HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 3, 2005 Agenda
AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
October 3, 2005
After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas will
convene in a Special Called Meeting on Monday, October 3, 2005 at 11:30 a.m. in the Council
Work Session Room, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be
considered:
1. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the vendor
selection process for the automated traffic signal enforcement program.
2. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction on the design and impact of
the proposed design changes to the Texas wholesale electric market design.
3. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding a petition of INC
Partners Denton, LLC requesting consent to the creation of a Water Control and
Improvement District at Craver Ranch, located within the City's extraterritorial
jurisdiction ("ETJ" and also annexation of real property in the City's northern ETJ
under annexation case no. A05-0002. The City Council reserves the right to convene into
closed session to consult with its attorneys under Texas Government Code Section
551.071 regarding any legal issues related to this matter where a public discussion would
conflict with the duty of the City's attorneys to the City Council under the Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas or would jeopardize
the City's legal position in any administrative proceedings or potential litigation.
NOTE: The City Council reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting on any item on its
Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, as amended,
including without limitation, Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the
City of Denton, Texas, on the day of 2005 at o'clock
(a.m.) (p.m.)
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS ACCESSIBLE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE
SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST
48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY
SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE
DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER
CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: October 3, 2005
DEPARTMENT: Police
a
ACM: Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the vendor
selection process for the automated traffic signal enforcement program.
BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2004 staff made a presentation to Council in work session on the use of
automated traffic signal enforcement. On December 7, 2004, Council adopted an
ordinance authorizing the use of red light cameras and instructed staff to develop and
pursue the project. In December 2004, the Cities of Plano, Richardson, and Frisco joined
together and launched an RFP for the purpose of selecting a vendor for red light cameras
for their respective cities. The City of Denton attempted to join in with these other cities
on their RFP, but due to logistical complications, we were not able to formally join their
consortium. However, these three cities openly welcomed our staff to meet with them and
observe the RFP process. City staff members attended committee meetings and vendor
presentations in January and February 2005. The City of Denton had two possible routes
to take in selecting a red light camera vendor: work though existing interlocal agreements
and use the vendor selected by the cities of Plano, Richardson, and Frisco; or develop an
RFP and seek proposals from red light vendors on our own. City Staff met in March 2005
and decided that the city had more flexibility and better options if we pursued vendors
through our own RFP process.
As staff began the RFP development, a number of legal challenges were made to the
enabling legislation during the Texas Legislature's regular session. None of the
challenges passed during the regular session, and an attempt during the first Special
Session failed as well. With these legal challenges no longer a threat, the decision was
made to move forward with the red light camera RFP. The RFP was developed and
released in August 2005. The RFP set out the criteria to be used in selecting a vendor:
Back Office Performance (35%), Technology and Hardware (20%), Experience and
Qualifications (10%), Project Termination Plan (10%), Overall Cost of the Program
(20%), and Overall Project Approach (5%). Each of these sections is explained below.
Back Office Performance (35%)
Back office performance is the largest section in the grading criteria, carrying the
heaviest weight of any single category. Back office performance includes a subsection on
evidence, such as the overall quality of photographs and video and the quality of
individual violation photographs. It also includes a subsection on processing, covering
issues such as the vendor's capability to process those photos and video in a timely
manner, the vendor's ability to obtain motor vehicle registration information, the
vendor's software and access to both police and violators over the Internet, and the ability
to produce violation notices within seven days. Back office performance also includes the
vendor's analytical capabilities on captured data, and their public education program.
Technology and Hardware Performance (20%)
This section covers the issue of what type of cameras the vendor uses and the overall
functionality of the camera system. It includes criteria on Detection, Portability,
Installation, and Maintenance. Detection involves the vendor's ability to monitor and
capture violations on varying lane types and numbers, capture multiple violations during
a single light phase, and the type of detection technology the vendor employees.
Portability centers on the vendor's ability to provide equipment for up to ten intersections
and their capability to provide a "turn key" solution. Installation concerns the vendor's
ability to have the system installed within ninety days from the notice to proceed and
their use of subcontractors for the project. Finally, Maintenance involves the ability of the
vendor to make timely repairs and adjustments on the system within a minimum
timeframe of forty-eight hours.
