingBrtsar lug Services 1,526,402 1,607,408 1,652,x1$ 1,417,405 457,251 348,580 317,339 301,317 2,326,060 1,79.G,~196 T 1,796,496 . ,496 __ 959, ~~ x,309,712 3,752,484 3,7G6,D53 , 2,67$,218 328,813 317,784 317,784 135,152 560,792 SD4,34S 323,233 587,80] 1,156,902 1,2.19,420 1,225,123 1, I $9,32D 1,173,691 1,245,284 1,244,922 1,088,270 52,134 3Cr,595 36,595 D 3,562,775 3 825,673 .3,$25,673_ 3,A2t 935 6,834,607 7,145,061 7,173,329 6,421,978 Totfll peveloir~np~rt Scrvlccs )ion-Delfartmental L~xl~enclitut•es 11,14d,320 10,897,545 10,939,3$2 9,100,196 Oniaitle Agenclea 10860 I~CAD/NC-Admin€stt~tive 1,157,113 1,]7G,8D4 1,187,575 !,242,533 12720 Me:ttaf Plealth 54,000 54,fl00 54,000 54,000 12890 Sister City 17,843 18,000 18,000 18,D40 13850 CCISD Contract 3,48'3 50,040 50,000 50,000 14GGD Major Memberships 79,140 69,279 69,279 69,279 14696 Downtown Management 1]istrict ]4S,000 145,000 145,000 €45,000 14700 Boonomic 17evplapmcnt 196,596 232,679_ __ 232,679 352,32$ outsltle Agancles 1,653,181 1,745,758 1,756,533 1,93I,140 Otiser A.clivltlcs I [405 Incentive Pragren~ 14,537 20,641 24,641 26,641 13b2D Coliseum 2,117 L3,2b8 922,219 0 14670 Vision 2400 132,330 0 D 0 14676 Cable PLC3 Access D 1,232 1,232 0 GP~N~RAL ~`IJND (1Q~0) ~X~END~'x'URE DETAIL ~3Y aRGANI~A'~I4N ORG OIRGATII~A7'10N NUMBL+R AIAM)fli 14715 Schaff el Stroot larking Lot 14729 Flerriaane lko ~ 2008 15100 Boortomlc 1]evalopnxsnt incentives 30010 1ji3collaotiblecccounts 60000 Operathtig'1'ransfera0ut 60020 Transt~r•to Hotel Occupancy `fax Fund 60030 Trausfe~~to Fetle~~allSt Orant Band b040D 7Y•aus(hr to Vfsito~~ Facilities' Fund 40410 Transfer to Storos Fund 60420 T1•a~~sR+r to lv[alntenanoo Servlees i~und 80003 Resvrvc Appropriations . Qona~al Fund 80005 Rcscrva for' Accrued Pay 90100 Refuge of Easl raearl Other' Activities ACxUALS BUAG)1'f YiiSTiMA7'!sD AbOP'lf')lrj} X008 2009 z00s•~o10 2aa9.2010 21110-2011 0 575,000 575,000 0 174,556 0 0 0 33,337 36,400 36,000 348,676 663,767 3G2,OGD 419,491 361,491 0 144,722 144,722 0 0 393,182 393,182 574,000 26,208 0 0 tj 0 175,000 175,940 173,000 317,196 310,212 310,212 330,192 492,000 1,450,180 1,450,180 983,665 0 b1,988 0 432,751 0 0 0 1,80D,OD0 31 0 0 0 !,856,078 3,543,465 4,447,880 4,824,416 Totfil AIon.l)epsr'tinenta111xponditures TQ'~A,L GiL+)~i1?:t2AL FClND xt>±s~RV~p rUR T~1rICC1M13RAIYC1aS R»SBRYRP FOR CQMM['I'Ml•:;i~TS [3N1tl~SEIi,VGA CL05ING BAI.ANCIG 3,509,259 5,289,243 G,2 I , 5,557 192 503 594 198,b3G,3G5 199,117,5__82 198,266,324 1,978,239 0 0 957,9&4 1,067,600 1,Ob7,600 27,069,373 25196060 2S,19G,Ob1 30,005,576 2b,2G3 660 2G 263,660 Mission (1 } Ta opc[~tte a clrainagt syater-- that provides safe, dopondable surfsoe drainage in cash neighborhood that can be maintained easily and a# a reasonable cost; (2) to have a proactive planning process that will ¢nsure that naty clsvalapment does net have a nogative impact an oxisting neighborhoods; (3) to have a fined protection system that wlll protaot the residents of our community; and (4} to itnpravc the environment by in-prov[ng the yuafity of storm water runoff lay remaining in compliance with Environrnea[tal Pratsotian Agency and TC6Q Regulations. CoFlls • To protect homes, bui~-esses and other personal and raa4 proporty fivm flooding during a prolong and intonec • To eutpiay at (east t#ie minimum lave! cnalntenanae needed to keep infl'astiuoture fl[netionei and to stn6ili~,e its nmtcriai from deterioration due [o backlog, ~ To maintain onvironntontal compliance wlti- TFLIBS MS4 perm{t by ernploying best snanagetnont practices to Incprove water gnnlity flowing into raoelving waters, interce# Income ~ 3fl,7b3 O 32,441 0 Sale ofscr~[p/cltyp[aperiy 0 8,899 8,899 0 1'u[•el-asadlseatmte 18 0' 0 0 Trnusf fi• General i;inl+ P'd 8 72,323 y2,S23 D Tc•c[--sf t'r Worlunnu's Comp 0 91,492 9],492 0 Transfer fr Water Division 20,525,000 21,844,184 21,644,184 22,440,9x1 Transfa-• fl•otn MIS Cenci 0 19,111 14,111 0 Transfer fr Ga'oup Ilorlth Ins Fci 0 13,212 ] 3 212 0 Total xa,55S,781 22,D49,421 12,482,362 ZZ,940,901 ~xpend(tures: Perseancl Scrvtces 3,304,437 3,639,855' 3,366,795 3,g45,1S1 Mate-•IaIS $npp3Ees 492,344 557,031 540,637 730,(45 Cantractuni Services 2,908,741 4,266,125 5,900,5]8 4,283,737 Oilier Cli~rgcs 8,162 0 Z5 0 Reserve A}-1-rn(n•Entions 0 1,012,$76 0 20D,OOD Debt Se[~lce 74,067 68,352 50,697 17,542 Scl-oo1s18en-htn-slTrnhiing 14,607 22,363 T,861 17,913 internal Scrv#ces Altecnt(ons 1,850,489 Z,D80,214 2,052,214 2,090,892 Trnnsfc-• Dut 7,786,509 9,583,463 9,583,463 17,73S,d73 Capit~lOutiny ~~ 121,885 347,307 __ 390,907 .150,000 Total 15,551,341 21,580,617 19,843,120 29,223,353 Fltll Time 1;gaivalents. 7S 75 75 Responses to Flood Water in kiome or Business < 2 hr 100.00 Gb.G7 ~ 95.01E 4n-tintiG Poilutian Prevcntian Responses 66,67 33.33 ~ 90,00 °/a Of ACtltat 1.Abt?I' that vas Planned and Scheduled 65,D7 63A0 >= 70.06 (Latin of Actaal Workload to Fucigetcd Lobar 108.A3 t 12.64 ~ 10U.00 STCIRM'tVAT~R FUND (4300) REVENUE DETAiL ACCOUNT ACCOUNT' ACTUALS BUDGET ESTIMATED A13OpTIs.D NUMBI!!12 DESCRIPTION 2008-20t19 2009.20]0 20b4-20I0 2010.20E 1 Unr'escsvcci Rcscr•vetl far rtncumurnuees Itaser'vaci farCamntlrinetsts 0 8,833,475 11,475,589 0 403,271 D 0 0 0 HTl.CiNNINC BALANCE 4 9,23G 34G ] 1 475 589 NON-OPERATING REVU~NU1i Interest Iacvnta 340900 Intvrest on iiivestnsents 34U995 Nat incJDec in FV of Lsvcstmente 341020 Interest eAi'neA-interlluid bort'owing 'Polo I Intcrost Iucv me Other Revetsnc 343590 Sale of saral>Icity property 343GS17 Puroltase disvatmie Totcl Otlivt~ Roveiwa 21,857 0 41,251 0 a,ssa a ~s,55G) o 350 0 247 D 30,7G3 D 32,442 D 6 8,899 8,899 0 i$ 0 0 0 18 ~ 8,899 8,899 ' p TOTAL. NON•OI'ERATING Ri1:VICNUT 30,78[ 8,899 41,840 p II~TI;RI UN D COiVTRI HU'I'I.ONS 350400 Transfer from Cenerpl Liability Fund 350415 Transfer flans Warkntan's Consp 352400 ~'ri•ansfcefl'amWatarAfvis[on 352480 Ti~ansFer firms MIS Fund 352500 T+~+nsfer from Group Health Gtsuranae Fund TOTAL 1NTEItF[1N0 CONTRIBUTIONS 0 72,523 72,523 D 0 91,492 91,492 0 20,525,000 21;844,184 21,844,184 22,940,901 0 19,111 19,111 0 0 13,212 13,212 0 24,525,000 22,040,522 22,040,522 22,940,901 TOTAL RCV C~PUL~ & INTEltTUl~1D CONTRI]3 20 855 78 i 22 049 421 22 082,3G2 22,944 901 TOTAL TUNDS AVAI1,AIiLL~ 20,SSS,78I 22,049,421 3 E 31$ 709 34,41G,~90 STORM WATER TUNA (~3a0) EX~ENDI~'URE DETAIL SX OI~,GANIZATIUN ORG ORGAiV1ZAT1ON ACl'1lAI~S ~ B11bG~T I~STIMATEA ADp>PT~D Mi3MB~lt iVAMX', 2008-2009 2049-2014 20D9-2010 20102011 DaliArtmentnl.Czpenditur•ca 32000 Starm Water edniit+istrAOots 32010 Storm Water Maint&Operatiarts 32020 Starfn Water Bnviinn Svc 32030 SlatUt WA18P Education Sva 32090 Storm Water Pump Stntlar+s 8011 i 5 ttaaerva ApprOp - Slarnt Watar Totnl DcpnrtiricrrtnlLxpencilturas Na++-Dopr+rtn}c~+tni Pxpm+dttu res 1A704 )3ca+w+uicDov-UtilByst(StWtr) 14729 fiurrieaue ]ke -2008 30010 Utility a+isiness OF4ao Cost 55015 •Ot1~er Fi+tanoiag Ci+ar84s 600 i 0 17~+nsfor to (3anarei Fnnd 60130 Tt•nnsfar to petit Serviea GO2.70 T+nusFer to DelstBvc R4sorve Gp340 'ri~rusfer to Util Sys Debt Fursd Gp410 Transfer io Stores I?d 60420 Tronsfar to Mniat Services lid Total Nee-Depm•hue++tal F:xpencllt++r•es TdTAL S'1'ORM WATZ;R FUND (4300) Atljnslnu+efs to IVct Asscte R~S1:RV1~D FO1t LNCUMBI2nPIC1;8 I1;1;8L+RV11D FOR COMMITNI[:P]'C3 UNttCSIaItV~ri ~1.OStt+rc 1~ni.nlvea;; 1,768,479 2,239,833 2,171,717 2,070,259 4,990,3]0 G,2G7,D59 5,800,769 6,790,382 517,142 642,598 627,231 SOl,6i4 411,618 493;803 449,106 565,919 498,923 729,831 607,352 711,852 0 1,412 876 0 200 404 8,176,470 11,376,000 9,GS6,]G9 10,840,026 D 65,28D G5,27t3 51,888 12,605 0 0 0 484,118 487,512 48T,S12 578,424 74,067 G$,3G2 50,697 17,5+42 178,170 294,711 294,711 6,608,636 176,951 133,644 133,644 98,iA5 D ~0 D 198,387 7,360,378 8,669,561 8,669,561 9,919,643 31,572 0 0 0 71,0lD 485 547 485 547 914 702 8,3 84,871 10,204,616 10,1$6,950 1$,383,327 16 561341 2 t 580 617 19 84312D 29,223 353 S 241,9D6 403,271 ~ ~ 0 0 o D 4 8,833,py5 11475 589 4193,137 9,236,346 - 11,~475,589~i 5,193Lt37~ Munlalpal Inforrnatlon Systems The Municipal Informatior; Systems Depar#ment maintains, manages, and operates the Clty'S fiber and wireless networks including a VOIP (voice over Internet protocol) phone system; in addition, MIS manages the City's personal computer leasing program and provides desktop support, All srtterprise appi[cations are managed and supported by MIS staff including email, CIS, Maximo, PeopleSoft (HR & Financlals~, etv. The City's Gall Center and Web Site is also managed by the Gity's MI5 department. Mleslon Lands and supports the introduetfon and use oPinforntation-based technologies by City departments and provides exceptional customer servicos to our oommunlty. Gloals • Cantlnuc to reduce M[S evsts and hole others find ways to use teohaoiagy to reduce their costs • Leverage the City's dI5 system to provide additional vAfue. ~ ~stabiish 3D0 WiFi worker accounts by tite and of the iisca] year ~ Aavelop and hnplentent a business warohauso to provfdo greater access to data far reportlttg and analytios ~ Fund and design a disaster recovery facility at the international air}sor•t ~ Develop and impfcntont s strategic soohnologyplan for the City ' Charges to Airport Fend 199,380 17b,232 176,232 1~9,37x Charges to Liab & Iteneiita I+`d 39,024 51,000 •51,000 33,468 CI-arges to Genera) Ftutd 7,OS0,~37b 9,291,144 9,291,144 8,379,180 Charger to CCDCI)C 384,183 0 0 0 Charges to Go11 Ctrs F<tnd 37,560 34,332 34,332 28,Ob8 Charges to V#sitar• 17ae Fend 514,392 323,592 323,592 332,088 Chntges to lv~f C $G4 9,8211 1,x40 8b4 Charges fa Marina 1'd 24,604 29,808 29,806 29,688 Cltnr•gcs to Maittt SYC$ grf Z98,53b 345,480 34S,48D 241,oba Charges to E+tg 5ervlccs lPd 157,032 _ 18!,800 181,800 203,628 Clrarges to Stores l~ruyd 37,800 411,432 48,432 36,b24 Cftarges to Gas Dlvfsfon 1,325,184 1,3fl7,61b 1,307,6[6 i,id4,b72 Charges to Wastetvnicr Div 1,481,844 1,538,028 1,538,028 5,408,920 CitargesioWntcrAfvisian 2,2?4,760 2,325,540 2,32S,Sa0 1,9?6,688 Gltarges to Storm Water Dlv 708,348 831,87'4 831,876 79b,428 CUat•ges to Davelitanrt Svcs Taal 53x,808 SG4,1S6 564,156 612,7ZtJ 1<sitterest on investments 34,I32 AO,b60 11,481 11,539 Nat XuclDec in k~V of Investmeltts 938 0 (938) 0 Interest Eartrad•Escra-v 170 D O 0 0 Eteeovcry ott tiantaga claims 1,079 a a Sale of seraitleity property 0 4,205 4,1fl5 0 Transf fr Gouc~'nl l.fab Fd 0 116,863 126,865 0 '1•ransf t'r worlrmau's Cotnp 0 ]31,219 131,219 0 xl'ausPer f+brn CCDCUC 0 D 0 17,1$5 Transt'cr' A' Group Hcaltir Ins Fd 0 19,484 19,484 0 'Total 15,127,234 17,381,297 17,342,492 15,4D1,600 ~xpenditnt'es: Personnel Services . ' 7,051,850 7,03b,iG2 6,949,531 6,717,724 111tttortals 5ttpplles 3D4,732 193,453 218,747 514,347 Cpntk'aetuat Sarviees 5,5D2,995 5,208,339 b,ib6,'IbD ?,282,327 other Charges x3,288 190,414 i$8,afo 176,7Dq ltcsarva Apltropa'latfons 0 SD,OOD O 50,0114 Dtsht Set•viee 5choolslSc+uhinrsCl`raiuing 0 46,945 O 17,002 0 17,001 0 0 lrtternaf Set'VieoB At]ocn#lolls 3,5ga,799 3,145,421 3,1a5,d21 SG5,068 Trnnsfcr Out 4 469 17 748,590 [10,778 768,570 110,464 D 25,DDp Capital Ontiny ' ' , 512,079 16 17,72D,14I 17,5bS,D05 15,331,L70 1 otnt , Full Tfrno Gciulvnlet,ts: 1fl5 105 98 Qn•tJmclutarnal ServJco~ %kieip 17eak Calls ~tesolvcd on the Spot ' ~ ~ . , 66~9A~ b3•~88 ~ 50.00 Dn-time JntarnnE service: °/jl Halp I1eSIC {iA118 lt680fYed In ~ $ hOUrs 80.93 - 76.50 >= 64.00 tiquip:nent Availability: Tintwork (9'otal Availabillty) ~ 49.70 - 90.01 ~ 95.00 13quipntent Availabtlity: GibnpWise ('Patel Availability) ~ 99.31 90.'18 y- 95.Ot} 13ryuipmant Availability: Phone Systaai ('!'otal Avaifabili;y) 99.G1 9 G.13 >= 95.00 MUNIGII'AL INFURMATION'SYS~'E1VI~FUND (5210} EkVENUE DETAIL ACCUUI~lT ACCOUNiC ACTIIALS BUDGET ES'fIMAT13D ADOPTIE;D NUlVII3111t DE$Cit;IPTION 2008-2409 2409.2410 2009.281U 2010-201A Unrasetwetl Resok•ved £ar Encumbrances Roecrvecl for Camknltinonts 1,227,444 0 344,243 728,155 566,756 0 0 D p 13EGINNINC [3Al,ANCE Ol'G~RATING I1CV~NIITi; Chak•ges £or SCk'vICe3 3270D0 Charges to Airport }7und 327015 Charges to Linb & llonot'ita Pd 327030 Charges to C1i3nerR1 Fund 327035 Gltakgo:rta CCDCDC 327440 Chargoa to GoIFCtrs Fund 327054 Charges to Visitor Faclllty Fxtnd 3270GD Charges to L~PC 327074 Chak`gce to Marina Fd 327080 Charges #a Malnt Svcs Fd 327085 Cliargcs to B>tg Services Fd 327 i 00 Chargoa to Stares C+uncl 327110 Charges to Gas Dlvisian 32? 