Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/06/1991, C-3 - TRANSIT CONTRACT RATE INCREASE I�Ih��RH�IyI��IIIIIIIIIIuIII � T MEETING OA cI o san tins ogIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I NUMBER: FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administratiry Officer Prepared by: Harry Watson, Transit Manager �/ SUBJECT: Transit Contract Rate Increase CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve a contract rate increase for Fiscal Year 1991-92 in the amount of $. 05 per mile to Laidlaw Transit, Inc. for SLO City Transit Service (from $1.85 per mile to $1.90 per mile) . DISCUSSION: Background The City of San Luis Obispo is entering the last year of a Transit contract with Laidlaw Transit, Inc. , which began in 1982 and included a five-year extension clause. The original contract was with CalCoast Charter, Inc. which was subsequently purchased by Laidlaw Transit, Inc. The contract is for the operation, maintenance, coach lease, and some staff support for the operation of SLO Transit. The remuneration for these services is based on a per mile rate. The contract provides for an annual Compensation Adjustment. The annual Compensation Adjustment is based on a complicated set of national indexes for labor, fuel, miscellaneous goods and services and potential net income equity. A copy of the formula is provided as Attachment 1. These indexes were relevant and worked in the beginning of the contract, but have lost a measure of their value as the number of years over which the index is spread has increased. Several of the indexes upon which our compensation adjustment is based have a base year of 1972. Two problems exist with our current method of compensation adjustment. The first is that in any short-term (and sometimes substantial) increase in the cost of doing business is not adequately dealt with using the index method. An example is the recent major fluctuation in the cost of diesel fuel. With the recent Persian Gulf crisis, the cost of retail diesel fuel went from $1. 16 per gallon to $1. 64 per gallon, with a post crisis price leveling out at $1.23 per gallon. Although the vendor was paying a 41% increase in the cost of fuel during the crisis period, the index method of compensation adjustments blends that spike in with an overall 1972 through 1990 cost of fuel prices resulting in a negligible index adjustment. The second and more recent impact on the remuneration to Laidlaw has to do with the addition of the trolley service. Because we pay by the mile of service provided, the trolley operation is one in which the vendor has the same basic expenses, such as labor, overhead, and vehicle maintenance as they would on a high 41111111 NI city of san tins ompo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page Two mileage transit route, but are being paid by the City for the relatively low number of miles that the trolley operates on our downtown loop. The trolley was not a part of the operation at the contract's inception in 1982, and its actual operating costs were not fully known at the time Laidlaw agreed to provide the service under the existing contract. Compensation Adjustment Request/Recommendation The FY 1990-91 per mile rate was $1.85, up $. 07 from the 1989-90 rate of $1.78 per mile. Using the index formula, the FY 1991-92 rate would also be $1.85. Laidlaw initially requested an increase to $2 .24 per mile for FY 1991-92, based on diesel and trolley costs. Following a meeting between staff and Laidlaw Transit management, and after reviewing and revising maintenance and other cost estimates, it was agreed that a $0. 05 .per mile increase would be appropriate during this final year of the existing contract. ALTERNATIVE: Take no action on the vendor contract in this last year of the contract. Staff has reviewed a substantial amount of documentation provided by Laidlaw regarding fuel prices and the trolley. service costs and believes that they have made a valid case for not rigidly adhering to the index formula in this final contract year. Staff believes the agreed upon 3% increase represents a modest but reasonable rate adjustment. FISCAL IMPACT: An increase of $. 05 to a new rate of $1. 90 would result in an approximate 1991-92 operating cost increase of $12, 000 over the prior year cost (+3%) , assuming approximately the same number of miles as 1990-91 (240,000) . Sufficient funds exists in the 1991- 92 operating, maintenance, and trolley operations budgets to accommodate this increase. ATTACM1ENTS: 1. Compensation Adjustment Formula HW:bw LAIDLAW SECTION 3. COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT The compensation rates for providing coaches and for providing maintenance/operations facilities shall remain fixed for the term of this contract. The compensation rate for vehicle service mileage shall be adjusted effective July 1 each year (beginning on July 1 , 1983) to reflect changes in the costs of labor (L). fuel (F), and miscellaneous goods and services (M) and changes in potential net income earned on owner's equity (I). City shall adjust this rate according to the formula .4 R1 L2 l R1 F2. .4 R1 M2 . 1 R1 I2 R2 = L1 + F1 + M1 + 11 Where R2 = the new compensation rate R1 = the existing compensation rate L2 = the Hourly Earnings Index for Non-Supervisory Workers in Private Transportation for the month of May in the calendar year of adjustment L1 = the Hourly Earnings Index for Non-Supervisory Workers in Private Transportation for the month of May in the calendar year preceding the year of adjustment F2 - the Producer Price Index for Refined Petroleum Products for the month of May in the calendar year of adjustment . F1 = the Producer Price Index for Refined Petroleum Products for the month of May in the calendar year preceding the year of adjustment M2 � the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items Less Food and Energy for the month of May in the calendar year of adjustment M1 = the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items Less Food and Energy for the month of May in the calendar year preceding the year of adjustment 12 = the interest rate for 6-month Treasury Bills on May 31 in the calendar year of adjustment 11 the interest race for 6-monch Treasury Bills on May 31 Y in calendar year preceding{ the4year of adjustment ATTACHMENT 1 �3 3