HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/1992, C-7 - PARKING FINE COLLECTION CONTRACT MEETING DATE:
mp���ii►�IIIIIIIIIl�° I�IIIU city of San . J S OBI SPO y
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBE
FROM:
Wayne Peterson g y Prepared by: Keith Opalewski
Acting Public Wo rector Parking Manager
SUBJECT:
Parking Fine Collection Contract
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, approve specifications for parking fine collection and
authorize soliciting of request for proposals and return to Council
with a final analysis of contract vs. in-house costs.
BACKGROUND:
The City has been utilizing the services of a private contractor
for processing its parking citations since March of 1988 . Prior to
this time, the City processed parking citations through the Finance
Department and the County Municipal Court System. This process was
very ineffective and resulted in a back log of nearly 20, 000
unprocessed parking citations. As a result of this inefficiency
and low collection ratio of parking citations, a RFP process was
initiated. The search for a private citation processing company
culminated with our current contractor (Lockheed, IMS) who began
processing citations in 1988 . The existing contract is in its
fifth and final year and will expire on September 15, 1992 .
DISCUSSION:
The use of a private contractor for processing parking citations
has been very beneficial to the City. The percentage of citations
collected has increased from a previous low of 40% or less, to the
current status of 83% or more that are actually collected. It
should be noted that a certain portion of citations are
uncollectible due to vehicles being sold, abandoned, unregistered,
citation error, and foreign jurisdictions.
In addition to the increased revenues, contracting for citation
processing has given the City greater flexibility for adjusting to
the volume of citations written, without increasing costs or City
staff. All administrative, clerical, and technical support
personnel for citation processing are supplied by the contractor.
This process also provides for special reports or processing, which
could be more costly if handled by consultant or City personnel.
As a result, the use of a private contractor has proven to be an
effective and efficient means of processing the City' s parking
citations. Due to its success, continuing this mode of citation
processing should be given serious consideration.
600/
Q��ir�i'�'�luilllllilll�11°"°'iIIIIU city of san L- 3-11 os1spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
council gena xeport
Page Two
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Extend current contract.
2 . Process citations in-house.
Although the current contract has increased revenues and improved
the procedures for processing the City's parking citations, a
comparative bid process is warranted after 4 and one-half years.
This is further supported by the fact that more processing
companies are available now then before, thus allowing the
opportunity for more competitive pricing for the service.
i Therefore, extending the current contract long-term without
comparing costs for the service with other contractors would not be
recommended.
i
Processing citations in-house is an option that the City could do
as it has previously done in the past. Given the existing and
possibly additional personnel cutbacks, this option should also be
given serious consideration. However, a recent comparison by staff
of in-house vs. contract processing of parking citations revealed
that this is not the most cost effective, nor necessarily the most
efficient way to proceed. Exhibit A from the report (Attachment I)
indicates that in-house processing would be substantially more
($2 . 53 vs. $1 . 54) than the current contract for this service.
Furthermore, "total" in-house processing is not possible because of
the Department of Motor Vehicles' limitations (no available
computer ports, duplication of existing County service and
confidentiality) for additional agencies to have direct access to
DMV files. Therefore, in-house processing would mandate using the
County's Technical Services Department, with their required $1. 00 j
fee for partially processing each citation (registered owner
confirmation, place and remove holds, and generate the notice of
delinquent parking violation) . The County fee, along with
increased staff to handle payments, data entry, phones, walk-in,
follow-up, and the additional costs for postage and printing, makes
it more costly to process in-house.
i
Although in-house processing does offer the potential for better
control and improved customer relations, according to other cities
surveyed (Exhibit C from . attached report) who process their
citations in-house, our past experience with a contractor has shown
that these benefits are not lost with an outside agency. Given the
increased costs and additional manpower requirements for in-house
processing, and our success with a private contractor, staff would j
recommend soliciting new RFP's for parking fine collection in order
to establish competitive costs for this important service contract.
An additional justification for soliciting RFP's is the current
uncertainty regarding the economic status of the State's deficit
and its subsequent effect on local cities. In light of known
personnel layoffs, and possibly more if the General Fund must
e_ _-
7
s
7
�'�►i►(�I�illlillll�1° ����Ijl city of San 1' 41s OBISpo '
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Council Agenda Report
Page Three
i
absorb the projected two million dollar reduction, we can compare .
the cost-benefits of in-house personnel more closely by obtaining
current market prices for contract processing. The question of is
it more prudent, both economically and human relations wise, to
use City personnel at a higher cost to the Parking Program's
enterprise fund, or continue with an outside contractor, can better
4 be answered when we compare the forthcoming proposals. This also
will allow time for the financial picture to become more clear in
the upcoming fiscal year, as well as the next budget cycle. In
addition to soliciting proposals for full-service contracting, we
will also seek proposals for partial citation processing, whereby,
the contractor would handle up to point of sending out notices.