Experience and Qualifications (10%)
Research into the field of automated traffic signal enforcement provides a clear picture
that there have been many companies that entered the field, but many of them have failed
to last for very long. There are a number of vendors who have either filed for bankruptcy
or were sold to other competitors. This section reviews the experience of the vendor,
including the amount of time they have been in business, prior experience with other
cities, and the list of references with other projects.
Project Termination Plan (10%)
Given the recent legal challenges to the enabling legislation at the State level, there is
some concern about entering into a long-term contract without some assurance as to what
happens if the legislation is later overturned. This section examines the vendor's position
on this issue and the city's financial liability in the event there are legal changes that
prevent the use of the system.
Overall Cost (20%)
The RFP asked for a flat rate monthly price per camera. This section examines the
monthly rate, the cost of "dummy" systems, and any contractual guarantees regarding
cost and performance.
Project Approach (5%)
This section takes a comprehensive look at the vendor's approach to the city's desired
program. Essentially, this section would be scored based on how each vendor compares
to the other vendors.
After the RFP was released, the city received proposals from five vendors. A red light
camera committee was selected to review the proposals and make a recommendation to
Council. The members of the committee are:
Curt Arndt, Traffic Operations Manager
Stephanie Berry, Assistant City Attorney
Lieutenant Loyd Burns, Support Bureau, Police
Lieutenant Scott Fletcher, Operations Bureau, Police
Keith Gabbard, Streets and Drainage Supervisor
Captain Scott Langford, Operations Bureau, Police
Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent
Scott Wilson, Lead Signal Technician, Traffic Operations
The red light camera committee members met September 1, 2005 and discussed the
vendor proposals. At this meeting, the committee ranked the five vendors using the
grading criteria from the RFP. The vendors were ranked as follows:
1. Redflex
2. ATS
3. Nestor
4. Peek
5. Lasercraft
The top two vendors were invited to make a one-hour oral presentation to the committee.
These presentations were made on September 12, 2005. The committee contacted
reference cities provided by these two vendors. The committee met again following the
presentations and each committee member submitted a grade sheet for the top two
vendors.
A breakdown of the top two vendors is provided below. A full composite grade sheet is
attached in appendix A.
Redflex
Redflex currently has more than 480 operational systems in the United States, including
programs in Chicago, IL and Scottsdale, AZ. Redflex was recently awarded contracts
with the cities of Plano, Richardson, Frisco. They have the capability to process more
than 140,000 violations a month. They have a proven track record of running the type of
program the City of Denton is looking to employ. They utilize a non-invasive video
detection system and employ multiple digital cameras and a video camera to capture
violations. They provide a twelve second video of each violation - six seconds before and
after each violation. They indicate a willingness to customize much of their program to
suit the individual needs of their customer. Their system also provides a live feed that
can be used to monitor traffic problems. They provide a fully automated traffic statistics
program for use by their customers without the need to request specific reports.
Every reference city provided by Redflex expressed their complete satisfaction with the
product and the company. Each of these cities, despite the wide variations in the number
of cameras systems they have in operation, praised the level of customer service, the
work of the company during the design and installation process, and the overall
performance of the camera systems. Each of these reference cities have been working
with Redflex for at least a year, and several have been operational for a number of years.
Two of the five reference cities contacted offered that they have recently extended the
Redflex contract or are in the process of expanding the Redflex program. Several staff
members of the reference cities stated that Redflex far exceeded their expectations in
every area of the program. One city administrator commented that Redflex was the best
vendor, in any capacity, that he had worked with throughout the city.
Finally, Redflex offers a guaranteed contract to the city. They will adjust the monthly
pricing of our system to ensure that there is no net loss - thus preventing the need to
supplement the red light camera program with the city's budget. They also have an
advantageous project termination plan. In the event the red light program becomes
untenable due to legislative changes or judicial rulings, Redflex will terminate the
program at no cost to us. Further, should the city become dissatisfied with the program's
performance, Redflex will terminate the program without cost to the city. In either case,
Redflex will return the affected intersections to their original operating condition.
