000233 Ohlson, Lynne From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Brenda, Rittenhouse, Robert B. Friday, October 21,2011 5:32 PM Velasquez, Brenda Delaney, Diane; Ohlson, Lynne Thanks Last night I worked several hours booting cars. The new system in our car does not allow us to run plates when we come across scofflaw violators. This meant that I had to call TeleCom to confirm the registered owner on each car I planned to tow. As the night went on, it was clear that I was causing a bunch of additional work for your dispatchers. With that said, each and every dispatcher I spoke with last night was friendly and helpful. There was not even a hint of annoyance or frustration in their voice when they would hear me ask for yet another 10-28. I was very grateful for their assistance and the manner in which they provided it. Please pass along my appreciation to your team for all their hard work. Sgt. Robert Rittenhouse 1 22979
Transcript
000233
Ohlson, Lynne
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Brenda,
Rittenhouse, Robert B. Friday, October 21,2011 5:32 PM Velasquez, Brenda Delaney, Diane; Ohlson, Lynne Thanks
Last night I worked several hours booting cars. The new system in our car does not allow us to run plates when we come across scofflaw violators. This meant that I had to call TeleCom to confirm the registered owner on each car I planned to tow. As the night went on, it was clear that I was causing a bunch of additional work for your dispatchers. With that said, each and every dispatcher I spoke with last night was friendly and helpful. There was not even a hint of annoyance or frustration in their voice when they would hear me ask for yet another 10-28. I was very grateful for their assistance and the manner in which they provided it. Please pass along my appreciation to your team for all their hard work.
Sgt. Robert Rittenhouse
1 22979
00023422980
000235
Parking Pricing and TOM Grant Projects Kick-Off Meeting Tuesday, February 1, 2011
4:00 PM
AGENDA: .
1. Introduction to the project (Christine) 4:00 PM
2. Scope, budget and schedule (Kara & Matt) 4:05 PM
3. Questions, discussion 4:20 PM
4. Next steps, process for continued collaboration 4:40 PM
Value Priced hrkinc PRat Olm.te Initiatives G ... nt TGblI Con:: 80th Gl'llnt PtoJ ... ms Combined Tasks VPPPFunded VPPPMotch CMAQFundod CMAQMotch Grant Fundld Motch Toto' Notes 1. ,rojed InltlltlDn.nd PniUmlnery Pllnn'" 1.1. Complete Project PI.n ProJtd Ini1latlon 15 not Ir.llnt fundl'd. 1.2. Fln.llze Cooperative Acreement between the City of Berkeley, C,ltrlns Ind FHWA 1.3. Finllize Acreements between the Qtv Ind Plrtners
Subtotal Task 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2. ~"'_nt .... MuIlf.llp...,Cao_ 2.1. Project MI ...... nt $ S $ 194.601' $ S 1.94,601 $ $ 194,601 Costs a~ based on panldpatln, CoB labor. Su "Staff Coru'" and "CoB Sq,
2.3.1. etv of Bertelev-lJC Berkelev Pro ed Coordination $ 10,390 S $ S $ 10.90 $ $ 10,390 2.3.2. Climate Inltlaavn I-TAP Partner Coordination $ $ $ $ 2,668 S $ 2,668 S 2,661 2.3.3. ParkJ!'!L Mana ement Workln, Group $ 7.598 S $ $ S 7591 S $ 7,591 2.lA. Inform.tlon TechnolocY/lntelll,ent Tl"llnsplDrtltlon Systems Worklna Group S 18.007 S S S $ 111,007 $ $ 11,007 2.3.5. PartJnc Pritin /Parkln, & TDM Polity Development WorkinE Group $ 13,573 $ S $ 6.226 $ 13,573 $ 6.226 $ 19799 .... Public Partlci.tion and Public InlDrmetion $ 6,400 S $ $ 9,883 $ 6,400 $ 9,883 $ 16.283
Subtotal Task 2 $. 62,300 S $ 194,601 $ L8,778 $ 256,901 $ 18,778 $ 275,678 3. Projo«PI.nn'", ~U. Develop Concept of o.". ... tions $ 15,000 S S S $ 15,000 S S 15,000 3.2. O' ..... S_rnsE_ .......... ment P"n (SEMPI S 60,000 $ $ S $ 60,000 $ $ 60.000 3.3. 0.".101' Imp_mentation Pl. .. for Pro'1Kt: Elemenb 3.3.1. DaQ Collection Manltonn, and Evaluation S 20.000 $ $ S $ 20.000 $ S ,0.000 3.3.2. Pilrkln Prldna Policies for on- and off street facilities $ 15,000 S $ $ $ 15,000 $ S 15,000 3.3.3. Installitlon, operation and maintenance of partlnc eQuloment $ 15,000 $ S $ $ 15.000 $ $ 15.000 3.3.4. Enhanced Pllrldnc enforcement S 20,000 $ $ $ $ 20,000 $ S 20,000
4.2.2- Oty or lerlcetev 'artln, Acces$ and Revenue Controf System S S $ $ $ $ $ Non'Pill'tlclpatlnl project cost 4.2.3. On-street Proc,.mrnable SI",Ie-Space Pay and DIspI.y Meters S 322,700 S 225,000 S 201,918 S $ 524,61& $ 225,000 S 749.618 VPPP match Is additional meter purchases, but could be labor for oth.r 4.2.4. On-Street and Off-Street '.rldne OecUPAncv Sensors (lBD) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ tub Instud. .... Im"menladon of Rul-nme PIIrtdnI: InIo,....tIon far otr-Strftt Perkinc Facilities $ $ $ 4.3.1. Data Collection, Systems InteJ:ration Ind DIU WilrehousinE $ 150,000 $ S $ $ 150,000 $ $ 150,000 4.3.2. Intelr.lIon with 511 P.rt Reclone' Tl1Ivellnl'onnat60n System $ 50,000 $ $ $ $ 50,000 $ S 50,000
Sensor data transmission/mo $ 3.50 $ 154.00 $ 3,696.00 RFID tag system $ 15.00 $ 660.00 $ 660.00
$ 11,616.00 $ 40,568.00
IPS meters number of meters 55 2-yr cost Initial cost per meter $ 520.00 $ 28,600.00 $ 28,600.00 Ongoing monthly cost per meter $ 5.75 $ 316.25 $ 7,590.00
$ 36,190.00
Vehicle Detection sensor $ 165.00 $ 9,075.00 $ 9,075.00 Sensor data transmission/mo $ 3.50 $ 192.50 $ 4,620.00 RFID tag system $ 15.00 $ 825.00 $ 825.00
$ 14,520.00 $ 50,710.00
22995
00025022996
000251
Project Plan Berkeley Climate-Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program
A Combined Program of the Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project and the
City of Berkeley Transit Action Plan (B-TAP)
Incorporating: • City of Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance (VPPP Grant)
• University of California, Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance (VPPP Grant)
• City of Berkeley Transit Action Plan (B-TAP) (Climate Initiatives Grant)
Project Partners
Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance: Climate Initiatives B-TAP: • City of Berkeley • City of Berkeley • University of California, Berkeley • TransForm
• City CarShare
• AC Transit • Downtown Berkeley Association
• Telegraph Business Improvement District
• Elmwood Merchants Association
Project Contact: Matt Nichols Principal Transportation Planner
Agency Contact:
[Type text]
Public Works Department, Transportation Division City of Berkeley
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-7068 [email protected]
Phil Kamlarz City Manager City of Berkeley 2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-7000 [email protected]
22997
000252
Table of Contents Project Description and Goals ...................................................................................................................... 1
Work Breakdown Structure (Scope of Work) ............................................................................................... 2
Summary of Tasks .................................................................................................................................... 2
Task 6: Program Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 15
[Type text]
22998
000253
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program Janua ry 2011
Project Description and Goals The Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real Time Guidance for City and University Project will use pricing and public information to better manage public parking resources in order to reduce parking-related search traffic and associated emissions, increase parking revenue, and prevent "spillover" parking in residential neighborhoods. UC Berkeley is a partner with the City on the project, and will be
implementing a similar pricing and parking information program. Please see Attachment 1, UC Scope and Budget for further details on the UC Berkeley component of the project.
For both the City and University, the most challenging and complex part of the project will be collecting, distributing, storing, and analyzing parking occupancy data on a real-time basis. Real-time parking occupancy for City garages and publicly available UC facilities will be integrated with the regional 511 Traveler Information System.
In addition, the City will need to collect and analyze occupancy data for on-street parking on a relatively frequent basis. The project will also require the City to manage and use its parking revenue and expenditure data differently in order to understand the effects of parking pricing changes on revenues and expenditures.
The Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project has the following primary goals:
• Price parking facilities based on demand so as to maintain a level of parking availability on-street that minimizes parking-related search traffic.
• Develop and implement new permit parking products that reduce or eliminate the incentive to drive created by unlimited-use permits.
• Provide real-time information on parking location, availability and price to the public via the 511 Regional Traveler Information System in order to minimize parking-related search traffic.
• Provide an evaluation and analysis of project implementation, costs and results for use by other jurisdictions and institutions nationwide.
In conjunction with the Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project, the City also will implement a targeted outreach and incentives program to businesses in the DoWntown, Telegraph and Elmwood districts and adjacent residential areas to promote transit, ridesharing, bicycling, and car sharing.
The B-TAP Project has the following primary goals:
• Test the combined effect of parking pricing, more stringent parking enforcement in residential parking permit areas and transportation demand management (TDM) incentives on reducing vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Provide an evaluation and analysis of project implementation, costs and results for use by other jurisdictions and institutions nationwide.
22999
000254
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
Work Breakdown Structure (Scope of Work)
Summary of Tasks 1. Project Initiation and Preliminary Planning
1.1. Complete Project Plan
1.2. Finalize Cooperative Agreement between the City of Berkeley, Caltrans and FHWA 1.3. Finalize Agreements between the City of Berkeley and UC Berkeley and between the City and
B-TAP Project Partners 2. Project Management and Multi-Agency Coordination
2.1. Project Management 2.2. City of Berkeley Inter-Departmental Project Planning and Implementation Working Group 2.3. Multi-Agency Project Coordination
2.3.1. City of Berkeley-UC Berkeley Project Coordination 2.3.2.Climate Initiatives B-TAP Partner Coordination 2.3.3.Parking Management Working Group 2. 3.4. Information Technology/Intelligent Transportation Systems Working Group 2.3.5.Parking Pricing/Parking & TDM Policy Development Working Group
2.4. Public Participation and Public Information 3. Project Planning
3.1. Develop Concept of Operations for the Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project
3.2. Develop Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) for the Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project
3.3. Develop Implementation Plans for Project Elements 3.3.1.Data Collection, Monitoring and Evaluation 3.3.2.Parking Pricing Policies for on- and off street facilities 3.3.3.Installation, operation and maintenance of parking equipment 3.3.4. Enhanced parking enforcement
4. Implement Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project 4.1. Parking Data Collection
4.1.1.Parking Occupancy and Utilization Studies 4.1.2.Parking Data Collection Methodology Evaluation
4.2. Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Infrastructure 4.2.1. UC Berkeley Parking Access and Revenue Control System 4.2.2. City of Berkeley Parking Access and Revenue Control System 4.2.3.0n-street Programmable Single-Space Pay and Display Meters 4.2.4.0n-Street and Off-Street Parking Occupancy Sensors (TBD)
4.3. Implementation of Real-Time Parking Information for Off-Street Parking Facilities 4.3.1.Data Collection, Systems Integration and Data Warehousing 4.3.2.Integration with 511 Park Regional Travel Information System 4.3.3.Dynamic Parking Guidance: City Facilities 4.3.4.Dynamic Parking Guidance: UC Facilities
4.4. Implementation of Value Priced Parking Program 4.4. 1. Parking Pricing Pilot Program in Downtown Berkeley 4.4.2.Parking Pricing Pilot Program in Southside/Telegraph: Long-Term, On-Street Parking 4.4.3.Parking Pricing Pilot Program in the Elmwood: Variable Rate Hourly Parking
2
23000
000255
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program
4.4.4.Parking Pricing at UC Berkeley 4.5. Implementation of Enhanced Parking Enforcement
5. Coordinated Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 5.1. Employee/Commuter Parking & TOM Outreach and Education 5.2. Residential Parking and TOM Outreach and Education 5.3. Education and Outreach: TOO Transportation Benefits (GreenTRIP) 5.4. Increased CarShare Access for Businesses and Residents 5.5. UC Outreach and Marketing
6. Program Evaluation 6.1. Parking Program Evaluation and Recommendations 6.2. TOM Program Evaluation and Recommendations 6.3. Dissemination of Results
January 2011
3
23001
000256
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
Task Descriptions
Task 1: Project Initiation and Preliminary Planning
Task 1.1: Develop Project Plan City and DC staff will develop a Project Plan, including project scope, budget and schedule, for review and approval by FHW A. Once the Project Plan is approved and the Cooperative Agreement with Cal trans and FHW A is executed, the City and DC can move forward with grant expenditures.
Task 1.2: Finalize Cooperative Agreement between the City of Berkeley, Caltrans and FHWA
Task 1.3: Finalize Agreements between the City of Berkeley and UC Berkeley and between the City and B-TAP Project Partners Agreements with DC Berkeley and project partners for the B-TAP Project will stipulate roles and responsibilities regarding project implementation and disbursement of grant funds.
DeIiverables:
• Project Plan • Cooperative Agreement between the City of Berkeley, Caltrans and FHW A
• Agreements between the City of Berkeley and its Project Partners
Task 2: Project Management and Multi-Agency Coordination
Task 2.1 Project Management The City of Berkeley will provide overall project management, including:
• Coordination with project partners;
• Procurement and contract management;
• Grant Compliance; • Communication with project funders;
• Management of project budget and schedule;
• Staffing for Working Groups and Advisory Committees; and
• Coordination of submission of all project deliverables.
The City will issue an RFP to select a consultant with project and grant management expertise to assist with project management and planning.
Deliverables:
• Project Status and Final Reports, Funding Agreements, City Council Reports and Resolutions, Project-related RFPs, Contracts and Agreements.
• RFP for consultant assistance with project management and planning.
Fund Sources: FHWA VPPP. CMAQ. C()ll in-kind
4
23002
000257
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
Task 2.2: City of Berkeley Inter-Departmental Project Planning and Implementation Working Group As Project Manager, Public Works Transportation Division staffwill convene regular meetings of IT, Police, Finance, and other Public Works staff throughout the project to guide project planning and implementation.
Deliverable:
• Agendas and Action Minutes from the City of Berkeley Inter-Departmental Working Group.
Flind Sources: FHWA Vl'r!', C:vlA(), CuB in-kiml
Task 2.3: Multi-Agency Project Coordination
Task 2.3.1 City ofBerkeley-UC Berkeley Proiect Coordination Establish City-UC Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Working Group to coordinate efforts and cost-efficiently manage joint elements of the project. Working Group will meet at least quarterly for the duration of the project.
Should we invite FHWA and MTC staff to these meetings - or should we have a separate Task for funder communications? -
Deliverable:
• Agendas and Action Minutes from all meetings of the City-UC Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Working Group.
Establish Climate Initiatives Berkeley-TAP Working Group to coordinate efforts and cost-efficiently manage joint elements of the project. B-TAP Working Group will meet a least quarterly for the duration ofthe project. Members will include:
• City of Berkeley • University of California, Berkeley (should UC be optional?) - yes, 1'd say that we should invite
them and they can attend at their discretion
• TransForm
• City CarShare
• AC Transit • Downtown Berkeley Association
• Telegraph Business Improvement District
• Elmwood Merchants Association
Deliverables:
• Agendas and Action Minutes from al1 meetings of the Climate Initiatives Berkeley-TAP Working Group.
[:llOlling: CiVlAQ
5
Comment [KV1]: Should we also' use this group to weigh in on parking pricing policy recommendations?
23003
000258
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
Task 2.3.3 Parking Management Working Group Establish Parking Management Working Group to communicate between the owners and managers of
public and private parking facilities in the Project Area. Parking Management Working Group will meet
at least twice during the project. Invitees will include:
• City of Berkeley
• University of California, Berkeley
• Private parking property owners
• Private Parking Facility Garage Management
Deliverable:
• Agendas and Action Minutes from all Parking Management Working Group meetings.