The additional proposal alternatives will help to make the final
determination for using staff personnel. Staff will return to
Council with a final recommendation after an analysis of all
options is completed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
i
As previously stated, contract services can be substantially less
expensive than in-house processing ($1.54 per cite for current
contract vs. $2 . 53 per cite for in-house) . This converts to a
potential annual cost savings of $40-50, 000 or more depending upon
volume, by not bringing the process back in-house. This also. helps
reduce the cost for risk management (liability and Workers' Comp)
and offers more flexibility with regards to the number of staff
needed to match citation volume. The fixed County fee ($1. 00 per
cite) and additional fixed costs (postage, printing, phones,
computers) the City would incur if it processed in-house, would not
financially warrant a return to this form. of processing parking i
citations.
Furthermore, efficiency could actually decrease as a result of
having to use the County for partially processing the City's i
citations. It is normally more efficient to process entirely by
one means or another (in-house or contract) as opposed to partially
contracting and partially handling by in-house personnel. This
could create a higher potential for losing continuity in the
citation processing system, which could result in poor customer
relations, and equally important if not more, a loss of parking
fine revenues due to ineffective processing. The economic trade-
offs of this option can better be determined after the proposals
have been evaluated.
It should be noted that the current rate of $1. 54 per citation has
increased to this point over the years as part of annual CPI
increases. Discussions with other processing agencies about rates
they charge to other cities indicates there is a strong potential
for increased savings with a new contract. . Based on the current
contract amount, an additional $2 , 500 per year could be saved for
r
7
i nii�fililllllll{Ilij�lI�J�jl city of San t? `s OBISpo
fiffillfta
OMNI 011111alme COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Council Agenda Report
Page Four
each 5 cent reduction in citation processing costs.
Again, all things considered, given the uncertainty of the City's
f future personnel levels for staffing, the fixed costs from the
County, and the additional costs the City would have to absorb for
in-house processing, it would be financially prudent to seek
contract alternatives for parking fine collection. The Engineer's
cost estimate of $108 , 000 is based on the current rate for
processing at an annual volume of 64 , 000 citations, with 20%
requiring a second notice. The 1992-93 line-item budget for
contract services has $114 , 000 budgeted for citation processing.
I
For comparison purposes, the same volume of citations processed by
an in-house County procedure would cost $178 , 000 annually.
Attachment I (cost comparison in-house vs. contract)
Note: Specifications are available in the Council Office for
review.
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
A•f
II
c of san tuis OBISPO
6jjj �
PARKING OPERATIONS • 1260 Chorro Street, Suite B • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
June 8 , 1992
TO: Wayne Peterson, Acting Public Works Director
FROM: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager
SUBJ: Citation Processing (In-house vs. Contract)
BACKGROUND
The City of San Luis Obispo currently contracts with Lockheed,
Information Management Systems (IMS) for processing of its parking
citations. This contract was executed in March of 1988 and is
currently in its fourth and final year, which is scheduled to
expire on September 15, 1992 . The City began using Lockheed as a
result of a RFP process which stemmed from finding an effective
means to process parking citations and increase the revenues from
the collection of parking fines.
With the contract for processing parking citations nearing its
expiration date, this report will discuss the feasibility and cost.
benefits of continuing with an outside contractor or processing
parking citations in-house.
DISCUSSION
Contract Services (advantages and disadvantages)
Utilizing a private contractor to collect and process parking
citations has been a benefit for the City. Contracting eliminated
the previous backlog of unprocessed citations that had accumulated
when the City processed its own citations prior to 1988 . As a
result, the percentage of citations collected has increased to over
83% as compared to the previous 40% or less when it was handled in-
house. The utilization of a contractor also helped the City
establish its own Court code for placement of holds on
registrations of vehicles that have unpaid parking citations. This
process alone increased parking revenues by $100, 000 annually.
Contracting gives the City more flexibility with regards to changes
in the number of citations that are issued, while at the same time,
not affecting the number of staff required to process citations.
This also includes reduced workload for phone calls and response to
correspondence. Contracting also eliminates upgrading computer
software and hardware to handle citations on an in-house system.
Additional technical support is not necessary since this is handled
by the contractor's support staff. Routine , monthly management
reports as well as special reports can be generated without
impacting in-house personnel.
ATTACHMENT I
Page Two
Another plus for contracting is that it is possible for the cost of
new legislation changes to be absorbed by the contractor. Such as
changes in the notices sent to registered owners. Contracting can
also help keep the City apprised of pending legislation that could
affect parking revenue. Timely implementation of changes in the
law can help diminish adverse affects on parking fine revenue.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, contracting for citation
processing can be more cost effective ($1. 54 vs. $2 . 53 , Exhibit A)
as compared to in-house processing. This fact is also supported by
a study conducted by the City of Monterey (Exhibit B) . Their
findings also show that it is more cost effective to continue to
use an outside contractor until such time it becomes cost
prohibitive to use such a service.