ATS
ATS has been involved in photo enforcement programs for a number of years. They were
recently partnered with Mulvihill, another photo enforcement company. They have since
acquired Mulvihill. ATS has a number of red light camera contracts, including programs
in New York, NY and Philadelphia, PA. ATS uses non-invasive video detection and
provides high-resolution digital still photographs. They also offer a ten second video clip
of each violation. For an additional monthly fee, ATS can provide additional (non
violation) cameras for a full video view of an enforcement intersection. ATS offers
statistical reports to the city to audit the operation and effectiveness of the red light
camera program.
Several of the reference cities provided by ATS expressed complete satisfaction with the
program. However, none of these cities appear to be operating the complete system that
ATS proposes to the City of Denton. In New York, ATS operates the camera system.
However, NY City officials conduct all of the back office work on processing and issuing
violation notices and the collection of payments. It is also notable that the NY City
officials consistently referred to Mulvihill and their staff when speaking of the program
assets. Finally, ATS stated in their proposal that they were set to install an additional 50
cameras in NY City by September 2005. NY City staff stated that they were supportive of
adding cameras to their system. Unfortunately, due to existing State legislative
restrictions, they could not add any cameras to their system without changes to the
enabling legislation at the State level. In Philadelphia, city staff members were more than
pleased with their system and the performance of ATS. By law, Pennsylvania requires the
use of 35mm wet film. Therefore, Philadelphia could not provide any feedback on the
digital camera system performance. The third reference provided was Scottsdale, AZ.
Redflex also listed this city as a reference. ATS operated the red light camera program in
Scottsdale from 1996 - 1999, when they sold their red light camera business contracts to
Redflex. One final issue with references came up with the city of Ft. Collins, CO. This
city was listed in the ATS proposal on a reference list of "key programs under
development, or delivered and operated by many of the same team members being
proposed to the City of Denton". When contacted, Ft. Collins officials stated that they
have a red light camera program being run by Redflex and were not aware of any
relationship to ATS.
In terms of program costs, ATS offers a very competitive monthly rate for their camera
systems. However, ATS requires some additional payments for some services that have
the potential to inflate the monthly cost. The installation of the four-way video system, as
stated above, would add more than one hundred dollars each month per intersection. The
monthly rate offered only includes registration information from Texas. There is an
additional per violation charge to look up and retrieve out-of-state license
plate/registration data. ATS offers a no-cost termination plan in the event of a legislative
change that prohibits the use of red light cameras. They do not offer a no-cost termination
for any other reason. Finally, ATS does not offer a contract guarantee for the
performance of the program. Should the income from paid violations fail to cover the
monthly cost of the camera systems, the city would be liable to make up the price
difference. The company president did make such an offer during his oral presentation in
response to a question, but this guarantee was not provided in writing with the original
proposal.
Recommendation
Based on the information in the written and oral presentations, along with the comments
provided by other cities using these companies, the red light camera committee
unanimously recommends Redflex as the vendor for the City of Denton Automated
Traffic Signal Enforcement Program. Redflex scored higher in every category on every
committee member's grading sheet. (See Attachment 1)
OPTIONS
1. Council can direct staff to pursue a contract with Redflex as the vendor for the
city's Automated Traffic Signal Enforcement Program.
2. Council can direct staff to conduct additional research on vendors for the city's
Automated Traffic Signal Enforcement Program.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends pursuing a contract with Redflex for the city's Automated Traffic
Signal Enforcement Program.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
10/04/04 - Council Work Session on Red Light Cameras.
12/07/04 - Council adoption of Red Light Camera Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT
Should Council approve the recommendation of Redflex as the vendor for the program,
there will be a fairly minimal impact on the city budget. Because Redflex offers a
guaranteed contract, there should be no additional cost to the city from the contract with
Redflex. Should the program produce any revenue above the monthly cost of the
contract, the existing ordinance provides for the revenue to be deposited in a "Public
Safety" account. This account is dedicated to expenditures for the operation of the camera
program and can only be used for this purpose or to fund specific public safety programs
and improvements, such as signal/intersection improvements, law enforcement traffic
enforcement programs, and other related activities.
