HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-2019 Item 10 - Consolidated Dispatch Feasibility Study Citygate Associates Department Name: Police Department
Cost Center:
For Agenda of: March 5, 2019
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Police Chief
Prepared By: Victoria Tonikian, Management Fellow
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE A CONSULTANT SERVICE
AGREEMENT WITH CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR A DISPATCH
CONSOLIDATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with
Citygate Associates, LLC (“Citygate”) for a dispatch consolidation feasibility study for an
amount not to exceed $46,457.66; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the Cities
of San Luis Obispo, Atascadero and Paso Robles and the Board of Trustees of the California
State University on behalf of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo to
jointly finance a dispatch consolidation feasibility study.
DISCUSSION
In response to the City’s Fiscal Health Response Plan (FHRP), departments thr oughout the City
have identified process improvements that would result in a reduction of operating
costs/increased savings. With this in mind, the San Luis Obispo Police and Fire Departments
began discussing the feasibility of creating a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) with agencies
throughout the county to consolidate dispatch communication services. Dispatch consolidation is
a regionalized process that many cities throughout the State and the Country have undergone to
maintain high levels of service to their community members while reducing and sharing
operating costs. For example, Santa Cruz has a regional 9-1-1 JPA, in partnership with the Santa
Cruz Sheriff’s Office, the San Benito County Sheriff’s Office, and the Police Departments of the
Cities of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Capitola and Hollister. In addition, Santa Cruz Regional 9 -1-1
also provides services to 11 fire agencies in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties.
Following the County of Santa Cruz’s regional 9 -1-1 JPA model, the Police and Fire
Departments jointly drafted a scope of work (Attachment A) that outlines the assumed tasks that
a consulting agency would need to accomplish to determine the feasibility of creating a JPA in
San Luis Obispo County. After sending the scope of work to agencies t hroughout the County, the
final agencies that have agreed to move forward with the feasibility study are the cities of
Atascadero and Paso Robles as well as California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
(parties).
Packet Pg. 77
Item 10
The scope of work was routed to two consultant agencies to determine if first, either agency
could perform the scope of work as defined, and second, if the scope of work was consistent with
what we were trying to accomplish. Both consultants reviewed the scope of work, and it was
determined only Citygate Associates, LCC (“Citygate”) possessed the capability to conduct the
feasibility study. Citygate submitted the attached proposal (Attachment B) which was reviewed
and approved by all parties previously mentioned. The San Luis Obispo Police Department
submitted a Sole Source Justification (Attachment C) which was approved by the City’s
Purchasing Analyst allowing the City to move forward and contract with Citygate for the
regional dispatch consolidation feasibility study.
The pro posal set forth by Citygate outlines a phased approach to conducting the study. Phase one
of the project includes: initiating the project, data review, on-site meetings, personnel/staffing
plan analysis, workload analysis, technology considerations with a final report of the
findings. Phase two includes optional implementation support based on the findings in phase
one. By having the proposal outlined and priced in phases, the parties involved can pay for the
services that will be most beneficial and needed at the onset of the project. If it is determined that
a JPA will be the preferred method to move forward for the parties involved, the JPA can
collectively hire Citygate for phase two implementation support as needed.
Conducting a feasibility study is necessary because it will provide the parties involved an
objective recommendation as to whether forming a JPA for a regional dispatch consolidation is
feasible and cost effective, and if so, determine if it will be beneficial to all parties involved.
Many cities, including the ones mentioned prior, have stated that by consolidating services to one
dispatch center it has reduced operating costs, technology and maintenance costs. The San Luis
Obispo Police and Fire Departments hope to benefit by this procedural change by hosting the
regional dispatch center serving the aforementioned Cities and allowing for greater efficiency,
cost effectiveness, economies of scale, and to provide higher level of inter -agency
coordination and service.
Policy Context
The proposed action is consistent with the City’s FHRP which was directed by Council on
December 12th, 2017. Of the three balanced approaches to closing the $7.5 million gap in the
general fund, 30-40% will be through operating reductions and new ways of do ing business. If
proven to be beneficial, dispatch consolidation will provide the City with operating reductions
which is in line with both the FHRP and the Adopted Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy.
Public Engagement
Public engagement was conducted during the development of the FHRP where the three-pronged
approach to close the $7.5 million gap in the general fund was derived. This project is in-line
with the FHRP, and if after the feasibility study the JPA is proven to be beneficial for the City,
additional public engagement and noticing will be conducted.
Packet Pg. 78
Item 10
CONCURRENCE
The proposed action is consistent with the Fire Department’s recommendation to conduct a
feasibility study for dispatch consolidation. Additionally, this proposal has already bee n
approved by the City of Atascadero, the City of Paso Robles and the Board of Trustees of the
California State University on behalf of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2018-2019
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Total Budget
Available
Current Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $46,458 $46,458 $0 N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $46,458 $46,458 $0 N/A
The overall co st of Phase 1 of the feasibility study is $126,586 for 607 hours of consulting time
from the project team. The parties support allocating the costs to each agency based on their
levels of calls for service, as follows:
Agency Cost Allocation Percentage Total Costs
Cal Poly 10.0% $12,658.00
City of Atascadero 21.3% $26,962.82
City of El Paso de Robles 32.0% $40,507.52
City of San Luis Obispo 36.7% $46,457.66
Citygate will bill the City of San Luis Obispo on a monthly basis. The parties a gree to pay the
City of San Luis Obispo their monthly share of costs (based on the cost allocation above) within
14 days of billing. To ensure the agencies remain committed to the agreements set forth, a
Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment D) has been drafted and circulated between the
agencies.
Packet Pg. 79
Item 10
The Police Department will be using funds that were set aside in FY 2018 -19 for costs related to
the construction of a new animal services shelter to fund the City’s allocated costs associated
with conducting the feasibility study. It’s anticipated that the City will not have to pay for
construction related costs for the shelter this fiscal year, which makes the funds available for this
purpose.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose to not support this recommendation. This is not recommended
as it is in line with our Fiscal Health Response plan and our regional partners to fund economic
analysis that is intended to align actions with our regional strengths and opportunities so that
limited resources are efficiently utilized.
Attachments:
a - Scope of Work
b - Citygate Proposal
c - Sole Source Justification
d - Dispatch Consolidation Feasibility Study MOU
Packet Pg. 80
Item 10
1
City of San Luis Obispo – Consolidated Dispatch Study
SCOPE OF WORK
Contractor shall provide to the City professional consulting services to conduct a phased Public Safety
Answering Points (PSAP) Consolidation feasibility study that will provide a comprehensive overview of
current conditions and recommendations for consolidating Fire and Law Enforcement dispatch centers
within San Luis Obispo County to articulate alternative models that minimize long-term costs and
maximize overall efficiencies and effectiveness of dispatch services and related activities. The
contractor will provide a phased cost analysis, with options for agencies to continue with the feasibi lity
study at each phase for the following communities and agencies participating in this study:
1. City of San Luis Obispo – Police and Fire
2. City of Atascadero – Police and Fire
3. City of Paso Robles – Police and Fire
4. California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo (“Cal Poly”) – Police (Fire services are
provided by the City of San Luis Obispo)
The following tasks detail is what the contractor shall be responsible for (not necessarily in order).
Task 1. Phased approach
• Contractor will conduct macro operational analysis for calls for service to dispatchers and
technology, including a macro analysis of total compensation of the likely costs for a single new
employer.
• Contractor will provide a mid-project report and pause to confer with agencies to determine
need to continue to move forward with further research based on above feasibility.
• Contractor will move to second phase and complete detailed total compensation, MOU
comparison, Cal PERS and health care cost modeling and possibly actuarial studies as needed.
• Contractor will provide a secondary check in with agencies and provide refined costs and labor
agreements.
• Contractor will provide final report to agencies on governance, cost sharing agreements and
implementation steps.
• Contractor will assist agencies with job descriptions, MOU bargaining alignment, and other
needs in order to start consolidation.
Task 2. Conduct Interviews to Collect Feedback on Operational Issues
Packet Pg. 81
Item 10
2
Contractor will become familiar with key issues from the perspective of each participating agency.
Interviews shall be conducted with the following personnel:
• City managers, Police Chiefs, Fire Chiefs, and other key stakeholders with a vested interest in
dispatch operations.
• Dispatch managers from each dispatch center.
• Employee representatives. (The purpose of these interviews is to identify potential issues and
concerns from the beginning of the project and provide an opportunity for discussion).
Contractor shall cover, at a minimum, the following issues from the perspective of each interviewee:
• The history of each of the agencies as a 911 service and dispatch provider.
• Factors bringing interest in the current study to the forefront.
• Perceived gaps in desired service levels and service capabilities that should be addressed.
• Individual perceptions regarding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT
analysis) as they relate to present and future dispatch operations.
Task 3. Develop a Profile of Current Communications Operations
Contractor shall gain a thorough understanding of all organization, staffing and operational details for
the dispatch operations for all participating agencies.
Contractor shall document workloads and service levels which will provide a foundation for the analysis
required to make a feasibility recommendation.