Funding: VPPP. CoB in-kind. UC in-kind
Task 2.3.4 Information Technology/Intelligent Transportation Systems (lTIITS) Working Group
Establish Information Technology/Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITIITS) Working Group to bring subject area expertise to critical IT and ITS project elements. ITIITS Working Group will meet a least
four times during the project. Invitees will include:
• MTC Regional ITS Architecture staff
• MTC 511 staff • Academic experts (DC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies, etc.)
• City of Berkeley Information Technology Department staff
• UC Berkeley staff
Deliverable:
• Agendas and Action Minutes from aU IT/ITS Working Group meetings.
Funding: VPPP. CoB in-kind. UC ill-kind
Task 2.3.5 Parking Pricing/Parking & TDM Policy Development Working Group Establish Parking Pricing/Parking & TDM Policy Development Working Group to bring subject area
expertise to critical policy and pricing components of the project. PTDM Working Group will meet a least four times during the project. Invitees will include:
• MTC Regional Parking staff
• Alameda County Transportation Commission Parking Committee staff
• Academic experts (DC Berkeley Department of City and Regional Planning, UC Transportation
Center, etc.)
• City of Berkeley Parking Services Manager
• City of Berkeley Transportation Planning staff
• City of Berkeley Parking Enforcement staff
• UC Berkeley staff
Deliverable:
• Agendas and Action Minutes from aU PTDM Working Group meetings.
6
23004
000259
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
!-'l\l1(ling: VPPP. ColJ in-kind. liC ill·kind
Task 2.4: Public Participation-Public Information Public information and opportunities for public feedback will be provided primarily through the City of Berkeley's Transportation Commission and the City Council. Other venues for public input may be developed at the direction of the City Manager and City Council. In addition, the City will also provide information to the public via the City's website and media outreach as appropriate.
Deliverables:
• Minutes from at least two Transportation Commission meetings.
• Copies of Berkeley City Council Reports and Resolutions.
• Minutes from any other publicly -noticed meetings. • Copies of web and mass media materials related to public meetings.
i:'.lIIding: CMAQ & vppp
Task 3: Project Planning
Task 3.1: Develop Concept of Operations for the Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project UC and City staffwill develop a Concept of Operations that clearly documents stakeholders' views of system operations. In developing the Concept of Operations, staff will conduct interviews with internal and external stakeholders to better understand their needs and requirements.
Deliverable:
• Concept of Operations for the Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project
funding: vppp
Task 3.2: Develop Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) for the Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project With consultant assistance, UC and City staff will lead SEMP development with assistance and review from the IT/ITS Working Group. The SEMP will provide a detailed development and implementation plan for the ITIITS elements ofthe project that focus on data collection, management, storage, and integration/sharing.
Deliverable:
• SEMP for the Berkeley Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project
F!Jnding: VPPP
Task 3.3: Develop Implementation Plans for Project Elements With consultant assistance as well as input and review from working group members, UC and City staff will develop implementation plans for the following project elements:
• Data collection, monitoring and evaluation (Parking occupancy, financial and transaction data, etc.); will be coordinated with the SEMP to the extent that data sources and management overlap with real-time parking data collection, warehousing and dissemination.
• Pricing policies for on- and off-street facilities: o Policy Development
7
23005
000260
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
o Policy Development Research and Best Practice Site Visits o Off-Street Parking Flexible Permit Product Development o Policy Recommendations and Adoption, including Legislative Framework
• ~nstallation, operation and maintenance of parking equipment ________________________ . ___________________ -_--.-
• Enhanced parking enforcement
The purpose of these plans is to guide the implementation process so that it is as efficient and effective as possible and to provide all stakeholders with a clear framework for implementation. Because there are a number of project elements that are new (or have a significant number of new components) for the City and UC, it will be important that all stakeholders both agree on and understand the implementation process. The project plans will also identify necessary consultant services and other procurement needs related to implementation and will provide an outline of work scopes for possible RFPs or IFBs.
Deliverables:
• At least four implementation plans for specific project areas.
• Work scopes for RFPs/IFBs needed for implementation.
Flinding: YPPP
Task 4: Implement Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Project
Task 4.1: Parking Data Collection The Implementation Plan for Data Collection, Monitoring and Evaluation will provide a more detailed description of the implementation of this task.
Task 4.1.1: Parking Occupancy and Utilization Studies The City of Berkeley will conduct multiple parking occupancy surveys of the Project Areas to establish baseline pre-project, mid-project, and post-project occupancy and turnover information for the project. This data will be compared to recent historical parking data, including parking surveys conducted in 2006 for the MTC Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth Case Study and in 2007 by the UC Berkeley Department of City and Regional Planning.
The City expects to conduct a minimum of four on-street parking occupancy studies (pre-project, two mid-project, and post-project) throughout the two-year pilot program, using a combination of conventional observation methodology and license plate recognition (LPR) technology. Occupancy in the city's off-street parking facilities will be reported throughout the project using occupancy counts obtained from revenue control equipment.
Deliverables:
• Baseline pre-project on-street parking occupancy and utilization survey data for Downtown Berkeley, and the Telegraph Avenue and Elmwood/College Avenue commercial corridors.
• Baseline pre-project off-street parking occupancy data for City off-street parking facilities.
• Two mid-project on-street parking occupancy and utilization studies, scheduled to observe
impacts of parking pricing and management changes.
• Monthly occupancy reports for the City's off-street parking facilities.
• Post-project on-street parking occupancy and utilization study.
• Comprehensive analysis of parking uti! ization data.
8
Comment [KV2]: I'm not sure about this on. since installing and operating parking equipment is something we already do. The only new component would be sensors (if we have any).
23006
000261
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
:'IIIHiing: CMAQ & VI'''!,
Task 4.1.2 Parking Data Collection Methodology Evaluation The Project's use of a range of data collection methodologies (Conventional Observation, License Plate Recognition, Off-Street Parking Access and Revenue Control equipment, meter revenue, citation data, and possibly on-street andlor meter-mounted sensors) will be evaluated for data quality and costeffectiveness. A report evaluating the project's data collection may be useful to other jurisdictions when considering best practices in parking data collection. The report will also consider
Deliverables:
• Parking Data Collection Methodology Evaluation Report
FlinJing: VI'PP
Task 4.2: Parking Pricing and Real-Time Guidance Infrastructure The City of Berkeley will implement two parking pricing pilot programs in two commercial districts (Elmwood and Telegraph/Southside), and consider changes to parking prices in City-controlled on- and off-street parking facilities in Downtown Berkeley. To implement the pricing programs, the City and UC must each make significant equipment upgrades for parking access and revenue control, information management, parking guidance, and parking enforcement. (Note that some relevant infrastructure investments are Non-Participating Expenses because they are being funded outside the scope of the grants.)
Task 4.2.1 UC Berkeley Parking Access and Revenue Control System (DC PARCS) See Attachment A: UC Berkeley Scope of Work
UC Berkeley is procuring and installing PARCS equipment at_ parking facilities on the UC Campus. For grant purposes, this is a non-participating expense. The UC PARCS equipment will provide parking occupancy and utilization data for most UC parking facilities. UC Berkeley will also procure equipment to measure parking occupancy at parking facilities, primarily surface parking lots which will not utilize P ARCS equipment.
Task 4.2.2 City of Berkeley Parking Access and Revenue Control System (CoB PARCS) The City of Berkeley will procure new Parking Access and Revenue Control Systems for the three Cityowned off-street parking garages in the project area: Center Street Garage, Oxford Way Parking Garage and the Telegraph/Channing Parking Garage. For grant purposes, this is a non-participating expense.
Deliverables:
• RFP for procurement of CoB PARCS
• Contract and Product Specifications
Task 4.2.3 On-Street Programmable Single-Space and Pay and Display Meters The City will procure "smart" programmable and credit-card payment enabled single-space parking meters, and place the new meter equipment on existing parking meter poles. The City will also procure additional Pay-and-Display parking kiosks which manage multiple parking spaces. (Will Pay-and-Display
9
23007
000262
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
. expenses be reported as Non-Participating, or count as local match? Depends on whether prior procurement contract with vendor satisfies Federal requirements.)
The City of Berkeley currently charges fees for approximately 3,788 on-street parking spaces, including 2,050 single-space parking meters and 1,500 on-street spaces that are controlled by Pay and Display parking payment kiosks. This Project will replace all of the single-space meters in the Project Area. Approximately 570 parking meter units will be placed on existing parking meter posts. This represents 28% of the single-space meters within the City (570/2,050), and 15% of the total metered spaces in the City (570/3,788)
Approximate Number of Single-Space Meters (pending bid price):
Project Area I Downtown Berkeley 45
Project Area 2 UC Berkeley Campus NA
Project Area 3 Southside/Telegraph 120
Project Area 4 Elmwood 55 Other Danette should distribute # 350
across the Project Areas
Total 570
Deliverables:
• RFP for procurement and placement of Single-Space Meters
• Contract and Product Specifications
Funding: CMA Q to purchase 220. VPPP to purchase 350 (ligures approximate pending bids): IOl:al
match for some 0 f the r PS mders'?
Task 4.2.4 On-Street and Off-Street Parking Occupancy Sensors TO BE DETERMINED Currently, the City does not anticipate purchasing parking occupancy sensors. If, during Project Planning (Task 3), it is determined that purchasing and installing sensors in particular locations will be necessary for successful project implementation, the project budget and scope will be revised at that time.
Deliverables:
• RFP for procurement and placement of Parking Occupancy Sensors
• Contract and Product Specifications
Funding: VPPP
Task 4.3: Implementation of Real-Time Parking Information and Guidance to Off-Street Parking Facilities The SEMP (Task 3.2) will provide detailed descriptions of the sub-tasks related to implementation of real-time parking information and guidance. Once the SEMP is completed, the project scope and budget will be updated accordingly. Funding: VPPP
10
23008
000263
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
Task 4.3.1 Data Collection, Systems Integration and Data Warehousing
Task 4.3.2: Integration with 511 Park Regional Travel Information System
Task 4.3.3: Dynamic Parking Guidance: City Facilities
Task 4.4.4: Dynamic Parking Guidance: DC Facilities
See Attachment A: UC Scope of Work
Task 4.4: Implementation of Value Priced Parking Program
Task 4.4.1: Parking Pricing in Downtown Berkeley The City will consider value pricing approaches to on- and off-street parking management in Downtown Berkeley to better manage demand for parking, reduce parking-related search traffic, and reduce financial incentives for driving, particularly for employees and other long-term parkers. The City will consider a number of pricing options, including demand-responsive by Time-of-Day and Day-of-Week, Special Event, Progressive (escalating hourly) Pricing, and others. The City will develop recommendations for reconfiguration of monthly parking permits in the city's garages to reduce the incentive for daily driving (See Task 2.5.1.2.) The City will also seek price coordination between off-street and on-street parking rates to encourage short-term on-street parking and longer-term parking off-street.
The City will seek input and feedback from the Downtown Berkeley Association and the public on parking price and management changes. The City will also coordinate its parking pricing strategies with pricing in UC Berkeley parking facilities. If there is agreement that the City should implement recommended changes to pricing and management, staff will seek approval from the City Council to proceed with implementation.
Deliverables:
• Strategies for on- and off-street parking rates/structures in Downtown Berkeley based on parking demand information and stakeholder feedback.
• City Council Report, Resolution, and Berkeley Municipal Ordinance Amendment, if recommended and approved.
Funding: VPPP. CMAO
Task 4.4.2: Parking Pricing Pilot Program in the Southside/Telegraph: Long-Term On-Street Parking The City will install new meter equipment and increase parking time limits to offer the option for drivers
to purchase half-day and full-day parking in on-street areas adjacent to the UC Berkeley Underhill parking facility (Channing to Dwight and Piedmont to Bowditch). The City will install 120 new meters that accept credit cards as well as coins and can be programmed for longer time increments. By offering longer-term paid parking and reducing the availability of free, long-term parking by improving
enforcement in adjacent residential permit parking districts, the project aims to reduce parking-related search traffic and encourage transit and other alternative modes of travel.
Deliverables:
• Photographs and work orders showing placement of approximately 120 new meters.
11
23009
000264
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
• Photographs and other evidence of Long-Term Pricing Pilot Program, including signage and any public education materials.
Task 4.4.3: Parking Pricing Pilot Program in the Elmwood: Variable Rate Hourly Parking The City will develop a program to modify on- and off-street parking time limits in the Elmwood commercial district, using a variable rate pricing structure to increase rates for the second hour of paid
parking.
Deliverables:
• Photographs and work orders showing placement of approximately 45 new meters.
• Photographs and other evidence of Variable Rate Hourly Parking Pilot Program, including signage and public education materials.
l'ill1ding: VPPP, CMAQ
Task 4.4.4: Parking Pricing at UC Berkeley See Attachment A: UC Scope of Work
Funding: VPPP
Task 4.5: Implementation of Enhanced Parking Enforcement
Task 4.5.1: License Plate Recognition Parking Enforcement Equipment Enhanced enforcement is critical to the success of the program because pricing changes to the City's onand off-street parking facilities will not be effective unless the City can manage "meter feeding" and spillover parking into surrounding residential neighborhoods.
The City will purchase five license plate recognition (LPR) units and will provide training and support to the Berkeley Policy Department Parking Enforcement Officers (PEO) in their use. (As discussed previously, LPR-generated data will also be used to monitor parking occupancy, and its effectiveness will be evaluated and reported on.)
Deliverables:
• RFP for License Plate Recognition equipment
• Contract and Product Specifications
• Information on PEO equipment training activities.
Task 4.5.2: Parking Information/Restrictions Signage Static parking signage may need to be upgraded to accurately inform the public of any changes or clarifications to the City's parking regulations, enforcement practices, policy, and pricing.
Deliverables:
• Sign Design file • Work order or Purchase Order for Signage
• Photographs of installed signage
12
23010
000265
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
Task 5.1: Employee/Commuter Parking & TDM Outreach and Education The City will carry out intensive, targeted outreach to provide employees and employers with infonnation about parking (enforcement, pricing, time limits) and alternative transportation options.
The education and outreach activities will use financial incentives and other materials including free AC Transit EasyPasses for employees and subsidized CitY CarShare business memberships (see Task 3.4).
Customized infonnation will be provided on parking pricing and enforcement, the Clipper Card/Easy Pass program, carsharing, pre-tax transit benefits, and the Alameda County Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Bicycle parking options will be presented, including the new Downtown Berkeley BikeStation and Ashby BART Bike Cage. Employers with more than 10 employees will be offered infonnation about Berkeley's recent TRACCC Ordinance, which requires provision of employee commute benefits.
Deliverables:
• Outreach and infonnation materials
• RFP for Outreach & Education services
• Contract for Outreach & Education Services
• Evidence of distribution of 1,300 Clipper Cards with I-year AC Transit EasyPass to employees.
• Usage reports of Clipper Cards with AC Transit EasyPass.
Task 5.2: Residential PTDM Outreach & Education The City will partner with TransFonn to implement a TravelChoice-type program combined with financial incentives in the form of AC Transit passes and subsidized City CarShare memberships (see Task 3.4) at transit-oriented residential development projects in the Project Areas.
Deliverables:
• Copies of residential educational and outreach materials.
• Record of results of outreach activities to residents.
• Evidence of provision ofa minimum of 1,000 AC Transit passes to residents in transit-oriented development projects within the Project Area.
• Data on distribution and usage of AC Transit passes.
Flllidillg: CMAl)
Task 5.3: Education and Outreach: TOD Transportation Benefits (GreenTRIP) TransForm's GreenTRIP program will carry out public education and outreach activities directed at building developers, property managers, and TOD residents, as well as the general public and local
13
23011
000266
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
government officials. The education will inform the public and key stakeholders about the benefits of
providing transportation alternatives such as transit passes, car-share memberships, and unbundled parking in planned and existing residential projects.
The GreenTRIP activities are expected to result in tangible transportation outcomes including the execution of legally binding transportation agreements to provide transportation alternatives, codified within the Conditions of Approval for new developments, and within Transportation Agreements with property owners & managers for existing buildings.
