HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-041
'"
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-41
2 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A SERVICES
3 AGREEMENT WITH PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PARTNERS TO ASSIST THE
CITY IN DEFINING AND IMPLEMENTING A FEE FOR COMMUNICATION CENTER
4 SERVICES.
5 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
6
7
8
9
10
SECTION 1. The Mayor of the City of San Bernardino is hereby authorized and directed
to execute on behalf of said City a Services Agreement with Performance Management Partners, a
copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit" A" and incorporated herein by reference as though
11
fully set forth at length.
SECTION 2. The authorization to execute the above referenced agreement is rescinded if
the parties to the agreement fail to execute it within sixty (60) days of the passage of this resolution.
12
///
13
///
14
///
15
///
16
///
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
1
2006-41
1
2
3
4
5
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PARTNERS TO ASSIST
THE CITY IN DEFINING AND IMPLEMENTING A FEE FOR COMMUNICATION
CENTER SERVICES
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor
joint
and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a rel';ular meeting thereof, held on the
6
7 6th day of
February, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
ESTRADA X
LONGVILLE X
~
MCGINNIS X
DERRY X
KELLEY X
JOHNSON X
MC CAMMACK X
---
() _ / ,J f..-., C / L
V\-~ /0. ~(.
"-
City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this S-IJ..
2006.
Approved as to
Form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
~~~ AttaJtJttp~
day of February,
u lth Valles, Mayor
ty of San Bernardino
2006-41
EXHIBIT "A"
1
2
SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into this ~ day of February,
2006, by and between
3
4 Performance Management Partners (PMP), ("CONSULTANT") and the City of San Bernardino
5 ("CITY" or San Bernardino").
6 WITNESSETH:
7 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council have determined that it is advantageous and
8 in the best interest of the City of San Bernardino to engage a professional consultant to assist the City
9 in defining and implementing a fee for communication center services; and
10 WHEREAS, CONSULTANT possesses the professional skills and ability to provide said
11 services for the CITY;
12 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
13 1.
SCOPE OF SERVICES.
14 For the remuneration stipulated, San Bernardino hereby engages the services of
15 CONSULTANT to provide the services outlined in the CONSULTANT's letter proposal, a copy of
16 which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as though fully
17 set forth at length.
18 2.
COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.
19
a.
For the service delineated above, CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT $35,000,
20 payable as follows: Seventy-five percent (75%) of this compensation due within thirty (30) days of
21 CONSULT ANT's submission of the draft report; and twenty-five percent (25%) due within 30 days
22 of final presentation of the study to the Mayor and Common Council. The fee for services will cover
23 all expenses incurred by the CONSULT ANT on behalf of the CITY.
24
b.
No other expenditures made by CONTRACTOR shall be reimbursed by CITY
25 without prior written approval of the Mayor.
26 3.
TERM; SEVERABILITY.
27 The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of six months, commencing on February 6,
28 2006, and terminating on August 6, 2006, unless previously modified, amended, or cancelled by the
DHC/js[Agreements\Performance Management Partners. Agreements] 1
2006-41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SERVICES AGREEMENT
written mutual consent of the parties.
This Agreement may be terminated at any time by thirty (30) days written notice by either
party. The terms of this Agreement shall remain in force unless mutually amended. The duration
of this Agreement may be extended with the written consent of both parties.
4. INDEMNITY.
CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the CITY, its officers, employees
and agents (including, without limitation, reasonable costs of defense and reasonable attorney's fees)
arising out of or related to CITY's performance of this Agreement, except that such duty to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless shall not apply where injury to person or property is caused by
CITY's willful misconduct or negligence. CITY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
CONSULTANT, its officers, employees and agents (including, without limitation, reasonable costs
of defense and reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of orrelated to CONSULT ANT's performance
of this Agreement, except that such duty to indemnify, defend and hold harmless shall not apply
where injury to person or property is caused by CONSULTANT's willful misconduct or negligence.