Contractor’s project team shall document the following:
(1) Direct Center Observations
Contractor’s project team shall conduct direct observations of activity in all communications
facilities. The focus of the observations shall include the following:
• Observations of agencies call handling staff, including a focus on: Initial identification
and handling of incoming calls, handling of emergency and non-emergency calls
including call processing times, and collection of information for incoming calls.
• Observation of agencies dispatching staff with a focus on: Selection of units for
dispatch, identification of replacement units when primary units are unavailable,
dispatch procedures for assigned units, distribution of information to assigned units
regarding the call, handling of status reporting from activated units, processing of
information requests from units, return of units to active and available status.
Packet Pg. 82
Item 10
3
• Observation of the interaction between agencies call takers and agencies dispatchers.
Contractor’s project team shall utilize the initial observations for discussion with
stakeholder agencies through a project steering committee and shall include
Contractor’s observations in the evaluation process.
(2) Communications Systems
Contractor shall gain an understanding of the technological systems in place at each
communications facility including:
• Current systems in use and planned capital replacements.
• Communications (i.e., telephone and radio) and computer hardware utilized.
• Software packages used operationally for all dispatch functions, including but not
limited to e.g., graphical information system (GIS); records management and required
reporting; computer aided dispatch; standard and customer report writing and
dashboard for staff and public.
• 911 emergency telephone system capabilities, such as Phase 1 or Phase 2 cell phone
compliance, and other telephone systems/characteristics.
• Inventory age of all technology equipment in use, including asset replacement
schedules.
• Back-up systems utilized for fire, police, and EMS dispatching.
• How management information (e.g., performance data) is reported and handled.
• Space utilized for current communications operations – size, quality, ADA compliance,
security, compliance with building codes, etc.
• Overall operating and capital costs.
(3) Organization and Staffing
Contractor shall develop a thorough understanding of agencies communications staffing
patterns, to include:
• Obtain organizational charts and budgetary information detailing the structure and
specific operating costs, by line item.
• Document current communications management, supervision and line staffing as well
as shift assignment practices.
• Document the extent to which dispatch operations are covered, including the use of
overtime, use of civilian versus sworn personnel, etc.
• Document salary and all fringe benefit costs for each communications-related position.
Packet Pg. 83
Item 10
4
• Document staff turnover and net annual staff availability.
• Document staff retirement eligibility scenarios.
• Identify the extent to which staff assigned to emergency communications functions are
also responsible for other services.
• Document staff administrative and support roles and responsibilities.
• Compare training programs for newly hired personnel as well as continuing education
and the use of cross-trained staff.
• Document line staff activities between episodes of managing calls for service and
approximate time spent between calls for service.
• Document how line staff takes breaks for meals or personal needs and how that affects
operations.
(4) Workload Analysis
Contractor shall collect relevant agency workload information to include the following data:
• Document agency dispatcher workloads in terms of quantitative data for each dispatch
function, where possible including: law enforcement, fire and EMS calls for service; non-
emergency telephone calls; radio transmissions; field-initiated requests for service;
teletypes and warrants processed; and other workload metrics.
o This information shall be collected in detail: time of day, day of week, etc. It is
recognized that information may vary due to how the agency collects data and
Contractor shall work with agency staff to request and develop data and to
ensure that data is consistent and comparable across all agencies.
• Data collection should include three years for all agencies.
• Identify “non-dispatch” workload performed by communications staff.
Task 4: Survey Staff and Public Safety Personnel through an Anonymous Questionnaire.
Contractor shall conduct a survey with all current emergency communications staff as well as
management and supervision to provide input to Contractor’s project team through an anonymous
questionnaire.
The Communications Staff survey shall focus on the following types of agency issues:
• Current service levels and issues.
• Current staffing and workload issues.
• Current equipment and systems issues.
Packet Pg. 84
Item 10
5
• The extent to which communications staff are involved in other services.
• Perceived opportunities to improve service delivery.
• Views toward the efficiency and accuracy of current communications operations.
• Concerns regarding the potential for change in service levels if communications services
are modified.
The questionnaires shall be distributed by and returned to Contractor (using an online tool).
Through collaboration with the Project Steering Committee, the Contractor shall also develop an
anonymous survey to be distributed to law enforcement, fire service, and EMS providers who receive
support and services from the dispatch operations.
The focus of the questionnaire shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
• Do the service providers receive the information that they need from Dispatchers in a
timely fashion?
• Do the dispatch centers provide high levels of support to field units during all phases of
the incident?
• Do the Communications Centers follow policies and procedures?
• Are the Communications Centers willing to discuss issues?
• Do the Communications Centers seem willing to make changes to its policies and
procedures in response to concerns identified by the field?
• Are there steps that the Communications Centers could take to enhance services? If so,
what are those changes?
• What operational changes, enhancements, efficiencies do non-dispatch law
enforcement and fire supervisors and managers desire?
• What operational changes, enhancements, efficiencies do law enforcement, fire and
EMS first response personnel desire?
• What operational imperative do non-dispatch supervisors and managers identify?
• What operational imperative do law enforcement, fire and EMS first response personnel
identify?
Task 5: Analyze the Requirements for Consolidating Dispatch Services.
Once the previous analytical tasks have been completed, Contractor shall evaluate the feasibility of
consolidating dispatch services in an existing participating agency’s dispatch facility versus the feasibility
Packet Pg. 85
Item 10
6
of consolidating dispatch services in a new facility. Additionally, Contractor shall evaluate the pros and
cons of contracting only fire dispatch services to the county with Cal Fire verses keeping fire dispatch
consolidated with police dispatch. A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) model is currently preferred; however
other models, such as collocation, should be explored as feasible options for consideration.
To accomplish this, the following will be addressed:
• Communications staffing: Utilizing workload information collected and analyzed,
Contractor shall develop an overall and per shift staffing model to handle the respective
dispatch workloads based on workload and net staffing hours available.
• Evaluate secondary workload that some agency dispatchers are completing (such as
records) and model those leave behind costs per agency.
• Management and supervision: Given the size of a consolidated organization, Contractor
shall evaluate the issue of how supervision and management should be staffed and
provided. If various structures are possible, the pros and cons of each will be fully
explored and identified.
• Facility and equipment issues: Contractor’s project team shall evaluate the space needs
for a consolidated public safety communications center both now and to allow for
further expansion of the center. Based on the space needs potential sites will be
evaluated and ranked to house the consolidated dispatch center. Further, other
technical issues to be specifically considered shall include the following:
1) How to connect any disparate radio systems.
2) Is the existing technological equipment re-usable and cross-functional or is new
equipment necessary?
3) Are there system redundancies?
4) Current GPS and mapping capabilities and future requirements, and how they
integrate into the various CAD packages.
5) Are there any improvements or modifications needed in existing CAD/RMS,
Field Reporting or Mobile Data Computers to provide optimal services?
6) Number of consoles and other devices required in the consolidated center.
7) What is the feasibility for one of the current facilities to serve as the primary
and/or back-up sites for the consolidated dispatch center? Is a new location
preferable? What modifications would be needed to make this feasible?
Packet Pg. 86
Item 10
7
• Transitional issues: Analysis also needs to focus on specific transition issues which could
impact operating costs, implementation potential, interim service delivery, etc. These
issues include:
1) Review of existing job descriptions to determine revisions required to accurately
reflect the job responsibilities of personnel in the consolidated center.
2) How to handle labor relations issues related to various bargaining units.
3) Conduct a wage comparison with benchmark cities, local or comparative
dispatch centers in California to determine ratings and comparative wages for
the positions in the consolidated center. Comparison cities shall be agreed
upon between Consultant and Project Steering Committee.
4) Training and cross-training requirements, largely based on the Association of
Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) best practices and local
Emergency Medical Dispatch certification, for staff.
5) How non-communications functions need to be handled.
6) Mechanisms to ensure user input and participation in operational and service
level problem resolution.
7) The need for phasing, if necessary, and impacts on costs.
8) Service delivery impacts resulting from the transition.
• Financial Analysis: Contractor shall develop cost data for consolidation, which will
include:
1) Total operating costs based on service level delivery possibilities.
2) Total salary and fringe benefit costs.
3) Maintenance and ongoing operating costs.
4) Start-up timeline and costs.
5) Long-range capital costs.
6) Recommended agency cost sharing options (including methodology for each).
a. Recommendations shall also include cost scenarios to adequately reflect
overall cost changes if an agency does not move forward with contract,
or if additional agencies seek participation at a later date.
• Impacts of Future growth: Contractor shall also include information that addresses
future growth assumptions in the County of San Luis Obispo (by city) and expected
impacts based on expected growth and how it relates to Public Safety services.
Packet Pg. 87
Item 10
8
Task 6: Document Findings and Recommendations in a Final Report.
All the preceding work tasks shall be documented in the form of a formal report that shall be presented
to the project steering committee as well as, City Managers and designees in the participating agencies).
This report shall summarize all the analytical steps described in the task plan, including (but not limited
to):
• Evaluation of the existing situation related to providing dispatch services in the
agencies.
• Results of workload, service level and staffing analysis.
• Results of the analysis of the JPA consolidation opportunity; including an assessment of
the advantages and disadvantages associated with this consolidation model as well as
other service delivery alternatives.