In Berkeley, GreenTRIP will encourage the provision of two deeply-discounted (min. 50% below cost) transit pass per residential unit for at least 40 years. GreenTRIP will also carry out public education and outreach activities regarding the provision of two Carsharing memberships per unit for 40 years. GreenTRIP will also inform the development community about the benefits of unbundling parking costs from residential leases and other Transportation Demand Management best practices.
Note: The GreenTRIP pilot program (September 2009 to February 2010) resulted in binding commitments to provide residents in five Bay Area projects with 2,010 transit passes and 600 car-share memberships for 40 years. The GreenTRlP Pilot Program also resulted in the unbundling of parking costs from 355 housing units. Cut or put in a footnote?
Deliverables:
• Offer the GreenTRIP certification program at a minimum of five development projects. This needs work vis a vis CMAQ compliance and level of effort.
Funding: CMAQ
Task 5.4: Increased CarShare Access for Businesses and Residents The City will partner with City CarShare to expand business and individual access to carsharing by supporting additional carshare vehicles in Southside/Telegraph and Elmwood Project Areas, and near the Ashby BART station (Note: CMAQ Project Area must include Ashby BART). The project will add up to seven City CarShare vehicles, with accommodations for at least two plug-in hybrid or fully-electric vehicles. City CarShare will provide membership discounts to local merchants for employee day-time use, and a one-year free memberships to employees and residents who sell and do not replace their cars.
To Clarify with City CarShare: . 1. City CarShare-BAAQMD partnership to award up to $20,000 to parking landlords who· allow
City CarShare to install electric vehicle charging stations. 2. BAAQMD is also providing $1,600 per charger installation to any land owner who installs a
charger. 3. City CarShare eFleet Climate Initiatives grant
Deliverables:
• Up to seven additional City CarShare vehicles in the Southside/Telegraph and College Avenue corridors, including two plug-in hybrid vehicles.
• Subsidies for 100 new business memberships in Downtown, and 500 memberships in the Southside/Telegraph and Elmwood commercial districts.
• Subsidies for 50 memberships and discounted use costs for residents who commit to selling their second car.
14
23012
000267
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
• Marketing to employees and residents to promote the program.
["II1Liing: CMAQ
Task 5.5: UC Outreach and Marketing See Attachment A: UC Scope of Work
[:tlildillg: VPPP
Task 6: Program Evaluation
Task 6.1 Parking Program Evaluation and Recommendations According to the U.S. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report # 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter i3-Parking Pricing and Fees, only a few empirical analyses have been published that extensively examine the impact of parking price changes to travel behavior, particularly for variable pricing at curbside parking meters, non-work trips, and over time. It is therefore important that the City of Berkeley's proposed Parking and TDM Program contain a robust evaluation component. The Project's monitoring and evaluation program will improve our understanding of the impacts of innovative policies on travel behavior, congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, costeffectiveness, equity impacts, and economic development.
Project evaluation will be carried out primarily by University of California researchers, directed by Professors Elizabeth Deakin and Karen Frick. OK expenditure for VPPP funds, and maybe for CMAQ, but might require an RFP.
The Evaluation team will evaluate the parking program using the following information:
• Baseline occupancy survey
• Follow-up LPR occupancy surveys
• Garage occupancy data
• Parking revenue (both on- and off-street)
• Parking enforcement costs
• Parking citations
• Feedback from enforcement staff
• Feedback from merchants, employees, customers and other stakeholders
• Effects on vehicle trips and travel behavior (via employee surveys, customer surveys)
• Resident feedback from RPP areas
• Report on data collection using LPR (data quality, costs, etc.)
• IdentifY and evaluate future opportunities for additional innovative parking management.
Deliverables:
• A final report evaluating the parking component ofthe project and making recommendations for the City of Berkeley as well as more widespread implementation.
• A Project Evaluation Report focused solely on the FHW A VPPP grant-related activities.
• Surveys of participating employers/employees to determine the effects of parking enforcement, pricing, and alternative transportation incentives on mode choice. Do we really want to conduct surveys?
15
23013
000268
Project Plan: Berkeley Climate Smart Parking and Transportation Alternatives Program January 2011
hlllliing: VI'P!'. CMA()
Task 6.2 TDM Program Evaluation and Recommendations The City will conduct an evaluation of the TDM portion of the project to estimate the number of vehicle trips and emissions reduced. The evaluation will utilize a combination of participant interviews and surveys, as well as data from the Clipper Card and AC Transit, City CarShare, The BikeStation, and the Alameda County Guaranteed Ride Home Program.
Deliverables:
• A final report evaluating the TDM component of the project and making recommendations for the City of Berkeley for more widespread implementation.
• Surveys of participating residents to determine the effects of parking enforcement, pricing, and alternative transportation incentives on mode choice.
Funding: CtvlAQ
Task 6.3 Dissemination of Results INSERT TEXT on important of supporting replication, lessons learned, best practices
Deliverables:
• Internet Publication of one or more Case Studies (est. 4-10 pages)
• Submission of draft paper for Transportation Research Board and other conferences.
• Submission of papers and articles to industry media (such as APA Journal, Urban Transportation Monitor, !TE, Parking Today magazine.
Funding: VPPI'
16
23014
000269
GENETIC AutoVu Statement of Work
City of Berkeley (PD)
Statement of Confidentiality: Genetec Inc. and City of Berkeley acknowledge that there is information contained in this document that may be confidential and proprietary to all parties.
Purpose: The purpose of this Statement of Work (SOW) is to document the solution and services to be delivered and the rights and responsibili~ies of the various parties responsible for delivery.
Upon acceptance by the City of Berkeley and Genetec Inc., any changes or modifications to the Statement of Work must follow Genetec Inc.'s Change Management process. All approved changes will become attachments to the original approved Statement of Work, which will then form the new baseline upon which future changes will be measured.
Description of Work
Genetec Inc. will provide installation services and project management for a 1 Mobile Autovu dual Sharp Overtime LPR System, which includes the following:
• Genetec Field Engineer will complete the installation of all the hardware and software for 1 dual Sharp Overtime LPR System which will include the following: Hardware: 2 LPR Cameras, 2 Wheel Imaging cameras, 1 Navigator Box, 1 laptop and laptop mount. Software: Patroller 4.4 & Security Center 4.0
• Genetec Field Engineers will work together with to establish communication between the mobile computer, the Security Center computer and the SQL database.
• Complete testing once the Physical installation is complete • Training will consist of in-vehicle training for the Operators and in-class training for the
Supervisor (BackOffice) training • Sign off and handover of systems
Installation Requirements:
Due to the high demand of Genetec Field Engineers for AutoVu Installations, any re-scheduling of Installation or 2nd site visit required due to installation requirements not met by City of Berkeley will have to be charged at City of Berkeley Cost.
Any rescheduling requested within 2 weeks of start date will have to be approved by Ge.netec's Deployment Project Management (flight cancelation fees may be charged).
The installation work executed by our Field Engineers onsite will be under warranty for a period of 90 days from the installation complete date.
1. Vehicle(s) availability: • It is the responsibility of the City of Berkeley to ensure all vehicles shall be dedicated
and accessible to Genetec Field Engineers during the complete installation period.
2. Location and facilities: • It is the responsibility of the City of Berkeley to provide an appropriate location,
preferably Indoors which is well lit, internet access and has power available to execute the installation.
August 13, 2010 23015
000270
3. IT Support . . • IT representative(s) (i.e. SQL and/or Network Administrator(s) if applicable)'
of Berkeley shall be made available during the complete Installation period.
4. Equipment Delivery: • Any received parts assessed as Defective by the Genetec Field Engineer will be
handled through Advance RMA process for 90 days starting on the installation start date.
• All received parts shall be made available at the installation site by the City of Berkeley.
5. Operator training: • Operator Training for Mobile application and Back Office will be limited to 3
participants maximum per day. • All participants will be available during the planned training session as outlined in the
schedule. 6. Hardware provided by customer/integrator:
• All Servers and MOTs sha~1 meet the Minimum HW Requirements specified by Genetec. • If specs are not respected, GTAC will not be available for support and another site visit
will have to be schedule (at City of Berkeley Cost) 7. If a lift is required, it is the responsibility of City of Berkeley to provide that lift.
Ii; March 10, 2011 23016
000271
Project information: • Project Name: Berkeley PO • Customer Name: Berkeley PO • Integrator Name: None
Genetec Field Engineer contact Information: • Name: Erik Granum • Title: Field Engineer • Mobile Phone: • Email Address:[email protected]
Prime contact Information: [Police] • Name: • Title: • Company: • Full Address: • Office Phone: • Mobile Phone: • Email Address:
Secondary Contact Information: [Police] • Name: • Title: • Company: • Full Address: • Office Phone: • Mobile Phone:
IT Contact Information: • Name: Mark Gilbert • Title: Application Programmer/Analyst II • Company: City of Berkeley, Information Technology Department • Full Address: 2180 Mllvia Street, 4th floor, Berkeley CA 94704 • Office Phone: 510-981-6528 • Mobile Phone: 510-277-6090
Logistics:
Schedule: [Genetec] • Start date and Time: • End date and Time:
Shipping information: [Police] • Contact Name: • Contact Phone: • Company: • Address: • City: • ZIP Code: • State/Country: • Federal Tax ID #: • Tax Exempt #:
1. Number of Systems and Sharps per system: 1 dual Sharp system
2. Number of vehicles (for mobile system): 1
3. Number of sites (for fixed system) 1
4. Lens: 12mm
5. Illumination: 850
6. Screen/Computer type: Panasonic
7. Screen/Computer mount:
8. Application type: Hotlist I overtime I permit/ ffiEe6
9. Patroller version: Patroller4,4
10. Server Version:SC4.0
Server" Network Configuration:
11. Does the Server/Desktop computer for Security Center and workstation for Security Desk meet the minimum requirements? Answer: Yes/Yes.
12. Is the Server/Desktop computer for Security Center and workstation for Security Desk installed and connected to the network? Answer: Yes/Yes.
13. What is the network bandwidth between the Sharp cameras and Server? Answer? WiFI from the public safety building parking lots.
14. Does the server have an Internet Connection?: i.e. Customer network or dedicated DSL line. Answer: Yes, customer network.
15. If Genetec needs to connect in for Technical Support, what is Connection procedure to Server? (VPN/VNC/RDP/Bomgar etc.) Answer: VPN, but we require the vendor to sign an MOU stating they will adhere to our network security and access policies.
16. Are images for all reads required to be stored on the Server? Answer: Yes.
17. What is the image retention period for all reads on the Server? Answer: 12 months.
September 1, 2011 23018
000273
GENETEC
City of Berkeley (PD)
Statement of Confidentiality: Genetec Inc. and City of Berkeley acknowledge that there is information contained in this document that may be confidential and proprietary to all parties.
Purpose: The purpose of this Statement of Work (SOW) is to document the solution and services to be delivered and the rights and responsibilities of the various parties responsible for delivery.
Upon acceptance by the City of Berkeley and Genetec Inc., any changes or modifications to the Statement of Work must follow Genetec Inc;'s Change Management process. All approved changes will qecome attachments to the original approved Statement of Work, which will then form the new baseline upon which future changes will be measured.
Description of Work
Genetec Inc. will provide installation services and project management for a 1 Mobile Autovu dual Sharp Overtime LPR System, which includes the following:
• Genetec Field Engineer will complete the installation of all the hardware and software for 1 dual Sharp Overtime LPR System which will include the following: Hardware: 2 LPR Cameras, 2 Wheel imaging cameras, 1 Navigator Box, 1 laptop and laptop mount. Software: Patroller 4.4 & Security Center 4.0
• Genetec Field Engineers will work together with to establish communication between the mobile computer, the Security Center computer and the SQL database.
• Complete testing once the Physical installation is complete • Training will consist of in-vehicle training for the Operators and in-class training for the
Supervisor (BackOffice) training • Sign off and handover of systems
Installation Reguirements:
Due to the high demand of Genetec Field Engineers for AutoVu Installations, any re-scheduling of Installation or 2nd site visit required due to installation requirements not met by City of Berkeley will have to be charged at City of Berkeley Cost.
Any rescheduling requested within 2 weeks of start date will have to be approved by Genetec's Deployment Project Management (flight cancelation fees may be charged).
The installation work executed by our Field Engineers onsite will be under warranty for a period of 90 days from the installation complete date.
1. Vehicle(s) availability: • It is the responsibility of the City of Berkeley to ensure all vehicles shall be dedicated
and accessible to Genetec Field Engineers during the complete installation period.
2. Location and facilities: • It is the responsibility of the City of Berkeley to provide an appropriat~ location,
preferably indoors which is well lit, internet access and has power available to execute the installation.
August 13, 2010 23019
000274
3. IT Support • IT representative(s) (Le. SQL and/or Network Adminlstrator(s) If a
of Berkeley shall be made available during the complete Installation r"s.·I"'~[J"·
4. Equipment Delivery: • Any received parts assessed as Defective by the Genetec Field Engineer will be
handled through Advance RMA process for 90 days starting on the installation start date.
• All received parts shall be made available at the installation site by the City of Berkeley.
5. Operator training: • Operator Training for Mobile application and Back Office will be limited to 3
participants maximum per day. • All participants will be available during the planned training session as outlined in the
schedule. 6. Hardware provided by customer/Integrator:
• All Servers and MOTs shall meet the Minimum HW Requirements specified by Genetec. • If specs are not respected, GTAC will not be available for support and another site visit
will have to be schedule (at City of Berkeley Cost) 7. If a lift is required, it is the responsibility of City of Berkeley to provide that lift.
September 1, 2011 23020
000275
18. Are Images for all hits (violations) required to be stored on the Server? Answer: Yes.
19. What is the image retention period for all hits (violations) on the Server? Answer: 12 months.
20. How many client workstations will be installed? (Max of 5) Answer: Five.
Patroller Computer (in vehicle) (Not applicable, if supplied by Genetec)
21. Does the AutoVu Mobile Data Computer (Laptop) meet the minimum requirements? Answer: Yes, supplied by vendor.
22. Mobile (Vehicle laptop) connection to Security Center: (WiFI, Evdo, 3G, JumpDrlve, etc.) Answer: We're proposing WiFi from the public safety building parking lots.
23. Is AutoVu Mobile Data Computer (Laptop) installed in vehicle?
Answer: Yes, supplied by vendor.
24. What type of mount will be used?
Answer: To be supplied by vendor.
Environment:
25. Does the installation location allows afterhours access, please specify if yes? Answer: [Police]
26. Is security clearance or security training needed prior to the visit? Answer: [Police]
27. Is Security equipment mandatory (protective eqUipment such as special boots or hard hats)? If yes please describe Answer: [Police]
Training:
28. How many Operators are expected to be trained on the vehicle Application? (Maximum of 3 Operators) Answer: Three. Internal question - Who gets training? Should include IT and power users for a
train-the-trainer scenario.
29. How many Supervisors are expected to be trained on the Back-Office Application? (Maximum of 3 Operators) Answer: Three. Internal question - Who gets training? Should include IT and power users for a
train-the-trainer scenario.
Vehicle information:
30. Make:Go-4 Interceptor
Sept~mber 1, 2011 23021
000276
31. Gas/Natural gas/Hybrid: Gas
32. Any 3rd party hardware installed on vehicle? If yes, please describe. (Include pictures If a"ailable)· Answer: [Police] - Should we include the handheld equipment here as a reference?
33. Are the vehicles in your possession? If No, what Is the expected delivery date of vehicles? Answer: [Police] - Confirm the installation will be on an existing vehicle.
Basic functionality:
34. If a map was purchased for the vehicle(s) and/or Server, please specify Vehicle and/or Server and County and City of the map required? Answer: In-vehicle, Alameda County, City of Berkeley.
35. How will the System be used? What are your expectations? Clearly define your required functionality in detail. (i.e. Hotlist enforcement and notification, any special requirements?) Answer: [Police, Planning] - May be informed based on the answers to the questions below.
Hotlist enforcement:
36. Will the Hotlist functionality be used as a standalone function and/or in conjunction with Permit and/or Overtime parking? Answer: We plan to use Hotlist functionality, Permit, and Overtime parking.