As with any contract, there are drawbacks for using an outside
service. Customer relations can be adversely affected because the
"personal touch" can be lost when someone else handles complaints
and follow-up. Flexibility for changes and/or a quick turn around
for implementation of new procedures may be limited or not feasible
at all. Increased costs for changes are also very likely, unless
they are very minor in nature. It also can take longer to get the
actual parking fines deposited into a city account. Additional
staff time to make corrections and keep on top of things to ensure
effective and efficient service may also be needed. Depending upon
the level of service you require from the contractor, an outside
service may prove to be more costly as well.
To recap, the main advantages . of contracting for processing of
parking citations are: can be less expensive, reduced manpower for
processing and technical support, and consistent processing of
outstanding parking citations. The main reasons on the down side
are: contracting can adversely affect public relations and be
inflexible, delay deposit of city funds, and require additional
staff time.
In-house (advantages and disadvantages)
As part of the analysis for comparing contract services vs. in-
house processing, a number of cities were contacted. Santa
Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Sausilito, Carpenteria, Pacific
Grove, and Cal Poly all process their parking citations in-house.
Monterery and San Jose were the only cities using a contractor.
(Exhibit C. summary of phone survey questionnaire) .
There were several reasons given as pluses for in-house processing,
with maintaining better control the number one response. A quicker
turn around time for obtaining fine money and more flexibility were
the two other primary reasons the above cities process in-house.
Better public relations was another key factor for keeping control
of the process. Although all use in-house personnel, they also all
used the services of their respective finance or cashier
/� 7
Page Three
departments. This allows for the required personnel to process all
forms and payments, along with the utilization of computers and
software to be handled in these departments as opposed to the
parking or police departments.
Maintaining appropriate manpower to handle the volume and follow-up
for processing citations is a key element. According to the
survey, staffing for processing was dependant upon volume, with a
range of 4 and one-half clerks to process 95, 000 citations in Santa
Barbara, to one-half clerk for processing 1800 citations in
Carpenteria. Again none of the cities used parking personnel to
process their citations. Furthermore, none of the in-house cities
surveyed had broken down their processing costs on a per citation
basis, but rather it was viewed in terms of required staff to
process their citations in-house. Therefore, salaries was the only
basis for comparison (ranged from $0. 95 to $1 . 69) , which does not
include printing and postage, computer systems or staff time.
In-house processing also has its drawbacks as well. Maintaining a
specific computer system and making changes in the system were
cited as drawbacks by the survey cities. Requiring additional
manpower or less qualified manpower such as volunteers or students
to perform the basic services can also be disadvantages. Isolation
from being informed about changes that affect ticket processing was
also cited as a potential negative. All the required manpower and
computer costs can make in-house processing very costly, and not
necessarily the most efficient means of processing citations.
To recap this component, the main advantages for in-house
processing are: better control and public relations, and more
timely deposit of city funds. The main disadvantages are: more
manpower and computer systems, and a potentially higher cost per
citation.
Conclusion and Recommendation
There must be a balance between economics and customer service
for processing of parking citations. Each city is different, and
as such, it must perform this service by the means that best meets
their specific requirements and resources. Therefore, we must look
at our particular situation in more detail to determine the best
course of action.
In our particular case we would have a limitation and built-in
external cost for processing citations in-house. Since the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will not allow any more
individual cities (processing agencies) to have direct contact with
them for registration information and citation processing, we would
be mandated to utilize the County's Technical Services Department
to partially process our citations. This is a return to how
citations were processed in the past by the City, and is the case
with Cal Poly who currently processes their citations in-house.
7
11.40.-11
Page Four
It should be noted that discussions with our Police Department
about using their computer system for large-scale registered owner
confirmation would not be possible. DMV costs per inquiry and
police surcharges, along with sanctions from the DMV were cited as
the primary reasons for not using their computer system. The
intent of the CLETS system is for law enforcement purposes only,
not processing of parking citations
The County would request registered owner (RO) confirmation, place
and remove DMV holds, and generate the notice of delinquent parking
violation. The cost for this type of service has varied
dramatically in the past, ranging from 30 cents up to $2 . 00 per
citation for the County to process. Recent discussion with the
County revealed that they will be standardizing this fee at $1. 00
per citation in the near future.
The City would be required to mail the delinquent citation notices,
along with processing of all payments, phone calls and
correspondence. In order to handle this increased workload, two
additional full-time staff would be required. This is supported by
discussions with the survey cities (Santa Barbara has 4 and one-
half clerks for 95, 000 citations, Cal Poly has 1 and one-half for
40, 000 citations, and Monterey's study indicated they would need a
minimum of 3 or more clerks for 100, 000 citations) . Our current
contractor also recommends a minimum of 2 or more clerks to handle
50-60, 000 citations. Further justification for increased staff is
that data entry of all manual tickets written by Police and Fire
and preparation of license plate information for transfer to the
County for processing would also have to be preformed- by the City.