• Identification of the appropriate location and back up location for the dispatch center
and space needs for each dispatch function.
• Specific recommendations to take, relating to the best service delivery approach(es);
including training, job descriptions, and reporting relationships.
• Recommendations related to the reuse or need for new equipment in the consolidated
center.
• Based on staffing recommendations, appropriate revised organizational structures.
• Specific recommendations related to the governance, accountability and service
standards of a consolidated agency.
• Specific recommendations related to the staff compensation packages.
• Cost sharing models.
Once alternatives have been developed and evaluated in the terms noted above, Contractor shall
prepare a specific implementation plan. This plan shall include identification of the following:
• Key steps which need to be taken to implement consolidation (if recommended).
• Estimated costs associated with each step.
• A realistic time-phased plan for accomplishing each key task related to implementation,
as well as lead responsibility for each step.
Packet Pg. 88
Item 10
9
• Identification of specific barriers to each of the implementation steps developed as part
of the overall implementation plan for the chosen model(s).
The final report shall be reviewed with the project steering committee in draft form. Following approval
by project steering committee, Contractor’s project team shall finalize the report. Once the document is
completed, Contractor shall be prepared to conduct a final presentation before a meeting of elected
officials and the public, as desired by the project steering committee.
Packet Pg. 89
Item 10
December 20, 2018
Deanna Cantrell
Police Chief
1042 Walnut Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340
DCantrell@slocity.org
RE: UPDATED PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A POLICE/FIRE DISPATCH MERGER ANALYSIS FOR
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND ITS PARTNER AGENCIES
Dear Chief Cantrell:
In response to your request, as well as that of the Fire Department, Citygate Associates, LLC
(Citygate) is pleased to present our proposal to assist the City of San Luis Obispo and its partners
to study the opportunities and constraints in merging some of the County’s police and fire
dispatch centers into one shared center located at the San Luis Obispo Police Department
dispatch center. This letter serves as a high-level summary of our scope/task approach along with
costs based on a detailed analysis of the current number of study partners. We also provide
related project qualifications and references as Attachment A. This proposal letter does not show
the costs divided per agency, which will require the agencies reaching agreement on a cost share
formula.
PROJECT APPROACH
Our proposed project Work Plan involves everything we know to be needed in a communications
center merger effort and covers the scope questions you have asked us in prior documents.
Similar to other merger proposals, our Work Plan and budget only cover the steps to the point the
agencies agree to merge in concept. After that occurs, final costs and a Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) agreement can be cemented, including the needed impact bargaining with represented
employees. At that step, many of our clients perform much of the final analysis and
implementation work themselves, and use Citygate a little, if at all, on a time-and-materials basis
during implementation.
Packet Pg. 90
Item 10
Chief Cantrell
December 20, 2018
Page 2
PROPOSED PROJECT WORK PLAN
Our proposed project Work Plan consists of seven tasks in Phase I across six months, followed
by an optional Phase II for implementation support as needed.
PHASE I
Task 1: Initiate and Manage the Project; Request and Review the Agencies’
Data
1.1 Develop project work plan and schedule.
1.2 Request and review documentation.
1.3 Perform policy review/comparison.
1.4 Conduct start-up meeting(s) and interviews (including with Santa Cruz Dispatch JPA
leadership).
1.5 Perform follow-up work necessary after site meeting(s).
Task 2: Perform Personnel and Staffing Plan Analysis
2.1 Perform personnel and staffing plan analysis, including assessing the following:
Police positions (24/7/365 and/or partial)
Fire positions (24/7/365 and/or partial)
Call taking and 9-1-1 positions (24/7/365 and/or partial)
Overhead and support positions
Technology, training, supervision, management, and office support
Total full-time and part-time employees
Suggested staffing and work schedules
Organization chart
2.2 Perform total compensation macro analysis at San Luis Obispo’s rates.
Packet Pg. 91
Item 10
Chief Cantrell
December 20, 2018
Page 3
Task 3: Perform Workload Analysis
3.1 Perform workload analysis, including assessing the following:
Telephone/9-1-1 time of day, day of week
Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) calls for service data for police, fire, and other,
such as animal control
CAD data for self-initiated activity for police, fire, etc.
Non-dispatch ancillary duties
Audio recordings, records act requests, courts, etc.
Wants/warrant entry
3.2 Determine training needed for standardized, merged operation (complexities, differences,
and durations).
3.3 Determine JPA agreement macro deal points.
3.4 Determine cost sharing formulas.
Task 4: Assess Technology Considerations for Merger
4.1 Perform analysis of technology considerations for a merger, including the following:
Consoles needed
CAD platform
Records management platform
Radios
Phones
Mobile data terminals (hand-held devices)
Closed-circuit camera monitoring
Voice logging recorder
Text to 9-1-1
4.2 Assess macro technology conversion costs.
4.3 Assess macro personnel issues.
Packet Pg. 92
Item 10
Chief Cantrell
December 20, 2018
Page 4
Task 5: Conduct Mid-Project Briefing
5.1 Develop findings and recommendations.
5.2 Prepare PowerPoint briefing.
5.3 Deliver briefing to partners’ leadership as one group at one time.
5.4 Perform follow-up work as/if needed.
Task 6: Deliver Draft Report
6.1 Prepare and deliver Draft Report.
6.2 Conduct Draft Report review teleconference call.
Task 7: Deliver Final Report
7.1 Make necessary edits to Draft Report.
7.2 Prepare and deliver Final Report.
7.3 Prepare and deliver presentation.
PHASE II
Task 8: Provide Implementation Support
8.1 Provide technical assistance on the probable issues listed below, at our time-and-
materials rates:
Personnel costs and impact bargaining
CalPERS
Health care
Final start-up personnel costs
Final technical start-up issues/costs
Start-up plan
Packet Pg. 93
Item 10
Chief Cantrell
December 20, 2018
Page 5
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
Citygate anticipates the duration of Phase I of this project to be six months. We are available to
initiate the study upon execution of a contract. A summary of the proposed project schedule is
presented in the following table.
Proposed Project Schedule
Task Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6
1 Initiate and Manage Project
2 Perform Personnel/Staffing Plan Analysis
3 Perform Workload Analysis
4 Assess Technology Considerations
5 Conduct Mid-Project Briefing
6 Deliver Draft Report
7 Deliver Final Report
On-site meeting
STUDY COMPONENTS WITH WHICH THE PARTNER AGENCIES MUST ASSIST
The partner agencies have the best capability to compile most, if not all, of the data and
information needed to assist Citygate in advising the partners. Therefore, Citygate anticipates
that the partners will assist with this project by:
Providing proposed project documents and other information as requested by
Citygate, as available.
Providing dispatch center workload data to our specifications.
Identifying a single point of contact for this study.
Packet Pg. 94
Item 10
Chief Cantrell
December 20, 2018
Page 6
CITYGATE CONSULTANT TEAM
Citygate’s Project Team for this engagement includes the following Citygate consultants.
Chief Stewart Gary, MPA, Public Safety Principal
Chief Gary is the Public Safety Principal for Citygate Associates and is the
retired Fire Chief of the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department in Alameda
County, California. In 1996, he successfully designed and led the
implementation of the Livermore-Pleasanton fire department consolidation
which won a California League of Cities Helen Putnam Award. For 14 years,
he was the lead instructor and program content developer for the Standards of
Coverage process. For many years, he annually taught a 40-hour course on this
systems approach for fire deployment at the California Fire Academy, and he
teaches and consults across the United States and Canada on the Standards of Coverage process.
Chief Gary will direct the analysis and Project Team, assist with macro personnel issues, and
assist with the final presentation.
Comm Center Solutions, Public Safety Communications Specialists
Recognizing a void in public safety 9-1-1 professional consultants and specialists, Comm Center
Solutions was formed by Lynn Freeman and Danita Crombach as an all-inclusive consulting
agency to address any and all issues in public safety communications centers. Specializing in
providing public safety agencies with an array of services to meet the increasing challenges in
today’s public safety communications, Comm Center Solutions’ expertise includes personnel
issues, operations, staffing, investigations, incident reconstruction, quality assurance, Next
Generation 9-1-1 and project management. Comm Center Solutions offers balanced, insightful,
and tested solutions for 9-1-1 challenges.
With over 70 years of combined service in dispatch centers, Comm Center Solutions’ experience
is unmatched.
The following are biographies for Lynn and Danita:
Lynn Freeman, MA, ENP, Public Safety Communications Specialist
Lynn Freeman is one of the principal consultants/co-founders of Comm
Center Solutions. In addition to consulting, Ms. Freeman holds the position
of Deputy Director of the Critical Support and Logistics Division for the
Simi Valley Police Department. Reporting directly to the Chief of Police,
Ms. Freeman is responsible for administrative oversight of five civilian units
including: Communications (9-1-1/Dispatch), Crime Analysis, Fiscal,
Records Management, and Fleet and Facility Management. Ms. Freeman is
Packet Pg. 95
Item 10
Chief Cantrell
December 20, 2018
Page 7
tasked with development and implementation of Department’s $29 million budget and directs
staff of 40 employees, including five managers.