Regardless of which vendor is selected, the city is responsible for establishing a part time
Hearing Officer to listen to appeals of citizens who receive violation notices. Revenues,
as stated above, could cover this Hearing Officer position, as it is part of the overall
program. However, this position is not included in the vendor contract. As such, it is not
covered by the contract guarantee provided by Redflex. The city is obligated to fund this
position in the event there are not sufficient revenues to pay for it.
ATTACHMENT
1. Composite Grading Sheet
Respectfully submitted,
0144-ha-4~, Z,14W4.
Charles Wiley
Chief of Police
Prepared by:
Lt. Scott Fletcher
Operations Bureau
M „may N ~•I r M r
~ M CO O O 01 M ~ ~ CO M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ O CO O O CO ~ O ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ l~ M ~
~ ~ M CO O O O ~ d0 ~ O v~ ~ ~ v~ ~ 60
N a M ~ r
b~
O
F•~•I X 0 0 0 0 CO M M ~ O l~ M~ O~~
~.d
J•d ~
G~ M 0 0 0 0 0~~ M v'~ O M M O fV C
p p~j U
~ ~ N M CO ~ O O ~ ~ N v'~ N ~ ~ l~ M ~••i
W Q
M ~
~ Moo o r o~ ~ o
~ ~ ~noooo ~o ~noooo ~o
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
J•d V] V] V] V] V] V] rA V] V] V] V] V] V] V]
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
~ U U
S. S.
O O
O O
Ste. r"' Ste. r"'
U ~ U CC ~ U ~ U CC
~ a seC, ~ a sue,
~ ee ~ ~ ~ ee ~ an
s, ~ ~ o c s, ~ ~ o c
wxa~a ~ wxa~a
w V U w 2O V U
~ x yy. ~ U ~ U yy. ~ U ~ U
G~ G~ ~i ~ CC
6) CC 6) YE i. ~ i. O E•~ CC 6) YE i. ~ i. O
p'•I CQ E~ W a 0 a E•~ Qi CQ E~ W a 0 a E•~
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: October 3, 2005
DEPARTMENT: Safety and Training
ACM: Howard Martin, Utilities 349-8232
SUBJECT
Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding implementation of a new electric wholesale
market design in Texas.
BACKGROUND
The Public Commission of Texas has made the decision to redesign the Texas wholesale
electric market to a system based on nodal locational market pricing, effective January 1,
2009. A background presentation regarding the implications of implementation of this nodal
market design in the Texas wholesale electric market will be provided to the City Council.
EXHIBITS:
1. Presentation
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Mays
Electric Utility Director
H
x
yC
W
w
CU o L
~ - o
a) a)
C- E
J J o -0 v
-C~
J z .C/) W o M v
O a) in 0- E
Q
0 C:
~ L
Qz
O},~ o~E
0
U ~ oa)
CU a) oho
U ~ > o
Cn E o
to a) C: C:
o a) CU a)
o
Q Q E a) C: .