The County's flow chart (Exhibit D) for processing citations also
indicates a labor intensive procedure • for processing of our
citations. Another potentially negative factor is that any agency
using their services must rely on them for timely and accurate
processing of notices. Granted this is only a partial service
performed by the County, but we would be contracting for these
services at a substantial cost ($1. 29 per citation with postage) .
This cost would be in addition to staffing, computer upgrade,
telephone and printing costs incurred by the City as a result of
in-house processing. As previously shown on Exhibit A, the cost
per citation would be substantially more expensive than our current
contract ($2 . 53 vs. $1. 54) , and just as important or perhaps more
so, we lose some control of the processing sequence by going
through the County. This could become extremely vital to
maintaining positive customer relations.
Therefore, in light of the restrictions for direct access to DMV,
increased costs for County processing, and the additional staff
that would be required if the City processed citations in-house
(via County) , it is staff's recommendation to solicit RFP Is for
contract processing of our parking citations.
COST COMPARISON FOR TICKET PROCESSING
The following comparisons are based on 50, 000 citations annually.
In-house Contract
$501000* County cost @ $1. 00 per cite Lockheed, IMS
$14, 500 Postage @ $0. 29 per cite
$1, 500 Envelopes & forms
$41500** Software upgrade for ticket processing
$2 , 000** Additional hardware
$54 , 000 (2-Office Asst. I with benefits)
Total
$126, 500 $77 , 000
* fixed cost for processing notice
of delinquent parking violations
** one time costs for 1st year
In-house Lockheed, IMS
1st year cost per citation $2 . 53 $1. 54
2nd year cost per citation $2 .40 $1 . 59
3rd year cost per citation $2 . 40 $1. 64
Note: the above figures are for a one notice procedure. A two
notice procedure (which is our current operation because of the
two-tier penalty) is reflected below as a total cost. per citation
for only those citations requiring a second notice: (approx. 30$)
1st year cost per citation $3 . 82 $2 . 34
2nd year cost per citation $3 . 69 $2 . 41
3rd year cost per citation $3.. 69 $2 . 48
Note: For the purpose of this comparison, contractor costs
increased at 3% annually, while in-house costs were held steady
after the first year. The first year savings of $50, 000 and
subsequent annual savings of approximately $40., 000 are based on the
current contract amount for citation processing. Lower per
citation costs are certainly possible through the bid process.
Based on current contract prices, an additional $2 , 500 per year
could be saved for each 5 cent reduction in citation processing
costs.
Exhibit A
CITY OF MONTEREY > /
6�4
To: City Manager
From: Public Facilities Director/Finance Director
Date: July 18, 1990
Subject: In-House Parking Citation Processing Feasibility Study
0
Attached is a report examining the feasibility of processing parking citations in-house. This report
was prepared in order to determine the cost-effectiveness of performing this function in-house, instead
of contracting it out
As you know, Lockheed Information Management Systems currently processing the City's parking
citations under contract. This contract Is In Its fifth year and is scheduled to expire November 1,
1991. Lockheed Information Management System has intimated that they will request a significant rate ..
increase upon the expiration of this contract. Accordingly, staff felt it prudent to explore other means
of processing parking citations. The attached report focuses on the possibility of processing parking
citations in-house.
The cost comparisons were based on proposals submitted to the City by Gary Ward of Enforcement
Technology. His proposal contained three options for processing parking citations. They are:
continuing with the service bureau, a lease/purchase of a citation processing system, or an outright
purchase of a citation processing system. The cost of all three of these options are compared over a
three and five-year period.
The bottom line of this report is that performing this service in-house will not be cost-effective until
contractor per-citation rates reach the $2.50 to $3.00 range. it is Important to note that this
conclusion was reached without Including such Items as postage, office supplies, printing, and other
miscellaneous supplies and services that will Increase costs by 25% to 30%. 1 think our needs will be
best served by putting this service out to bid once the current contract with Lockheed Information
Management Services has expired.
We can expect more responses to our bid requests In that there are more companies doing parking
citation processing now than there were three years ago. I think that we should put aside the idea of
performing this service in-house until, and unless, we see dramatic per-citation price increases from
our vendors.
Carl E. Anderson Dewey Evans
Public Facilities Director Finance Director
CEA:MW:pt
cc: Jack McGilvray, Chief of Police
City of Carmel
Exhibit B
CITY OF MONTEREY
To: Public Facilities Department Director
From: Administrative Assistant, PFD
Date: June 4, 1990
Subject: In-house Parking Citation Processing
Background
The City of Monterey currently contracts with Lockheed Management
Information Services for the processing of parking citations . This
contract is in its fifth year and is scheduled to expire on July 1,
1991 . Lockheed Information Management Systems has done an excellent job
of processing the City' s parking citations . City revenues have increased
and processing costs have remained within the range specified in the
contract. However, it has become apparent that Lockheed considers the
Monterey contract to be unprofitable and therefore, may want to open
discussions about increasing the per citation processing charge when the
current contract expires . Given the potential for a large increase in
citation processing costs, staff felt it prudent to explore other means
of processing parking citations .
