HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - NB-1 - Additonal Documents - 1/19/2016NB -1
CITY OF COSTA MESA
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:RNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR
DATE: vi,
NUARY 15, 2016
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM "1405 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT —AESTHETICS PLAN"
The subject item is scheduled for the regular City Council meeting of January 19, 2016. Staff
presented this item to the Cultural Arts Committee on January 14, 2016. Staff presented the
recommended decorative retaining wall option included with the staff report (Attachment 3) and
also an earlier option considered. The recommended option includes Coast Live Oak and White
Tailed Kite elements. The other option includes Least Terns and grasses.
The Cultural Arts Committee preferred the decorative retaining wall option with Least Terns and
grasses.
Please let us know should you have any questions relative to the Cultural Arts Committee's action.
Attachment
c Tom Hatch, Chief Executive Officer
Raja Sethuraman, Transportation Services Manager
Brenda Green, City Clerk
Retaining Wall Art for Costa Mesa
-,di A�
a'iod
C N.%2
X CAM 4L
ink
Subject: Speed Humps on Saint Clair Street
Dear Costa Mesa City Council members,
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS NB -3
1-17-16
I have lived on Saint Clair St. for 40 years (across from Jim Jordan for whom I
help set up the Peanuts Christmas display at City Hall each year) and have been
increasingly concerned about the cars that speed past my house on a regular
basis. There are several children in homes close to me that ride scooters and
bikes in the street and it's become a real safety issue. When Mr. Litvak
approached me with his petition to have speed humps installed after a car
crashed into his house, I was thrilled to sign it with the hopes we could finally
slow the traffic down. I was so disappointed to see that all we got were the
raised markers which don't force vehicles to slow down at all. Although I
appreciate the city making the effort to put them in, drivers who love to speed
simply speed over them as well. I realize Saint Clair didn't meet the traffic
volume guidelines for speed humps but I believe it deserves an exception due to
the overwhelming desire of the street's residents to acquire them in order to
make Saint Clair safer, especially when it's relatively inexpensive to do so. And if
you're looking for residents who don't mind them in front of their homes, 1'd love
to have one in front of my house!
I wish I were in town to attend the meeting. Thank you for your consideration on
this matter. 1 hope you all can make this happen.
Happy New Year!
Eric Yetter
Co
17
4!]
w�
N
t
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - NB -2
Existing Criteria
Proposed Criteria
1
Does the proposed program meet a
High need = 10 pts.
1
Does the proposed program address a
15 pts.
consolidated plan priority need?
Medium need = 6 pts.
community need? (NEW)
The Consolidated Plan process identifies
Low need = 2pts.
Data should be provided as evidence that a
the priority needs for programs and services in
need exists in the community for the proposed
the community. Applications will be scored on
program; and
the relative priority of the "Consolidated Plan
Does the proposed program meet a consolidated
High need = 5 pts.
Priority Need", and whether it addresses a
plan priority need?
Low need = 2 pts.
high, medium or low priority need.
The Consolidated Plan process identifies the
No need = 0 pts.
priority needs for programs and services in the
community. Applications will be scored on the
relative priority of the "Consolidated Plan
Priority Need", and whether it addresses a high,
medium or low priority need.
2
The capacity of the applicant to implement the
20 pts.
2
The capacity of the applicant to implement the
15 pts.
proposed program to meet projected service
proposed program to meet projected service
goal
goal
"Capacity" evaluation should be based on
"Capacity" evaluation should be based on
objective data such as the percentage of a
objective data such as the percentage of a
stated goal the applicant has met on a
stated goal the applicant has met on a
consistent basis.
consistent basis
3
Cost effectiveness of the proposed program
20 pts.
3
Cost effectiveness of the proposed program
15 pts.
Program overhead is reviewed; existing
Program overhead is reviewed; existing policy
policy recommends that no more than 20% of
recommends that no more than 20% of program
program funds should be expended for agency
funds should be expended for agency
administration and fundraising.
administration and fundraising.
4
Leveraging of Costa Mesa CDBG funds
15 pts.
4
Leveraging of Costa Mesa CDBG funds
10 pts.
Is the applicant able to bring additional
Is the applicant able to bring additional funds
funds to the table; matching CDBG funds from
to the table; matching CDBG funds from other
other resources; is the money used as seed
resources; is the money used as seed money to
money to create additional funding
create additional funding opportunities or a new
opportunities or a new program.
program.
5
Financial and client tracking systems
20 pts.
5
Financial and client tracking system.
10 pts.
Staff tracks funding history for three years
Staff tracks funding history for three years to
to ensure funds are being spent in a timely
ensure funds are being spent in a timely
manner; there is sufficient documentation to
manner; there is sufficient documentation to
support provided payment; timeliness of
support provided payment; timeliness of
applicant's reports; and performance results
applicant's reports; and performance results as
as measured against established goals.
measured against established goals.