5. INSURANCE.
While not restricting or limiting the forgoing, during the term of this Agreement,
CONSULTANT shall maintain in effect policies of comprehensive public, general, and professional
liability insurance, in the amount of $1,000,000.00 combined single limit, and statutory worker's
compensation coverage, and shall file copies of said policies with the CITY's Risk Manager prior
to undertaking any work under this Agreement. CITY shall be set forth as an additional named
insured in each policy of insurance provided hereunder. The Certificate of Insurance furnished to
the CITY shall require the insurer to notify CITY of any change or termination in the policy.
6. NON-DISCRIMINATION.
In the performance of this Agreement and in the hiring and recruitment of employees,
CONSULTANT shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, sex, physical
handicap, ethnic background or country of origin.
27
28
DHCljs[Agreements\Performance Management Partners. Agreements] 2
2006-41
2 7.
3
4
SERVICES AGREEMENT
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
CONSULTANT shaH perform work tasks provided by this Agreement but for aH intents and
purposes CONSULTANT shaH be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the
5
CITY.
6 8.
7
8
NOTICES.
Any notice to be given pursuant to this Agreement shaH be deposited with the United States
Postal Service, postage prepaid and addressed as foHows:
9 TO THE CITY:
10
II
City Administrator's Office
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Facsimile: (909) 384-5138
TO THE CONSULTANT:
Michael Mount
Performance Management Partners
222 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1215
Los Angeles, CA 90012
12
13
14 9.
15
16
A TTORNEYS' FEES.
In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the
prevailing party shaH be entitled to recover from the opposing party aH costs and expenses, including
17
18
19
20
21
reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or
remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. The
costs, salary and expenses of the City Attorney and members of his office in enforcing this
Agreement on behalf of the City shall be considered as "attorneys' fees" for the purposes of this
paragraph.
22 10.
ASSIGNMENT.
23 CONSULTANT shaH not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or
24 encumber aH or any part of CONSULTANT's interest in this Agreement without CITY's prior
25 written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shaH be void and
26 shaH constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless
27 of CITY's consent, no subletting or assignment shaH release CONSULTANT of CONSULTANT's
28 obligation to perform aH other obligations to be performed by CONSULT ANT hereunder for the
DHC/js[Agreements\Performance Management Partners. Agreements] 3
2006-41
I
2 11.
3
4
SERVICES AGREEMENT
GOVERNING LAW.
This guarantee shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the
laws of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of law.
5 12.
6
7
VENUE.
The parties hereto agree that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this
Agreement shall be tried and litigated either in the State courts located in the County of San
8
9
10
II
Bernardino, State of California or the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
aforementioned choice of venue is intended by the parties to be mandatory and not permissive in
nature.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and
12 date first above written.
13 Dated: February ~, 2006
14
15
16 Dated: February L, 2006
17
18
19
20
ATTEST:
21
22 ~.~. ~J,-.
23 Rac I Clark, CIty Clerk
24
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PARTNERS
J / 12n1J '7Y2~f0,
By: Michael Mount
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
25
26
27
28
Approved as to Form
and Legal Content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
By: IJ~II &~
DHC/js[Agreements\Performance Measurement Partners. Agreements] 4
2006-41
EXHIBIT "A"
Performance Management Partners
222 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1215
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Lori Sassoon
Assistant City Manager
City of San Bernardino
Dear Ms. Sassoon:
This letter is in response to your request for information on how we might assist the City
in defining and implementing a fee for communications center services.
The Firm
Performance Management Partners is a small firm focused on providing consulting
services to cities and counties; especially services to help our clients maximize their
efficiency and effectiveness. We also provide revenue alternatives advice. The firm is
staffed primarily with former consultants from David M. Griffith and Associates and
DMG-MAXIMUS. It was started in 2000 by executives ofDMG-MAXIMUS who felt
they could serve their clients better in a different structure. Since that time, our clients
have included the State of California (DOJ), City of Los Angeles, City of San Jose,
Orange County, Santa Clara County, the City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, Charlotte,
the State of North Carolina, Washington DC, and others. Most of our assignments are
fairly long-term, although we also perform one-time assessments occasionally.