There are a number of vendors who would be interested in processing the
City' s parking citations . For purposes of cost. comparison this report
focuses on a proposal- submitted by Gary Ward of Enforcement Technology.
This report will focus on the possibility of processing parking
citations in-house. There are two issues to examine in determining the
feasibility of in house processing. The first is the availability of
a hardware and softwareprogram that match our specific wants and needs .
The second issue to be considered is the overall costs of bringing this
processing 'in-house versus the cost of having a vendor perform the
service .
Hardware/Software
The first decision to be made -is whether the City wants to run such a
system on a mini or mainframe computer, or on a micro computer system.
The micro computer systems have the advantage of being less expensive
to purchase and maintain. However, there are more software options
available for mini and mainframe systems including packages currently
being used by other cities that we might be able to obtain for little
or no cost.
Purchasing a system that runs on a mini or mainframe computer could
involve additional support, hardware and installation costs . However,
it is also conceivable that a commercially available could be purchased
that would run on the City' s existing IBM system. It is also possible
that we could get a public domain package, such as the one developed by
the City of Santa Cruz, that would run on our mini computer system.
Obviously it would save the City money to purchase a working software
program that could be loaded onto our existing IBM minicomputer.
However, using such a software package has inherent problems in that
technical support would not be readily available . n /
041
In-house Parking Citation Processing
Page 2
There appears to be only one microcomputer software package available
that meets our needs . This package, developed by Enforcement
Technology, appears to be a very comprehensive and well thought out
package. Use of this system has some very distinct advantages in that
the city is currently using Enforcement Technology' s computerized
citation writers . The other advantage of this micro computer based
system is that the City could contract with Enforcement Technology to
provide programmers who would ensure that the software program meet our
current and future needs .
Each approach to hardware and' software configurations has advanytages
and disadvantages . The final choice about which route to take should
be made after an exhaustive review of all available software packages .
Costs
The cost estimated presented in this section are based on several
suppositions . The first is that a parking ticket processing operation
run by- the city of Monterey could be run with a staff approximately the
same size as the Santa Cruz office ( 3 FTE) . The second assumption is
that we would generate as many, if not more, phone calls , letters and
customer interactions as the current vendor does . The third is that we
would house this operation somewhere in CRI . The final assumption is
that the costs quoted by Enforcement Technology for their software
package are representative of such costs in general .
There are several large unknowns that could have the effect of
invalidating the assumptions and results of this report. The cost
comparisons are based on a steady 5% increase in the per citation cost
of Enforcement Technology' s processing services . If these costs
increase at a more rapid rate the cost of in house processing might look
better.
As detailed on attachments "A"and "B" the Enforcement Technology
software and hardware can be obtained in two different ways . The first
is an outright purchase for $34,200 . The second is a three year lease
purchase option; the ending purchase price for this option is $118 , 620 .
However, the majority of the costs that would be incurred by the City
by taking over citation processing are not in software and hardware
acquisition.
Based on statistics supplied by Lockheed the City can expect
approximately 31,000 phone calls per year. In order to handle such a
large volume of calls 3 "800 " lines would need to be set up. This
represents almost $18, 000 in costs per year.
In order to answer all incoming calls, input citation information and
handle walk up traffic 3 people would need to staff the payment office
40 hours a week. Providing for one supervisor and two clerks , salaries
and benefits would cost approximately $110 ,000 per year.
Housing this operation in CR1 would most likely mean that we would not
be collecting potential rental incomes . The year one potential revenue
loss from this source, including parking adjustment fees , is over
$21, 000 per year.
Attachments "A" and "B" show the projected three and five year costs of
each option. The per citation processing cost shown at the bottom of
represents a three and five year amortization of equipment costs .
A Afl� ♦A
In-house Parking Ci_stion Processing
Page 2
Conclusion
As you can see from these attachments the on going operational costs
account for over $150,000 in yearly costs . The most expensive portion
of taking citation processing in house is not the computer applications
necessary to perform .the function, but the staff and space to run the
operation. These cost are fixed no matter which hardware and software
solution we choose.
Chart 1 shows the per citation cost of each option over a 30 year
period. The lease option and the purchase option even out by year 4 .
Contractual processing remains, throughout the 30 year period, the
cheapest per citation approach.
As mentioned in the beginning of this report these conclusions are valid
only as long as the cost of vendor processing does not increase at more
than 5% per year. We currently pay DataCom $1. 17 per citation. There
are rumors of increases of up to $ .40 per citation. I.f vendor charges
reach the $1. 50 to $2 . 00 per citation range within the next two or three
years, in house processing could make economic sense.