37. Does the customer have access to electronic files containing lists of plate numbers and state for each wanted vehicle? Answer: [Police] Can this be obtained from the SVS database at the State? I have contacted Brenda
Velasquez to determine feasibility of obtaining this routinely from the State.
The Hotlist will contain the license plate #, State, & description (If any).
• The Hotlist needs to be a comma delimited text file. • No spaces. • Only alpha-numeric characters. • The file name and list format cannot change. • Example; File name = "Hotlist.txt" • Minimum Data required of permit file = "State, Plate#"
39. Please provide these flies to Genetec prior to scheduling deployment· Answer: [Police] - Need to determine the source(s) of this data and the method and frequency updates.-' --~-----
40. Are there other enforcement regulations that Genetec should be aware of? Please explain how it is enforced. No. [Police & Planning] - Need confirmation.
City Time limit enforcement: CIf applicable)
41. Do the bylaws require evidence that a vehicle has not moved? (Ex. Images of wheel valve stems)? If so, are there numerous 45 degree spaces? If so, are there numerous 90 degree spaces? Answer: No, No, No.
42. Is Block-face enforcement used? If yes, how is a block-face defined (On one side of the street, on both sides of the street). Answer: Block face enforcement is used. Blockface is defined as both sides of the street between intersecting cross streets.
43. Are there other enforcement regulations that we should be aware of and how are they enforced? Answer: [Police]
44. Please list all overtime zones along with the grace period for each zone; Example: (Overtime Zone (ex. 15 min, 1 hour, 2 hour, etc.) / including grace period for each (ex. 10 min, etc.»
• Area A, 2 hours, Mon-Sat, 8am-7pm • Area B, 2 hours, Mon-Sat, 8am-7pm • Area C, 2 hours, Mon-Frl, 8am-7pm • Area D, 2 hours, Mon-Sat, 8am-7pm • Area E, 2 hours, Mon-Fri/Sat*, 8am-7pm • Area F, 2 hours, Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm • Area G, 2 hours, Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm • Area H, 2 hours, Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm • Area I, 2 hours, Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm • Area J, 2 hours, Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm • Area K, 2 hours, Mon-Sat, 8am-7pm • Area L, 2 hours, Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm • Area M, 2 hours, Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm • Area N, 2 hours, Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm
*Some areas within RPP Area E are enforced Monday through Friday; others are enforced Monday through Saturday.
Note: See Residential Parking Permit Area Map for permit area boundaries: http://www.cLberkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Public Works/Level 3 - Transportation/RPP R(l).pdf
September 1, 2011 23023
000278
45. Will the Permit functionality be used as a standalone function and/or in conjunction with Over Time parking? Answer: In conjunction with Over Time parking
46. Does the customer have access to electronic files containing lists of plate numbers and state for each valid permit? Answer: Yes. [Police, Planning, IT] - What is the source{s) of this data and what is the method and frequency of updates? Can .it be automated?
The Permit list will contain the license plate # of all permit holders and the zone they are entitled to park in.
• The Permit list needs to be a comma delimited text file. • No spaces. • Only alpha-numeric characters. • The file name and list format cannot change .. • Example; File name = "Permitzone.txt" • Minimum Data required of permit file = "State, Plate#, permit zone"
Permit list Example:
ABC123,CA,A 123ABC,NY,B A1B2C3,TX,C XYZ987,FL,D
47. Please provide these files to Genetec prior to scheduling deployment Answer: [Police, Planning, IT] - Pending answer to question 46 above.
48. Are there other enforcement regulations that we should be aware of and how are they enforced? Answer: No. [Police & Planning] - Need confirmation.
49. Please list all Permit zones (Permit Zone Names) :
• Area A • Area B • Area C • Area D • Area E • Area F • Area G • Area H • Area I • Area J • Area K • Area L • Area M • Area N
Note: See Residential Parking Permit Area Map for permit area boundaries: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/public Works/Level 3 - Transportation/RPP R(l).pdf
September 1, 2011 23024
000279
Signatures by Authorized Representatives from Genetec Inc. and City of Berkeley cOllstitultes acceptance of this Scope of Work.
IMPORTANT NOTE: If no signatures captured, this Scope of Work will be considered approved and accepted by City of Berkeley, if no comments or modification requests are received by the installation start date of <Insert actual installation date>.
This SOW (Scope of Work) is approved and accepted by:
City of Berkeley Genetec Inc.
Signature Signature
Name Name
Title Title
Date Date
September 1, 2011 23025
000280September 1, 2011 23026
000281
Ohlson, lynne
From: Sent: To: Cc:
Subject: Attachments:
Hi Donna,
Cosin, Wendy Friday, April 08, 2011 10:05 AM Lasala, Donna Ahearn, Dennis; Ohlson, Lynne; Thygesen, Sharon; Delaney, Diane; Lavin, Butch; Rittenhouse, Robert B.; Vuicich, Kara; Daniel, Christine; Gilbert, Mark FW: PaylockiGenetech Enforcement Alta Bates LPR Implementation.docx; DOC040811.pdf
Here are several e-mails put together about the alternative systems for LPR. Also, I have had back and forth on data needs with our traffic consultants. In brief, the simplest version of my understanding (confirmed with traffic consul,tants) of the data that we need for Alta Bates Use Permit monitoring is as follows.
i. Methodology: Count the number of vehicles parked on-street without a residential parking
permit during the 7 - 8 a.m. hours that remain on-street for between 5 and 10 hours. Would
need an LPR report that lists the license plate numbers of a" vehicles that are on the street
between 7 & 8 a.m. Extract the following data:
1. Total number of these vehicles that remain in the area between 1 & 2 pm and between
3&4pm
2. In each case, how many vehicles remain in the same block (illegal) and how many have
been moved to a different block (legal). Both are considered "impacts" under the Use
Permit criteria. It would be interesting to compare the two categories, but not
essential.
3. For analysis purposes, just need to retain the plate number data until the matching
program processes it.
Additional information is in the attached document, which suggests that we also may want to do an occupancy survey of the area; however, this is not needed at this point. The traffic consultants say they will do the data analysis at least the first couple of times.
I've also attached the letter agreement when Alta Bates agreed to purchase LPR equipment (ELSAGI) and give it to the City. Subsequently, I guess PD purchased Genetec and the Council accepted the donation of the money. I don't have that documentation handy. I don't see a problem either way. All everyone wants is for us to do increased enforcement because we have a difficult use permit situation. Thanks for helping move this alongl
From: Cosin, Wendy Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 4:23 PM To: Ryan McClain; Jerry Walters Cc: Ahearn, Dennis; Rittenhouse, Robert B. Subject: RE: LPR implementation
Thanks Ryan. I'm surprised because I thought we wanted ELSAG after Platescan didn't work out. Copying the PD also.
1 23027
000282
From: Ryan McClain [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 2: 15 PM To: Cosin, Wendy; Jerry Walters Subject: RE: LPR implementation
Hi Wendy, Back in 2009 we tested the Platescan system with the police department. I'm not familiar with Genetec or ELSAG, but can do some research and get back to you next week.
Quickly looking at ELSAG's website, it doesn't look like their system is geared towards parking enforcement, but instead focuses on matching license plates to a database of criminals, stolen vehicles, vehicles that are delinquent on fines, etc. I have a call into them to get more information, but the Police Department may already know if there's parking enforcement capabilities. Genetec, on the other hand, does have a specific system geared towards parking time limit enforcement.
Again, I'll be able to look into this more next week, and will let you know what I find out.
Thanks, Ryan
Ryan McClain, PE FEHR& PEERS T 925.930.7100 x2102
From: Cosin, Wendy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 201111:08 AM To: Jerry Walters . Cc: Ryan McClain Subject: RE: LPR implementation
The City now has both the Genetec equipment purchased by ABMC for the City and ELSAG, purchased by the Police Department for "Paylock" booting services. They could get up and running on ELSAG faster - are you familiar with both and do you have an opinion about their relative merit for our purposes?
From: Cosin, Wendy Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 8:05 AM To: Lasala, Donna Subject: RE: Paylock/Genetech Enforcement
Thanks Donna. No, it doesn't matter which system we use. I plan to contact the traffic consultants today re: our data needs. I think they are familiar with both systems.
From: Lasala, Donna Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 7:31 AM To: Cosin, Wendy Subject: Paylock/Genetech Enforcement
Hi Wendy-
I am trying to figure out if there are any creative ways to get you what you need ASAP within the ridiculous staffing constraints that I have right now.
2
23028
000283
Is there a reason the City couldn't elect to use the Paylock MLPRs for the Alta Bates enforcement process - - at least to start? Is there some technical reason we can't do this? Political? Contractual? My understanding from yesterday was that your top priority was the enforcement, so if we can get the enforcement, does it matter which system we use?
We are working our butts off to get Paylock up and running, and integrated with our internal databases. To have the Genetech project come out of left field, and try to figure out that system's integration, connectivity, and data issues is more work than I think anybody realized, and getting it done will not be as quick as you seem to need it to be.
I'm not necessarily advocating for this, just trying to figure out if it is an option worth exploring.
Donna LaSala, Director City of Berkeley, Department of Information Technology Martin Luther King, Jr. Civic Center 2180 MiIvia Street, 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Phone: (510) 981-6541 Fax: (510) 981-6560 Website: www.CityOfBerkeley.info
3 23029
00028423030
000285
Alta Bates Area LPR Implementation
1. Increased enforcement
a. Inform neighbors at least 2 weeks in advance
b. No data needs although it would be good to track citation trends
2. Use Permit Monitoring
a. Primary Goal: Compare ABMC employee parking behavior with the Fehr & Peers (F&P)
monitoring from 2004 - 2009.
i. Follow F&P methodology. Ideally, use LPR to get the following data before
increased enforcement.
ii. Then, collect data one month after regular, increased enforcement. Once we see
the data, decide how often to collect.
m. Methodology: Count the number of vehicles parked on-street without a
residential parking permit during the 7 - 8 a.m. hours that remain on-street for
between 5 and 10 hours. Would need an LPR report that lists the license plate
numbers of all vehicles that are on the street between 7 & 8 a.m. Extract the
following data:
1. Total number of these vehicles that remain in the area between 1 & 2
pm and between 3 & 4 pm
2. In each case, how many vehicles remain in the same block (illegal) and
how many have been moved to a different block (legal). Both are
considered "impacts" under the Use Permit criteria. It would be
interesting to compare the two categories, but not essential.
3. For analysis purposes, just need to retain the plate number data until
the matching program processes it.
iv. F&P should assist with laying out the route for LPR survey
v. Verify the amount of time for P&D to drive the whole area
vi. We have a tentative scope of work for Fehr and Peers to set up a spreadsheet
and conduct the analysis.
vii. Discuss a better methodology for the future.
3. There are other issues that will still need attention in the future:
a. Parking garage trends: If increased enforcement leads to more employees parking in the
garage, are visitors being forced into the streets? (In F&P scope)
b. Compare use of off-site lots and shuttle to see if there is increased use after LPR kicks in.
Is there on-going information available, or does ABMC have to get this data before LPR
starts? (In F&P scope)
c. Other? F&P suggestion: Actual on-street occupancy levels by time of day by: permit
holders, legal short-term parkers, violators. So we can determine whether effect is to
shift short termers to street when long-terms shift to garage, possibly resulting in similar
on street occupancies.
23031
000286
i. Discussion: WC comment: Since we have the permit holders in ~he system and
we will have the violators in the system, maybe it is as "simple" as running a
query to spit out the information. However, this approach would include the
people who "legally" move their vehicles to another block as legal, short term
parkers, even though the AIL analysis will count these vehicles in a different way.
None of us have seen the data management aspect of this, so this sounds more
complex. Also this information is probably not strictly required as part of the AIL
analysis, however, if ABMC is requesting changes to their UP conditions to
eliminate or change monitoring, I agree that it is important information to
provide.
ii. Response from F&P: The information is not essential, but it should be possible to
obtain. It would not identify Alta Bates specific role in legal short-term parking,
but would just give a general sense of whether the total amount of parking on
the street will have benefited from LPR, above and beyond whether Alta Bates
and other illegal parking will have decreased. If there is any extra effort or
sensitivity involved in gathering and reporting the information, it would not be
worth doing.
4. Before ABMC goes back to ZAB, we will need to review. all of the other data collected annually by
F&P to see what context needs to be provided and what updates should be included for ZAB
review.
23032
000287
, ')3
Ii f) 'f~
r' -(
eM Direct Report Meeting April 6, 2011
Invited: Daniel, Christine; Ohlson, Lynne; Cos in, Wendy; Thygesen, Sharon; Ahearn, Dennis; Oyekanmi, Henry; Chew, Jenny; Room: Cypress 2180 1 S; Carrillo, Richard E.; Rodriguez, Ernesto; Vuicich, Kara; Nichols, Matthew
Message: There a three initiatives currently underway involving MLPRs (my working nicknames for these initiatives are "Paylock" in the Police Department, "Alta Bates" in Planning, and "MTC" in Transportation). I'd like to ensure that we are all on the same page about how these initiatives do - - and do not - - intersect in terms of technology platforms and data availability/storage/analysis expectations.
Agenda: c....lT
1. Planning
a. Purpose
d. Data Expectations
3. Police: Paylock Pft.c4~.Jr. . I i,.)JI£\ll\i,,,"f/A..I
P I"" .-::z-._.. \ P !\.f\-..tc,.J:S I PA- '77 4 a. urpose ~ CDI rv'T""-'
(J) b. MLPR Technology / # of Units ~~ c. Technology UsersPb--u / .
d. Data Expectations 0-!=:... 1-t.;.J ·7....,' ~ ("I) ,\..A-(, ;
e. Contract Questions from Finance (Noteverybody needs-to"sfay for fum.)
23033
000288
r t,J' d J'<--lJ
A L r P A- C ILcS"(
23034
000289
Ohlson. Lynne
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:
Matthew,
Rittenhouse, Robert B. Friday, October 22,20101:27 PM Nichols, Matthew Ohlson, Lynne Technical Information EN.AutoVu Patroller 4.4 System Requirements (1 ).pdf; EN.AutoVu System Requirements (2).pdf; EN.Design Guidelines for AutoVu systems. pdf
Attached is the technical information I have for the LPR system we are set to receive. Joe Gardner is the representative from Genetec that I have been working with. He is very responsive, but not an IT guy. If you need something more indepth I'm confident that he can put you in touch with the right person on their end. Mark Gilbert is the IT pro working with us on the City side.
Joe can be reached at his desk 512-608-9444 or his cell 512-944-4633.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sgt. Robert Rittenhouse Traffic Bureau Berkeley Police Department 510.981.5982 [email protected]
II U \
1 23035
00029023036
000291
6 GENETIC
AutoVu Patroller 4.4 System Requirements'
AutoVu Mobile Data Computer (MDT) Minimum Requirements
» Microsoft® Windows Vista SPl Business or Ultimate 32-bit
» SQl Express 2005/20081
» 80 GB of storage or more
» 800 x600 or higher screen resolution
» 10/100 Ethernet Network Interface Card
» USB ports
» Sound support
ISQL Express license provided with AutoVu software may support support up to 4GB (150 000 reads or hotlist/ permit hits) of data for Hotlist, Permit Applications or Overtime (no wheel imaging). Please contact your Sales Engineer in order to size the database necessary for Overtime applications with Wheel Imaging.
April 20, 2010 23037
00029223038
000293
GENETEC
AutoVu 4.2 System Requiremen .
AutoVu Mobile Data Computer (MDT) Minimum Requirements
» Microsoft® Windows Vista SPl Business or Ultimate 32-bit
» SOl Express 20051
» 1.0 GB of RAM/ 2.0 GB of RAM (parking enforcement wheel imaging)
» 80 GB of storage or more
» 800 x600 or higher screen resolution
» 10/100 Ethernet Network Interface Card
» USB ports
» Sound support
ISQL Express license provided with AutoVu software may support support up to 4GB (80000 reads or hotlist/ permit hits) of data for Hotlist, Permit Applications or Overtime (no wheel imaging). Please contact your Sales Engineer in order to size the database necessary for Overtime applications with Wheel Imaging.