Directly Relevant Studies
Performance Management Partners has been involved in two thorough studies of such a
fee ~ one for the City of San Jose, and one for the City of Los Angeles. In addition, we
have reviewed the ordinances and discussed the impacts and revenue created by such fees
with staff in San Francisco and the Santa Cruz Regional Dispatch Center(the I st two to
implement such a fee). One of our clients (San Jose) has implemented the fee; one
elected to go for a public safety sales tax vote instead (Los Angeles). In addition, we
have explored the concept with two counties - Santa Clara and Orange. In both cases,
since the County communications center provides dispatch for some, but not all cities, it
was decided that it would make political sense only if all cities in the county were to join
with the County in a joint fee effort.
2006-41
Guiding principles for Communications Center Fee Studies
We have learned in dealing with these issues over several years that the City needs to
decide on a number of factors that will define the amount of work and the duration of the
study. Our fee and time estimates are based on the following recommended principles:
1. Estimating new fees (as well as their impacts on various socio-economic groups)
is an imprecise art. While overall reasonableness is an important goal, precision
cannot be expected until there is at least one full year of revenue. There are
always a significant number of unknowns that can only be estimated - number of
lifeline phone customers, additional staffing actually needed for CHP transferred
calls, number of commercial versus private phone lines and number of
governmental phone lines, etc. Reasonable approximations are appropriate.
2. Legal risks should be avoided whenever possible. For the proposed fee, this
primarily limits the exemptions and maximum limits the governing body should
consider initially.
3. The value added by the consultant is primarily in bringing a proven methodology
and in knowing the best places to find the data needed to make reliable estimates.
Thus, City staff should collect cost data and do other tasks wherever possible, not
the consultant.
4. Fiscally conservative approaches are the most sound, but all aspects of City costs
that may be reasonably borne by such a fee should be included in the cost
estimate.
Methodology
PMP utilizes a 15 step methodology. The steps are generally as follows:
. Identify all of the cost elements to be considered.
. Identify all of the exemptions and/or limits to be considered.
. Review with City staff how to collect and compile the cost information.
. Show the City staff how to obtain call center incoming call data (State).
. Ask City staff to obtain information from surrounding cities to whom CHP has
already transferred calls regarding call volume increases following said transfer of
responsibility. Once the data is received, review it and estimate call impact on the
City.
Performance Management Partners
Page 2
2006-41
.
Locate and review socio-economic data on the City (if available) or the County if
appropriate City of San Bernardino data is not available.
.
Review City cost data with staff; suggest refinements where appropriate.
.
Estimate the number oflandlines, cell lines, and trunks within the City.
.
Estimate the core rate per line (no exemptions, no upper limits)
.
Calculate the impact on broad socio-economic groups (business versus private
individuals versus government)
.
Using the best available data, estimate the impact of various exemptions and/or
upper limits. Using call data, if available from most frequent callers to the
communications center, estimate the maximum appropriate cost for the largest
user.
.
Review other agency ordinances with the City Attorney and identify any specific
concerns the City Attorney may have about the proposed fee, the ordinance,
and/or any specific exemption or limit.
.
Meet with the City Council Finance Committee (or similar) and review the
methodology and proposed fee.
.
Finalize materials for public presentation.
.
Assist the City Manager's Office in the presentation of the proposed fee to the full
City Council/Mayor for approval.
We also recommend a follow-up study typically about 18 months after ordinance passage
(which translates into about 12 months after initial revenue receipts). At that time, the
rates need to be adjusted to both insure that all appropriate costs are being recovered, and
that no excess revenues are being generated beyond those costs.
Staffing
We propose to perform the study using our team from the San Jose communications
center study - Mssrs. Dhillon and Mount. Mr. Dhillon is a graduate of California State
University at San Bernardino. He was a Manager at DMG-MAXIMUS prior to joining
PMP and prior to that was a cost/revenue analyst with another similar firm. In total, he
has over 15 years' experience consulting with cities and counties on cost based fees. Mr.