Negotiating another contract for parking citation processing will
probably be the most cost effective approach for the next 5 years .
However, by not bringing that operation in house we are merely
postponing the inevitable.
it4ip
Attachments
114143
ATTACHMENT A
SERVICE LEASE PURCHASE
BUREAU SYSTEM SYSTEM
8K rut @ 1.15 9,200 Autocite Computer Autocue Computer
per ticket 8K Tix @ .10 per 800 6 units 15,900
Out of State @ Autocite Host System AutoPark Software 8,500
35% of collections 0 8K Tix @ .OS per 400
Fujitsu 2100 9,900
AutoPark System
DMV Fees ? 8K 7N @ .25 per 2,000 Out of State @
35%of collections 0
Out of State @
35% of collections 0 DMV Fees @ .10 per 9,000
DMV Fees @ .10 per 800 Maintenance 1,050
Year1 110,400 Yearly 48,000 2nd Year Maintenance 4,E00
Year 2 115,920 3rd Year Maintenance 4,E00
Year 3 121,716 Purchase of system @
10% of original price
AutoCite (6 Units) 1,590
AutoPark/2100 1,800
3 Year Total 348,036 3 Year Total 147,390 3 Year Total 73,350
(S% per year increase 800 Line Costs 56,076.54 800 Line Costs 56,076.54
in processing costs) 3 Year Personnel 346,894.90 3 Year Personnel 346,894.90
Rental Loss 68,316.96 Rental Loss 68,316.96
Total Cost 618,678.40 Total Cost 544,638.-LO
Cost Per Cite = 1.21 Cost Per Cite = 2.15 Cost Per Cite = 1.89
WARD3.XLS Pagel 4/ SO
A L i.
ATTACHMENT B
SERVICE LEASE PURCHASE
BUREAU SYSTEM SYSTEM
8K rix @ 1.15 9,200 Autocite Computer Autocite Computer
per ticket 8K Ta @ .10 per 800 6 units 15,900
Out of State @ Autocite Host System Auto Park Software 8,500
35%of collections 0 8K Tix @ .05 per 400
Fujitsu 2100 9,500
AutoPark System
DMV Fees ? 8K Tix @.25 per 2,000 Out of State @
35%of collections 0
Out of State @
35% of collections 0 DMV Fees @ .10 per 9.600
DMV Fees @ .10 per 800 Maintenance 1,050
Year1 110,400 Yearly 48,000 2nd Year Maintenance 4,600
Year 2 115,920 3rd Year Maintenance 4.500
Year 3 121,716 Purchase of system @ 4th Year Maintenance 4.600
Year 4 127,802 10%of original proce 5th Year Maintenance 4.300
Year 5 134,192 AutoCite (6 Units) 1,590
AutoPark/2100 1,800
5 Year Total 610,030 5 Year Total 175,790 5 Year Total 92-450
800 Line Costs 98,289.71 Boo Line Costs 98.289.71
5 Year Personnel 608,029.58 5 Year Personnel 608,029.58
.Rental Loss 119,279.44 Rental Loss 119,279.44
Total Cost 1,001,388.73 Total Cost 917,748.73
Cost Per Cite = 1.27 Cost Per Cite = 2.09 Cost Per Cite = 1.91
WARDS.XLS Page 1 �4/,,,
• •�
0
w
m
m m
r m �
CL' j N
N
N
co
N
N
O
N
L
N
Q
N
N
N
N
T
N
T N
}I Of
T
mO
1r
r
cc
= I r I fn
U In a
r
M
TN
T
r
Q
T
co
• 'W
YrI
MV
•I
i"
N
r
• O O O O O O O O
nN 40 NM N w
Uom .• ami U - - Q - - oc CL 0u000m � U
X
}
m
n �
Summary of Phone Questionnaire (In-house Processing)
1. What are advantages?
Public relations, better control, flexibility in responsiveness,
quick turn around time, get monies in faster
2 . What are disadvantages?
Isolated from law changes, responsibility for manpower,
maintenance, making changes
3 . Number of cites processed annually.
Ranged from 1, 800 to 95, 000
4 . Number and cost personnel to process citations
Ranged from one-half ($10, 650) for 1, 8000 cites to 4 and one-half
($91, 265) for 95, 000 cites.
5. Cost per citation to process
In-house processors viewed it on a staffing basis and did not know
exact individual citation costs. However, based on staffing only,
which does not include printing, postage, computer systems, and
staff time, the range was $0. 95 to $1. 69 per cite
6 . Hand-held vs. handwritten.
The majority were using hand-held ticket writers with various
computer systems
7 . What did they do prior to in-house?