Ms. Freeman has worked for the Simi Valley Police Department for 37 years in a variety of
assignments, including communications manager, a position Ms. Freeman held for thirteen years,
with responsibility for oversight of day-to-day operations of the Communications Unit. She has
built dispatch centers literally from the ground up including a new facility in 1998 and the total
remodel of communication centers with the most recent in 2012. In addition, Ms. Freeman has
managed a multitude of projects and upgrades including implementation of two computer aided
dispatch (CAD) systems, voice logging recorders, 9-1-1 systems, and satellite/back-up facility.
Ms. Freeman is a certified Emergency Number Professional (ENP), holds a Center Manager
Certificate, Public Safety Telecommunications Certificate and Civil Litigation Certificate. Her
formal education accomplishments include an Associate’s Degree in Administrative of Justice,
and Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Emergency Management with a minor in Public Safety
Telecommunications.
Danita Crombach, Public Safety Communications Specialist
Danita Crombach is one of the principal consultants/co-founders of Comm
Center Solutions. She is widely recognized as a leader in many areas of
public safety communications with over 30 years of experience. Ms.
Crombach has been actively involved in organizations such as the National
Emergency Number Association (NENA), most recently as President of the
California chapter of NENA (CALNENA). She is a Senior Member with the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International
(APCO), and served as Secretary for the Southern California chapter
(CPRA). Ms. Crombach has also worked closely with the California State 9-1-1 Office as a
member of the Working Group and has twice been involved in determining the funding model
that is used to disseminate State Emergency Telephone Number Account (SETNA) funds to
California public safety answering points (PSAPs). She last served as the communications
manager with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, where she instituted a wide variety of
changes and programs—all designed to enhance efficiency and employee retention, while
improving service to the public.
Ms. Crombach is a long-standing certified Emergency Number Professional (ENP), holds a
Center Manager Certificate, Academy Instructor Certificate, Public Safety Telecommunications
Certificate, and numerous other certificates for course completion specific to public safety
communications and leadership. She was instrumental in the development of the California
POST 120-hour Basic Dispatcher Course and has been a presenter at basic, intermediate, and
advanced courses.
Packet Pg. 96
Item 10
Chief Cantrell
December 20, 2018
Page 8
Comm Center Solutions will attend all on-site meetings and interviews and perform the
personnel and staffing plan analysis, workload analysis, and technology needs assessment.
Chief Samuel Mazza, CFC, CFO, EFO, Senior Fire Services Specialist
Chief Mazza is a Senior Fire and Emergency Services Specialist with over
40 years of fire service experience. He is the retired Fire Chief of the City of
Monterey, California, where he oversaw a successful consolidation of fire
services with the City of Pacific Grove. Prior to his service with Monterey,
Chief Mazza spent over 30 years with CAL FIRE in numerous assignments
spanning state, county, and special district services. He has extensive
collaborative and command experience, including appointment as the
Incident Commander of a statewide Type-1 Incident Command Team. Chief
Mazza is a California state Certified Fire Chief, CPSE Chief Fire Officer, Executive Fire Officer,
and National Fire Academy instructor.
Chief Mazza will assist with the analysis of personnel, macro compensation, calls for service,
training needs, and cost sharing. He will attend the initial on-site meeting and final presentation.
Andrew Green, MBA, Fiscal Specialist
Mr. Green has over 35 years of experience in all aspects of municipal
finance, including as a professional manager. He has had primary
responsibility for the development and monitoring of citywide budgets for
four municipalities, with total budgets ranging from $70 million to $680
million. He developed and fine-turned long-range financial plans for multiple
municipalities, including playing a lead role in taking the City of Pasadena
from a $10 million General Fund operating deficit to a $5 million General
Fund operating surplus. Mr. Green also has a Master of Business
Administration degree with honors.
Mr. Green will assist with the macro analysis of total compensation and determination of cost
sharing formulas.
Eric Lind, MA, Statistical and Operational Analysis Specialist
Eric Lind’s 18 years’ experience spans several industries, including two years
in municipal government as a performance improvement analyst, including
prior service for the City of Vancouver. His municipal government experience
has largely focused on public safety performance improvement projects. He
has developed baseline system-wide EMS response time capability and testing
alternative models, reviewed MPDS systems and dispatch priorities for EMS
systems, and improved Public Safety dispatch process flow. He has also
Packet Pg. 97
Item 10
Chief Cantrell
December 20, 2018
Page 9
performed a fire facilities location study, alternative fire service delivery modeling, and an
administrative performance assessment of civilian police staff.
Mr. Lind has used performance improvement and business transformation techniques throughout
his career across the globe. He is skilled with developing and conducting statistical research to
answer operations questions. He is equally comfortable with survey research. He has two
published survey research papers, including one he developed for Rotary International.
Mr. Lind is a Lean Six Sigma Certified Black Belt and has a Bachelors and two Masters Degrees
in International Business, each from a different country.
Mr. Lind will assist the Project Team as needed with data, statistical, and operational analysis.
David DeRoos, MPA, CMC, Citygate President
Mr. DeRoos has over 30 years of experience as a consultant to local
government, preceded by five years as an assistant to the City Administrator.
He earned his undergraduate degree in Political Science / Public Service (Phi
Beta Kappa) from the University of California, Davis, and holds a master’s
degree in public administration from the University of Southern California.
Prior to becoming a Principal in Citygate in 1991, he was a Senior Manager
in the local government consulting division of Ernst & Young.
Mr. DeRoos is responsible for ensuring the study is conducted smoothly and efficiently within the
schedule and budget allocated and that study deliverables meet Citygate’s and the client’s
quality standards.
STUDY COSTS
Our charges are based on actual time spent by our consultants at their established billing rates,
plus reimbursable expenses incurred in conjunction with travel, printing, clerical, and support
services related to the engagement. As such, we will undertake this study for a “not-to-exceed”
total cost based on our proposed project Work Plan, scope of work, and schedule for Phase I
only. Any additional work outside the scope of services described in this proposal, as mutually
agreed to in writing as a change order, will be billed at the hourly rate of the respective
consultant(s), including any reimbursable expenses plus a five percent (5%) administrative fee.
Phase I Project Cost
Consulting Fees of
Project Team
Reimbursable
Expenses
Administration
(5% of Hourly Fees) Total
$116,710 (607 hours) $4,040 $5,836 $126,586
Packet Pg. 98
Item 10
Chief Cantrell
December 20, 2018
Page 10
The following is Citygate’s breakdown of hours by task to conduct this study.
Task DeRoos, David Gary, Stewart Mazza, Sam Comm Center Solutions Green, Andy Citygate Report & Administrative Support Total 1 Initiate Project; Data Review; On-site Meetings 2 2 19 80 0 6 109
2 Perform Personnel/Staffing Plan Analysis 2 0 18 96 8 4 128
3 Perform Workload Analysis 2 1 10 96 2 4 115
4 Assess Technology Considerations 2 8 8 38 4 4 64
5 Conduct Mid-Project Briefing 2 3 8 36 0 8 57
6 Deliver Draft Report 2 6 18 36 4 24 90
7 Deliver Final Report 0 10 12 10 0 12 44
Total 12 30 93 392 18 62 607
This cost proposal reflects our best effort to be responsive to the partners’ needs for this study, as
we understand them, at a reasonable cost. If our proposed scope of work and/or cost is not in
alignment with your needs or expectations, we are open to discussing modifications to our
proposed scope of work and the associated costs.
The price quoted is effective for 60 days from the date of receipt of this proposal. Citygate’s
proposal includes one (1) draft review cycle as described in Task 6 of the Work Plan, to be
completed by Citygate and the partners within 30 calendar days of the partners receiving the
Draft Report. Additional Draft Report cycles or processing delays requested by the partners
would be billed in addition to the contracted amount at Citygate’s time and materials rates. When
changes are agreed upon, Citygate will provide the Final Report in reproducible .PDF format.
The Draft Report will be considered to be the Final Report if there are no suggested changes
within 30 days of the delivery of the Draft Report.
Standard Hourly Billing Rates
The following rates will be used for Phase I work, as well as additional implementation support
provided in Phase II as needed.
Packet Pg. 99
Item 10
Chief Cantrell
December 20, 2018
Page 11
Classification Rate Consultant
Citygate President $225 per hour David DeRoos
Public Safety Principal $250 per hour Stewart Gary
Senior Fire Services Specialist $210 per hour Samuel Mazza
Public Safety Communications Specialist $195 per hour Lynn Freeman
Public Safety Communications Specialist $195 per hour Danita Crombach
Fiscal Specialist $195 per hour Andrew Green
Statistical and Operational Analysis Specialist $170 per hour Eric Lind
Report Project Administrator $125 per hour Chad Jackson
Administrative Support $ 95 per hour Various
Billing Schedule
We will bill monthly for time, reimbursable expenses incurred at actual costs (travel), and a five
percent (5%) administration charge in lieu of individual charges for copies, phone, etc. Our
invoices are payable within thirty (30) days. Citygate’s billing terms are net thirty (30) days plus
two percent (2%) for day thirty-one (31) and two percent (2%) per month thereafter. Our practice
is to send both our monthly status report and invoice electronically. Once we are selected for this
project, we will request the email for the appropriate recipients of the electronic documents. Hard
copies of these documents will be provided only upon request. We prefer to receive payment via
ACH Transfer, if available.