Mount is the former National Director of State and Local Government Consulting for
Arthur Young and Company (now Ernst and Young) and the Director of National
Consulting practices for DMG-MAXIMUS. His resume is attached.
Performance Management Partners
Page 3
2006-41
Cost and Schedule
Given the adoption of the principles outlined above, we believe that the numerical
analysis can be completed within 2 months (subsequent presentations to City entities are
governed by your scheduling). The cost of this work would be $35,000. The optional
follow-up study, should you elect to utilize us for that, would be $10,000. Additional time
on an as-needed basis is available from Mr. Dhillon at $150/hour or Mr. Mount at
$250/hour.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Best of success in your endeavors. Please call if you have any questions. I can be
reached at (408) 234-2258 on my cell phone. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Mount
Michael C. Mount
Performance Management Partners
Page 4
20.0.6-41
Michael C. Mount
Mr. Mount is President of the Performance Management Partners and directs
its revenue maximization and management and performance audit consulting
practices. He has served as the national director of Arthur Young &
Company's state and local government consulting practice as well as heading
DMG's and DMG-MAXIMUS's national consulting practices. He has been a
councilman and mayor, an acting department head, an L.A. County sanitation
district board member, an L.A. County library board member, and a hospital
board member. The combination of perspectives gained by serving in
government as staff, management, and elected official together with
consulting experience give Mr. Mount a unique overall perspective on
governmental operations and systems. Specific experience relevant to
information technology includes the following:
. FEE STUDIES FOR COMMUNICATIONS CENTER COST RECOVERY
Mr. Mount has reviewed the communications center ordnances and experiences of
the City/County of San Francisco and the county and cities of Santa Cruz County.
both San Francisco and the joint dispatch center in Santa Cruz have imposed such
fees and are not being challenged legaliy (as far as we are aware). Mr. Mount
assisted the City of San Jose in determining its costs for this aspect of its overall
public safety operations, the fees necessary to recover those costs, and presented
potential draft ordinances to the City Manager's office and the City Attorney. Mr.
Mount was also asked by the city Council staff in Los Angeles to estimate the costs of
fire and police and emergency medical call handling/dispatching in consideration of
imposing a similar fee. The City elected to place a sales tax increase for public safety
before the voters instead of further consideration of imposing a communications
center fee.
. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
Neither Mr. Mount nor Performance Management Partners has ever provided any
direct service to the City of San Bernardino. Mr. Mount served as the Grand Jury
Auditor (performance audits, not fiscal audits) for the San Bernardino County Grand
Jury for 6 different years, none of those years including any direct reviews of the
City's operations.
. PRIOR REVENUE AND FEE STUDIES
City of San lose
. Prepared a comprehensive anaiysis of possible alternatives for new
sources of revenue for the city of San Jose following Prop. 13.
. Performed more detailed analyses of selected revenue alternatives which
resulted in a $15 million/year increase in dumping fees at landfills located
in the City. The new fees were based on marginal cost analysis in which
Performance Management Partners
Michael C. Mount
2006-41
our team determined the cost for solid waste collection firms to utilize the
next least expensive alternative (in this case a landfill approximately 60
miles away). To our knowledge, this was the first time marginal cost
analysis was used for fees of this type in the United States.
. Updated the original analysis of alternatives approximately 7 years ago.
One of the newer alternatives added at this time was a fee for
communications center services. However, at that time, another option
was selected for detailed analysis.
. Performed a comparison of major large cities nationally on a specific fee
(and also tax) by fee basis to determine where San Jose was under or
over the "market" or average of most other large cities.
. Performed the detailed analysis noted above with respect to
communications center fees which were implemented about 16 months
ago. Also engaged to do a follow-up analysis of fees generated versus
costs to assure that the rates were correct after several months of actual
data was available.
City of Los Angeles
. Developed a computer model to forecast city expenditures and revenues
using various economic forecasting methods. Was able to forecast total
City expenditures out 7 years with 1/2 of 1% error rate. (Revenues
forecasts never achieved this level of accuracy.)