Muni Courts and county processing
Exhibit C
17
A-f 17
04/09/90 DPT 0001 <
1tTITLE PARKING CITATION INFORMATION-ORIENTED FLOWCHART
V-DESCRIPTION
---------------------------------------------------
TYPICAL IIPARKING ITECHNICAL IMUNICIPAL IDEPT. OF I <
TIME LINEIIAGENCY ISERVICES(OOTS) ICOURT ( MOTOR VEHICLESI <
---II ( 1) ISSUE 1---=-------------- -------------_-------------. <
JAN OL
• 11PARKING I <
• ( (CITATIONS I <
I _
1 <
• <
JAN 31 11 (2 ) P.EQUESTI 1 (3) SENO DMV 1 <
INOTICES___- �i ( Y TAPE 1 1 (4 ) PROCESS I <
OP40)
/HINOUIRY TAPE,, I <
1 --------_ ICREATc REPLY I <
I I TAPE I <
I --------- -------------- ,
11 (6) MAIL 1 1 (5) CREATE I <
FES► 26 I ( NOTICES I<`----INOTICES AND I
I --------- (REPORTS (DP -- <
.u� 1 1 (7) ACCEPT I
11PAYMENTS 1 < I
I -- -----
AS 1 --- ------ I (9 )------- I I (1o )--------1 COMPLAINT <
R 2B
�21SClLTi�+� I 1 (B ) REQUEST 1 GENERATE I ( INITIATE I DATE _ <
11COMPLAINTS 1. ICOMPLAINTS y ICOMPLAINTS . I APR 01 <
T 1 ---------- 1 (DP43) I I (JPOL) I
APR 05 II ( 11) SUBMIT 1 I <
LN� ( (COMPLAINTS1 - X1 ( 12) ACCEPT I <
D"aT "S IIAND/OR I IPAYMENTS I <
v�tSOlCTlo1.1 IIOISMISSALS I <
i '-- ---- ----- ----- ------------
JUV 01 <
1 1 (13) REOUESTI�I (14) PLACE I <
• I IDMV HOLDS I IRFGISTRATIONI <
• 1 1 (TAPE: JP04) I ( HOLDS I <
• I ---------
1 (1----------
-_ --- ----- <
18 11 (17) 1 IDISTRIBUTEI 1 (15) ACCEPT I <
MONTHS 11RECEIVE I� ■----i PAYMENTS I<----IPAYMENTS AT I
TOTAL ( IPAYMENTS 1 I (JP05) I IOMV OFFICES I
+� I -------- ---------- ---------- <
DELIVER TO PAGE LAST PERSON STATUS LEVEL DATE
Exhibit D 1 CYNTHIA HOLD 10 04/01/90
1^ G .Ab
A/05/90 OPTU001 <
i
)TES FRO14 ABOVE: <
(1 ) OFFICER ISSUES PARKING CITATION. LEAVES COPY WITH VEHICLE, <
FILES COPY WITH AGENCY. <
(2 ) AGENCY PARKING COORDINATOR ENTERS CITATION INFORMATION ON <
FORM DP-FO09 (SEE BELOW) , THEN SUBMITS TO DEPT. OF TECHNICAL ' <
SERVICES (DOTS ) ALONG WITH A REQUEST FOR PARKING NOTICES <
(CHECK PROCESS DP40 ON FORM DP-F008). THE REQUEST SHOULD <
RE MADE WITHIN ONE MONTH OF ISSUING THE CITATION.
NOTE: MUNI COURT WILL REJECT COMPLAINTS IF THE CITATION IS <
OVER ONE YEAR OLD, THIS MEANS YOU MAY BE ABLE TO WAIT AS <
LONG AS 10 MONTHS BEFORE REQUESTING NOTICES .. . BUT WE DON 'T <
ENCOURAGE THIS. <
(3 ) DOTS ENTERS CITATION INFORMATION INTO ITS COMPUTER AND <
GENERATES AN INQUIRY TAPE FOR DMV. <
(4 ) r)MV RFAOS THE TAPE AND ADDS OWNER NAME AND ADDRESS TO THE <
CITATION DATA (IF IT CAN DO SO : IF NOT, D'!V SENDS US AN ERROR.