We request that ten percent (10%) of the project cost be advanced at the execution of the
contract, to be used to offset our start-up costs. This advance would be credited to our last
invoice.
* * *
Citygate’s team of specialists would be honored to be of service to the City and its partners for
this project.
Please feel free to contact me at (916) 458-5100, extension 305, or via email at
sgary@citygateassociates.com if you wish further information.
Sincerely,
Stewart Gary, MPA
Public Safety Principal
Attachment: A—Qualifications and References
Packet Pg. 100
Item 10
ATTACHMENT A
CITYGATE QUALIFICATIONS AND
REFERENCES
Packet Pg. 101
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 1
CITYGATE EXPERIENCE
The following is a brief description of Citygate’s related public safety consulting experience. We
provide project references, a description of several studies, and a list of other completed public
safety engagements. For a more comprehensive list of Citygate’s public safety projects, please
visit our website at www.citygateassociates.com.
PROJECT REFERENCES
The following are Citygate references for related engagements.
City of San Diego, CA
Project: Fire Communications Center,
Standards of Coverage, Lifeguard Dispatch
Review, and EMS SOC
Brian Fennessy, Retired San Diego Fire
Chief, Current Orange County Fire Authority
Fire Chief
(714) 559-2700
San Diego County Office of Emergency
Services, CA
Project: Countywide Deployment Study for
Regional Fire, Rescue, and Emergency
Medical Services (57 Total Fire Agencies)
Andy Parr, San Diego County EMS
Administrator
(619) 285-6524
Stanford University, CA
Project: Fire Services System Review
Laura Wilson, Police Chief
(650) 723-9633
Heartland Communications Facility
Authority, CA
Project: Dispatch Shared Services Analysis
Andy Parr, San Diego County EMS
Administrator
(619) 285-6524
RELATED PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
The following is a small selection of previous related fire services engagements.
City of San Luis Obispo, CA – Police Department Comprehensive Services Delivery and
Staffing Review
Citygate performed a comprehensive services delivery and staffing review of the San Luis
Obispo Police Department. The study included a review of the adequacy of the existing
deployment system, scheduling, and staffing. Citygate’s report included a detailed analysis of the
response time, crime, and call data that drives the recommendations for staffing in Patrol, as well
as an assessment of the staffing of the support functions in the Department.
Packet Pg. 102
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 2
City of San Luis Obispo, CA – Fire Department Deployment Study and Master Plan
Citygate performed a fire department planning study, which included a Standards of Coverage
planning analysis to examine the levels of fire department services by occupancy type and land
use classifications. The study included assessing fire services to California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo. The study also included fire station and staffing infrastructure
triggers for additional resources and an analysis of headquarters and prevention systems, as well
as order of magnitude costs and possible financing strategies.
City of San Luis Obispo, CA – Update to Standards of Coverage Plan
Citygate completed a review of projected growth in the City of San Luis Obispo’s current
General Plan and an assessment of fire service funding sources as part of a Standards of
Coverage update. Citygate assessed the addition of a fifth fire station, or redistribution of the
existing four stations, to serve new development in planned growth areas of the City.
City of San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, CA – Fire Communications Center and Lifeguard
Dispatch Review
Citygate performed a fire dispatch merger feasibility study for the San Diego Fire-Rescue
Department with the Heartland Communications Facility Authority and North County Dispatch
Joint Powers Authority, along with a parallel feasibility study of merging lifeguard dispatch with
San Diego Fire Dispatch. In this study, Citygate reviewed, assessed, and provided
recommendations, both immediate and long-term, regarding both the fire communications center
and the lifeguard communications center for adequacy to perform.
Heartland Communications Facility Authority, CA – Dispatch Shared Services Analysis
Citygate performed an analysis to assess the feasibility of shared dispatch services between the
Heartland Communications Facility Authority and the San Diego County Fire Authority to
identify alternatives to the status as autonomous agencies providing 9-1-1 and communications
services to their members and contract agencies while preserving and/or improving performance,
in addition to containing or reducing costs. As part of this study, Citygate reviewed the present
status and needs of both Heartland and the North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority and
assessed the impacts on space needs of a combined operation.
Lakeside Fire Protection District – Master Plan Analysis for the Heartland Communications
Facility Authority
Citygate assessed the future plans, options, and strategies to provide fire and emergency medical
services despite the Heartland Communications Facility Authority JPA’s new capital
improvement needs. Citygate advised the HCFA regarding the opportunities for the agency
related to future facilities, infrastructure, and systems.
Packet Pg. 103
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 3
Cities of Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, and Placentia, CA – Police Dispatch
Merger Feasibility Study
Citygate performed a dispatch study to evaluate opportunities for regional police, including
evaluating opportunities for shared dispatching between two or more of the study partners that
might achieve improvements in some or all the following: efficiency and effectiveness,
enhancing or expanding services, reducing and/or avoiding costs and duplications, standardizing
services and programs, enhancing opportunities for future grant funding, and enhancing
customer service.
Monterey County 9-1-1 Emergency Communications JPA – Comprehensive Fiscal
Feasibility Analysis and Facilitation of the Development of a Joint Powers Authority
Governance Agreement
Citygate was selected to develop a comprehensive 10-year cost feasibility analysis comparing the
current Monterey County 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Dispatch Services model to the
proposed Joint Powers Authority (JPA) model, facilitate development of a JPA governance and
cost-share structure among the prospective JPA partners, and draft the complete JPA agreement
for stakeholder discussion.
San Diego County Office of Emergency Services, CA – Countywide Deployment Study for
Regional Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Medical Services (57 Total Fire Agencies)
Citygate completed a project to implement a phased process designed to establish a blueprint for
improving the County of San Diego’s regional fire protection and emergency medical system.
The study assessed current levels of service, identified future needs, provided options for a
regional governance structure, and developed cost-feasible proposals to improve the region’s
ability to respond to natural or manmade disaster, including wildfires, earthquakes, terrorism,
and other multi-hazard events; bolster day-to-day operations for local agencies; and enhance the
delivery of fire and emergency medical services in the County.
The study exceeded the County’s expectations and was very well received by the elected
officials and stakeholders in May 2010. The County has since retained Citygate to provide ad
hoc assistance with implementation of the study’s recommendations. More information on this
study, including links to watch the final presentation, listen to a related radio interview with
Stewart Gary, view study documents, and read local news articles, is available here:
http://citygateassociates.com/Fire_San_Diego_County_Study.html.
The Board of Supervisors voted 5–0 to adopt Citygate’s recommendations, and the County is
now in the process of implementing the recommendations.
City of Surprise, AZ – Public Safety Master Plan
Citygate assisted the City of Surprise by developing a comprehensive Public Safety Master Plan
that will enable the Police and Fire-Medical Departments to complete their organizational and
Packet Pg. 104
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 4
programmatic goals while falling in line with the City of Surprise General Plan 2035 and City
Council Strategic Plan. We developed an organizational strategy that serves as a blueprint for
public safety’s 15-year goals, but also details specific three-year implementation steps. To
accomplish these objectives, Citygate comprehensively assessed all facets of the current public
safety operations, including mission, goals, policies, practices, deployment, facilities, equipment,
programming, organizational structure, and staffing levels.
Los Angeles County – Emergency Medical Services Organizational and Operational Review
and Strategic Plan
Citygate performed an expansive review of the organizational and operational components of the
EMS program at the Los Angeles County Fire Department. A comprehensive strategic plan was
also developed to guide the next three to six years of improvement in the Department’s EMS
programs and allied support structures. This study and strategic plan addressed deployment, use
of resources, best practices in pre-hospital medicine, organizational and personnel practices, and
the use of information technology.
Despite challenges faced, the Department is managing and implementing the delivery of
successful programs and changes recommended in Citygate’s reports. Among those
achievements, the Department hired a permanent Medical Director, improved relations with the
EMS agency, implemented electronic patient care records, revamped the quality improvement
program, completed back-logged EMS report scanning, and became the first Fire Department to
go live with the implementation of the Safety Intelligence Risk Management Software tool.
City of San Jose, CA – Fire Department Organizational Review
Citygate conducted a large organizational review of the San Jose Fire Department. This review
evaluated the delivery of Fire Department services, technological improvements as they relate to
Department response time performance and increases in Department efficiencies in operations.
To accomplish this, Citygate conducted a detailed community risk assessment; a Standards of
Coverage (SOC) review; an evaluation of the Department’s organizational climate and structure,
including an online employee survey; an EMS Program review; a review of the Communications
Center; and an assessment of fiscal impacts, phasing, and possible next steps of changes
recommended by Citygate. The SOC review included an analysis of the impact of traffic
congestion on response times.
City of San Diego, CA – Standards of Coverage Update Analysis
Citygate performed a Standards of Coverage update analysis based on our 2010 study for the San
Diego Fire-Rescue Department, including a comprehensive assessment of the Department’s
deployment fact-pattern in light of changes over the prior six years.