Design Guidelines for Auto uSolution Fixed and Mobile Solutions
This guide is written for anyone who needs to design an AutoVu solution, may it be in a fixed environment or mobile environment or both. It's goal is to provide basic guidelines for system design of small to large systems against concrete solution testing which was done.
Basic knowledge of how a ALPR systems is recommended before reading this guide. Therefore, we suggest that you refer to the ALPR Overview to get a better understanding of the ALPR concepts.
1. Fixed Solutions
1.1.Sharp Camera
1.1.1. General considerations
The AutoVu Sharp is an IP-based License Plate Recognition (LPR) device which delivers advanced digital video processing, superior plate reading performance, and industrial grade durability for applications including law enforcement, revenue control, surveillance, and parking. Available for both fixed and mobile installations, the AutoVu Sharp functions over an IP network and provides the advantages of having sophisticated analytics residing on the edge.
1.1.1.1. Temperature Ranges
Recommended operating temperature ranges for Sharp is -40·C to SO·C (-40·F to 122Q F), storage temperature range for the Sharp camera is -40·C to +8S·C (-40·F to 18s·F); these values are comparable to other LPR manufacturer such as Bosch Extreme CCTV license plate « capture» cameras; « capture» because these cameras do not include the engine to extract the license plate. Limitation on the temperature is due to internal electronic components. If customers wish to use in the higher range of maximal recommended operating temperature range, we recommend the use of a sunshield or of a ventilated enclosure as high temperatures impact the failure rate of electronic components as seen in below MTBF summary document.
1.1.1.2. MTBF
Please see most recent table for eqUipment MTBF in AutoVu Sales Tools PDF document entitled "EN.Sharp 1.5 Gound Mobile MTBF".
Page I 3 23043
000298
1.1.1.3.
If a statement from the manufacturer is necessary, please use the statement in AutoVu Sales document entitled "EN.Sharp 1.5 IP67 Certification".
IP67 is self-certified so a statement letter should be sufficient with any tender response.
1.1.1.1. Eye Safety
Genetec externally certified for "eye safety" against norm IEC 62471 Ed 1. If a certificate is necessary, please use the statement in AutoVu Sales Tools PDF document entitled "EN.Classification Certificate 62471 (590 nm)", "EN.Classification Certificate 62471 (780 nm)" or "EN.Classification Certificate 62471 (850 nm)".
1.1.1.1. CE Mark
R&D will be certifying the Sharp 2.0 in January 2010, updates to come.
1.1.2. Sharp XGA
1.L2.1. Lens
We offer five main lenses (12mm, 16mm, 25mm, 35mm and 50mm) that are chosen given the height of the characters to read and the expected distance to the plate; this must be done through a site survey by the integrator, but is not necessary for a quote as all camera flavors are priced exactly the same. Each lens covers a different depth of field and focus zone that depends on the height of the characters on the license plates; the ALPR requires a minimum character height of 25 pixels to read the license plates and minimize optical character recognition equivalencies and a maximum license plate size of 25% of the total license plate recognition camera image.
Since most of US/European style license plates contain characters with height around 6,5cm/2.6in to 7cm/2.8in and Middle East style license plates contain characters with height around 3,5cm/1.4in to 4,5cm/1.8in, we need to compute the fields of view of every lens for each of these groups separately.
Page I 4 23044
000299
Fixed - Parking entrance
Fixed - Road side (one per lane)
Field of view (North America/Europe)
2.71 m/9 ft
2.03 m/! 6.7 ft
..---.
12mm 16mm 2Smm 3Smm SOmm
x x X
x X X X
~------------------------------~
16 mm lens
In this diagram, the blue part of the cone is the region in which a license plate is in focus and can be read by the camera.
If a longer lens is required, please refer to using a Sharp EX with analog context and Bosch LPR cameras which offer lenses above SOmm.
Important note: You have to be very careful when choosing the lens, especially when the application requires the reading of the state name of the license plate. The state names are smaller than the main characters and this has to be taken into account when choosing the lens. See also below on illumination limitations.
Please see with Product Management for field of view calculations in other countries.
~,"T ~ ~~ --"~Y'>' .. ~ ~""""
. • l._ c. ~ t -:: '"'~' .. [~ . W W W , 9 e net e< e: .. ¢.,O ni Page I 5
''''';,,!!' i",' ".1¥1t
23045
000300
1.1.2.2. Illumination
The Sharp can be equipped with different types of illuminators and associated w::Ilv",'I",n
Basically we propose three different illuminations: 590nm (also called "amber"), 780nm (called linear IR") and 850nm (called "IR"); 420nm (called "cyan") even if depicted in this diagram is not available as part of the commercial offer. The illuminators and wavelength filters are chosen given the type of the license plate and the night vision capability.
IllOrHll
i".~--\~~'~;_T' tMIn'I,!.",!~ :i¥! i II Ir,)4."j
.:.:.;-:. a::". CV,ln '~lIlbt'r
12rJIlfll ',lJO/lnl hY'11lf11
The different types of illuminators and wavelength filters and the images captured with them for the Florida license plate
The type of the license plate is the main concern when choosing the illuminator and wavelength filter. In Europe, most countries have very reflective license plates which react well to IR illumination. In North America and other countries, it really depends on the region; please refer to the table in AutoVu Sales Tools latest PDF document entitled "EN. Illumination Choice" to determine the best illumination for your state, province, or country.
Infra-red light source (850nm) the preferred illumination as it is not a visible light source, is able to remove license plate background details in most of the cases, and it gives best contrast between license plate characters and license plate background (especially with retro-reflective license plates) and enables night-vision for LPR camera. The 780nm illuminator is almost invisible and gives good compromise when the 850nm does not work and the amber could not be used because of its visible light source or the incapability to illuminate at night. Amber filter is used if none of the other two gives satisfactory results.
Important note: When choosing the illumination/filter, you should take into account the capability of reading the state name, especially for the US states and Canadian provinces. Some state/province names have a different coating than their characters which may make them invisible with the suggested illuminator. Feature is only available for states of Alabama, Delaware, Quebec, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, New Jersey, Nevada, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
California sample plates with 850nm capture (middle) and 590nm capture (right). The "California" state name is invisible with 850nm filter.
Page I 6 23046
000301
1.1.2.3.
Sharp 2.0 (available January 2010) will have an optional Peko Mounting Plate, which is a universa .. mounting plate which was used to install a Sharp camera with any of the following Peko Mounts: EM2400/ EM22 / MM22 / EMI000U / EMll02 / EM2000 / EM1450.
Data sheets for Pelco mounts can be found in AutoVu Sales Tools folder "Partner Information". Please refer to your regional sales manager for these documents.
Optimal pOSitioning is hanging on an overhead in the direction of traffic; this not only minimizes the skew angles at which the license plate needs to be read but also maximizes the transit time; transit time is the time a vehicle travels in the field of view of the camera. Hanging overhead the camera maximizes the distance of travel in the field of view which depending on the speed always maximizes the transit time. However, what must also be taken into account is that camera maintenance access over a gantry is more difficult versus a roadside installation.
We recommend one Sharp per lane of traffic, however one Sharp for 2 lanes may be used but consult AutoVu product specialist as there are limitations to this configuration.
Parking entrance - One lane
Roadside control- One lane
Roadside control - Two lanes
Highway - One lane
One Sharp with 12, 16 or 25mm lens
Orientation depends on configuration
One Sharp with 16mm lens
Orientation 30 degrees
One Sharp with 25mm lens
Orientation 30 degrees
Height 1.5m. *** Performance limitations must be taken into account with this configuration, consult with Autovu Product specialist ****
One Sharp with 25, 35 or 50 mm lens
Orientation 0 degrees
Page I 7 23047
000302
The ALPR system is able to read license plates evert not angles recommended are up to 50 degrees in front and up to 30 degrees in depth ..
•
• - _-'I .. - .-o-/,.~-. -OL - ~ J
• Maximum reading angle recommended US plates/Europe
1.1.2.4. Maximum speed
The field of view and the requirement of a minimum of 25 pixels in height per character impacts directly the maximum speed at which the camera will read. In North America, the maximum A Sharp XGA when the transit distance in the camera field of view is 3 meters is 216 km/hr or 134 MPH, without any performance degradations.
1.1.2.5. Installation recommendations
Quality images are images in which the license plates are correctly focused (not blurred), correctly exposed (not washed or underexposed), not too big (license plate represent a maximum 25% of the total license plate recognition camera image) or too small (license plate characters must have minimum 25 pixels in height), correctly contrasted (contrast between the characters and the background is achieve by properly selecting the illumination used) and lying in the center of the images.
For fixed installations, we can give several recommendations to ensure optimal positioning:
» The Sharp has a glass and a visor to protect the cameras from sun and rain traces. However dirt and other obstructions could stick in front of the Sharp camera front window, obstructing the cameras lenses and the illumination. Make sure to regularly clean the camera or to protect the front panel from weather/dirt.
» When choosing the fixed positioning of the Sharp, make sure that the field of- view is correctly set and that no object obstructs it. This could be the case with pillars and moving barriers (make sure that it does not obstruct the field- of- view and that it does not affect the reading even if it moves).
Page I 8 23048
000303
» The Position of the License Plates Inside the Images
The optimal size and focus of the license plate should be obtained when they lie in the center of the image. You should avoid configurations where the license plates captured lie near the borders of the field- of view or where the images captured contain much more than just the
license plates. See below examples.
Incorrect positioning: The vehicles are passing at the top of the field of view
Incorrect positioning: The trucks' license plates are passing at the bottom of the field of view which is not optimal (we can guess that a car's license plate will lie even closer to the bottom of the field of view). In addition, the landscape at the back of the scene occupies almost half of the
field of view (with no vehicle passing by) which may give false positives.
Incorrect positioning: The license plates are too skewed to be read.
"'~... ~. "'., - ~-,. ~~ -
, ~ -~:-~ t~~: ~~-~ -;-: i ~f '4~;~\ w w W. 9 e n e fE?'C:~-'(~~ Page I 9
23049
000304
1.1.3. Sharp EX
Sharp EX is an encoder-like processing unit, similar to the Sharp XGA, except instead of two QmlnQnn.Qn',
cameras, there are two analog NTSC (640 x 480 ) or PAL (640 x 576 ) inputs for external cameras. Since inputs are NTSC or PAL, using a Bosch Extreme CCTV camera means the field of view of the camera for a same lens will be smaller than when using a Sharp XGA which has an LPR camera resolution of 1024 x 768.
1.1.3.1. Capture Cameras
We recommend using Bosch Extreme CCTV LPR cameras as the analog input camera as they are specifically built-in features such as integrated illumination for high-contrast license plate, solves problems from glare, direct sunlight and head-beams, specifically designed for license plate recognition.
*** IMPORTANT NOTE: Bosch Extreme CCTV currently has no offering expect for IR (850nm), which means that states requiring illumination options other than IR must use a Sharp XGA; these states do not have the option of using a Sharp EX. ***
Bosch Extreme CCTV REG-X » Max speed is 50 km/h (30 MPH) » Lens available is 16mm
Bosch Extreme ccrv REG-Ll » Max speed is 160 km/h (100 MPH) » Lens available is 16mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 7Smm
Bosch Extreme CCTV REG-Zl » Max speed is 190 km/h (120 MPH) » Lens available is 50mm, 7Smm, 100mm
Data sheets for Bosch Extreme CCTV cameras can be found in AutoVu Sales Tools folder "Partner Information". Please refer to your regional sales manager for these documents.
1.1.3.2. Maximum speed
The field of view and the requirement of a minimum of 25 pixels in height per character impacts directly the maximum speed at which the camera will read. In North America, a Sharp Ex used with one LPR input and one analog context camera when the transit distance in the LPR camera field of view is 3 meters is 170 km/hr or 105 MPH. In North America, a Sharp Ex used with two LPR cameras as input, effectively extracting simultaneously license plates from each of the LPR camera inputs (no context camera) when the transit distance in the LPR camera field of view is 3 meters is 70 km/hr or 43 MPH, without any performance degradations.
1.1.3.3. Pricing considerations
For projects such as access control project or airport parking lane, which do not necessitate an overview camera or can use a traditional overview camera from Omnicast CCTV platform, using a Sharp EX with two Bosch Extreme CCTV as inputs is more cost effective than using two Sharp XGA. Considerations
Page 110 23050
000305
must carefully be taken into account for each project: 50mm? Etc
Example: Parking Access Control
1) Budgetary MSRP price including Omnicast Pro software, 2 Sharp XGA cameras (no cabling, installation, SMA or Extended Warranty): 22,510 USO
2) Budgetary MSRP price including Omnicast Pro software, 1 Sharp EX, 2 Bosch REG-X cameras, and two Axis 221 camera (no cabling, installation, SMA or Extended Warranty): 14,600 USO
Example: City Wide Surveillance
1) Budgetary MSRP price including Omnicast Pro software, 2 Sharp XGA cameras (no cabling, installation, SMA or Extended Warranty): 22,510 USO
2) Budgetary MSRP price including Omnicast Pro software, 1 Sharp EX, 2 Bosch REG-Ll cameras, and two Axis 221 camera (no cabling, -installation, SMA or Extended Warranty): 18,950 USO
1.2.LPR Storage Calculations and Bandwidth Utilization
1.2.1. Omnicast 4.4 Integration
In Omnicast, the video stream from the context camera of the Sharp camera is saved as a configurable 2-5 FPS/MJPEG @ 320x240 stream on the Omnicast archiver. LP reads from the Sharp camera is indexed in the Metadata Engine (MOE) and contains all the searchable information (LP, context image, plate sub image, timestamps, hotlist fields if match, etc). MOE is saved in SQL Express which is limited to 4GB, equivalent to a maximum of 1.7 million reads. SQL standard or higher will allow the persistence to a maximum of 5 million reads to effectively manage the volume of indexes and entry tables before a new MOE is necessary. Bandwidth of incoming LP reads to the MOE, should not exceed the deletion rate, which on a High End Omnicast server (See Omnicast Server Requirements) is 14400 reads per day per cameras (1 camera per plugin).
Formula for calculating storage on Omnicast 4.4:
A = average reads per day per Sharp 8 = number of Sharps on Gateway C = days of retention
Total Storage for reads = A x 8 x ex 55KB / (1024 *1024) = ... GB;
Total storage for MJPEG stream = 2-5 FPS/MJPEG @ 320x240 stream x 8 x C = ... GB;
Omnicast also offers the possibility of indexing any other CCTV video feeds (equal and greater than 720 x 480) from the Omnicast system with the LP read metadata.
FPS/MJPEG @ 320x240, maximum 7,500 LP reads per day total, storage for 30 days:
• Omnicast Architecture & Server Configuration:
• 1 Medium End server hosting the Omnicast Directory, Gateway, Archiver and Metadata engine. (SQL Express)
• Metadata Engine Storage Requirements:
• 3KB per read x 7,500 LP reads per day x 30 days = 0.7GB
Example: City Wide Surveillance (no buffering)
» Omnicast Enterprise software, 50 Sharp XGA cameras @ 5 FPS/MJPEG @ 320x240, each camera maximum 1 LP read every 2 seconds @ 10% day, storage for 30 days:
• Omnicast Architecture & Server Configuration: Total of 3 servers
• 1 Medium End server hosting the Omnicast Directory, Gateway and Archiver.
• 2 High End servers hosting Omnicast Metadata engines. (Requires SQL Standard or higher). 25 plugins/sharps per ME server. ** When persisted reads are not needed, a single high end server is sufficient to carry out all matching.
• Metadata Engine Storage Requirements:
• 3KB per read x 1 LP every 2 s per camera @ 10% (4,320 LP per day per camera) x 30 days x 50 cameras = 18.5GB
camera maximum llP read per second @ l()o,A, day, storage for 60 days:
• Omnicast Architecture & Server Configuration: Total of 6 servers.
• 1 Medium End server hosting the Omnicast Directory, Gateway and Archiver.
• 5 High End Servers hosting Omnicast Metadata engines. (Requires SOL Standard or higher). 10 plugins/sharps per ME server. ** When persisted reads are not needed, a single high end server is sufficient to carry out all matching.