C: z LU o C/)
-c: NO
cn pQEE O CUE
L o
-1--j z cn
Q O cn
a) ~2
~ ~ z ~o cn Q cn
I I
€ ~I
~~\\\\~~iI~I III
I
I
3
2
O
D co
60- E
60-
M >
Cl)
U
co ~ N W
Cfl
} p
N = L z U
W
LO PEI
LM
V- 3: IEEEEE
co
N
7-5
LO LO
N
f0}
Z ° °o M ~ °o ~
LLI U) ~ (a ~ L6 N N
~
O
UJ
LLI QL C) C)
~ 3: a U")
LLI C) 0 2 00
=O
CN 00 C)
CY) N 00 00
~
W 0 00
L~
Z~ E
:3 o 0 0 0 0
E N ~ N 00 O
o a)
@ CY) 00
z ~
V 0
~
a) cu
ry m
O C) C) O
O ~ O N
M ~ c0 O 00 M
v 0~ M C0 O
V O CU M N ti O ti
J 4--j O
L O O O O O 00
Q~ E O O ~ N O c4
00 Oo C6 N
C6 O
CD O O O O
O O O O
CO co co co
QL O O
C~ O O O O
O ° CO L L ~
O
m O O O
~ L O~ N 00 O
C: CO N CO
0
a CO
CDO
♦ ^ E cn
. cn nom,
n,
cu a)
O . V-, U
O z a)
- -
E a~ ~
a) cu
C: O :3 c~
Z O ~ L- cn
E :3 a) LL O
0) 6 0~
o
cn Fn E -a cn
Cn a) -C: cn
m a)
o O O U cn
C: se -
Q - L. O m J
O ca ^
ca
_
0 E E ~ U) 0
O c: a) O
E O -C C U
J C6
Q z
-D-01' OE .U
m C: C: a) M p +~o - L O
O , V cn Q
Z L O I
cri
y~
O X O O
O O ~ O
O 4--j C6
C: O U) QL
O
p a) OU O
0 U O O O L~
U -a -r- O
CU -a) m c)) C:
E
E -
W 0-0 ° ~cy)Qc~~
C)) O O CU
s= E O E O
O
U a) O
O
x 0 x p
E a) a)
O
0 u)
O c O C6
~ U OU OU ~ a) a) ~ 0 0
W
U
0 p
Z D
~ o
O
° O
00
+
619, X co
CD 11 IT-,
O
CD 3:
O
CD CD 2
J U ~ 6e- (D 6p.~-
O O
xC x00
N N
Q ~ o 0 0 0
CD o
cf N{f} ~
z
O O
O O
x O x O
0 0
CD CD CD
O O N O N O
~ ~ ~ 60- 6ey
U) W
O U
0 E
W O c6 c6
O O a)
O
j O ~ U ~ -1--J
O O .U O CU ~ O a) a)
U O C6
O 0.0 M
O O a) -a ca O -a
0 -0 -1-a L- -r-~
m a)
O E C: a~
O O U~
CU U) o) -a CID
O 0-0 c6 E
0 a)
J o
o ~oc~~Jo
- o o
Q C: CU 0
m m oca o
cu - cu CU U)
Q
> U
a) cu c
0 a)
O H O
cy)~ y y U
O O U) a)
(n (n
oa o a) o O
(n ~ -
O O c: O~
- a~ cu a 0 0
CO ~ 0 0) co -0 < U)
N
275;
Oo O
O
O ~
O
U J
U °
J
~ O
J ~
ON O
60- co
a) a)
0 C
C: O T
4-0 O}
O U - C:
32 N = C:
14-0 L •E M- 0)
4-0 4-0 C:
- v, 4-0
U E -
o E a)
L .0 ~
U
4-0 CU CU
Q N E Q
C O U N
N
a) W C:
cu a) a) cu
W a) a)
00 > a)
U C: Q L
C: N N 0
CU CU 0 m
O
> U L -r
m C/) 4-0 C: L O C/) O
C/) O O 4-0 O 4-0
C/) O CU ~CU
c O v L Oti 0 0)0 L
N oo a) -P u-) cp U E u) 7- E S L ~
> E a) 6c
cn 0 CU C:
a) L
N 4-0 cn a) 0
L- 4-0 CU 0 0
E Cn C :3 O > O a) • -
o cn E
U) o 0 0 0
J J J
Q z
~ N 0000
z 6ey 6ey 6ey
0
0 0 0 o o
LLJ ~ J J J J J
z M M I` ~M CY)
0 LO N Iq Iq
U 6ey
J
Q
~ rn °o 0 0 0
~ rn o 0 0 0
U ~ N N N N
Q
LLI
QC-
/ N ~ O
v' N N M
Q ~ !f3 !f3 !f3
LLI
0
= U
P111-- 00 CY)
LLJ CY) CY) CY)
Q LLI
z
Ow
J