Packet Pg. 105
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 5
City of San Diego, CA – Standards of Coverage Study
Citygate conducted a fire service Standards of Coverage deployment study for the San Diego
Fire-Rescue Department, which serves a population over 1.25 million. The study broke new
ground by determining the appropriate number of additional fire stations critically needed and
then recommended Fast Response Squads staffed by two firefighters/paramedics for adaptive
peak-hour deployment. The study independently reviewed in depth the existing fire and
emergency medical risks to be protected and the current and desirable response system to meet
these needs and recommended a best-fit solution to most effectively leverage the existing
situation while allowing the development of an even-stronger regional response system to benefit
everyone.
Monterey County, CA – Comprehensive Services Delivery and Staffing Review of the Sheriff’s
Department
Citygate performed a comprehensive services delivery and staffing review of the Monterey
County Sheriff’s Department. This study addressed all facets of field, command, and support
operations, including, but not limited to: Enforcement Operations (patrol), Corrections
Operations (jail), Administration, Investigations, Internal Affairs, professional standards,
training, records, support services, civil services, coroner services, and other specialty services.
City of Glendale, AZ – Comprehensive Public Safety Deployment and Performance Review of
the Police and Fire Departments
Citygate performed a comprehensive deployment and performance review for the Fire and Police
Departments in Glendale, Arizona. This review included a Standards of Coverage and
headquarters assessment for fire services, as well as a police services analysis and an advanced
data overview for both Departments. Citygate also conducted a staffing analysis.
Santa Barbara County, CA – Fire Services Deployment and Departmental Performance Audit
Study
Citygate completed a Standards of Coverage deployment analysis and departmental performance
assessment of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. The study identified both the current
service level and level of services desired and then assessed the Department’s ability to provide
them. After understanding gaps—if any—in operations and resources, Citygate provided
recommendations to maximize and improve Department operations and resources over time. The
study was well received by the Department, County Chief Executive, and the Board of
Supervisors, who, after receiving the study, adopted a revised funding plan for the dependent fire
district.
Beverly Hills Fire Department, CA – Performance Audit and Strategic Plan
Citygate conducted a general organizational Fire/EMS analysis of the City of Beverly Hills Fire
Department and developed a strategic plan. The goal of the study was to assess the current
Packet Pg. 106
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 6
emergency response services/operations of the Department, identify gaps in operations and
resources, develop recommendations to maximize current Department operations and resources,
and identify best practices that may be applicable for the City. The study results were warmly
accepted by the Department, City Manager, and Council, who used the study for revised budget
discussions.
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, CA – Standards of Coverage Study and a Services
Reduction (Brownout) Study
The Fire/EMS Standards of Coverage study was commissioned to analyze the effectiveness of
the current deployment system; evaluate the need for additional fire stations, apparatus, and
crews; recommend criteria for the placement and timing of these stations; and develop the
criteria for deployment reductions of three to five fire stations to meet the fiscal needs of the
District’s declining revenues.
The study exceeded all the District’s expectations and was very well received by the elected
officials and stakeholders. The District adopted and implemented Citygate’s brownout service
reduction plan. Since then, Citygate has been obtained by the District to perform multiple fire
services studies.
Chino Valley Independent Fire District, CA – Standards of Coverage Assessment and Master
Plan Update
Citygate conducted a Standards of Coverage assessment and Master Plan update for the Chino
Valley Independent Fire District in San Bernardino County, California. This project included a
comprehensive community risk assessment, Standards of Coverage analysis, fiscal and staffing
analysis, and future needs assessment.
Packet Pg. 107
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 7
CITYGATE CLIENT SUMMARY
In additional to the related studies above, Citygate presents a listing of additional
Master/Strategic Plans, SOC/deployment studies, consolidation projects, and general projects
that we have completed.
Master/Strategic Plans
City of Anacortes, WA
City of Andover, KS
Aptos/La Selva FPD, CA
City of Atwater, CA
City of Belmont, CA
City of Beverly Hills, CA
Butte County, CA
City of Carlsbad, CA
Clark County FPD No. 6, WA
City of Corona, CA
Cosumnes CSD, CA
City of Dixon, CA
City of DuPont, WA
East Contra Costa County FPD, CA
El Dorado Hills Fire District, CA
Fresno County, CA
Lakeside FPD, CA
Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs Association,
CA
Los Angeles County, CA
Madera County, CA
Monterey County, CA
Mountain House CSD, CA
City of Mukilteo, WA
City of Napa, CA
Napa County, CA
City of Newark, CA
City of Oakdale / Oakdale Rural FPD, CA
City of Oceanside, CA
City of Orange, CA
City of Peoria, AZ
Presidio Trust, CA
Port of Long Beach, CA
Port of Los Angeles, CA
Rock Creek Rural FPD, ID
Salida FPD, CA
Salton CSD, CA
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
City of Soledad, CA
City of Surprise, AZ
Travis County ESD #6, TX
Town of Windsor, CA
University of California, Davis
University of California, Merced
City of Yucaipa, CA
Packet Pg. 108
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 8
Fire Standards of Coverage / Deployment Studies
City of Alameda, CA
Alameda County, CA
Alameda County Fire Department, CA
City of Bakersfield, CA
City of Brentwood, CA
City of Calexico, CA
City of Carlsbad, CA
Carpinteria-Summerland FPD, CA
Central FPD of Santa Cruz County, CA
Chino Valley Fire District, CA
City of Cleveland, OH
Coastside FPD, CA
City of Costa Mesa, CA
Cosumnes CSD, CA
City of Eagan, MN
East Contra Costa County FPD, CA
El Dorado Hills Fire District, CA
City of Emeryville, CA
City of Enid, OK
City of Eureka, CA
City of Fairfield, CA
City of Folsom, CA
City of Georgetown, TX
City of Huntington Beach, CA
Kings County, CA
Lakeside FPD, CA
Los Angeles County EMS, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Marin County, CA
Menlo Park FPD, CA
City of Merced, CA
City of Minneapolis, MN
Missouri City, TX
Montecito FPD, CA
City of Monterey Park, CA
National City, CA
North County FPD, CA
North Lake Tahoe FPD, NV
City of Oakland, CA
City of Ogden, UT
City of Orange, CA
City of Palm Springs, CA
City of Pasadena, CA
City of Pearland, TX
City of Redlands, CA
City of Roseville, CA
City of Sacramento, CA
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, CA
City of San Bernardino, CA
City of San Diego, CA
City of San Jose, CA
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
City of San Marcos, CA
City of San Mateo, CA
San Mateo County, CA
San Ramon Valley FPD, CA
Santa Barbara County, CA
City of Santa Clara, CA
Santa Clara County, CA
City of Seaside, CA
Snohomish County Fire District 1, WA
South County Fire Authority, CA
Southern Marin FPD, CA
South Placer FPD, CA
City of South San Francisco, CA
South San Mateo County, CA
South Santa Clara FPD, CA
Stanislaus Consolidated FPD, CA
City of Stockton, CA
Suisun City, CA
City of Sunnyvale, CA
Templeton CSD, CA
Travis County ESD No. 6, TX
City of Vacaville, CA
City of Vallejo, CA
Valley Center FPD, CA
City of Vancouver, WA
Ventura County FPD, CA
City of Victorville, CA
City of Vista, CA
City of Woodland, CA
Yuba City, CA
Packet Pg. 109
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 9
Consolidations and Contract-for-Service Analyses
City of Arcata, CA – Fire Services
Feasibility Analysis
Brea/Fullerton, CA – Feasibility Analysis
for Providing Multi-City Fire Services
under JPA Jurisdiction
Cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, and San
Bruno and Town of Hillsborough, CA –
Fire Services Merger Technical
Implementation
City of Covina, CA – Contract-for-Service
Analysis
El Dorado LAFCO (CA) – Countywide
Fire and Emergency Services Study
City of Emeryville, CA – Assessment of
Fire Service Provision Options
City of Eureka and Humboldt No. 1 Fire
Protection District, CA – Consolidation or
Contract Fire Services Feasibility Analysis
City of Greenfield and the Greenfield Fire
Protection District, CA – Fire Services
Reorganization Study
Heartland Communications Facility
Authority, CA – Second Phase Merger
Feasibility Study
City of Hermosa Beach, CA – Analysis of
Contract for Fire Services Proposal
Cities of Hesperia, Adelanto, and
Victorville and Town of Apple Valley, CA
– Public Safety JPA Feasibility Study
Lawrence Livermore National Security –
Fire Consulting Services
City of Lodi, CA – Contract for Services
Feasibility Analysis
Cities of Manhattan Beach and Hermosa
Beach, CA – Operational Assessment
Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, and
Carmel, CA – High-Level Consolidation
Feasibility Analysis
Cities of Newark and Union City, CA –
Consolidation or ALCO Contract for
Services Study
Cities of Orange, Fullerton, and Anaheim,
CA – Consolidation Feasibility Analysis
Cities of Patterson and Newman, and West