12D Charges to Waetetivster Div 327130 Cltargcs to Water Aivislon 327131 Charges #o Storm Water piv 327140 Charges to Dcvelpknnt Svcs Fund Tolnl Charges for Scsrvices TOTAI.OI'R[tATING I21uVENUE NON-OPERA'T'ING ItEVENIlE Interest Ineante 340900 Interest on investments 344995 Net Inc/Dee In FV of lnvestutalt 341145 Interest Earned-Sserow To#nl lnierest income Otlker Reve,kue 343300 Recovery ou damage elain~s 343594 Sale of scrapfcity properly 'T'otal Other Revenue TOTAI. NON-OPLtItATIIYG R1aV~+NUE 1951,599 ~ SGb 756 344 7A3 199;380 176,232 17b,232 129,372 39,024 S 1,400 51,000 33,4ti8 7,050,576 4,291,144 9,291,144 8,379,180 ' 384,183 0 0 0 37,560 34,332 34,332 28,068 514,392 323,592 323,592 332,088 864 9,828 1,140 864 26,604 29,808 29,808 29,688 298,536 345,480 345,480 241,468 157,032 181,$00 181,804 203,028 37,8D0 48,432 48,432 36,624 1,325,184 1,347,616 1,347,616 1,164,672 1,481,844 1,538,028 1,538,028 f,44B,92fl 2,274,760 2,325,540 2,325,540 1,976,688 708,348 831,876 83!,876 796,428 554,80$ 564,156 564k156 612,720 15,090,915 17,058,864 17,450,176 15,372,876 15,09D,915 17,05 8,869 17,050,176 15,372,876 34,132 40,660 11,481 Ii,539 938 0 (938) 0 174 0 0 fl 35,239 40,664 10,544 11,539 1,079 0 0 D D 4.205 , _ 4,205 .~ ~ . D %079 ~- T' 4,2as ~ ~,24s o 36,319 44,565 14,749 11,539 INTL~RFUNU Ct?NTItIDUT10N5 350404 ~ Transf f1• Genct~al Liao Fd 0 E25,8G5 IZb,865 0 35041 S 'lyansf fi• Workman's Comp 0 13I,219 131,219 0 352485 7'ransf£i•CCDCDC 4 0 0 13,185 352500 '1'ransler fr C,rcup 1-lenlth fns Fd 6 19 484 l9 484 0 TOTAL INTL1tf~UND CONTIi.ISUTI(ONS 0 277,568 277,568 17,1$5 TOTALTiti:V1;NUE.4~.iNT1?Ri+1lNT)CONTRIB - 15,127,234 ~ 17,381,297 17342,492 15401,600 TOTAL C~'UNDS AVAILASI,B I7 078,833 17 381297 17 949,249 15 745,843 N,CIIN~CIPAL I~FOR.MA'I`~UN >~Y~T~M (5~1.U) E~PEk~DITURE ~ExAII1 BY 4It.GA~1rTIZ,t~T~O~i pRG ORGAIVIZA'1'IQN AC'£UA1.S 13UACGT EST1l4IATEA ADQPTRII NU1NB>~R k~AMG 2008.2DD9 2009x010 2009.2010 2010-2011 gcirartmantal L~xpe»dlturos 1 1475 >3•Government Services r}p440 MIS Adnrinisl~nlivn 40420 M1SClratamerSa•vices 80430 W1 / Fi - Aum Motor Rending 40450 MIS telephone SorVlGOs 40470 M!S vperatione 48480 Copnectivi~ylHardwaib Iniknstructurc F 40490 MLS-W1rolass • 44495 M[S•ApplicatlcnSopt-Palica/MC 80070 lResorve Approp • MIS Rnnd Total 1lapartntentnl laxpc~~ [iitnr4s kVon-geparlmenlnl Cxlre~itlinnas 14729 Hurricane 1lce - 2008 60000 OpcrAting Transfers Out Total 1'Ion-gepa~~tnientn! >Csxponcllqu•vs 1,265,833 1,496,038 1,370,603 1,365,138 722,848 842,348 842,348 802,GS8 1,451,O1S 2,$4G,15~1 2,846,409 2,652,438 1,508,724 1,x92,13A 1,293,013 1,42],483 926,137 1,083,163 ],0$'1,8 i0 330,854 • a,b7S,2S7 a,9G4,G90 4,964,659 4,217,49$ ],451,028 1,L72,990 1,172,944 i,S53,b42 • 992,406 0 0 0 3,518,570 3,204,049 3,218,649 2,937,46.1 0 ~ 30 000 0 SO 400 tG,511,81G 16,95!,571 16,79b,43S 15,331,1?0 261 0 0 0 0 768,570 ?b8 570 0 2G] 768,570 7GB,S70 0 TUTAL MUNICII'AI,1Ni'G. S'YSTLM (5210} ii[~SC~RVG1)1rOR L~NCUM1~12ANCI~B R~SL~RVC11 I'Ellt COMMITML~i~1T5 Ul~lRSSL~RVCD 3G,512,Q77 17,720,!41 17,565,005 k5,331,f70_ SG6,73G 0 0 o 344,243 414,673 CT"OS1~tG l3Al.ANCL~ 566,756 344,243 414,673 PROPOSAL TQ CONDUCT AN ANALYSIS ON PRIVATIZATION OF CITY FLEET SERVICES FAR THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI RFP BI-005 7-11 DECEMBER 1, 2010 MERCURY ASSOCIATES, INC. C~OOU17 December 1, 2010 Mr. Michael Barrera Assistant Director ofi Financial Services City of Corpus Christi 1201 Leopard Street Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Dear Mr. Barrera: Mercury Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal in response to your RFP BI- 0057-11for an analysis on the privatization of City services. We are proposing to evaluate the fleet maintenance program, where our company is the recognized expert in the industry. Mercury Associates is the largest dedicated fleet management consulting firm in North America. The members of our company have provided consulting services to over 500 clients with fleets of as few as 50 and as many as 50,000 vehicles and pieces of equipment. Additional information on our firm's ability to conduct a successful project for the City is provided in the body of our proposal. However, we would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to a few of the key strengths of our firm. Our Fleet Management Experience. In contrast to other consulting firms, our employees have extensive experience managing government fleet operations -not just studying them. Most of the members of our firm have served as fleet managers in both the private and public sector for such prominent jurisdictions as the City of Houston, Las Angeles County, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the United States Air Force, TRW, the Denver RTD, the City of Charlotte, and Santa Clara County. Consequently, we understand the day-to-day challenges of managing a fleet and meeting customers' needs for safe, reliable, and efficient vehicles and equipment. Our Fleet Management Consulting Experience, As critical as hands-on experience is to the provision of practical advice and implementable recommendations, it is not a substitu#e for bona fide management consulting expertise and a proven track record of performance in the consulting profession. No consulting firm in the country can match the experience, recognized expertise, and reputation for high-quality work in the fleet management field of Mercury Associates. Mercury's principals and associates have worked with mare than 500 clients including many of the most prominent public and private sector organizations in the country. A partial and representative list ofi our clients includes: 16051 Comprint Circle Gaithersburg, MD 211877 • 301 519 0535 phone • 301 519 053b fax City of Corpus Christi December ~, 2010 Page 3 • Federal Government agencies such as the U.S. Army, NASA, U.S. Marine Corps; General Services Administration, State Department, Navy, Department of Homeland Security, National Park Service, and the Department of the Interior; • More than half of the Sta#es in the country including Texas, California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, and New York. • Prominent Counties including, San Francisco, Orange, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, San Bernardino, San Diego, Harris {Houston, TX}, Mecklenburg (Charlotte, NC}, Pinellas (Tampa, FL), and Shelby {Memphis, TN); • All ten of the largest Cities in the country as well as a number of additional prominent jurisdictions including Fart Worth, .Reno, Portland, Seattle, Boise, Austin, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Orlando, Anchorage, and Vancouver; • Fortune 500 Companies including Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Sprint, Siemens, AT&T, DuPont, General Motors, Hess Oil, McGraw Hill, Genetech, Aramark, 3M, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Disney, and Westinghouse. • Several Municipal Utilities and Investor Owned Utility Companies such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Seattle Public Utilities, Washington Water and Sewer Authority, Honolulu Board of Water Supply, Pacific Gas & Electric, Georgia Power, and Southern California Gas. • A number of Transit Distric#s including the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, St. Louis Metro, and transit organizations in the cities of Chicago, Detroit, Albuquerque, Charleston (WV), and Durham (NC}. • Several Universities including the University of Utah, UCLA, Oregon State, Clemson, the University of Wisconsin, the Citadel, the University of Oregon, UMASS, the University of Iowa, and the University of Arkansas. Our knowledge of fleet management best practices. One indication of the stature that our firm enjoys in the industry is the extent to which we are asked to speak at industry conferences and to author articles in magazines and trade journals. For example, members of our firm have spoken at a dozen conferences in the past year fior organizations such as the National Association of Fleet Administrators, the American Public Works Associa#ion, the National Conference of State Fleet Administrators, Government Fleet Expo, and many more. In addition, we have authored many articles for industry periodicals and have been contributed to six NAFA and APWA publications on fleet management issues. No other group of fleet management consultants can approach this level of involvement in the industry. Sample articles that demonstrate our expertise in the fleet management field are available on our website at www.mercury- assoc.com. City of Corpus Christi December 1, 2010 Page 4 Expert and impartial advice. Unlike some other consulting firms, we do not believe that it is appropriate to apply a "one size fits all" benchmarking template or software product to all types of fleets in the country. That fact of the matter is that conditions in Florida are different, -than in California, as they are also different in Texas. Using a benchmarking or certification software program to apply the same set of metrics to all fleets, in our opinion, is not a valid approach to analyzing any complicated business activity. Such canned benchmarking approaches aver simplify fleet operations and miss important content and {especially) context considerations (such as geography, organizational culture, extent of unionization, politics, local economic situation, etc.) that often are of fundamental importance. When it comes to knowledge of best practices, benchmarks, industry trends, and innovative ways to conduct business we do not need to conduct hasty surveys or dust off stale canned benchmarking data to provide our clients with sound advice on how to improve their fleet management practices. Rather, we have developed an in-depth understanding of these issues through our experience as both consultants and fleet managers. It seems to us that this is 'the primary reason that organizations hire cansuf#ants in the first place and is the foundation of the value that we can bring to this project for the City. Significant Relevant Experience. No firm in the country can provide the City with a team of consultants that have more relevant experience in the area of assessing the feasibility of outsourcing fleet services than our firm. We have assisted dozens of organizations with this issue including recent projects with Fort Worth and Harris County. Our consultants have also completed similar projects for the states of Florida, South Carolina, California, and Virginia; the cities of Brownsville, Tyler, Huntington Beach, Dallas, Wilmington (DE), Vancouver (BC), Members of our firm have extensive experience working in Texas and have five employees based in the state. In addition to the projects listed above we have also completed general fleet consulting projects for San Antonio, Austin, and Houston among many others. The capabilities of a large "firm. Most other firms providing fleet management consulting services are actually either sole practitioners or individuals working for genera! transportation consulting firms. Since sole practitioners have no full-time permanent staff beyond the owner of the company and general consulting firms have few if any full-time fleet management consultants, they have limited capacity to cover all fleet management issues in a comprehensive manner and to work on multiple projects at the same time. While they may try to portray themselves as substantial firms by including retired fleet managers or other independent subcontractors in their proposals, we da not believe that this approach results in a through and consistent analysis of a client's fleet operation. As the largest fleet management consulting firm in the country, Mercury Associates, in contrast, can provide the City with a staff of full-time fleet City of Corpus Christi December 1, 2010 Page 5 management consultants who complement each other with their in-depth knowledge of various fleet management disciplines. Moreover, you can be assured that we have the capacity to focus on this project and to meet timeFine commitments -regardless of what other projects we are working on. The principal point of contact far our firm is relating to this proposal is: Mr. Randy Owen Senior Vice-president 16051 Comprint Circle Gaithersburg, MD 20877 704-906-8898 rowen(c~mercu ry-assoc.com In sum, we are confident that Mercury Associates can provide the City of Corpus Christi with a consulting team whose skills and demonstrated experience -bath as industry professionals and as consultants -will ensure that this study is conducted in a highiy efficient, effective, and responsive manner. We appreciate being given the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ~~ ~~ Randall G. Owen Senior Vice-President Proposal fo Provide Fleef Nlana_gemenf Consulfinq Services Table of Contents BACKGROUND AND APPROACH ...............................................................................1 OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION ................... .....................................1 PROPOSED APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................1 APPROACH ..............................................................................................................1 SERVICE PHILOSOPHY .......................................................................................1 GUIDING PRINCIPALS .........................................................................................2 . INFORMATION GATHERING AND EVALUATION TECHNIQUES .......................4 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................5 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .......................................................................7 FIRM OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................7 FLEET MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES .................................................