• Metadata Engine Storage Requirements:
• 3KB per read x llP every 2 s per camera @ 10% (8,640 lP per day per camera) x 60 days x 50 cameras = 75GB
1.2.2. Back Office 4.3 Integration
In Back Office, there is no video feed, only lPR reads which are archived; these reads may come directly from a Sharp camera for fixed cameras or from a Patroller which is transmitting the data live or offloading it at the end of shift into the Gateway which writes it to the Back Office database. lP reads which are indexed in the Back Office database and contains all the searchable information (lP, context image, plate sub image, timestamps, hotlist fields if match, etc). Back Office comes with an SOL Express which is limited to 4 GB; this is equivalent to a maximum of 115,000 reads; we thus recommend, depending on storage time and influx of reads, to use SOL Standard, which is not included in the AutoVu software package.
Maximum recommended number of reads to the database is 2 Millions reads or 60 GB, which according to our tests is also the limit a system should not exceed to effectively manage the volume of indexes and entry tables before a new gateway is necessary.
Bandwidth of incoming reads is not a bottleneck in terms of volume and CPU requirement on the server. Bandwidth of incoming lP reads to the Gateway, should however not exceed the deletion rate, which on a high end Back Office server (see Back Office System Requirements) with a full database of 2 Million reads or 60 GB is 75,000 reads per day from all the cameras. Disk throughput performance and reliability should be carefully considered for any large databases; we recommend using high end storage such as using multiple drives in a RAIDS or RAIDS array configuration with iSCSI of SAS interface or multiple Back Office databases; however with AutoVu 4.3 Back Office Desktop may only connect to one database at a time; this will not be a limitation with Security Center/AutoVu 4.4.
For fixed application or mobile applications sending reads live to the Back Office i.e. where there is a high volume of data transiting over the network, using Windows Server 2003 R2 as operating system for
w w w . 9 e net e' C ,~> C () m· . '. '. Page 113 ~, ~ -;:~ ..... _ C;; ~;"-:;;~ c ~~
23053
000308
both gateway and Back Office SQl server wou made to optimize the I/O on the server. For optimal performance, the OS, the should be installed on different hard drives.
Formula for calculating storage on Back Office 4.3:
A = average reads per day per Sharp B = number of Sharps on Gateway C = days of retention
Total Storage = A x B x ex 36KB / (1024*1024) = ... GB;
1.2.3. Security Center / AutoVu 4.4 Integration
Security Center will combine the advantages of both above integrations for video storage and LP reads storage. Security Center with AutoVu will store LP reads and hits in a similar fashion as AutoVu Back Office. Video from the Sharp cameras will be managed by Omnicast. If a customer would like to only have fixed Sharp cameras and no live video, then he should purchase a Security Center LPR Manager with Sharp camera connections. If a customer would like to both have Sharp cameras as well as live video, they must purchase a Security Center LPR Manager as well as an Omnicast external systems to be federated into the Security Center, this will both give him the ability.to manage the LP reads coming from the Sharp cameras as well as archive their video, and the video from other CCTV cameras.
We currently have no data on regards to similar performance estimates, but what we can say is to keep above Back Office storage calculation. One of the advantages of the Security Center is that performance enhancements to maximize further the number of LP reads in storage per system and in influx. Architecture will support the use of multiple LPR databases, in a similar fashion as Omnicast can have multiple archivers. Database architecture will be optimized so that images are no longer stored in the database and SQL Express can be used instead of SQL Standard.
Page 114 23054
000309
1.3.Sharp camera buffering
1.3.1. Omnicast Integration
In Omnicast, buffering the reads on a Sharp camera is not available; this is a limitation of the protocol implemented to communicate between the Sharp camera and the Omnicast system.
1.3.2. Back Office Integration
One of the advantages of the integration of the Back Office to the fixed Sharp camera is that it allows buffering of the reads on the Sharp camera. Basic Sharp camera has a 4GB on-board storage card, less than 3GB are used for applications such as operating system as well as AutoVu LPR Engine; 1GB is thus available to be used for storage. Sharp buffers reads in SQL Embedded, which as SQL Express, is limited to 4GB, which is equivalent to 115,000 reads of 36KB. Customers may opt to purchase special Sharps with 8GB on-board storage cards to store both operating system, AutoVu LPR Engine as well as up to a maximum of 4GB of on-board storage. Once connection is restored, all reads are sent to the Back Office. What does this mean to your customer? It means they can both use the camera and palliate for network unavailability or use the Sharp camera remotely deployed powered by a battery for investigations, once investigation is over bring back the Sharp and offload all reads to the Back Office. One thing to note is that each read my have a GPS coordinate for users, in this stand-alone configuration, GPS coordinates maybe set in the Sharp camera manually, and with Sharp 2.0 (available January 2010), customers may opt to purchase special Sharps with on-board GPS. On-board GPS not only enable to log the exact position of the read and potentially palliates for user data entry error but also can be used to synchronize the Sharp time-clock to an international time-clock.
1.3.3. Security Center / AutoVu 4.4 Integration (December 2009)
Security Center integration will be based on the Back Office integration and since Omnicast will be federated into the Security Center, this architecture both have the flexibility of enabling buffering reads on the Sharp, but also index these reads to the video, as available in the current Omnicast architecture.
~.,~~~~!~ -'-,,--
,~. "",;:: ~~;~··~<:f{2: t·-,~"·, '.~R,!:
W W W. 9 e net ec €'\, C Q m Page 115 .... ~ - - ? ," .>
23055
000310
2. Mobile solutions
2.1.Sharp Camera
2.1.1. Sharp XGA
See above section 1.1.1 for general considerations.
2.1.1.1. Lens
Recommended configurations (North America/Europe)
12mm 16mm 25mm 35mm· 50mm
Vehicle Mounted - Parking lots X X
Vehicle Mounted - In traffic X X
2.1.1.2. Mounting and positioning
Sharp camera can be mag-mounted or hardmounted on a vehicle. Below are a few camera positioning examples as well as optimum lens configuration suggested.
Perpendicular parking One Sharp with 12 or 16mm lens
Orientation 40-45 degrees
Angled parking One Sharp with 12 or 16mm lens
Orientation 30-40 degrees
Parallel parking One or two sharps with 12 or 16mm lens
Orientation 30 degrees
Page·116 23056
000311
In traffic - One adjacent lane One Sharp with 16 mm lens
Orientation 30 degrees
In traffic - Two adjacent lanes Two Sharps with 16 mm lens
Orientation 30 degrees
In traffic - Three adjacent lanes Two Sharps with 16 and 25 mm lens
Orientation 30 degrees
2.1.2. Sharp EX
See above section 1.1.1 for general considerations.
Sharp EX cameras may be used for covert installations, where for each Sharp EX processor, you wire a context camera and a Bosch Extreme CCTV which are hidden in, for example, the vehicle grills. However take note that Sharp EX for mobile applications should only use one input for LPR and one input for context camera. When using the two inputs on an EX as LPR camera inputs, the frame rate drops to lower speeds, this is why using a Sharp EX with dual LPR input is not supported in mobile applications.
Bosch Extreme CCTV currently has no offering expect for IR (850nm), which means that states requiring illumination options other than IR must use a Sharp XGA; these states do not have the option of using a Sharp EX.
2.2. Packages
Law Enforcement University City
I" " 1 "I u" " Time-limit Hot 1St Reslc entia nlverslty "I"" / h I
" " " Tlme- Imlt w W ee Matching Permits Permits
x x x x
x x x
Imaging
x
Page 117 23057
000312
2.3. Mapping
2.3.1. In-vehicle
United States
» In-vehicle mapping is not included with Law Enforcement packages.
» One county Maplnfo map is included for each University Parking Enforcement or City Parking Enforcement packages.
Rest of the world
» In-vehicle mapping is never included for Law Enforcement, University Parking Enforcement solution or City Parking Enforcement packages but can be purchased separately.
** Note ** Customer may provide their own mapping data for in-vehicle applications. Open mapping data, such as ESRI mapping data, can be transformed to be compatible with Maplnfo
maps; this excludes Google Earth or Virtual Earth mapping data, as we cannot extract or
transform these mapping mediums. Services to transform customer mapping data are subject to one day of SVC-REMOTE fee.
2.3.2. Gateway and Back Office
» Microsoft Virtual Earth (now rebranded Microsoft Bing) mapping is provided free of charge for
each Back Office client. Maplnfo maps may be purchased for each client station to warrant the availability of mapping in the Back Office upon internet connection unavailability.
North America (including Puerto Rico and Canada) » For Law Enforcement applications, where in-vehicle mapping is not available in the mobile, the
street address will be resolved in the Gateway.
Rest of the world » For all packages where in-vehicle mapping is not available in the mobile, the street address will
not be resolved in the Gateway; this is a contractual limitation from Microsoft, if street address
is necessary, Maplnfo maps may be purchased separately.
** Note ** Customer may provide their own mapping data for in-vehicle applications. Open mapping data, such as ESRI mapping data, can be transformed to be compatible with Maplnfo maps; this
excludes Google Earth or Virtual Earth mapping data, as we cannot extract or transform these mapping mediums. Services to transform customer mapping data are subject to one day ofSVC-REMOTE fee.
Page 118 23058
000313
2.4. Optiona I Accessories
GPS Navigator Box h" I Wheel Imaging
In-ve Ie e rnaps (odometry) Cameras
Hotlist Matching Mandatory Optional Optional N/A Residential Permits Mandatory Optional Optional N/A University Permits Mandatory Optional Optional N/A Time-limit / Same position Mandatory Recommended Optional Optional Time-limit / Block Face Mandatory Optional Mandatory N/A Time-limit / District Mandatory Optional Optional N/A Time-limit / Long Term Mandatory Mandatory Optional Mandatory
Notes: » GPS input is always required, should always be quoted as an option in case customer mobile
data computer does not have integrated GPS. GPS precision is 20 meters/65 feet. » Navbox is very useful in cities where GPS signal is not stable, such as cities with high rises,
indoor multi-level parking or cities in mountain areas. If you do not have a stable GPS signal, you may miss some time-limit hits as GPS is precise to 20 meters/65 feet, which could mean more than one parking position, so for time-limit/same position or long term, it is good
practise to use a Navigator Box, but which should work depending on the length of the block in time-limit/block face.
» Navbox is also very useful for ignition triggering, which automatically shuts down the Patroller application, Windows and the in-vehicle computer once an offload is completed in order to preserve car battery life.
» In-vehicle maps very useful in time-limit enforcement to display vehicle which are due for enforcement; in-vehicle maps for in-vehicle data-mining reads and hits may be useful for
hotlist matching and permit to determine the location on a map where the hit took place. » If wheel imaging cameras are used, navbox should be used.
2.5. LPR Storage Calculations and Bandwidth Utilization
Omnicast integration cannot accommodate offload of mobile license plate reads or hits to it's database. AutoVu Back Office 4.3 and Security Center 4.0 (available January 2010) combines effectively fixed and mobile LPR solutions. See above section 1.2 for storage calculations.
When transferring data from the Patroller to the Back Office or to the Security Center (available
December 2009), it is usually done either live through EvDO for each individual read and hit or at end of shift as a single file containing the complete set of data through USB thumb drive or WiFi. File containing the end of shift data may be large, even more so if operators have not offloaded after a few days. Further improvement will be done for AutoVu 4.4 to give the ability to resume an offload which was broken because of temporary unavailability of the WiFi.
Page' 19 23059
00031423060
000315
,,-,v •• un,l1 V UL{;;;:) LV I\..ta;Uru 1-\11 LIcense Numbers from Cars on City Streets. Category: Read... Page 1 of2
CURRENT ISSUE PREVIOUS ISSUE SEARCH THE PLANET CONTACT US ISSUE PDFS D SHARE II::: 8 ...
. Wednesday J
, June 15, 2011 lHE BERKELEY ~ DAILY PLANET FRONT PAGE OPINION COLUMNISTS ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT CONTENTS FULL TEXT
Reader Commentaries
Council Votes to Record All License Numbers from Cars on City Streets By Pal Mapps Wednesday June 15, 2011
The depth and persistence of Berkeley's current financial problems suggests that a SHARE IJ t S_
those who are in charge of running the city lack foresight, hindsight, and perspective. The current approach to managing our City seems to be to increase revenue at all costs. The recently authorized 'Boot and Release' Program is evidence ofa unitary focus on increasing revenue. 'Boot and Release' relies on highly questionable public policy to yield unspecified revenue and promises to be poorly designed and implemented.
How 'Boot and Release' Works
'Boot and Release' will use technology provided by PayLock, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, to compel payment of delinquent parking tickets by immobilizing vehicles until their overdue fines and related fees are paid. The heart of the system is a camera that captures digital images of parked cars as it is driven around town. The images are scanned by PayLock's Mobile License Plate Recognition (MLPR) system which locates the license plate number within the image and searches for that number in a database of vehicles with overdue tickets called the [Berkeley] 'Scofflaw Database.' An alarm sounds in the vehicle when MLPR detects a 'scofflaw vehicle.' The 'scofflaw vehicle' is fitted with a 'Smart Boot' that can be removed only after the owner has paid all of the outstanding tickets, a $140 fee that goes to PayLock, and a $500 deposit Payment is made by telephoning PayLock's Customer Service Center. PayLock then provides a code that, when entered into the boot's keypad, will release the boot If the boot is timely returned to a local tow yard in good condition, PayLock refunds the $500 deposit.
'Boot and Release' Implements Questionable Public Policy
MLPR captures an image of every parked car within camera range as it searches for scofflaw vehicles. This means that PayLock will collect information about the whereabouts of your vehicle when it is parked on the camera's route. 'Many Berkeley residents are very likely to perceive this practice as an invasion of privacy and vehemently object to it on that basis.
The 'Boot and Release' staff report is silent on other potentially objectionable issues. Will MLPR be used city-wide or only on normal parking enforcement routes? Will vehicles on private property be booted as they were in Bristol, Connecticut?
'Boot and Release' was a Consent Calendar item, meaning that it was deemed routine, noncontroversial, easily explained and expected to receive Council approval without need for discussion, The person who decided that the highly charged issues of privacy and property rights do not merit discussion lacks foresight, hindsight, and perspecti"e.
The item passed 8-0 on February 8, 2011. City and PayLock staffs currently are working out the details of ' Boot and Release.'
'Boot and Release' Staff Report Contains No Credible Revenue Projections
Even those witling to accept the threats to privacy and property rights that are inherent in 'Boot and Release' might reject the justification for the program that is contained in the staff report. The document reads like a report written by a technophile who is smitten by PayLock's technology rather than a thorough and thoughtful analysis of a program that mayor may not be right for Berkeley. The report summarily dismisses two pro forma alternatives and recommends a sole source contract with PayLock because no other viable vendors exist.
The Staff Report on 'Boot and Release' contains no credible revenue projections. It simply refers to the results of a 'proof of concept' test as having identified fifty-four confirmed scofflaw vehicles that owed a total of$53,111 ,00 in parking fines during eight hours of testing, It includes no information on the number, ages, and values of the vehicles in the Scofflaw Database, nor on the number, value, and range of issue dates of the overdue parking tickets. This information is essential to developing credible 'Boot and Release' revenue projections. Telephone calls to City staff yielded no further information about the database.
By contrast, when Oakland adopted 'Boot and Release' about eighteen months ago, it announced projected increased revenues of about $750,000 per year plus the value of unpaid tickets and stated that it had about 68,000 vehicles in its scofflaw database.
Links we like: www.bericeleycouncilwatch.coml Richard Brenneman: Eats. Shoots 'n' Leaves Jane Stillwater's Web Log
'!~! =e:;s ',' ~~D"""~, ,
'l~ ::.:::::-"-~~: I ; l~ '\4: , '" DIuaIIc ...... ~ =>- , I,!: ;: IJ laura Si11ppu4
':J~ II ....... .., ....... j I"; 1CIi.. ........
!' .,:<" .......... -
.i~ .......... ... i - t ~,'
I:;
I I I
I I 10 I 10 ;
I
T ...... .".J .... ZIM""~ 7r3l,. n. ....... CIoIb 2_C ....... ~
,1"-s·u·p·P·O·rt-L·o·ca·l·N·e·w·s·!-"
Give to the i Fund for Local Reporting!