6
Percent of overall program budget benefiting
10 pts. if 70%+
6
Percent of overall program budget benefiting
10 pts. if 70%+
Costa Mesa Residents
benefits CM residents;
Costa Mesa Residents
benefits CM residents;
Programs are reviewed to encourage the
6 pts. if benefits 30%
Programs are reviewed to encourage the
6 pts. If benefits 30%
support of programs that predominately
to 69 % CM residents;
support of programs that predominately service
to 69 % CM residents;
service Costa Mesa.
0 pts. If benefits 29%
Costa Mesa.
0 pts. If benefits 29%
or less CM residents.
or less CM residents.
7
Effectiveness of interview
5 pts.
7
Application submitted as a coalition or
10 pts.
A well prepared applicant can better
collaborative (MODIFIED/EXPANDED)
answer questions to assist the subcommittee
The City encourages innovative partnerships
to objectively review the application.
among applicants in an effort to efficiently and
effectively meet the identified need(s) of City
residents and to reduce program administrative
costs. Coalition/collaboration members need
not be applicants of CDBG funds.
8
Coalition points
10 pts.
8
Agency based in the City of Costa Mesa (NEW)
Agency in City = 5 pts.
This is to encourage innovative partnerships
Points awarded to agencies headquartered in
Agency provides
among applicants in an effort to reduce
City with consideration also given to agencies
services in City = 2 pts.
program administrative costs.
that provide services in the City.
9
Veterans Preference
0 to 10 pts. based on
9
Effectiveness of interview
5 pts.
City Council authorized allocation of extra
percentage of
A well prepared applicant can better answer
rating points for agencies that provide a
veterans that are
questions to assist the subcommittee to
preference to veterans and their families.
served
objectively review the application.
10
Veterans Preference
0 to 10 pts. based on
City Council authorized allocation of extra
percentage of
rating points for agencies that provide a
veterans that are
preference to veterans and their families.
served
TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS:
120 pts.
110 pts.
Other evaluation factors (no points awarded)
Other evaluation factors (no points awarded):
Clients served fall within HUD income limits
Police calls for service for agencies within the City
Police calls for service for agencies within the City
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - N13-5
JDCARE
1517 W. Braden Court • Orange, CA 92868
www.careambulance.net
(714) 288-3800
The Honorable Mayor Stephen Mensinger
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
January18, 2016
Re: January 19, 2016 City Council Agenda; New Business Item 5: Ambulance Transportation for
the City of Costa Mesa
Dear Mayor Mensinger,
Care Ambulance Service, in partnership with the Costa Mesa Fire Department, has been
providing high quality emergency ambulance transportation to Costa Mesa for over eight years.
Over the course of our partnership, we have worked seamlessly with the CMFD in providing
outstanding EMS services to the community, and have routinely exceeded our contractual
requirements in providing ambulance services. We are proud of our relationship with the CMFD.
In reviewing the staff report for this item, as well as the consultant's report and ensuing
recommendations, we strongly agree with their findings that Plans 2 and 4 do not bring the best
value to the city of Costa Mesa and should be rejected.
Both Plans 2 and 4 have shown to be problematic for many municipalities throughout the
country. In 2009 the City of Santa Ana made the decision to stop providing emergency
ambulance service directly and entered into a public/private partnership saving them millions of
dollars annually. More recently both Salem, Oregon and Washington, DC have put their
programs back out to the private sector as the cost to provide ambulance services is typically 3-5
times higher for municipalities.
For example, the average wage for an EMT is $12 per hour and our ambulances cost about
$120,000 each. Wages for city fire personnel are significantly higher than that and the cost of the
current city ambulances are twice as much as ours. When comparing all data, the private sector
is a high quality, cost effective alternative and that's why partnerships are so effective.
Municipalities that are looking to enter the ambulance business are indeed moving to a
public/private partnership model that benefits both the municipality and the provider.
As advocates of the public/private partnership, we find that there are several issues that make
the selection and implementation of Plan 3 both financially and logistically unrealistic and
unattainable. Plan 3 is not a true public/private partnership model.
The inclusion and subsequent recommendation of Plan 3 is a real surprise as this plan is not
used anywhere in the state. It is purely theoretical and has not been demonstrated to be
effective.
Plan 3 would require a private ambulance provider to provide the same number of resources and
commit to the same response time criteria that is required today, while only generating half of the
current revenue. This is economically impossible and as such we would not consider
participating in this type of model. We are confused as to why the consultants would bring this
option forward.