$ FLEET INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES ................................................9 CLIENTS ...........................•---.....................................,............................................10 PRINCIPALS AND SENIOR PROFESSIONALS ....................................................18 STAFF ASSIGNED TO THIS PROJECT .................................................................25 COMPARABLE PROJECTS ...................................................................................25 EXAMPLES OF OUTSOURCING DECISIONS ......................................................26 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................27 COST PROPOSAL ............................................................................:........................29 Proposal to Provide Fleet Ma~aageinent Consulting Services BACKGROUND AND APPROACH OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION We understand that the City of Corpus Christi is seeking proposals from experienced and qualified firms to assist analyzing the feasibility of outsourcing certain municipal functions -including fleet maintenance services. Mercury Associates is interested in being considered for the analysis of fleet maintenance #unctions. We understand Corpus Christi has a population of just under 300,000, making it the eighth-largest city in Texas. We understand the City has a budget across all funds of $673 million. Vlle understand the Fleet Maintenance Division is responsible for 1,850 vehicles and has an annual budget of around $13.3 million. PROPOSED APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY in the following paragraphs we have outlined our approach and proposed methodology for an engagement with the City. Approach Service Philosophy Mercury Associates is, first and foremost, a service company. Our corporate goal is quite simple: to serve clients. We believe that the more than 500 organizations, both big and small, that have engaged the consulting services of our principals and staff over a continuous period of 20 years is the best testament to our ability to achieve this goal. We understand that the decision to engage a consultant is a momentous one for many organizations, often acted upon only after all other possible avenues for solving a problem or answering a question have been exhausted. We recognize that many fleet managers spend years trying to secure funds to hire a consultant, and that, once secured, such funds must generate a significant "return on investment." Accordingly, our philosophy is to provide consulting services that 1 } address needs that our clients cannot address themselves (whether because of a lack of time, capability, or objectivity and credibility}; and 2) enable our clients to achieve cost savings and other tangible and intangible benefits whose economic value far exceeds the cost of our services. One of the keys to running our business in accordance with this philosophy is to employ structured, time-tested methodologies and analytical tools that save us time and our clients' money while producing logical, defensible findings, practical recommendations, and "implementable" solutions. We do not believe in or practice the "trust me" approach to consulting, in which clients are expected to accept certain conclusions and recommendations simply because they are made by a consultant. Our goal is to produce results that can withstand scrutiny and for which we are willing to be held accountable. .. Proposal fo Provide Fdeef Management Consulting Service The other key to fulfilling our client service mission is to interact with our clients. Fundamentally, good consultants are change agents, and convincing an organization to change the way it manages its fleet or any other facet of its business requires securing the confidence and trust of decision makers and other stakeholders. Doing so requires that we not only understand those issues, challenges, and opportunities that all of the organizations we have served share in common (so that we can apply our industry expertise to each new client situation), but also the features, characteristics, constraints, and foibles that make each organization unique. Consultants who ignore the uniqueness of each client they serve often employ aone- size-fits-all approach to their work and, in particular, their recommendations. We try to avoid this by communicating with as many stakeholders as possible in each organization we serve, so that we can understand the different perspectives that collectively define an organization's fleet needs and fleet management practices. Our goal is to determine the value proposition of each consulting project for each stakeholder. By this we mean the ability of the project to meet the needs and goals of -that is, to provide value to -each stakeholder.. For instance, executive management may be looking to this project to cut fleet costs; fleet user departments may expect it to validate their need for newer vehicles of their choosing; and mechanics may be hoping for recommendations that they be provided with more technical training and better tools. While these are not necessarily mutually exclusive goals, it may not be easy for the City to achieve them all at ante, especially in the current economic and fiscal climate. In order to ensure that different and potentially competing goals are reconciled with one another and prioritized, we urge our clients to conduct periodic stakeholder meetings throughout the course of a project like this one so that each party's wants and needs can be put on the table and but also considered in the context of what makes sense for the larger enterprise. !n the absence of proactive discussion that tempers expectations and builds consensus, support for some key improvement initiatives may be lacking in some quarters and the overall success of the project may be reduced. The success of Mercury Associates' client service philosophy can be measured in several ways: the numbers of years we have been serving clients; the number of clients, we have served; the amount of money our clients have spent on our services; and the duration of our client relationships. By all of these standards, we believe that we have served our clients well. Guiding Principals We have also identifed certain guiding principles in the course of working with more than 500 client organizations - and training thousands of fleet management professionals - to improve their fleet management and maintenance practices. We believe that understanding and acting on these principles is crucial to any organization that wants to provide fleet management services efficiently and effectively. We discuss each of them briefly below. ~~u~ Proposal to Provide Fleet Managemenf Consulteng Services Quality. The quality of the services provided by a fleet management organization is of paramount importance because, to put it simply, without vehicle and equipment users there would be no need for such organizations. The most important measure of the performance of these organizations is the level of service #hey provide to their customers, that is, the safety, availability, suitability, reliability, efficiency, and environmental soundness of the vehicles and equipment they provide to organizations that need such resources to perform their jobs well. Low-quality services directly affect the operational readiness, safety, performance, and costs of vehicles and equipment used by the County, Cost. Any organization can provide high-quality services if cost is no object. Few of us, alas, have the luxury of working for such organizations -whether in the public or private sectors. ~ The costs of the assets and services provided by an organization are important at two levels. First, ail agencies and employees, regardless of whether they deliver a "front-Fine" service such as refuse collection or a support service like vehicle maintenance -have an overarching fiduciary responsibility to use taxpayers' money wisely. Second, in contrast to a service Gke law enforcement, most fleet management services can be performed by private-sector organizations. Consequently, the need to provide services that are competitive in quality and cost with those offered by contractors and vendors is an inescapable reality of public-sector fleet management in the 295 century. Tactics. Fleet services organizations have always had to perform many different vehicle-related activities every day: replacing vehicles, scheduling vehicles for maintenance and repair services, assigning work orders to mechanics, farming out certain jobs to vendors, ordering parts, submitting warranty claims, supervising mechanics, processing vendor payments, preparing management reports, and so forth. However, technological, regulatory, and other developments over the last decade or so have significantly increased the attention fleet organizations must devote to management activities that have nothing to do with vehicles and equipment per se. High-performance fleet organizations today must handle demands encompassing everything from identifying vehicles far replacement to writing technical specifications; from contract negotiation and vendor performance control to risk management and human resources management; from information technology to cost accounting and financial reporting. Under these circumstances, there is a danger in organizations getting caught up in the demands of pertorming some tactical activities -- trying to ensure that new vehicle bid specifications identify all standard equipment instead of making sure that the organization gets the right vehicle for the job and the most competitive cast, for instance -while neglecting others. • Strategy. A strategic approach to interrelationships among and betty business management functions t understood and managed. For requires effective vehicle acquisition Deficiencies in any one of these a fleet management is ane in which the een the many vehicle management and hat an organization must perform is both example, optimizing vehicle performance , maintenance, and replacement processes. yeas can undermine fleet performance no ~~~ Proposal fo Provide Fleet Managemenf Consulting Ses-vices matter how good an organization's policies and procedures are in the other two. Moreover, effective performance in each of these areas requires coordination with other non fleet-related processes. It is difficult to maintain a fleet ofi reasonable age and condition, for instance, when a fleet organization is hamstrung by insufficient funding. A strategic approach to fleet managemen# and maintenance is important, then, for managing the fleet operation in its totality, for avoiding or minimizing "stove-piped" business practices and information systems, and for ensuring that decisions made in one area do not undercut capabilities or performance in another. Information Gathering and Evaluation Techniques We will utilize a number of review and evaluation techniques in this project, as briefly outlined below: Condition and Performance Measurement. Data availability permitting, we will employ quantitative measurement techniques to develop an understanding of the soundness of the current fleet management and operating practices included in the scope of the study. This involves computing