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1,-Email to subscribe at berkeleydailyol.net.com. and get free email updates. I
Berkeley's test results actually are discouraging because the average amount required to release each i vehicle detected in the test is over $1,600. How many people can pay that much money on the spur of j
the moment? How many people will decide that the car isn't worth that much money and simply abandon it? It might be even more discouraging ifmore was known about the scofflaw database. For example, how many of the vehicles listed in the database will never be detected by MLPR because they have been driven to other locations by students who no longer attend Cal?
Another downside risk is that shoppers wilt stop driving to Berkeley for fear that their cars will be booted.
'Boot and Release' Has Other Flaws
PayLock is a New Jersey company. Let's figure out ways to patronize local businesses and employ local people. The 'Smart Boot' might be put on vehicles that are parked legally when they are booted. The Scofflaw Database contains information only about vehicles with unpaid Berkeley tickets which means that the opportunity to collect all overdue fines for a vehicle booted in Berkeley will be missed. The label 'Scofflaw' suggests that the offender is flouting the law or refusing to pay his or her debts. The use of this term could lead to making policy that is inappropriately punitive.
Here are Some Suggestions for 'Boot and Release'
It is clear that the drive to raise revenue has caused those responsible for the City's fmances to lose perspective. The loss ofperspc;ctive makes citizen input mandatory. In this case the input should be directed to City Manager Phil Kamlarz or to your councilmember. NEBA will submit to Mr. Kamlarz the issues raised in this article along with the suggestions below.
Implementation of ' Boot and Release' is being planned right now. However, the program should be delayed until public input is solicited, received, and given due consideration. If'Boot and Release' is implemented, it should reflect the public's input.
The Scofflaw Database currently is used by Parking Enforcement Officers to determine if a vehicle that is being ticketed should be towed due to unpaid parking fines. Perhaps the MLPR portion of 'Boot and Release' can be omitted but scofflaw vehicles can be booted instead of towed.
If the fmes, fees and deposits for booted vehicles prove to be as high as the test indicated, the defmition of a scofflaw vehicle should be changed to a lower number of unpaid tickets. This change should reduce the amount due and therefore increase the chances of the fines actually being paid.
The Berkeley Scofflaw Database should be analyzed and potentially scrubbed of inappropriate entries.
There should be an effort to expand contents of the Scofflaw Database to include overdue fmes from nearby cities so that all outstanding fmes can be collected.
The Release is administered by PayLock at a distant call center. Therefore, it is imperative that a City -run override system exists. This system must allow the owner of a booted car to escalate to a local entity in case the vehicle was improperly booted. This system also should permit the release a properly booted vehicle either on compassionate grounds or with an approved payment plan in place. After all, the City of Berkeley has no business driving the poor further into poverty.
Once again Berkeley is pursuing carbon-centric revenue while representing itself as a Green City. How much 'green revenue' do we collect?
This article first appeared in the spring 2011 issue of the NEBA News, the newsletter of the North East Berkeley Association (.www.northeastberkeleyassociation.orIlJ.
Print Story: ACLU wants to know how license plate data is used - PoliceOne.com Page 1 of2
07/31/2012
ACLU wants to know how license plate data is used A top concern, the ACLU says, is how long the location and movements of pea
By Brian Witte Associated Press
ANNAPOUS, Md. - The American Civil Liberties Union is asking police agencies n they store data captured by automatic license plate readers, which authorities say h and are not used to stockpile information on all drivers.
A top concern, the ACLU says, Related Articles: movements of people are k
Plate scanners raise privacy fears mounted on patrol cars or alor How automatic license plate readers contributed to and bridges photograph licensE one town's drop in crime states and the District of Colurr
the information. Related Feature:
Setting up an automatic license plate recognition system
To really take advantage of your license plate recognition camera, you need to integrate the camera with dedicated LPR software.
"The American people have a police departments are using . responsible manner, or whethel our movements for months or said Catherine Crump, staff Speech, Privacy and Technolog~
In Maryland, state police keep Related content sponsored by: readers for 24 hours, sale
spokesman. Then, the infonT Maryland Coordination and J center," where local, state and by side to root out terrorism I there for up to a year unless i
been demonstrated in a legal case, said Maryland Assistant U.S. Attorney Harvey f Maryland Anti-Terrorism AdvisorY Council, which oversees the fusion center.
Officials are trying to strike a legitimate balance in preserving information, and stc than preserving eVidence in other legal cases, Eisenberg said.
"It's just a much more efficient and effective way to do that," Eisenberg said.
The ACLU said that while the use of the technology is growing around the nation, t long the data can be stored.
"The concern is about 'Big Brother' and police potentially maintaining large data citizens drive every day," said Dane Claussen, executive director the ACLU's office in
The ACLU of Nevada is filing requests seeking records from some of the stab agencies, including Las Vegas Metropolitan and Reno city police and the Washoe COl
Print Story: ACLU wants to know how license plate data is used - PoliceOne.com Page L 01 L
In Henderson, outside Las Vegas, city police reported success shortly after in~ scanners in several marked patrol vehicles in June 2011. The first case involved boulevard identifying a Chevrolet pickup as having been reported stolen in Las Vega:
Henderson police spokesman Keith Paul said Monday he was researching the effecth
In New Mexico, license plate readers are installed at the five points of entry whe when they pass through the state. The readers check the truck's license plate and safety and tax databases.
State inspectors are provided with information on whether the license plate is wante according to New Mexico State Police Chief Robert Shilling. Inspectors also get rei records of the trucking company and the individual truck, and whether state roac information is retained by the Department of Public Safety for six months and then (
"We don't use it except for criminal justice purposes," said Shilling.
Vernon Herron, a retired commander of the Maryland State Police, said law enfor crimes, not storing piles of data for the sake of compiling information. The camerc significant reductions in auto thefts and locating missing children through Amber AlE a policy analyst for the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of
"It has been very successful in returning kids to their families," said Herron, who \ Maryland State Police and as public safety director for Prince George's County. In t cut by about 40 percent in two years with the help of the cameras.
Copyright 2012 Associated Press
Copyright 2012 ASSOCiated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be publish redistributed.
technical configuration, testing and implementation of new Online Payment system; selected, configured and began implementation of new Business License software, including online registration revenue collections analysis tools; assisted in the implementation of online Section 8 Waitlist system; completed software selection and started implementation for the new permitting system to stre~mline permitting, design review, land use and plan checks; implemented mobile License Plate Reader software for improved parking enforcement required by the Alta Bates Medical Center use permit; and completed analysis and configuration of new Tracking and Registration System for the Rent Stabilization Board.
Parks, Recreation and Waterfront: In order to develop quality baseline data for the 2020 Vision program, staff worked with BUSD's Office of Evaluation and Survey, the Office of Student Services, the Berkeley Police Department and the California Healthy Kids Survey. More than 600 new trees were planted in Berkeley this year, the Bay Trail Extension Project was initiated, and the San Pablo Park Basketball Court renovations were completed. Staff worked to increase youth access to quality recreation programs by expanding the Summer Camp for Middle School Age youth to the James Kenny Recreation Center, and a Multi-media and Technology Program was incorporated in the Middle School Age programs. The number and variety of fee-based class offerings increased this year, and so did revenues. At the marina, the Nature Center's Environmental Education Classroom got new science and multi-media equipment, and 120 floats and 50 pilings were replaced. In addition, four public bathrooms and the main Marina office building received roof replacements.
Planning: In the past fiscal year, the Department has completed the transition to a new Director and reduced the cost for the building that houses the department by renegotiating the lease. Each division has also performed extensive baseline services and special projects. Both Building and Safety and the Permit Service Center (PSC) processed thousands of permits and conducted thousands of inspections in FY 2012: 15,895 inspections, 3,081 plan reviews, 6,252 permits issued and more than 11,000 customers served at the PSC. The Southside and Downtown Plans were revised, and West Berkeley is in progress with eased permit requirements for arts/craft studios, restaurants, research and development, non-store retailers, protected spaces. The department also modified five zoning chapters and drafted a Supplemental EIR for West Berkeley. Commercial districts benefitted from updated permit requirements related to restaurants, pedestrian-oriented business, quotas, sidewalk seating, ground floor offices, and evening business hours. The Office of Energy and Sustainability created or updated 28 metrics on climate action plan progress, processed Federal Stimulus incentives for 12 multifamily and non residential energy retrofit projects and 56 single family projects; awarded $58,000 in new grants and rebates; completed three municipal energy retrofit projects and produced 2 green permitting guides. The Toxics Management Division performed 161 regulatory inspections, responded to almost 60
5 23067
00032223068
000323
Education
Traffic Control
improvements
Crime Analysis Unit
• Vigorous and fair enforcement of state and city parking regulations.
• Ensuring all markings, signage, parking meters, pay-and-display stations are correct and functional
• Provide traffic control on streets as needed during planned or non-
• Conduct parking enforcement educational campaign at the beginning of each school year.
• Work closely with Operations Division personnel to assist with traffic control during crime scene investigation, demonstrations, and other emergency road closures.
• Utilize technology, such as Automated License Plate Reader to enhance efficiency. Continue implementation of PayLock booting procedure to support enforcement of "scofflaw" vehicles.
To support the Department's efforts through crime analysis and the production of materials to inform decision-making; identify effective tactics and strategies for impacting crime; and to produce reports, maps and other informational products as needed by department staff for a variety of purposes.
• 1 Crime Analyst • 1 Police Officer
• Analyze crime statistics for clusters, trends and series in order to assist in the deployment of resources.
• Support department staff through providing crime and crime analysis information, including crime statistics for CARS meetings, neighborhood meetings, and council presentations.
• Explore and evaluate both internal and external software and <>\1<»0 ... \<> available to refine our data collection, crime and
175 23069
00032423070
000325
Office of the City Manager
CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2011
To:
From: ~ Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
~ ( Phil Kamlarz, City Manager
Submitted by: Michael K. Meehan, Chief of Police
Subject: Contract: Pay Lock Inc. for Vehicle Immobilizer ("Boot") Program
RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with PayLock, Inc. to operate a vehicle immobilizer ("boot") program within the City of Berkeley, for the period January 1, 2011 to November 30, 2014, at no cost to the City.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION The self-funding PayLock program does not require any fiscal outlay by the City. Implementing this program will likely reduce administrative costs associated with towing and customer service operations, and should significantly improve the City's ability to collect outstanding parking fines. In FY 2011 - 2013, the program is expected to increase the rate of outstanding citation collection from 'scofflaws' (vehicles with five or more outstanding parking citations) by at least fifty percent. Staff expects this initial spike in scofflaw revenues to decline somewhat after FY 2012, as the program encourages more timely payment of parking citations to avoid booting. (CMS No. L7D81)
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS The Police Department supports a team of twenty-six parking enforcement officers (PEOs) who patrol the 653 miles of Berkeley streets six days per week enforcing parking regulations. PEOs write an average of 17,500 tickets per month for a variety of offenses including expired meters, parking in loading or handicapped zones. Many of the vehicles cited have been issued tickets which have not been paid. A parking 'scofflaw' is a vehicle with five or more outstanding parking citations. As outlined above, parking violators are provided due process to avoid additional fines and fees before being classified a scofflaw. The State of California allows the City to impound scofflaw vehicles to collect upon outstanding citations.
Contract: PayLock Inc. for Vehicle Immobilizer ("Boot") Program
Current System: Tow & Release
CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2011
In FY09, the handheld citation devices used by PEOs were programmed to identify scofflaw vehicles. When a PEO identifies a scofflaw vehicle, a tow company is contacted to impound the vehicle until outstanding citations are paid. After a vehicle is towed, the registered owner is required to pay all outstanding parking citations in person at the City's Customer Service Counter in exchange for a Tow Release Form. Then, the vehicle owner must hand-deliver the Tow Release Form, along with a $75 tow release fee, to the Berkeley Police Department in exchange for a Vehicle Release Form. Finally, the vehicle owner must visit one of four (4) tow lots to submit the Vehicle Release Form, pay applicable vehicle storage fees ($65 per day), and reclaim the towed vehicle. This largely manual and paper-based process is not only inefficient for City staff, but also forces vehicle owners to visit three separate locations within limited hours (Monday - Friday, 9am-4pm), often without access to their primary mode of transportation (the towed vehicle).
Proposed System: Boot & Release The proposed PayLock system is currently utilized in thirteen municipalities across the United States, including Baltimore, Syracuse, New Orleans, and Oakland. The system equips the City's routine parking enforcement patrols with Mobile License Plate Recognition (MLPR) technology to automatically read and rapidly compare the license plates of parked cars with license plates tracked in the City's scofflaw database. When the MLPR system identifies a scofflaw, an audible alert informs the Parking Enforcement Officer that a boot-eligible vehicle has been identified. Once a boot is attached to a scofflaw vehicle, notice is left instructing the motorist to contact PayLock's Help Center, available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Pay Lock's boot device has an electronic lock that can be opened when a unique code is entered on its keypad. The motorist can pay all outstanding citations and the required $140 boot release fee, obtain the unique code, and receive over-the-phone unlock assistance during the same phone call. In addition, PayLock's operators provide extended customer service, including staying on the phone until a vehicle is released and conference-calling family or friends anywhere in the world to help provide payment if a motorist does not have direct access to a credit card. In the event that a vehicle operated by a disabled or elderly person who physically cannot remove or lift the boot, a member of the Traffic Unit or a police officer will be dispatched to assist. The following table summarizes the average cost to a scofflaw motorist under the current 'tow and release' system versus the proposed 'boot and release' program:
Current System Proposed System
Tow Fee $160 n/a Release Fee $75 $140 Average Storage Fee (per day) $65 n/a Average Minimum Cost to Scofflaw $300 $140
23072
000327
Contract: PayLock Inc. for Vehicle Immobilizer ("Boot") Program CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2011
When the motorist provides payment to release the boot, PayLock imposes a $500 security deposit until the motorist returns the boot.
On the February 8th , 2011 agenda, the Police Department has a companion report for Council approval to amend the existing contracts with four local tow companies. In the scope of services for the Avenue Tow Company, new language has been added to identify Avenue Tow as the location for boot return. Avenue Tow meets the PayLock contract requirements in that there are computers and printers on site with Internet access, storage space for the boots, available 24 hours per day/seven days a week allowing returns after normal business hours. After inspecting the condition of the boot, Avenue Tow will notify PayLock of the return through the web-based reporting system which will generate a receipt for the motorist noting the date/time of boot return and details of citation payment which will clear the security deposit imposition.
City of Berkeley Proof of Concept: Test Results Earlier this year, Parking Enforcement staff conducted a proof of concept test to assess whether or not the Pay Lock system could help improve the efficiency of parking enforcement and customer service operations. During eight hours of system testing along routine parking enforcement routes, fifty-four (54) confirmed scofflaw vehicles were identified, representing $53,111.00 in outstanding parking fees due to the City.
If adopted, Pay Lock will provide the City of Berkeley with the following at no cost:
• PayLock will provide self-release SmartBoots to be used to immobilize vehicles identified in the City of Berkeley's enforcement policy.
• PayLock's help-center ("Help-Center") will be available 24 hours/day and 365 days/year to answer questions from immobilized motorists, and process electronic payments for immobilization fees and parking fines and/or penalties owed.
• Web-based BootView Software; PayLock will provide user access to PayLock's BootView Software system for tracking all City of Berkeley boot-related transactions.
• PayLock will integrate its BootView Software system with the City of Berkeley's ticket processing system to communicate data to receive lists of vehicles eligible for immobilization daily and update payment data.
23073
000328
Contract: PayLock Inc. for Vehicle Immobilizer ("Boot") Program CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2011
BACKGROUND
• PayLock will repair and replace all Pay Lock SmartBoots as needed. • PayLock will provide installation and training for all hardware and
software used by City of Berkeley for the Pay Lock system, and will train the officers removing the boots.
• PayLock will design and supply vehicle seizure notices that will be affixed by City of Berkeley to booted vehicles at the time of immobilization.