What is missing from the report is the inclusion of true public/private partnership plans that are
either currently used throughout the State, or are growing in adoption by municipalities that have
.201 rights and want to take advantage of the GEMT revenue opportunity. These plans are true
public/private partnerships and are used today in Santa Ana, San Clemente, La Habra, and
Westminster where the municipality contracts with private providers for the provision of
ambulance services, while the municipality takes full financial control.
We find it odd that the consultant did not include this type of plan for review as they are the major
proponent of this type plan and were heavily involved in the recent RFP in Contra Costa County
that now uses this new model. They also failed to include a 100% private paramedic option,
which while we do not advocate at this time, should be a vetted alternative.
This consultant group is owned by two retired fire chiefs who have had no direct experience in
either the private ambulance sector, or in the administration of public/private partnerships. Their
experience is limited to fire department operated ambulance services. All of the plans
demonstrate a revenue stream that is overstated, and none of them speak to the true fully loaded
costs for operating such services. There is no pro forma, or cost report included that would be
required for future GEMT access. The city should know these numbers before taking on the
liability. Another $1 in revenue is not worth it if you have to spend $1.10 to get it.
The financial analysis is overly optimistic in that the transport numbers, payer mix, and revenue
calculations are overstated by as much as 15-20%. You will not be able to generate the revenue
you will need to cover the costs of providing the service, thereby leaving you no choice but to
raise fees or taxes as recommended in the consultant's report.
As an example, the assumption that staffing four ambulances will service 100% of your needs is
not realistic. Of the 7104 transports Care did last year, 592 had to be run by additional surge
capacity outside of the 4 contracted ambulances we provide. This means that expected
transports and revenue will be short by 8.3% or $223,000 annually as the city will have to forfeit
those dollars to the ambulance service that provides the backup. Today Care provides unlimited
surge capacity at no cost to the city.
Additionally, the consultant estimated that the system was worth in excess of $3 to $4 million
dollars. The reality is that the 7104 transports last year generated over $1 million less than that.
This is not the first time this consultant's financial analysis has been found to be questionable.
During their RFP process Contra Costa County hired City Gate to review this consultant's work
and they too found significant flaws in their financial assumptions, resulting in the selection of the
public/private partnership over 100% fire operations.
The fact is ambulance service profit margins are no more than any other business, and typically
run in the 3-7% range depending on the area. We operate efficiently and cost effectively,
delivering exceptional service, something many municipalities face challenges doing when
providing ambulance service.
There are also legal issues to take into consideration. Costa Mesa operates under the
presumption that they have .201 rights. The State of California disagrees and has classified
Costa Mesa as Non -Exclusive. This means that the State does not recognize the city's claim to
anti-trust protections which leaves the city open to legal challenges in the future should an
ambulance service demand to be placed into a call rotation.
The city would also take on the additional liability of patient handling and transportation where
most injuries and claims occur. Today you are an additional insured under our insurance
umbrella and do not have this exposure.
Lastly, the report implies that the city needs to do this in order to gain further control over the
city's EMS system and that this will improve patient care. We find these statements to be a little
misleading in that it implies that the city is not in control of the EMS system today. This is
completely false. The city of Costa Mesa has full control over the design, implementation,
oversight, and operations of the city's EMS system. Taking over ambulance transports is not
required to achieve this control.
It also implies that somehow the city is being underserved or is receiving substandard care
today. We feel just the opposite. The residents of Costa Mesa receive the highest caliber
paramedic and ambulance service delivered by the public/private partnership we provide today.
In closing, we ask you to vote NO on Plan 3 as this would not be in the best interest of the city
and would actually be a detriment to patient care.
While the current model, Plan 1, is not perfect, going forward we are willing to work with the city
and the Fire Chief in designing a new public/private partnership that would benefit the citizens of
Costa Mesa and be financially sustainable for both partners, public and private.
I will be in attendance Tuesday and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Respe
Troy agen; CEO
Care Ambulance Service
1517 W Braden Court
Orange, CA 92868
714-288-3800
troyh(a)careambulance.net
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - N13-5
MEJIA, JESSICA
Subject: FW: CARE Ambulance Public Comment
From: CHALMERS, SYLVIA
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 1:43 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>; MEJIA, JESSICA <JESSICA.MEJIA@costamesaca.gov>
Cc: SHELTON, KELLY <KELLY.SHELTON@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: CARE Ambulance Public Comment
HI: SALLY DEBRUN, LIVES IN COSTA NEWPORT CALLED TO TELLTHE COUNCILSHE IS AGAINST GOING WITH CARE
AMBULANCE. SHE HAS HAD TERRIBLE SERVICE, AND THEY HAVE COST HER A FORTUNE.
THANK YOU,
Sylvia Chalmers
Executive Secretary
CEO's Office I City of Costa Mesa
(714) 754-5099 I Fax (714) 754-5330
sylvia.chaImers@costamesaca.gov
www. costa mesaca.iaov
Costa Mesa