performance statistics for key attributes of fleet performance and comparing them against sui#able internal and industry benchmarks -where such standards exist. In addition to serving as a valuable diagnostic tool, performance measurement adds an important element of objectivity, and hence, credibility to our findings and conclusions. Business Process Mapping and Gap Analysis. The other key method we will use to evaluate fleet .management practices is process mapping and gap analysis. This involves ascertaining 9) if and how specific management and operating processes are formally defined; 2) the soundness of their design - e.g., their logic, thoroughness, compliance with applicable regulations, responsibility and authority for execution, and so forth; 3) their consistency with industry best practices; and 4) the nature of their actual execution, which is a function of how they are communicated {e.g., through a policy and procedure manual) and how employees are held accountable for using them. interviews. We will conduct customer, employee, and other stakeholder interviews as necessary to obtain relevant supporting data and information regarding fleet management and maintenance practices. Site Visits. No amoun# of second-hand information can substitute for first-hand inspection of facilities and vehicles, and observation of day-to-day work activities. Simply walking through motor pool and maintenance facilities and yards and observing the number, condition, and appearance of vehicles waiting for service andlor waiting to be picked up by customers; the layout, age, condition, orderliness, and cleanliness of the facility; and the general level of employee activity all provide clues about the performance of a fleet management organization #hat give direction to our interviews, process mapping, and data analysis efforts. ~`l~_~/t~l1~11 4 Proposal to Provide Fleet Management Consulfince Services Comparisons to Industry Best Practices. An important technique we use for evaluating the current business processes and practices of our clients is through comparisons to industry best practices. Fleet management "best practices" are ways of organizing and conducting business that reflect state-of-the-art thinking and technology and produce the best business outcomes. They are recognized by industry experts and best-of--breed fleet management professionals as ways of managing fleet operations that produce superior results in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, customer satisfaction, and managerial confidence and support. They are formally presented in manuals and periodicals published by industry groups such as the National Association of Fleet Administrators and the American Public Works Association; in presentations made by speakers at the national and regional conferences of such associations; in articles published in independent trade publications such as Governmenf Fleef and Ufilrfy Fleet Managemenf; and in the policy and procedure manuals of individual, leading- edge fleet management organizations. Methodology We understand the City has devised a standard methodology for assessing the feasibility of outsourcing municipal functions across the enterprise. We have reviewed this methodology and believe that it represents a comprehensive approach that provides a blueprint for consideration of all relevant factors. For #leet maintenance, we believe the overarching philosophy should be to select service delivery option that provides the best services at the best cost. We define this as the best balance of service levels and cost that result in the highest level of value to the City. Since fleet maintenance impacts the productivity of nearly all City operations, high quality service levels should take precedence over cost in determining the optimal business and organizational model for fleet maintenance (and related) services. In assisting the City with this project we would propose to complete the following activities: Define the Scope of the Po#ential Outsourcing. In this task we will determine which fleet and radio management functions should be considered for inclusion in a potential outsourcing process. We will look at every aspect of this decision that will affect the ability of the County to achieve its goals and objectives, including: • Process considerations such as outsourcing all services to a single maintenance contractor (such as First Vehicle Services far fleet activities and the local Motorola dealer for radio operations} versus outsourcing services to a network of .service providers. • Functional considerations such as the split of responsibilities between the County and a contractor, #unctions and activities that will not be outsourced, and procedures for managing shared responsibilities. • Scope considerations such as the merits and risks of dividing the competition into a number of functional or geographic segments versus conducting one comprehensive competition. ~~r~.ueu Praposal to Provide Fleet Management Consulting Services Organizational considerations such as the relative benefits of consolidating, centralizing, or expanding current operations within a facility before the outsourcing occurs. Determine Current Service Costs. The objective of this effort is to calculate and document the current cost of providing fleet maintenance services in a form that will provide a fair, "apples-to-apples" basis for comparison between the Fleet Maintenance Division and on-site maintenance contractors who could provide fleet maintenance services to the City. Our emphasis will be on identifying the avoidable casts of these services, and accumulating those costs in a form consistent with the structure of contracts that municipalities use to acquire maintenance services. With regard to the first of these considerations, it should be recognized that some of the costs that the City currently incurs to provide fleet maintenance services in-house are not "transferable" to a contractor or vendor should the performance of the service be outsourced; they are unavoidable. Examples of such costs include depreciation of the maintenance facility(ies), fleet management organization overhead costs, and most if not City overhead costs allocable to a fleet maintenance organization. In this task, we will identify and separate those current service delivery costs that would go away from those that would remain if a function were outsourced. With regard to the second consideration, most commercial fleet maintenance contracts define the cost of providing maintenance and repair services in terms of "target" and "non-target" costs. Target costs refer to a flat annual fee far providing all routine maintenance and repair services. A fair and accurate comparison of in-house costs with each other, and with those proposed by contractors or commercial providers -requires that we first identify all existing costs incurred for routine maintenance and repair, and then back out that portion of the costs which would not be avoidable under the commercial contract, that is, those costs such as depreciation on the maintenance facility, which would continue to be incurred by the City regardless of who provides the service. In this example, attempting to compare maintenance costs on an activity or unit of service basis, such as using a fully burdened labor rate, would not provide a fair comparison with a contract structured on the basis of a fixed annual fee or target price. Furthermore, including unavoidable costs in the calculation of current, in-house service- delivery costs would provide an unfair advantage to commercial vendors since their contracts would not be burdened with these costs. Determine Current Service Quality. The major thrust of this effort will be to calculate a series of perfarmance benchmarks, and to document findings from interviews with key fleet management personnel and other stakeholders. We will utilize the results of these processes to identify the current level of service quality for each fleet maintenance activity. We will calculate and interpret the quantitative measures of performance, and utilize our own extensive knowledge of "best practices" in other municipal fleet operations to gauge the level of perfarmance in each of the operations examined. NII~SCNIIJC~1 6 Prapasa! fo Provide Fleef Management Cansulfing Services Examples of performance measures and characteristics we will compare include, but are not limited to the following: • Ratio of maintenance employees to vehicle equivalents; • Average vehicle age; • Total maintenance and repair cast per vehicle equivalent; • Preventive maintenance compliance rate; • Rate of scheduled to unscheduled repairs; • Fleet availability percenfage; • Supervisor to mechanic ratio; • Administrative support staff ratio; • Mechanic productivity; • Shop capacity utilization; • Parts inventory turnover rate; and • Parts usage per vehicle equivalent. • Vehicle downtime; • Maintenance turn-around time; • Rework rate; • Maintenance operation staffing levels; • Average parts delivery times; • Percent of orders filled from stock; • Stockout rates; and • Parts operation staffing levels. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Firm Overview Mercury Associates, Inc. is an employee-owned consulting firm, incorporated in 2002 in the State of Maryland.-The firm is headquartered in the Washington, DC area and has 30 employees located throughout the United States. The three co-founders and owners of Mercury all work full time in the firm, which has no other shareholders or outside investors. Mercury Associates is a U5 Small Business Administration and Department of Defense certified small business, and holds a 90-year contract with the US General Services Administration to provide fleet and logistics management consulting services to U5 federal government agencies under GSA's logistics Worldwide {LogWorld) schedule. Mercury Associates is an independent consulting firm dedicated to providing objective, unbiased advice and technical guidance to organizations that operate fleets. Our clients also include organizations that supply products or services to fleet operators, venture capital and private equity firms and other fleet industry investors, and professional and 1~1/~ L 7 Proposal to Provide Fleet dUlanagemenf Consulting Services trade associations and other organizations that offer conference, trade show, research, and training and certi#ication programs to fleet industry professionals. We do not provide contractual fleet management services and we do not market or sell other companies' products or services under channel partner or VAR agreements. Our firm's mission is to improve the quality of fleet management practices; the quality of goods and services utilized in the management and operation of fleets; and the quality of information and professional development services available to the fleet industry. Fleet Management Consulting Services Mercury's consulting services to organizations that- operate fleets range from broad- based reviews of all facets of an organization's fleet management practices, to tightly focused analyses of a single issue ar opportunity such as "Can we reduce the size of our fleet?" "Should we replace our fleet management information system?" "How can we reduce our maintenance and repair expenditures?" and "Should we lease ar buy vehicles?" Key consulting services we offer include: • Performance Reviews and Competitiveness Assessments Fleet Cast Analysis, Reduction, and Containment Studies • Fleet Utilization Optimization and Rightsizing Studies • Sustainable/Green Fleet Management Strategy Development • Program Consolidation and Organizational Restructuring Studies • Ou#sourcing Feasibility Studies • Development of Reques#s for Proposals for Contractual Services • Contractor Selection, Contract Negotiation, and Contractor Performance Reviews • Development of Strategic Business Plans • Business Process Reengineering and Implementation • Maintenance Facility Condition Assessment, Network Consolidation Analysis, and Master Planning • Determination of Optimal Vehicle Replacement Cycles • Development of Fleet Replacement Plans • Evaluation of Lease versus Buy and other Capital Financing Strategies • Charge-Back System Review and Rate Development • Internal Service Fund Audits and Replacement Reserve Fund Rightsizing • Management Training • Executive Recruiting • Expert Witness Services ur~~.