TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Mark Danaj, City Manager
FROM:
Eve R. Irvine, Chief of Police
Bruce Moe, Finance Director
Andy Harrod, Lieutenant
Julie Dahlgren, Senior Management Analyst
Gwen Eng, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT:Title
Renewal of Crossing Guard Services Agreement with All City Management Services for an Estimated Annual Cost of $242,500 (Police Chief Irvine).
APPROVE
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve contract Amendment #2 with All City Management Services.
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Sufficient funds are budgeted in the Police Department budget.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Crossing Guard Program was introduced in the mid 1980’s. School crossing guards are provided at 21 locations to assist school children safely through intersections during school hours. Up until 2007, the Crossing Guard Program was operated in-house (staffed by part-time City employees and overseen by the Police Department’s Traffic Sergeant). The direct cost of the in-house program in 2007 was $204,775 (excluding full-time staff time for program management, scheduling, recruiting, conducting background investigations, hiring and payroll). As a City-run program, the City was also responsible for all liability issues, including Workers Compensation claims, which over a ten year period cost an average of $12,900 per year.
Staff analyzed the program and determined that contracting the crossing guard services to a third-party would be a more efficient means of operating the program. In July 2007, All City Management Services was selected to provide crossing guard services to the City of Manhattan Beach. This enhanced the Police Department’s delivery of service by ensuring that the crossing guard positions were always fully staffed and eliminating the diversion of Police Department staff to backfill crossing guard vacancies and absences. It also eliminates the crossing guard Workers Compensation claims and reduces the liability associated with the operation of the Crossing Guard Program.
DISCUSSION:
All City Management Services has provided reliable and professional crossing guard services to the City of Manhattan Beach since 2007, and continues to be the largest provider of school crossing guard services in the area. They employ over 3,500 guards and serve over 150 agencies.
In August 2012, they were again awarded a contract through a competitive bid process in August 2012. The three year contract included the option for two one-year extensions. On August 4, 2015, City Council authorized the City Manager to administratively exercise the two one-year extensions.
Although the City Manager was given the authority to administratively exercise both of the two option years with All City Management Services for crossing guard services, the contract limited the City Manager’s authority to an amount not to exceed $222,500. Due to the recent increases to state and federal minimum wages, All City Management Services requests an increase to their hourly rates for services, which brings the estimated total cost of approximately $242,500 for services in year two ($20,000 over the originally contracted amount). Staff evaluated the increase and believe that is fair and in line with rates being paid by other agencies.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Amendment #2, thereby authorizing expenditures of up to $242,500. This recommendation is based on the excellent service All City Management Services has provided to the City over many years, 30 years of crossing guard management experience, and site specific knowledge. Additionally, staff believes that seeking proposals will not result in the City obtaining improved service or significantly lower costs because there are few vendors with similar experience and expertise in crossing guard management.
PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST:
After analysis, staff determined that public outreach was not required for this issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed Amendment #2 and has approved it as-to-form. If at any time the City is not satisfied with All City Management’s services, it may terminate the contract with thirty days written notice.
Attachment:
1. All City Management Contract Amendment #2