MESSAGE) . < I
(5 ) DOTS USES THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES TO CREATE MAILING NOTICES <
AND OTHER REPORTS, INCLUDING A CITATION LISTING TO CIE USED <
AS A PAYMENT WORKSHEET (SEE QP-R022 BELOW) . <
(S ) THE AGENCY MAILS THE NOTICES TO THE VEHICLE OWNERS . <
(7 ) FOR 30 DAYS OWNERS ARE ALLOWED TO SEND PAYMENTS TO THE <
CITIIIG ,AGENCY.'.• THE AGENCY RECORDS PAYMENTS BY DRAWING A. <
LINE THROUGH EACH PAID CITATION ON THE WORKSHEET. <
(9 ) AT THE END OF 30 DAYS, THE AGENCY SUBMITS THE CITATION <
PAYMENT WORKSHEET TO DOTS• ALONG WITH A REQUEST TO GENERATE <
C04PLAINTS (CHECK PROCESS OP43 ON FORM OP-F008 ). <
(9 ) DOTS USES THE CITATION WORKSHEET OP-RO22. ( THOSE CITATIONS <
NOT CROSSED OFF) TO INITIATE REQUESTS FnR COMPLAINT. TWO <
THINMS ARE GENERATED: ( 1 ) A COMPUTER DISKETTE LISTING, ALL <
UNPAID CITATIONS : AND (2) A COMPLAINT ENVELOPE FOR EACH <
UNPAID CITATION. THE DISKETTE IS SENT TO MUNI COURT. THE <
a-NVcLOPES ARE RETURNED TO THE CITING AGENCIES. <
( 10 ) .MUNI COURT SUBMITS THE COMPLAINT DISKETTE TO DOTS. THE < .
CITATION INFORMATION IS ENTERED INTO MUNI COURT' S PARKING <
COMPLAINT SYSTEM. NOTE: ONCE_ THEY ARE IN THIS SYTEM, IF < i.
TpZY ARE NOT REMOVED BY FILING A DISMISSAL ► THEY WILL < it
EVENTUALLY CAUSE A REGISTRATTON HOLD TO BE PLACED WITH THE <
DMV. < II
( 11 ) AGE!jCY STUFFS ORIGINAL CITATION INTO CORRESPONDING C9-mPLAINT < II
VER TO PAGE LAST PERSON STATUS LEVEL DATE
2 CYNTHIA HOLD 9 04/05/9(rrI'
I
04/0.5/9()
OPT0001 <
ENVELOPE. EVERY COMPLAINT GENERATED MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR :
GIVE TLIOSTTNG/WORKSHEET,LpP0045SR039OST MUT T REMOVED FROM MU <
NI FILES
( 12 ) MUNI COURT ACCEPTS PAYMENTS FOR UP TO 60 DAYS AFTER :
I
+ TO MUNI WITH THIS INFO. <
THE < I
COMPLAINT DATE FOR EACH CITATION. 1
( 13 ) AFTEp, 60 DAYS, DOTS GENERATES A TAPE WITH CITATION <
INFORMATION AND SENDS IT TO T4E DMV.
( 14 ) DHV PROCESSES THE TAPE AND p <
LACES VEHICLE REGISTRATIr?.y HOLDS. <
( 15 ) BEFORE THE OWNERS TRY TO REGISTE
R THEIR ARE FORCED TO PAY THE OUTSTANDING PARKING THEY
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. ETS PLUS <
PAYMENTS AND SEND KCAL DMV OFFICES COLLECT THESE <
THE DMV IN SACRAMENTOMRETURNS THEIR COLLECTIONS TO THE TH= STATE DMV OFFICE . <
MUNI COURT ALONG WITH A <
BREAKDOWN OF THE MONEY BYOOWNERRANDPCITATION'JING A <
( 16) MUNI COURT PROCESSES THE DMV TAPE <
TO DISTRIBUTE THE PAYMENTS TO THE AND USES THS INFORMATIO!1
VARIOCIS 4;ENCIES . <
( 17) THE AGENCIES RECEIVE THEIR PAYM,.NTS FROM THE <
c
��OT` = CITATION pgYM� MUNI COURT.
.NTS MADE <
TOTAL JURISDICTION + MUSTBER AGEFlCY, AFTER MUNI SUPPIS
CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS BY F E REMOVED FROM MUNI F EDLY HAS <
FILES-
FILING A DISMISSAL WITH MUNI,. THE AGENCY <
=OR.MAT <
FIELD
FCN RP RP TJTAL COMMENTS <
)P-Epos MULTI-AGENCY PROCESSING REQUEST
)P-F009 •'MULTI-AGENCY CITATION INPUT FORM
<
SPORTS
P-RO09 NOTICE OF ILLEGAL PARKING (DP03)
P-RO22 CITATION LIST By <
CITATION NUMBER (CAL POLY) pPp�ll < ,
ROCrSSES (MULTI-AGEN CY) CP0034 <
1)40 BUILD DMV INQUIRY TAPE FP.3M M
X41 PROCESS M i1lTI-AGENCY CITAT v <
'43 MU
DMV REPLY TAP ID" INPUT <
PRODUCE COMPL4INT E E PRINT
101 BATCH S AND DMV HOLD DISKETTE NOTICES
EDIT AND UDDATE FOR THE M (MULTI 4 Gr-NCY) <
104 GENERATE DMV ACTIVITY T UNI COUPT PARKING FILES
05 PROCESS DMV R_ p ApE AND RFPnRTS <
LY TRANSACTION TAPE <
DACE /
3 LAST PERSON
CYNTHIA STATUS LEVEL DATE
HOLO 9 04/05/90