~~re~i a Proposal to Pro-ricle Fleet Management Consulting Sep-vices Fleet Information Technology Services Consulting Mercury Associates is unique among fleet management consulting firms in the degree to which its professional staff combines knowledge of day-to-day fleet management and maintenance business processes, fleet leasing company service delivery practices, and the implementation and use of fleet management information systems and associated iT solutions (e.g., on-line policy and procedure manuals, repair manuals, motor pool reservation systems, Web-based management reports, etc.}, This combination of skills and experience enables us to perform a wide array of fT projects for both fleet operators and software developers. Examples of work that Mercury Associates professionals have performed in this area for fleet operators include: • System fiunctionality, implementation, and utiliza#ion assessments; • Commercial off-the-shelf software functional specifcatians development, RFP development, and proposal evaluation and software selection projects; • System implementation and integration projects; • Computer infrastructure (application and database server, network, work station, etc.} design, installation, upgrading, andlor ongoing maintenance projects • Functional "fit-gap" analyses of ERP systems such as SAP, and enterprise asset management systems such as Maximo; and Application Development and Hosting In recognition of the fact that a growing number of organizations that want to use a state-of--the-art fleet management .information system and related IT solutions simply do not have the in-house expertise or personnel resources needed to properly implement and maintain sophisticated software applications, Mercury Associates launched its application service provider (ASP) business in 2002, utilizing a Level {3) Communications data center in Houston, TX. in 2006 we opened a second data center in Seattle, WA to accommodate the rapidly growing demand for these services. Detailed technical specification information about Mercury's application hosting platforms is available upon request. Mercury Associates is not a fleet management software reseller. We are an independent, unbiased evaluator, advisor, implementer, andlor host of many of the best-known commercial-off the-shelf (COTS} software applications in the fleet industry today. We have conducted in-depth evaluations of, have implemented, andlor host in our data centers such well-known software applications as Maximus' Fleet Focus -M4/M5T"' and Fleef Focus FAT"', Squarerigger, Int.'s SQ7~'"' (formerly known as Vehicle TrackerT""}, CCG Systems, lnc.'s Faster''"", Chevin Fleet Solution's Fleef Waver"', Collective Data's collectiveFleetProT"', E-Drive Technology, Int.'s WebfleetT"^, and -91_~ _ I4~/ 9 Proposal fo Provide Fleet Manapemenf Consulfinq Services Mitche111's Repair and E'sfimator, and electronic repair manuals from an array of original equipment manufacturers, including Caterpillar, John Deere, and Blue Bird. Mercury Associates also has developed a variety of software applications to meet specific fleet management and analysis needs. While used primarily as an adjunct to a traditional consulting study, some of these products are available for sale on a stand- alone basis under standard software license and maintenance agreement. These tools include a push technology-based {i.e., "dashboard"-type) fleet management performance measurement and reporting solution called PALST"" {Performance Alert System); on-line fleet management policy and procedure manuals; a fleet replacement planning, financing alternatives analysis, and budgeting tool called CARCAPT""; and a vehicle life cycle cost analysis program. Clients Mercury's principals and employees have worked with more than 500 private and public-sector clients with fleets ranging in size from fewer than 10 to more than 65,000 vehicles and pieces of equipment.1 In the public sector, the types of organizations with which we work include: • Departments of Public Works • Departments of General and Administrative Services • Departments of Streets, Highways, and Transportation • Departments of Parks, Recreation, Conservation, and Environmental Protection • Departments of Budget, Accounting, and Finance « Departments of Police and Public Safety, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services • Water, Power, Sewer, and Flood Control Departments and Districts • internal Auditors • City and County Executives • City and County CouncilslCammissions and State Legislatures • Transit Authorities • School Districts • Colleges and Universities At the federal government level in the US, we have provided services to the U5 Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps; the departments of Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Lobar, Treasury, and State; the General Services Administration, NASA, and the Smithsonian Institution. 1 Mercury Associates has secured mare than 180 new clients since commencing operations in mid- 2002. The client service experience described in this section includes our work not only with these entities, but with hundreds of additional organizations to whom current members of our professional staff provided consulting services while employed by other firms prior to joining Mercury, IUI~Ct~111CY1 ,o Proposal to Provide Fleet Management Consulting Se8-vfces Mercury's professionals have provided consulting services to more state governments than have any other consultants, including: Connecticut Mississippi Taxas New York Terines ee Colorado New Jersey West Virginia Utah Delaware Ohio Nevada Virginia Michigan Washington North Carolina Wisconsin Oregon South. Carolina Illinois California Georgia M in'nesofa Alaska Alabama Missouri Hawaii We have evaluated the fleet management practices andlor compliance with state fleet management-related policies and procedures of mare than 40 higher education institutions, including the State of Utah higher education system {9 universities and colleges); the State of South Carolina higher ed system {~ 0 ins#itutions); the State of Oregon higher ed system (7 institutions), the University of Alabama, the University of Alaska at Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Southeast, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, UCLA, Duke University, the University of Iowa, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Miami University of Ohio, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and McMaster University (Toronto). Our experience working with fleet operators in major metropolitan areas is particularly extensive, and the size and complexity of the fleets involved often dwarfs that of all but the largest states and private companies. For instance, the three major public-sector operators with whom we have worked in the Los Angeles area collectively operate more than 40,000 vehicles and spend more than $500 million per year on their fleet operations. Mercury's principals have worked with 33 of the 50 largest cities in the US, including the 10 largest municipalities. As the following list indicates, we have conducted separate consulting assignments for multiple government jurisdictions and private companies in many major metro areas in the US and Canada (unless otherwise Hated, fhe clienf organizations listed bebw are agencies of the principal municipality in each metro area). '~'~1~ Proposal to Provide Fleet Management Consulting Services Albuquerque General Services Department Atlanta Georgia Power Company • Gwinnett County Public Services Departmen# Austin .Austin Water System Baltimore Baltimore Efficiency and Economy Foundation Boston Police Department Calgary Calgary Police Services 'Charlotte Business Support Services Department • Mecklenburg County Manager's Office • Office of Budget and Management • Department of Fleet Management Chicago • Chicago Transit Authority • Chicago Park District • Department of Equipment and Building Services Dallas City of Fort Worth • City of Arlington Detroit • City of Boulder Department of Public Works • City of Arvada Department of Public Works • Jefferson County Department of Admin Services • Boulder County Department of Public Works • Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners • Department of Transportation • City of Dearborn 72 Proposal to Pr~vi~fe Fleet Management Consulting Services Honolulu Las Vegas ~~~ • Department of Public Works • Metropolitan Police Department • Water and Sewer Authority • Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority • Fairfax County - Board of Supervisors - Fleet Services Department • Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services • Department of Public Works • Hawaiian Electric Company • Mayor's Office • Department of Finance and Administration • Harris- County - Director of Management Services and Budget - Fieet Services Department - Flood Control District - Precincts 9 , 2, and 3 - Department of Social Services - Hospital District • Houston Port Authority • City of Kansas City, MO - Parks and Recreation Commission - Internal Auditor • Unified Government of Wyandotte County-Kansas City, KS - Department of Public Works • Office of the In#ernal Auditor • City of North Las Vegas Department of Public Works 73 Propasa! fo Provide Fieef Managemenf Consulfing Servlces Met~r~phis MiamilF#. Lauderdale Milwaukee Minneapolis Nashville New Orleans ~.,, ,~~. , u ~~, ., ~i - • Office of the Chief Administrative Officer • Department of General Services • Board of Public Works • Department of Water and Power • Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority • Los Angeles County - Internal Services Department - Department of Public Works • UCLA • Orange County - General Services Agency - Public Facilities & Resources Department • City of Long Beach Dept of General Services • San Bernardino County • Southern California Gas Company • Southern California Edison • Shelby County Department of Public Works • Metro-Dade County • Broward County Sheriff s Office • Department of Public Works • Department of Public Works • Nashville-Davidson County Dept of Public Works • Nashville-Davidson Public Schools • Nashville Electric Company • City Administrative Office • New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 14 Proposal fo Provide Fleet IVianagemenf Consulting Services Orlando Sacramento E St Louis Salt Lake City - :San Antonio • Department of Citywide Administrative Services • Port Authority of New York and New Jersey • Brooklyn Union Gas Company • Public Service Electric & Gas Company • Administrative Services Department • Orlando Utilities Commission • Department of Public Works • St Louis County Office of the County Executive • Salt Lake County Department of Pubiic Works • University of Utah • Department of Purchasing and General Services • San Antonio Water System • Office of the City Manager San:Diego; San Diego County Department of Pubiic Works • San Diego Gas & Electric Company San Francisco SeattielTacoma ~~ • Office of-the City Administrator • Pacific Gas & Electric Company • Public Utilities Department • City of Tacoma Police Department 15 Proposal fo Provide i=leef Manaaemenf Consulfina Services Toronto • Hillsborough County - Office of the County Administrator - Fleet Management Department • Pinellas County - Office of the County Administrator - Fleet Management Department • City of Largo Public Works Department • McMaster University Municipal and investor-owned utility (electric, gas, water, wastewater, flood control, etc.) companies our consultants have worked with include: • ~4qua America • Austin Water System • Brooklyn Union Gas • Colorado Springs Utilities • District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority • Georgia Power • Hawaiian Electric • Hoosier Energy • Las Angeles Department of Water and Power • Nashville Electric • New Orleans Public Service • New York Power Authority • Orlando Utility Commission • Pacific Gas & Electric • Public Service Electric & Gas • San Antonio Water System • San Diego Gas & Electric • Seattle Public Utilities • Southern California Edison • Southern Indiana Gas & Electric • UGI Utilities In the private sector, Mercury Associates has provided consulting, management #raining, andlor application hosting, services to a diverse mix of fleet operators, fleet industry suppliers, and fleet industry investors, including: • Absolute Service, Inc. • ALLETE • Alyeska Pipeline Services Company • ARAMARK • Automotive Infivrmation Network lUi9~i1G1 • Hovensa • Laidlaw Education Services • Mathews International • Mulzer Crushed