Stanislaus County FPD, CA – Joint Fire
Protection Study
Placer County – Fire Service
Consolidation Implementation Plan
Presidio Trust and National Park
Service – Fire Services Reorganization
City of San Diego Fire-Rescue
Department, CA – Ambulance Contract
Analysis and System Re-Bid Design
San Diego County Office of Emergency
Services (CA) – Countywide
Deployment and Fiscal Study for
Regional Fire, Rescue, and Emergency
Medical Services (57 Total Fire
Agencies)
Cities of San Mateo, Foster City, and
Belmont, CA – JPA Workshop
City of Santa Rosa and Rincon FPD,
CA – Fire Consolidation Analysis
City of Sausalito and Southern Marin
FPD, CA – Fire Consolidation
Implementation Analysis
Seaside and Marina Fire Services, CA –
Consolidation Implementation
Assistance
Snohomish County Fire District 1, WA
– Review of Regional Fire Authority
Financial and Level-of-Service Plan
City of Sonoma and Valley of the Moon
FPD, CA – Fire Services
Reorganization Study
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA – Fire
Department Consolidation Feasibility
Analysis
South Santa Clara County Area Fire
Departments, CA – Reorganization
Feasibility Study
UC Davis and Cities of Davis, West
Sacramento, and Woodland, CA –
Consolidation Feasibility Analysis
UC Santa Cruz and City of Santa Cruz,
CA – Consolidation Feasibility
Analysis
City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Fire
District, CA – Feasibility of
Establishing a “District Overlay”
City of Victorville, CA – Fire Services
Options Review
Packet Pg. 110
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 10
City of Pinole, CA – Regional Fire Service
Delivery Study
Cities of Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande,
and Grover Beach and Oceano CSD, CA –
High -Level Consolidation Feasibility
Analysis
Yuba City, CA – Fire Services
Organizational Review
Yuba County Valley Floor Agencies,
CA – Fire Services Merger Study
Packet Pg. 111
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 11
General Studies
Alameda County Health Care Services
Agency – EMS System Consultation
Services
Alameda County, CA – Incident
Management Teams
City of Albany, NY – Management Audit
City of Alpine Springs, CA – Services Cost
Sharing
City of Atascadero, CA – Project Impact and
Mitigation Assessment
Bay Area UASI – Incident Management
Training
Cities of Brea and Fullerton, CA – Fire
Resource and Ambulance Plan
City of Brentwood, CA – Service Costs and
Options
City of Calistoga, CA – Fire Safety Review
Chabot-Las Positas Community College
District, CA – Fire Services and EMS
Training Facility Review
City of Chula Vista, CA – Analysis of
Overtime Use; Fiscal and Operational Policy
Assistance for ALS Plan
City of Cloverdale, CA – Impact Fees
Contra Costa County, CA – Financial
Review
City of Copperopolis, CA – Fire Prevention
City of Corona, CA – Fire Prevention
City of Costa Mesa, CA – Potential Fire
Station #6 Closure Impact Evaluation
City of Davis, CA – Operations /
Management
Donnelly Rural Fire Protection District, ID –
Mitigation
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District,
CA – Mapping Analysis
City of El Dorado Hills, CA – Peer Review
City of Encinitas, CA – Fire Station Review
EMSA – Training Program Development
City of Fairfield, CA – Review of the Fire
Station Needs for the Fairfield Train Station
Specific Plan
City of Fremont, CA – Response Statistics;
Comprehensive Multi-Discipline Type 3
IMT Training Program
Northstar, CA – Fire Impacts and Growth
Review
City of Paso Robles – Fire Services Review
and City Council Workshop
City of Patterson, CA – Advance Planning
PG&E – Mitigation
City of Piedmont, CA – Emergency
Operations Center Training
Placer County, CA – Fire Services and
Revenue Assessment
PlumpJack Squaw Valley Inn, CA –
Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation
Plan Review
City of Portland, OR – Public Information
Officer Training
Port of Long Beach, CA – Mitigation
Port of Long Beach, CA – Update of Port
Multi-Hazard Firefighting Study
Port of Los Angeles, CA – Performance
Audit
Port of Oakland/City of Oakland – Domain
Awareness Center Staffing Plan
Development
City of Poway, CA – Overtime Audit
Rancho Cucamonga Fire District, CA – Fire
Services Feasibility Review
Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District,
CA – EMS Operational and Fiscal
Feasibility Review
City of Roseville, CA – EMS Transport
City of Sacramento, CA – Fire Prevention
Best Practices
Sacramento Metropolitan Airport, CA –
Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Study
Sacramento Regional Fire/EMS
Communications Center, CA – EMS Data
Assessment
City of Salinas – Comprehensive Fiscal
Feasibility Analysis and Facilitation of the
Development of a JPA Governance
Agreement
Salton CSD, CA – Fire Services Impacts
Review
City of San Bernardino – Evaluation of City
Fire Service Proposals
Packet Pg. 112
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 12
City of Glendale, AZ – Public Safety Audit
City of Goodyear, AZ – Fire Department
Management Audit
Hamilton City Fire Protection District, CA –
Preliminary Diagnostic Assessment
City of Hemet, CA – Costing and Peer
Review for Fire Service Alternatives
City of Hermosa Beach, CA – Analysis of
Los Angeles County Fire District’s Contract
for Fire Services Proposals
City of Hesperia, CA – Cost Estimate for
Hesperia-Provided Fire Services
Kelseyville Fire Protection District, CA –
Executive Search
Kings County, CA – High-Speed Rail
Project Impact Analysis
Kitsap Public Health District, WA –
Emergency Response Plan Review Services
City of Loma Linda, CA – Cost of Services
Los Angeles County, CA – Fire Services
Impact Review
Madera County, CA – Fire Station Siting
Analysis
City of Manhattan Beach – Evaluation of
Site Options for Fire Station 2
Maui County, HI – Fire Audit
Menlo Park Fire Protection District – Site
Assessments for Fire Stations 3, 4, and 5
City of Millbrae, CA – Fire and Police
Service Impacts for Millbrae Station Area
Plan
City of Mill Valley, CA – Fire and
Emergency Medical Services Study
City of Milpitas, CA – Fire Services
Planning Assistance
Monterey County, CA – EMS Agency
Ambulance Systems Issues Review and
Analysis
Monterey County, CA – EMS
Communications Plan
Monterey County, CA – Office of
Emergency Services Tabletop Exercise for
Elkhorn Slough
City of Napa, CA – Mitigation
Newark-Union City, CA – Fire Services
Alternatives
City of San Diego Fire-Rescue Department,
CA – Emergency Command and Data
Center Staffing Study
City of San Diego Fire-Rescue Department,
CA – Fire Communications Center and
Lifeguard Dispatch Review
City and County of San Francisco, CA –
Incident Management Training
San Jose, CA – Fire Department
Organizational Review
San Mateo County, CA – Countywide Fire
Service Deployment Measurement System
City of Santa Barbara, CA (Airport) –
Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Study
Santa Clara County, CA – Incident
Management Training
Santa Cruz County, CA – Incident
Management Training
Town of Scotia Company, LLC – Board
Training Workshop
Snohomish County Fire District 1 – Peak
Hour Ambulance Use Study
Sonoma LAFCO, CA – Municipal Services
Review
Southern Marin Emergency Medical
Paramedic Services, CA – EMS Resources
Deployment Analysis
South Monterey County Fire Protection
District, CA – Needs Assessment
City of South San Francisco, CA – Provision
of Station Deployment Coverage GIS Maps
Squaw Valley, CA – Assessment of Project
Impacts
Stanford University, CA – Fire Services
System Review Consulting Services
Tracy Rural Fire Protection District, CA –
Fire Analysis
City of West Sacramento, CA – Impact Fees
Study
Wheatland Fire Authority, CA – Operational
Feasibility Review
City of Woodland, CA – Fire Station
Location Peer Review
Yolo LAFCO, CA – Combined MSR/SOI
Study
City of Yorba Linda, CA – Emergency
Operations Center Training
Packet Pg. 113
Item 10
Citygate Qualifications and References page 13
City of North Lake Tahoe, CA –
Management Team Workshop
Yuba County, CA – Comprehensive
Services Delivery and Staffing Review
Packet Pg. 114
Item 10
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
Citygate Associates, LLC
It is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to solicit quotations or bids for purchases of commodities or
services for specified dollar amounts and to select vendors on a competitive basis (See City of San Luis
Obispo Financial Management Manual, Section 201, Exhibit 201-B).
Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.24.060, certain acquisitions in which the products
or services may only be obtained from a single source may be purchased without engaging in bidding
procedures. Such Sole Source acquisitions must be justified in sufficient detail to explain the basis for
suspending the usual competitive procurement process and approved by the approving authority before
such a purchase is made.
1. What product or service is being requested? Why is it necessary?
The Police Department is requesting to purchase consulting services from Citygate Associates, LLC
(Citygate) to conduct a feasibility study for a regional dispatch consolidation. The Cities of Atascadero,
Paso Robles, and Cal Poly University Police have all shown interest in forming a Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) with the City of San Luis Obispo to accomplish the consolidation of dispatch services. Currently,
a scope of work for a feasibility study (Attachment 1) has been drafted. With positive feedback
regarding the feasibility study scope of work, the Police Department feels confident to move forward
and contract with Citygate Associates, LCC to determine if a JPA for a regional dispatch consolidation
is feasible.