. Developed an incidence of taxation model for the City that showed how
various economic groups within the City were taxed in comparison with
other large cities within the State. this examined the impact on various
socio-economic groups of increases and/or decreases in each of the City's
then-existi ng major tax or fee levels.
. Estimated the costs reasonably born by and the probable rates for a
communications center cost recovery fee.
. Examined the probable impact on costs and revenues of splitting the San
Fernando Valley off from the City of Los Angeles.
. Examined the City's water rates and various structural alternatives
(including the impact of drought conditions on City revenue and rates paid
by citizens) on two occasions. this work involved supporting a Mayor's
"Blue Ribbon" committee on water rates and resulted in the first fully
marginal cost based rates in the West for water. It also resulted in a rate
structure that would fairly precisely meet both the City's revenue needs
and conservation goals during times of drought.
Others
. Performed a comprehensive revenue alternatives study for the City of
Campbell, California.
. Examined major revenue sources and revenue alternatives for
Sacramento county.
Performance Management Partners
Michael C. Mount
200.6-41
. Performed or managed various cost of service studies for such clients as
the Los Angeles County Fire Districts, the City of Pleasanton, the City of
Seattle, city of Chicago, East Bay Municipal Utility District ("East Bay
MUD"), and others.
. Examined major revenues for the City of Detroit to determine whether
there were significant areas in which the City was charging lower fees or
had lower taxes than other major mid-western cities.
Performance Reviews and Comparative Measures
. Performed and/or managed management and performance audits of
nearly every type of county department for various grand juries, including
most departments of Los Angeles County and selected functions of Kern,
Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties.
. Developed nationally recognized benchmarks for various city and county
functions for county-wide and city-wide comparison of workload versus
staffing for the Counties of Sacramento and Ventura and large cities such
as Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles.
. Performed or managed management audits for most very large Western
Counties (near or over a million population), including the counties of
Alameda, Clark (NV), Kern, King (WA), Los Angeles, Maricopa (AZ),
Multnomah (OR), Orange (Ca), Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego,
San Francisco (City and County), Santa Clara, and Ventura. Also
performed and/or managed a wide range of similar studies for large
western cities including Denver, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Portland,
Sacramento, San Antonio, San Diego, San Jose, Seattle, and as listed
under counties, San Francisco.
. Performed and/or managed similar studies for various special districts
including the Metropolitan Water District, East Bay MUD, Sacramento
County Sanitation, Detroit Water and Sewer Department (SouthEast
Michigan sewerage operations), Marin Municipal Water District, Seattle
Water Department (regional water provider), Milwaukee Sewer District
(regional sewerage operations), Kern County Water, Coachella Valley
Water District, and others.
Mr. Mount served five years as a VP and Senior VP of the Los Angeles
Olympic Organizing Committee (LAOOC). In that role, he managed security,
medical services, technology, the general services functions (material
logistics, communications, etc.), and press and television operations.
Performance Management Partners
Michael C. Mount
2006-41
Client list
Mr. Mount has provided and/or managed the provision of assistance to the
following clients: (This includes those served as Performance Management
Partners, DMG-MAXlMUS, and Arthur Young & Company.)
Alameda
Butte
Contra Costa
Kern
Los Angeles
Monterey
Orange
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Solano
Ventura
Other Large counties:
Clark (NV)
Cook (ll)
Denver (CO)
Hillsborough (Fl)
Maricopa (AZ)
Multnomah (OR)
Orange (Fl)
Philadelphia (PA)
Spokane (WA)
Washington, DC
California Counties:
Other Large Agencies:
Arizona legislature
State of CA - Governor's Office
State of CA - Dept. of Justice
State of CA - Dept. of Motor Vehicles
State of CA - CAlTRANS
State of Mississippi
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
State of TX - legislative Audit Committee
State of Virginia - legislature
State of WA - Governor's Office
So. CA Assn. of Governments
Assn. of CA Water Agencies (ACWA)
County Supervisors Assn. of CA (CSAC)
league of California Cities
City of Boston
City of Chicago
City of Detroit
City of Los Angeles
City of San Antonio
City of San Jose
City of San Diego