Stone • New Pig Corporation 96 Proposal to Provide Fleet MarTa_gemenf Consultin_q Services • Bedminster Capital • Benchmark Assisted Living • Bracco Diagnostics • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway • Cartesian Capital Group • Chrome Systems • CITGO • Coinmach Services • Comme-il-Pout • Computer Sciences Corporation • Connoco-Phillips • Cox Enterprises • ExxonMobil • Fleet Lease Disposal • Flint Hiil Resources • Genentech • GlaxoSmithKline • The Nielsen Company • N1SH • Polaris Wireless • Praxair • Pricelock • Pridemark Ambulance • Schindler Elevator • Shell Canada • Siemens Medical Systems • Spencer Trask Ventures • Sprint • Symyx Technologies • Synergy Healthcare Group • Time-Warner • Transportation Concepts, Inc • United Airlines • Walt Disney World Company Finally, members of our professional staff have provided research, professional management and administrative support, andlor management training services to a number of professional and trade associations and research organizations over the years including: • RAND Corporation • NAFA and the NAFA Foundation • American Public Works Association • Employee Relocation Council • National Confierence of State Fleet Administrators • Association of Equipment Management Professionals • GSA National Travel Forum • National Truck Equipment Association CONEKPO-CONIAGG • Association for Governmental Leasing and Finance ~~ l7 Proposal to Provic'e Fleet Managemenf Consulting Services • Fleet News Europe Conference (United Kingdom) • Federal Fleet Policy Council (FedFleet} • American Fleet Leasing Association • International Automotive Remarketers Alliance • Equipment Leasing and Finance Association • Asia Business Forum {Singapore) • National School Transportation Association • Global Knowledge Conferences (lndia} • Government Finance Officers Association • American Gas Association Natural Gas Vehicle Institute • Gas Technology Institute • Fleet Europe Forum (Luxemburg) • University of Washington Vehicle Maintenance Management Conference • Central and Eastern Europe Fleet Forum (Prague) • Fleet Software and Services {Australia} • National Cooperative Highway Research Program • The Innovation Groups • Rocky Mountain Fleet Management Association Principals and Senior Professionals Mercury Associates is unique among consulting firms that specialize in fleet management in that the majority of our consultants are former fleet management professionals. Unlike other firms whose knowledge is derived primarily from studying fleet operations, mast of our senior professionals have years of hands-on experience managing fleets. -Our consultants understand the day-to-day demands of dealing with vehicle operators, mechanics, parts suppliers, and so forth, and therefore are skilled at gaining the confidence of fleet professionals and rank-and-fie employees that is so critical to a successful consulting engagement. At the same time, many of these individuals managed fleet operations in large organizations in which they routinely were required to interact with their peers in parallel support organizations, such as budgeting and finance, human resources, and risk management, as well as with senior management andlor elected officials. Consequently, Mercury consultants are exceptionally well qualified to serve as objective fleet program evaluators, "honest brokers," and change agents. Our consultants are highly sought after as speakers and authors of articles and manuals on fleet management best practices. Our web site, www.mercury-assoc.com, includes Propose! fo Provide Fleet Management Consulting Services many articles we have written far major fleet industry periodicals, as well as information on the many international, national, and regional conferences at which we are conducting educational presentations and seminars this year. Our communication skills and recognized industry expertise enable us to effectively present findings and conclusions to our clients, and to secure stakeholder support for the institutional and - business process improvements we recommend. Paul Laurie is the President of Mercury Associates and is located in our Gaithersburg, MD headquarters office. Over the fast 24 years, he has provided consulting and management training services to hundreds of corporate, investor-owned utility, and federal, state, and local government fleet operations touching on virtually every facet of fleet management. This includes the conduct of training programs throughout North America and in -the Caribbean, Europe, India, Southeast Asia, and Australia. His particular areas of expertise include program evaluation, strategic business planning, cost of service analysis, charge-back rate development, and replacement planning and financing. Before co-founding Mercury, Mr. Laurie was a Vice President in Maximus, Inc., a publicly held management consulting firm, where he served as national director of fleet management consulting services. Before joining Maximus in 1992, he was a Senior Manager in the National Transportation Consulting Group of Ernst & Young, which he joined in 1984. Prior to this, he was a transportation program analyst with the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Durham (NC) Transit. He holds a Master's Degree in Transportation Planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Randy Owen, CAFM is Senior Vice President of Mercury Associates and is located in our Charlotte, NC office. He has 18 years of experience as a fleet manager and fleet management consultant, and is a nationally recognized expert in fleet management best practices and in fleet management outsourcing and managed competition. His areas of expertise also include fleet utilization analysis and rightsizing, and performance measurement and benchmarking. Before co-founding Mercury Associates, Mr. Owen was a Senior Manager in Maximus, Inc. Prior to this, he served as the fleet manager for the City of Charlotte and for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and worked as an independent consultant. He is a Certified Automotive Fleet Manager and holds a Master's Degree in Political Science from the University of California at Los Angeles. Brad Kelley is a Vice President in Mercury Associates with 10 years of experience in the fleet management profession. He is the director of Mercury's Houston, TX-based application hosting and information technology consulting services. Mr. I{elley has assisted a number of prominent organizations with information technology projects including the implementation of stand-alone and web-based fleet management information systems; assessments of the performance and use of existing fleet systems; the implementation of platform and network upgrades; the conduct of fit-gap analyses of commercial off the-shelf ERP systems; and the design and development of specialized analytical and management reporting tools for fleet managers. Before co-founding w~~e~i ,a Proposal to Provide Fleet Management Consulting Services Mercury Associates, Mr. Kelley was a Manager in the Maximus, Inc. Fleet Group. Prior to this, he was Assistant Director of the Fleet Management Department of Sarasota County, FL. He holds a Master's Degree in Public Administration from Southern Illinois University. Steve Burnett, CMC, is Associate Vice President of Mercury Associates and has more than 35 years' experience as a management consultant. He is based in our Atlanta office. Prior to joining the firm, he was the director of public-sector fleet management consulting services for Transportation Consultants, Inc. where he was responsible for general marketing, strategic development, and final quality control for the public sector fleet division. In addition to his work in the area of fleet management, Mr. Burnett also . ~ has considerable experience in the areas of financial and management consulting. He has held the positions of Partner and Executive National Director far Government _ ~ Services with Touche Ross & Co., now Deloitte & Tauche, and regional Vice President of David M. GrifFth & Associates, Ltd. He holds a Master's Degree in Finance from the University of Tennessee and is a Certified Management Consultant. Gary Hatfield, Senior Manager, has more than 34 years' experience in the fleet industry, including 23 years as a fleet manager with two of the largest investor-owned utility companies in the US, Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Public Service Company of Colorado (now Xcel Energy), and 7 years as a fleet management consultant. Mr. Hatfield has performed fleet management cansulting assignmen#s for a diverse group of clients, but works primarily with US federa! government agencies. He specializes in fleet management operations reviews, performance measurement and benchmarking, fleet u#ilization and rightsizing studies, and vehicle replacement planning, specifications, and procurement. He also is an expert in alternative fuel vehicles. Mr. Hatfield holds a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue University. Adlore Chaudier, CMC, Senior Manager, has been a consultant for more than 25 years, specializing in the areas of fleet, travel, and relocation management. Prior to joining Mercury, Dr. Chaudier worked for the Travel Management Policy Division of the US General Services Administration's Office of Governmentwide Policy, where he was responsible for the federal government's Lodging Program. Prior to joining GSA, he was Vice President, Government Services, for Runzheimer International. During his 16 years at Runzheimer, he worked on projects for the Internal Revenue Service (business- mileage rate), Department of Defense (Basic Allowance for Housing or BAH; Automated Housing Referral System or AHRS), General Services Administration (Per Diem Projects), United States Postal Office (rural carrier mileage rate), Navy Facilities and Construction (Housing Market Analyses), and United States Coast Guard (Housing Market Surveys & Analyses). -From 1989 to 1998, Dr. Chaudier was responsible for managing Runzheimer's consulting contracts in travel management, fleet management, relocation, and site selection. He has undertaken consulting engagements for mare than 50 prominent corporations including: Accenture, AT&T, Baker & McKenzie, Bank of America, Chicago Cubs, Citicorp N.A., 191, ... ~V 20 Proposal to Provide Fleet Managremerrt Consulting Services Citizens Utilities, DuPont, Gas Research Institute, General Motors, Haworth, Johnson Wax, Lawrence Livermore Labs, McGraw Hill, Pitney Bawes, Porsche Cars of North America, Promos Hotel Corporation {Hampton Inns, Embassy Suites, Doubletree), Renault International, Shell, Starbucks, Uniglobe Travel Agencies, and Westinghouse. Dr. Chaudier holds Master's and Doctoral degrees from the University of Wtscansin at Madison and is a Certified Management Consultant. Janis Christensen, CAFM is a Senior Manager in Mercury Associates with more than 25 years experience in corporate fleet management. She directs Mercury's consulting services to corporate and commercial clients, focusing on evaluating full-service lease contracts and fleet management company performance, accident management and flee# safety programs, policy and procedure development and fleet-related regulatory compliance. Before beginning her consulting career in 1998, Ms. Christensen worked for aver 20 years at TRW ira New Jersey and California, where she managed a fleet of X1,700 vehicles. Her responsibilities included all aspects of fleet management Pram acquisition through disposal. She afro directed the company's alternative transportation and telecommuting programs. Since 1984, Ms. Christensen also has served the National Association of Fleet Administrators in a variety of national and local positions. She left the Board of Trustees as vice president in 1998, after forming her own consulting company. She received NAFA's highest honor, the Distinguished Service Award, in 1999. Ms. Christensen is a Certified Automotive Fleet Manager. Tony Yankovich is a Senior Manager in Mercury Associates with 17 years' experience as a management analyst and consultant in the fleet management and public works areas. He specializes in serving state and local governments, universities and private companies in the provision of fleet management consulting services, management operations reviews, facilities space needs assessments, and development of facilities master plans. Prior to joining Mercury Associates, he was Senior Manager in the Fleet and Facilities Division