This service is necessary because it will provide the cities involved an objective recommendation as
to whether forming a JPA for a regional dispatch consolidation is feasible. This is an important step in
determining the best way to move forward with dispatch services within the City of San Luis Obispo
as well as working in-line with the City’s Fiscal Health Response Plan to potentially cut costs while still
offering a high-level of emergency services to our community members.
2. Is this “brand” of product or services offered the only one that meets the City’s requirements? If
yes, what is unique about the product/services?
One of the department’s requirements for contracting with a consultant for a dispatch consolidation
feasibility study was for the consultant to have the capacity to conduct such a large feasibility study
as well as having extensive knowledge of the City’s operations and policies. Due to Citygate’s extensive
knowledge and background working with the City of San Luis Obispo, Citygate is the preferred and
unique consultant due to their expertise in this specific area. Citygate has worked with the City
numerous times, including: performing the 2009 Fire Services Master Plan, the 2015 update to the
fire-based emergency response portion in the City’s 2009 Fire Services Master Plan, and working with
the Police Department on our staffing and workload study. Their knowledge of our City operations,
processes, and policies makes them the preferred vendor to complete a feasibility study that will
require immense communication, data and staffing analysis.
Packet Pg. 115
Item 10
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
3. Is the product or service proprietary or is it available from various dealers? Have you verified this?
Citygate is not a proprietary vendor of providing consulting services for a regional dispatch
consolidation feasibility study. Other vendors include Dhillon Associates, who were commissioned to
complete a dispatch consolidation feasibility study by the City of Arroyo Grande in 2009. Although
they have completed similar work in the past for our regional partners, it is unadvised to contract with
them due to their limited knowledge regarding our scope of work. Over the past few months the
department has sent our scope of work to two different consultants to receive feedback. Citygate was
the only consultant who provided a detailed and phased approach to accomplishing the feasibility
study.
4. Have other products/vendors been considered? If yes, which products/vendors have been
considered and how did they fail to meet the City’s requirements?
As mentioned above, the department did reach out to another consultant group, Belcher, Ehle,
Medina, and Associates (BEMA) for their response regarding out scope of work. They were heavily
involved in the Santa Clara County Fire consolidated communications with San Jose Fire, Mountain
View Fire, and Palo Alto Fire. In their response to our scope of work, they provided feedback that they
believed the document was very comprehensive but that they did not have the capacity to complete
a project of this size and scope. Because of this, they failed to meet the requirement of the project.
5. Is the purchase an upgrade or addition to an existing system or brand of products adopted citywide?
If so, will purchase of this product avoid other costs as opposed to purchasing another product or
service (e.g., additional training required; data conversion; implementation of a new system; etc.)?
I don’t believe this question is pertinent.
6. Is this a request for services by a contractor with necessary, unique and critical knowledge of
established City systems or programs? If so, will using the contractor’s services avoid other costs
(e.g.: significant staff time in compiling information, data transfers, etc.)?
Yes. The consulting group, Citygate Associates, LLC. has extensive knowledge of City practices and
policies that have been amplified by working with the City of San Luis Obispo in the past multiple
times.
Using the Citygate is the only feasible option for moving forward with a dispatch consolidation
feasibility study because neither the department nor the other Cities involved have the capacity or
knowledge to effectively complete a comprehensive and objective recommendation for forming a JPA
between the Cities involved.
Packet Pg. 116
Item 10
City of San Luis Obispo Sole Source Justification Form
7. What is the quoted price for the product or services and is it reasonable (based on other products
or services in the same field or based on historical pricing for the City for similar products or
services)?
The quoted price for the consulting fees and project team is $126,586. The current strategy for
paying for the study would be to have the City of San Luis Obispo pay the entire study cost upfront,
after signing an MOU (Attachment 2) with the other agencies involved outlining a re-payment
process. The re-payment process would be similar to that of the regional effort to pay for the Diablo
Canyon EIA/FIA and the Regional Economic Strategy. For the Diablo Canyon EIA/FIA the City of San
Luis Obispo paid the costs upfront and had the regional partners repay the City. The cost to the City
of San Luis Obispo is estimated to be $46,457.66. This amount is consistent with previous consulting
services such as the $58,192 the Fire Department spent to execute a Consultant Services Agreement
with Citygate Associates, LLC for analysis of fire-based emergency services.
The costs for the dispatch consolidation feasibility study have been listed below:
Approved:
_____Daniel Clancy /s/_____________ ___1/16/2019_____________
Dan Clancy Date
Purchasing Analyst
Packet Pg. 117
Item 10
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS RELATED TO THE FUNDING OF A FEASIBILITY
STUDY, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN
LUIS OBISPO
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”), is made and entered into as of this ___
day of ____ (the “Effective Date”), by, and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, CITY OF EL
PASO DE ROBLES, AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (each, a “City” and collectively, the
“Cities,”), and the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN LUIS OBISPO (the “Cal
Poly”), together “Parties”, or individually “Party”.
RECITALS
A. Across the country, jurisdictions have considered consolidating services to realize greater efficiency
and cost effectiveness, economies of scale, and in the case of emergency dispatch, to provide a higher
level of inter-agency coordination and service. Entities expect better service in terms of faster response
times and fewer errors due to standardized call handling and dispatch protocols. Consolidation
contributes to improved service levels through enhanced coordination and interoperability, better
training and certification opportunities for dispatchers, and improved and consistent communications
equipment and technology.
B. Due to many of the potential benefits and concurrent with many jurisdictions across the count ry, the
Parties are interested in the exploring the possibility of consolidating their respective dispatch centers
into one consolidated regional communications center.
C. To begin assessing the possibility of consolidating their respective dispatch centers, the Parties agree
that a feasibility study must be conducted to analyze the opportunities and constraints that would impact
or impede the successful consolidation of dispatch communications (the “Feasibility Study”).
D. The Parties acknowledge that a collaborative approach to conducting a Feasibility Study to analyze
dispatch consolidation will provide the most cost effective and comprehensive plan possible.
E. The City of San Luis Obispo has previously worked with Citygat e Associates, LLC (“Citygate”) for
numerous workload and staffing studies as well as coverage and masterplans and has found their work
to be exceptional. Citygate has prepared a scope of work and proposal to prepare the Feasibility Study
which was sent to all Parties.
F. The Parties enter into this MOU to memorialize their support, participation and corresponding
obligations with regards to the approach and minimum amounts of financial support each Party’s
jurisdiction should provide towards the funding o f Phase I of the Citygate Proposal.
Packet Pg. 118
Item 10
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2. The Parties support the shared cost model shown in the Citygate Proposal. In the model, the costs of
the overall Feasibility Study are allocated using each of the Parties calls for service. The Parties agree
to split any additional costs borne, per the cost model in the Citygate Proposal. Citygate will bill the
City of San Luis Obispo on a monthly basis; the Parties agree to pay the City of San Luis Obispo their
monthly share of costs (based on the cost percentage allocation below) within 14 days of billing
received from the City of San Luis Obispo .
Agency Cost Allocation Percentage
Cal Poly 10%
City of Atascadero 21.3%
City of El Paso de Robles 32%
City of San Luis Obispo 36.7%
3. A Feasibility Study Steering Committee comprised of the San Luis Obispo Police Chief and any other
public safety officers assigned by the Parties shall work collaboratively to provide data to Citygate and
review and provide comments on draft analyses and recommendations. The Parties agree to commit
the necessary staff time to assist the lead agency and Citygate performing the Feasibility Study and
agree to work collaboratively.
4. The Parties agree that nothing in this MOU will prohibit a Party from contributing more funding toward
the completion of the Feasibility Study or support efforts to do so.
5. The Parties agree that nothing in this MOU obligates a Party to proceed with consolidating their police
and/or fire dispatch centers or creating a regional communications center .
6. Any Party may terminate this MOU at any time by sending thirty days written notice to all other Parties.
The terminating Party shall pay for all fees incurred up to the point of ter mination. In the event a Party
terminates this MOU, the other Parties may continue with this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, by their execution below, the Parties agree to support and advocate for the
methodology and approach stated herein.
Dated: _____________ __________________________________
CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:___________________________________
Title:_________________________________
Dated: _____________ __________________________________
CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
By:____________________________________
Title:__________________________________
Packet Pg. 119
Item 10
Dated: _____________ __________________________________
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:______________________________________
Title:_____________________________________
Dated: _____________ ____________________________________
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
By:____________________________________
Title:__________________________________
Exhibit A
Agency
JPA Cost Share
Call Volume
Atascadero 21.30%
Paso Robles 32%
San Luis Obispo 36.70%
Cal Poly PD 10%
Totals 100%
Using the table above, it is estimated that each agency will be responsible for the following costs related to
Phase I of the Feasibility Study, total cost $126,586:
Atascadero - $26,962.82
Paso Robles - $40,507.52
San Luis Obispo - $46,457.66
Cal Poly PD - $12,658
Packet Pg. 120
Item 10