of Eclipse, a division of Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation, and Senior Consultant with Maximus, Inc. Before beginning his consulting career, he worked far the Unifed Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, K5 where he held several management positions in the Public Works, Operations Services, and County Clerk departments. Mr. Yankovich's particular areas of expertise include program evaluation; productivity and competitiveness assessments; fleet ,replacement planning and financing; maintenance facilities reviews and facilities space needs assessments. He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Sociology from the University of Kansas. Len Bammer, Manager, has more than 22 years' experience as apublic-sector fleet manager and consultant, most recently as the General Superintendent of Maintenance for the Denver Regional Transportation District, where he managed a transit fleet maintenance organization with 480 employees and an annual operating budget of $46 million. During his 20-year professional fleet management career, Mr. Bammer also served as fleet manager for Jefferson County, CO (northwest suburbs of Denver), Proposal fo Provide Fleet Managemenf Consultia~~ Services Lorimer County, and the City of Colorado Springs. He is a past Chairman of the Board of the Rocky Mountain Fleet Management Association. His particular areas of expertise include maintenance operations planning and program evaluation, cost benefit analysis, vehicle life cycle cost analysis, and project management. He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration from Regis University (Colorado Springs, CO}. Nancy Deras, Senior Consultant, has over 20 years experience as an account management professional with U.S. Fleet Leasing (later Associates Fleet Services, CitiCapital Fleet and GE Flee# Services). Ms. Deras was responsible far managing the daily customer service needs of automotive fleet clients and received several awards, including "Client Service Representative of the Year" and "Keys to Success" for continuing customer satisfaction. Other responsibilities included the hiring, training and management of client relations representatives. At Mercury, Ms. Deras specializes in the evaluation of fleet leasing agreements, leasing company performance levels and costs, and associated in-house contract management and fleet management practices. Ralph Filicko, Senior Consultant, has more than 14 years experience directing and performing technical based services including computer production and repair, help desk call ~ center management and customer relations management. As a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, (MCSE) he is experienced in voice/data LANNVAN engineering, installation, administration and support, hardwarelsoftware installation, troubleshooting and support, organizational planning, operations management and staff supervision. Mr. Filicko is involved in the day-to-day support and management of Mercury's enterprise data centers located in Houston, Texas and Seattle, Washington and the support, administration and management of hosted fleet applications. His specific area of expertise includes evaluation, development, implementation and administration of fleet management information systems and their supporting ~technalogies. He specializes in assessing fleet management processes and utilization of fleet management information systems, information technologies and the management and performance of full implementation services for enterprise level software and business management applications. Prior to joining Mercury Associates, Mr. Filicko was a senior project manager and implementation specialist for CCG Systems, Inc., providers of the FASTER Fleet Management Information System, an industry leading fleet management application, where he successfully managed and performed implementation and fleet system installations for more than 3~ diverse-city, county, state and federal fleet operations. As a 20 year Army career veteran, Mr. Filicko managed service and support operations for military based trade schools and Feld operations. He holds an Associate's Degree in Accounting. Ross Hollis, IT Consultant, assists Mercury's management and consultant team to analyze client data through the development or analytical tools. Mr. Hollis is responsible for updates and improvements to the firm's Microsoft Excel-based asset replacement planning and cost analysis program, CARCAPT'" (Capital Asset Replacement Cost Analysis Program) and develops custom Web-based surveys for a variety of client 1~11~~~~~~ 22 Proposal fo Provide Fleef Manage-r~er~t Cansulfi~g Services projects. Mr. Hollis also creates and enhances computer-based tools to analyze and present information to clients including lifec~cle cost analysis, utilization, and annual cost per vehicle equivalent unit analysis tools. He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Information System Technology #rom the University of Houston. Kathe Carter joined Mercury Associates as a Senior Consultant after retiring from the State of Michigan. During her 30-year career there, she held management and executive positions in several divisions of the Department of Management and Budget, including Vehicle and Travel Services, Facilities, Mail, Logistics, Printing, and Real Estate. As Director of Vehicle and Travel Services, she was responsible for the management of a state-wide fleet of more than 8,000 vehicles. As the State's Deputy Director for Management, she had .responsibility far managing annual capital and operating budgets of almost $1.2 billion, a portfolio of capital assets worth $40 billion, bonds of $1.9 billion, 815 employees, and a wide variety of contractual services. Ms. Carter has developed and led seminars on a variety of business topics including Fleet Management and Finance, Outsourcing, Ethics, Leadership, Strategic Planning and Execution, Performance Measurement, Balanced Scorecard, and Organizational Change. She is a former Vice President of the National Association of Fleet Administrators and one of only 20 or sa recipients ofi the NAFA Distinguished Service Award (Mercury Associates staff members Janis Christensen and Chris Amos are two of the other recipients). Ms. Carter has completed the Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard University, and holds a Master's Degree in Economics from Michigan State University. Dave Robertson, CAFM, Senior Consultant, has over 36 years of experience as a professional fleet manager in the public and the private sector. Prior to joining Mercury, he held three fleet management positions with the City of Houston (in the Fire, Police, and General Services departments) aver a period of 16 years. One of the best-known fleet managers in the United States, Mr. Robertson is a long-time member and a past president of the National Association of Fleet Administrators and became the third employee of Mercury Associates to receive NAFA's highest honor, the Distinguished Service Award, in 2007. Prior to joining the City of Houston, Mr. Robertson served in various management positions in the Southeast, Northeast, and Western areas of the country for 18 years in the full-service truck leasing industry, including 15 years with Ryder Systems, Inc. He managed all aspects of the leasing process including sales, vehicle specification development, acquisition, accounts receivable, maintenance, consultation and service support, contract management, and disposal. He performed various analytical work flow processes from work orders, internal cos#ing of work functions, work efficiency examinations of work space in both office and'garage areas, inventory control, and work assignments and human resource development. He had full P&L responsibility for a profit center with $45 million in annual sales, $65 million worth of fleet assets, 20 branch operations, and 512 employees, serving asix-state region of the Northeast. Mr. Robertson holds a Bachelor's Degree in History from Eckerd College (St. Petersburg, 1~4~[1~1rJP~1 ~~ Proposal to Provide Fleet Management Consulting Services FL) and is a Certified Automotive Fleet Manager. Tom Adams, Senior Consultant, has more than 30 years of experience as an analyst, program manager, and consultant, Over the past several years, he has participated in and managed dozens of consulting engagements including fleet management and operations reviews, public works management analyses, and fleet fueling studies, and developed detailed operational policies and procedures fior various fleet management organizations across the country. He has also developed comprehensive facilities programs and plans for cities, counties, universities, and federal government agencies. His work in this area includes analyses of fleet growth, facilities costs, costlbenefit ratios, and the economies associated with maintenance facility and operations consolidation. Prior to joining Mercury Associates, Mr. Adams was a Senior Manager with Eclipse - a division of a prominent Kansas City-based architectural and engineering firm, Bucher Willis and Ratliff Corporation - and a Manager with the Maximus Fleet Management Consulting Group. Before beginning his consulting career, he held a senior management position in the Departmen# of Defense where he implemented, directed, and evaluated projects touching on an array of logistics management disciplines, including transportation, facilities, supply, maintenance, physical distribution, training, etc. Mr. Adams has worked extensively throughout the United States and Europe in consulting and management positions. He holds a Master's Degree in international Relations from Tray State University. H. Dayton Rumbough, Senior Consultant, has 33 years of combined federal civil and military service that includes 20 years of middle and senior management experience. He has directed and managed federal organizations involved in automotive fleet and public works administration, operations and maintenance. His background encompasses the development of strategic planning, vehicle replacement programming, developing operating budgets, performing quantitativelprogram analyses, performing organizational design, benchmarking, business case analysis, developing instructional fleet training programs .and conducting fleet security, administrative, maintenance and _operational audits and assessments. During his 28 years in Navy automotive fleet operations and administration, Mr. Rumbough managed numerous automotive fleets ranging from several hundred vehicles to over 2,DOD vehicles and pieces of equipment as well as administered program management covering aver 4D,DD0 vehicles and equipment world-wide. He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration from the University of Hawaii. Richard Simon, Senior Consultant, has over 24 years' experience as apublic-sector fleet manager with Santa Clara County, California. He has an effective working knowledge in the areas of fileet management, general accounting services, grant writing, vehicle purchasing and specification writing, alternate fuels, labor relations, law enforcement, budgeting, auctionsldisposal, internal service funds, rate development, fleet systems, customer service, facility development, vehicle maintenance, employee communications and emergency services logistics. As a Fleet Manager for the County Propose! to Provide Fleet Management Consulting Services he was responsible for directing the $17 million fleet operations department serving all county departments and contract agencies. The fleet included 2,400 vehicles and a full time staff of 95 employees. The department included four maintenance and fuel facilities, paint and body shop, emergency vehicle installation shop and administration. He also served as Transportation Officer for County Emergency Services Logistics Mr. Simon holds a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting from San Jose State University and is a long time member of the National Association of Fleet Administrators (NAPA) serving as National Chairman of the Alternate Fuels Committee and Chairman of the San Francisco Chapter. He also served as State Chairman of the California County Fleet Manager's Association. Rob Buckles, Captain, U. S. Coast Guard Reserve, Retired, is a Senior Consultant who has more than 40 years experience in marine transportation, safety and security, He has held accreditation as a marine surveyor by the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors (SAMS). Military assignments included three tours as a senior marine inspector with qualifications as bath a hull and engineering inspector (steam and motor). Mr. Buckles held three commands in the marine field and retired as alternate Chief ofi Marine Safety for the Southeastern United States and Caribbean. Before joining Mercury Associates, he mast recently completed 17 years where he was responsible for commercial fishing vessel safety for the west coast of Florida. Mr. Buckles holds a Bachelor's Degree in Business Management from LaSalle University. S#aff Assigned To This Project The staff organization that we are proposing for this engagement is shown in the following table: Comparable Projec#s Mercury Associates has conducted mare assessment of outsourcing fleet service activities than any firm in the country over the past two decades. Our work in this area has included projects for Los Angeles, San Diego County, Chicago, Charlotte, Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Nashville, Portland, San Francisco, Wilmington (DE}, and many more. There is no cookie cutter answer to the question of outsourcing feasibility. The right approach is highly dependent on local conditions and specific program attributes. ~ioei~r~~i r, Proposal to Provide Fleet Nlanagemenf Consulfing Services In the past year we have completed fleet outsourcing projects for Fort Worth, Harris County, and Brownsville. Below we have provided a synopsis far several recent fleet outsourcing projects: City of Fort Worth This year we assisted Fort Worth explore outsourcing fleet maintenance and related services in a managed competition. In accordance with our recommendations the City kept most fleet services in-house. Harris County (Houston, TX} This summer we recommended #hat the County centralize and outsource law enforcement new vehicle upfitting activities. City of Brownsville Earlier this year Brownsville accepted our recommenda#ion to continue outsourcing maintenance and repair of transit busses. We also developed an RFP to compete vendor services and assisted with selection of the preferred supplier. City of Huntington, Beach [CA) This summer we conducted a comprehensive review of fleet operations for the City and the City accepted our recommendations to outsource body shop work, tire services, and new vehicle upfitting. County of San _Bernardino ICA] Earlier this year we reviewed centralization and outsourcing opportunities for the largest county in the country. The County accepted our recommendations to outsource certain maintenance services and to centralize others. City and County of San Francisco Last year we conducted a comprehensive review of San Francisco's fleet operations including a specific assessment of outsourcing opportunities. We concluded that the City's fleet operations were competitive and should remain in-house with marginal outsourcing driven by a comprehensive outsourcing plan. Examples of Outsourcing Decisions In addition to the project descriptions listed above, we have provided examples of outsourcing decisions made by clients as a result of our recommendations. Please note that most fleet management studies we perform include an assessment of program competiveness and so we literally deal with the issue of outsourcing dozens of times ~~~ zs Proposal to Provide i=leef Management Consulting Services each year. In the interest of brevity we have provided a few examples of our work in this area below: Berks County,,, -Earlier this year we were engaged to review the feasibility of outsourcing some or all fleet services activities, including maintenance. We recommended that most activities be outsourced and the County concurred with this recommendation. We are currently preparing a RFP to solicit proposals from fleet services contractors. City of Fort Lauderdale - In 2049 we reviewed the City's draft RFP for soliciting on-site contracting of fleet maintenance and made recommendations to improve the document. We also provided recommendations to improve contractor oversight and management. City of ~Iminaton (DE] - In 2008 we drafted an RFP for on-site contract maintenance and assisted the City select a vendor. Subsequently we were awarded a five year engagement to provide contract oversight and management reporting services. Virginia Department of Transportation - In 2004 we conducted a project for VDOT and recommended against a pilot project to outsource fleet maintenance at two districts. VDOT went forward with the pilot project, which was cancelled in less than two years due to poor contractor performance and high casts. ' State of California - Ln 2006 the state outsourced several fleet activities according to our recommendations including commercial repair management and surplus auctions, City of Tyler (TX] - As result of a managed competition far fleet maintenance services in 2004 the City kept services in-house on our advice. Shelby Go_unty (Memphis-TN) - In 2003 the City outsourced parts functions but kept other fleet activities in-house based on our recommendations. City of Chicago - In 2000 the City outsourced parts operations based on our consultant's recommendations. F References Below we have provided references from six recent projects where outsourcing was a major issue that can attest to the quality of the fleet management consulting services our firm provides. Additional project descriptions are available on our website at www.mercu -assoc.com. 27 Proposal to Provide Fleet Management Consulfing Services City of Fort Worth Jack Dale, C.P.M., CPPB Purchasing Manager (817) 392 $357 iack.dale~a.fortworthgov.orq Harris County Keith Branner Fleet Manager (713) 755-5362 keith brannerC~co.harris.tx.us City_of Brownsville Roberto Luna Purchasing Director {956) 548-6081 roberto[c~cob.us San Bernardino Count Jerry Newcombe Deputy County Administrative Officer (909) 387-5424 a ne_wcambe(a?.cao.sbcou nty.aov City and County of San Francisco Mr. Tom Fung Director, Fleet Management Department (415) 550-4650 Tom. Func~r.7sfcov.org City of Wilmington, DE Vincent Carroccia Administrative Services Director Department of Public Works (302) 576-3081 varrocciaCc~WiimingtonDE.gov \~JI~U1' ~ ,~ 28 Proposa! to Provide Fleet Management Consulting Services CAST PROPOSAL Our proposed fixed price for completing all tasks in our proposal is $59,699 and includes 312 hours of services at a blended hourly staff services rate of $165 per hour that has been increased by 15% to $191.32 per hour to cover travel and other reimbursable expenses. We have made the following assumptions in developing this proposed cost: 1. The City will be able to provide us with detailed data and historical records on fleet maintenance costs, indirect costs, and overhead casts. 2. Our work will focus on the Fleet Maintenance Division and not include consideration of centralization of the Fire and Airport fleets, which we understand are separate operations. While we are more than willing and able to assess opportunities to centralize, we believe that this should be a separate effort to not burden an already complicated outsourcing assessment. 3. Our team will make no more than four trips to the City to gather data, conduct interviews, and present recommendations. To save money, mast project management activities and status briefings will be conducted by teleconference. Performing an assessment of outsourcing feasibility fora #ieet of nearly 2,000 vehicles is no small undertaking. Substantial data collection and analysis will be required to provide the City with a thorough report and actionable recommendations. We have proposed an approach and proposed level of effort that, in our professional opinion, will meet the City's needs and answer the question of the business model that will provide the best fleet services at the lowest reasonable cost. We are mindful that this is a competitive procurement and that other firms may propose a cheaper, less comprehensive approach to the project. However, we hope that the City will find our proposed approach, the quality of our staff, and the experience that our firm provides as representing the best value for this project. ua~~~~ =s OP ID: JY '4~ °~°- CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE{MMIDDIYYYY) „ 011241'11 THIS CERTIFICATE 15 ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HC+LDER. THIS CERTIFICATE- DOES NpT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR A~.TER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CbNSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE 15SUING INSURERS}, AiJTHORIZEp REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, ANO THE CERTIFICATE HDLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the poUcy(ies} must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain poflcies may require art endorsement. A statement On this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsements . PRODUCER 3Q4~(j`tJ2-2Jr0U N FACT Howard Insurance Agency, Inc. 3U1 652 2S30 PIIDNE Ax - - 6900 W iscansin Ave Suite 450 1aLr , Ns.l:xt1~ ,._..___-_.- .~,.. ~.~.w._., fro,, Iso}; Chevy Chase, MD arias E•MAIL --~""""'-°-°---' At70RES8: _ PR- DEER MERCU-1 .._._.._..~..._._...~..~....~___ -------,....---- _....- _. ._-~_ ......~ .. ----._-..-_-,,....-._..-..._ ._.~~_-. ~_ ~.. _...._.-......~-._._._ 1N8URI3R(Si AFFORDING COVERAGE _ ENSURED MERCURY ASSOCIATES, INC, INSURER A :The l'1ar#FOrcf 28424 1605#ComprintCircle ENSURt:Ra:HoustanCaeual Com an ~._.._-..._.-.-" ._.._._......._.._.-_ ---. -~! _r.~._. Y_._._.,-...~.-_~ GafE#Tersburg, MD 20877 _ _._,....__._._ ENSURER G INSURER E : --^..-., ---•-•-- COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: TH15 IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUEb t0 THE INSURED NAMEp ABOVE FOR THE PQLICY PERIOp INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY TWE POLICIES DESCRiBi^D HEREIN l5 SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLU510N5 AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ~ Typg OF INBURRN4E ~- F D OL CY EFF POLICY EXP LTR POLICYNUMaER MlDOIYYYV M 1DD1Y UMIrB GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2,OQD,00 A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY _ X 25BA8V6611 D911D110 D9110114 A ~ENTEO~. PA,FMI~~EB CCCUrfenCe __ -~~ S 5OD,00 _ _ -.., _~ CLAIMS-MADE u OCCUR MEDEXP(AnyafsepBfsoni -$ 10OQ PERSONAL 8 ADV INJURY - $ 2,DOO,OO _, ...._.,_,..__..._..._,.,,.-_....,~,-,~,~~, _G_ENERALAGGREGATE_-_• - $ 4,000,00 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: -.. PRODUCTS - COMPIOP AGG _ S 4,000,00 PRO• X POLICY LOC -----~__............- ......_..._-----~--- $ AUT OMOBELE LIABILITY ~( COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT OOD 00 ~ 2 A X UTO A2U ECTA4314 071271'10 07127!11 (~~ Bcciaenrl -~----,• - , , °° -X- ANY A BODILY INJURY (Pef pprs9ny •--- E -- X ALL OWNED AUTOS SG EO E OS BODILY INJURY {P@f BCCitlenQ ^_-- --°•-~~ S - - H UL DAUT PROPERTY DAMAGE ^ -~.---•~~--•-~-~- _X HIRED AUTOS {Pef 8Cpd8nt} -----.__. S X NON-OWNED AUTOS E __.-....,....__..__.----- --_ UMBRELLA LJAa X - OCCUR EACH OCCURRENGE $M 2,OD0,00 p _. EXCESS LIAR __-._-_ CLAIMS-MADE ~-_-- X 2SBABV6671 09110/10 09!40111 AGGREGATE -..__.__ $ 2,DOO,00 ~ __._ DEDUCTIBLE $ X RETENTION $ 10 000 g WDRKERB COMPENSATION X WC STATU- OTH- AHD EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ..--. IABY 4l~lL$ _ - I~ Y! N ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERIEXECUTIVE ^ OFFICERIMEMBt R EXC UDED? N 1 A 42WIwGP02988 ~ 07101H0 07/41111 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT _ _ __ _ _ 1,OOD,DO $ : L {Mancfal4ry In NHi _ E.L. DISEASE, EA EMPLOYEE ----•..."'"'"'-"'-- _ _ $ ~1,000,OO If BS, deBCfIDB ufla8f D~SCRIP710N OF DPERA710NS be3Cw E,L. O1SEA3E -POLICY LIMIT _-^.,".,^~"-'- $ 1,DO0,00 B Professional Liab W70413970 0$101!10 08101!14 5101( Ded 9,000,00 q Hired Auto Phys. D 42UECTA4314 07!27!40 07!27111 5100 oed 1,000,00 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS f LODATEON9IVEHICLEB (Attach ACORb 70Y, Addlltianal Remarks Schedule, If mp-e spacC Is raqulretl) CERTIFICATE HOLDER IS NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED. CITY OF CORPUS CHRIST! 1209 LEOPARD STREET COiipUS CWRISTI, TX 7840) 8HOULt) ANY OF THE ABOVE pESCRIBED POLICEEB BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL HE DELIVERED !N ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPR85ENTATfVE ©1986-2008 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORI] 25 (20D9109} The ACpRD name and !ago are registered marEcs of ACORD