• . PayLock will provide two (2) MMLPR Systems to facilitate efficient identification of scofflaw vehicles. Supporting services include installation, maintenance, support, and customer troubleshooting training.
• Pay Lock shall provide one (1) new automobile, sports utility vehicle or van, to be used to patrol for scofflaw vehicles.
• PayLock will deposit all fines and fees collected on behalf of the City of Berkeley in an account designated by the City of Berkeley.
• As the parties may agree, PayLock will provide the City of Berkeley with additional equipment required to support the Pay Lock System.
As part of the City's effort to improve the efficiency of parking enforcement, customer service operations, and revenue collections, staff began investigating alternatives to current operations in FY 2010. The PayLock program, having achieved success in other cities, was identified as a unique market offering and, after several reference checks with parking enforcement and customer service staff in other organizations, is recommended by staff in the Department of Information Technology, the Department of Finance, and the Berkeley Police Department.
Staff is recommending a sole-source engagement with Pay Lock, Inc. because there are no alternative compliant contractors capable of providing the suite of technology tools and services offered by PayLock that respond to the City's parking enforcement and
. customer service requirements. PayLock holds unique patents for the design and assembly of the self-release SmartBoot system and the business process and usage method of the self release. Additionally, Pay Lock IPT LLC has received sole source designation in Oakland, CA in 2009 and most recently in Rochester, NY (2010).
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED Staff considered extending the City's 311 Call Center hours to support expanded scofflaw enforcement, as well as creating web-based payment and tow release forms for motorists. However, the costs associated with these alternatives were significantly greater than the zero cost approach offered by the self-funding PayLock program.
CONTACT PERSON Dennis Ahearn, Captain, 981-5810 Lynne Ohlson, Public Safety Business Manager, 981-5976
Attachments:
23074
000329
Contract: PayLock Inc. for Vehicle Immobilizer ("Boot") Program
1: Resolution
CONSENT CALENDAR February 8, 2011
23075
000330
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
CONTRACT: PAVLOCK INC. FOR VEHICLE IMMOBILIZER ("BOOT") PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City's Parking Enforcement and Customer Service programs strive to improve efficiency through intelligent use of technology; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department enforces the parking regulations for the City of Berkeley through motorized patrol and handheld citation issuance devices; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department has determined that a significant number of vehicles have five or more citations issued to the vehicle thereby qualifying the vehicle to be towed under the State; and
WHEREAS, the use of City resources to identify and impound the vehicle, collect payment and arrange for vehicle release is costly; and
WHEREAS, PayLock, Inc. provides 24x7 customer service to facilitate vehicle release in a manner that is more customer friendly than the current tow release procedures followed by the City; and
WHEREAS, PayLock, Inc will provide a vehicle equipped with a camera and computer which will automatically read and rapidly compare the license plates of parked cars with license plates tracked in the City's scofflaw database allowing the City to implement a vehicle immobilization program; and
WHEREAS, the program will be operated at no cost to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract with PayLock, Inc. to operate a vehicle immobilizer ("boot") program within the City of Berkeley, for the period January 1, 2011 to November 30, 2014 at no cost to the City (CMS No. L7D81)
THIS AGREEMENT for Self-Release SmartBoot Vehicle Immobilization Services ("Agreement") is entered into on August 1, 2011 between the City ("City" or "CITY OF BERKELEY"), a Charter City organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and IPT LLC ("PayLock" or "Contractor"), a Delaware corporation doing business at 205 West Main Street, Somerville, NJ 08876. As used herein, Contractor and City shall be referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties."
WHEREAS, Contractor is in the business of providing parking enforcement services; and
WHEREAS, City desires that Contractor provide the services set forth in this Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS
The foregOing Recitals are hereby incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
2. DEFINITIONS
A. "BootView Software" and "Software" are Contractor's web-based collection management application.
B. "SmartBoot" is Contractor's self-release vehicle immobilization device.
C. "Runaway" is any vehicle which has been successfully immobilized and where the immobilization device has been unlawfully removed, destroyed, or otherwise vandalized and the motorist has illegally retaken possession of the vehicle without paying the required fees, fines and penalties.
D. "Assisted Release" is the removal of an immobilization device from a motor vehicle by a City parking enforcement officer, or other City employee or agent.
E. "PayLock System" is the hardware, software, services, and implemented processes supplied by Contractor to City intended to facilitate City's enforcement of California Vehicle Code Section 22651 and City's ability to collect unpaid or otherwise delinquent traffic, parking, and/or red-light violation fees, fines and penalties.
F. "SOP~rd Operations Procedure document collaboratively crafted by Contractor and City, defining policies, procedures, roles and
Page 1 of 23 ContracUPT LLC (PayLock) 082011
23077
000332
responsibilities of all parties involved in the day to day operation of the PayLock scofflaw enforcement system.
G. "Gross Amount" is the total amount of parking fines and penalties, transaction fees, processing fees, and/or stolen, damaged, and late boot fees paid to either Contractor or the City by vehicle owners before Contractor deducts its fees as provided in Exhibit C.
H. "Net Revenue" is the Gross Amount minus Contractor's fees as described in Exhibit C.
I. "MLPR" is Mobile License Plate Recognition and the components thereof.
3. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
This Agreement and the following documents comprise the Contract Documents:
• Exhibit A - Scope of Work • Exhibit B - Software License Terms • Exhibit C - Payment Terms
4. TERM
This Agreement shall begin on August 1, 2011 and end on November 30, 2014. This Agreement may be renewed for two (2) additional twelve-month terms. The renewal term shall be deemed automatically exercised unless either Party provides written notice to the other Party that it does not intend to exercise the renewal term, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the original term or renewal term of this Agreement.
5. TOTAL COMPENSATION
Contractor's total compensation for the goods and services it is providing City pursuant to this Agreement are set forth in Exhibit C.
6. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS
The Parties shall abide by all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations.
7. INDEMNIFICATION
City will indemnify and hold harmless Contractor and its officers, directors, employees, affiliates and agents from any and all liability, damages, losses, claims or actions ariSing out of the performance or nonperformance by City, its employees, representatives, agents, contractors and/or subcontractors, of any provision of this Agreement.
Page 2 of 23 ContracUPT LLC (PayLock) 082011
23078
000333
Contractor will indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any and all liability, damages, losses, claims or actions arising out of the performance or nonperformance by Contractor, its employees, representatives, agents, contractors and/or subcontractors, of any provision of this Agreement.
8. INSURANCE
Not less than ten (10) days prior to commencing any work, Contractor shall furnish to the City satisfactory proof that Contractor has taken out for the entire period covered by this Agreement, as further defined below, the following insurance in a form satisfactory to the City and with an insurance carrier satisfactory to the City, authorized to do business in California and rated by A. M. Best & Company A or better, which will protect those described below from claims described below which arise or are alleged to have arisen out of or result from the services of Contractor, for which Contractor may be legally liable, whether performed by Contractor, its subcontractors or subconsultants of any tier or by those employed directly or indirectly by them or any of them, or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable:
8.1 Commercial general liability insurance: Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits not less than one million ($1,000,000) each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Products and Completed Operations.
8.2 Business automobile liability insurance: Primary coverage shall be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 0692 including symbol 1 (Any Auto). Limits shall be not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence including coverage for owned, (non-owned and hired vehicles, subject to a deductible of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) payable by Contractor.
8.3 Full workers' compensation insurance for all persons whom Contractor may employ in furnishing the Goods and providing the Services required hereunder, in accordance with Act of Legislature of State of California, known as "Workers' Compensation Insurance and Safety Act", approved May 26, 1913, and All Acts amendatory or supplemental thereto. Workers' compensation policy shall include Employer Liability Insurance with limits not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident. There shall be a waiver of subrogation as to the City, and each named and additional insured under such policy.
8.4 Insurance policies shall contain an endorsement containing the following terms:
8.4.1 The City and its directors, officers, representatives, employees, consultants, subconsultants and agents shall be named as
Page 3 01 23 ContracUPT LLC (PayLock) 082011
23079
000334
additional insureds and there shall be a waiver of subrogation as to each named and additional insured.
8.4.2 The policies shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the company's liability, except as otherwise stated herein.
8.4.3 Written notice of cancellation, non-renewal or of any material change in the policies shall be mailed to the City 30 days in advance of the effective date thereof, and ten (10) days written notice to the same in advance of payment of any insurance claims under such policies to any person, firm or entity.
8.4.4 Insurance shall be primary insurance and no other insurance or self insured retention carried or held by any named or additional insureds other than the Contractor shall be called upon to contribute to a loss covered by insurance for the named insured.
8.5 Certificates of Insurance and Endorsements shall have clearly typed thereon the City contract number and title of contract, shall clearly describe the coverage and shall contain a provision requiring the giving of ·written notice described above in subparagraph 8.4.3. Endorsements naming the City of Berkeley as additional insureds shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance.
8.6 Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Contractor or any of its subcontractors or subconsultants may be held responsible for payment of damages resulting from their
. operations.
8.7 Insurance shall be maintained by Contractor in full force and effect during the entire period of performance of the Agreement, except that general commercial liability insurance completed operations coverage shall be kept in force for a period of one (1) year after final termination of this Agreement.
If Contractor fails to maintain insurance, the City may take out insurance to cover any damages of the above mentioned classes for which the City and others to be insured referenced above might be held liable on account of Contractor's failure to pay such damages, or compensation which the City might be liable to under provisions of Workers' Compensation Insurance and Safety Act, by reason of employee of Contractor being injured or killed, and deduct and, in addition to any other remedy, retain amount of premium from any sums due Contractor under Contract.
9. WARRANTIES; WARRANTY LIMITATIONS AND REMEDY LIMITATIONS
9.1. Express Warranty
Contractor warrants its legal right to the PayLock System and all associated
Page 4 of 23 ConlracUPT LLC (PayLock) 082011
23080
000335
Software and hardware provided to City by Contractor, including BootView, SmartBoots and further warrants that the PayLock System, the Software, and all associated hardware including BootView and SmartBoots are operational as intended under this Agreement and will be free from all operational and material defects. City's sole remedy with respect to any defective product provided to it by Contractor shall be the repair or replacement of any defective product. In the event that any component of the Pay Lock System malfunctions due to any defect or damage caused by normal wear and tear, Contractor shall, at its sole cost, repair or replace the defective or damaged components.
9.2. Remedy Limitation
. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, Contractor and City agree and acknowledge that the Parties shall not be liable for indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages.
9.3. Relation to Indemnity
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Section to the contrary, the indemnity provisions set forth in Section of this Agreement shall supersede this Section 6.
10. MUTUAL COOPERATION
City and Contractor each agree to provide reasonable assistance to the other as may be necessary to affect the purpose of this Agreement. The Parties further agree to cooperate in establishing and modifying, as reasonably necessary, the practices, protocols and procedures utilized in connection with the implementation of the PayLock System
11. SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
11.1. Non-Discrimination
Contractor hereby agrees to comply with the provisions of Berkeley Municipal Code (UB.M.C.") Chapter 13.26 as amended from time to time. In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor agrees as follows:
a. Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age (over 40), sex, pregnancy, marital status, disability, sexual orientation or AIDS.
b. Contractor shall permit the City access to records of employment, employment advertisements, application forms, EEO-1 forms, affirmative action plans and any other documents which, in the opinion of the City, are necessary to monitor compliance with this non-discrimination provision. In addition, Contractor shall fill-out, in a timely fashion, forms supplied by the City to monitor this non-discrimination provision.
Page 5 of 23 ContracUPT llC (Pay lock) 082011
23081
000336
11.2. Independent Contractor
a. Contractor shall be deemed at all times to be an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which Contractor performs the services required of Contractor by the terms of this Agreement. Contractor shall be liable for its acts and omissions, and those of its employees and its agents. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as creating an employment, agency or partnership relationship between City and Contractor.
b. Direction from City regarding the subject of this Agreement shall be construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of Contractor's Work only and not as to the means or methods by which such a result is obtained.
c. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, nothing in this Contract shall operate to confer rights or benefits on persons or entities not party to this Agreement.
d. Payment of any taxes, including California Sales and use Taxes, levied upon this Agreement, the transaction, or the services or goods delivered pursuant hereto, shall be the obligation of Contractor.
11.3. Conflict Of Interest Prohibited
a. In accordance with Government Code section 1090, Berkeley City Charter section 36 and B.M.C. Chapter 3.64, neither Contractor nor any employee, officer, director, partner or member of Contractor, or immediate family member of any of the preceding, shall have served as an elected officer, an employee, or a City board, committee or commission member, who has directly or indirectly influenced the making of this Agreement.
b. In accordance with Government Code section 1090 and the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 87100 et seq., no person who is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or consultant of Contractor, or immediate family member of any of the preceding, shall make or partiCipate in a decision made by the City or a City board, commission or committee, if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material effect on any source of income, investment or interest in real property of that person or Contractor.
c. Interpretation of this section shall be governed by the definitions and provisions used in the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 87100 et seq., its implementing regulations, manuals and codes, Government Code section 1090, Berkeley City Charter section 36 and B.M.C. Chapter 3.64.
11 .4. Nuclear Free Berkeley
Contractor agrees to comply with B.M.C. Chapter 12.90, the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act, as amended from time to time.
11.5. Oppressive States Contracting Prohibition
a. In accordance with Resolution No. 59,853-N.S., Contractor certifies that it has no contractual relations with, and agrees during the term of this Agreement to forego contractual relations to provide personal services to, the following entities:
Page 6 of 23 ConlracUPT LLC (PayLock) 082011
23082
000337
(1) The governing regime in any Oppressive State. (2) Any business or corporation organized under the authority of the
governing regime of any Oppressive State. (3) Any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or any
other commercial organization, and including parent-entities and wholly-owned subsidiaries (to the extent that their operations are related to the purpose of its Agreement with the City), for the express purpose of assisting in business operations or trading with any public or private entity located in any Oppressive State.
b. For purposes of this Contract, the Tibet Autonomous Region and the provinces of Ado, Kham, and U-Tsang shall be deemed oppressive states.
c. Contractor's failure to comply with this section shall constitute a default of this Agreement and City may terminate this Agreement. In the event that the City terminates Contractor due to a default under this provision, City may deem Contractor a non-responsible bidder for not more than five (5) years from the date this Agreement is terminated.
11.6. Berkeley Living Wage Ordinance
a. Contractor hereby agrees to comply with the provisions of the Berkeley Living Wage Ordinance, B.M.C. Chapter 13.27. If Contractor is currently subject to the Berkeley Living Wage Ordinance, as indicated by the Living Wage Certification form, attached hereto, Contractor will be required to provide all eligible employees with City mandated minimum compensation during the term of this Agreement, as defined in B.M.C. Chapter 13.27, as well as comply with the terms enumerated herein. Contractor expressly acknowledges that, even if Contractor is not currently subject to the Living Wage Ordinance, cumulative contracts with City may subject Contractor to the requirements under B.M.C. Chapter 13.27 in subsequent contracts.
b. If Contractor is currently subject to the Berkeley Living Wage Ordinance, Contractor shall be required to maintain monthly records of those employees providing service under the Agreement. These records shall include the total number of hours worked, the number of hours spent providing service under this Agreement, the hourly rate paid, and the amount paid by Contractor for health benefits, if any, for each of its employees providing services under the Agreement. These records are expressly subject to the auditing terms described in Section 11.8.
c. If Contractor is currently subject to the Berkeley Living Wage Ordinance, Contractor shall include the requirements thereof, as defined in B.M.C. Chapter 13.27, in any and all subcontracts in which Contractor engages to execute its responsibilities under this Agreement. All subcontractor employees who spend 25% or more of their compensated time engaged in work directly related to this Agreement shall be entitled to a living wage, as described in B.M.C. Chapter 13.27 and herein.
d. If Contractor fails to comply with the requirements of this Section, the City shall have the rights and remedies described in this Section, in addition to any rights and remedies provided by law or equity.
Contractor's failure to comply with this Section shall constitute a material breach of the Agreement, upon which City may terminate this Agreement. In the event that City terminates Contractor due to a default under this provision, City may deem Contractor a non-responsible bidder for not more than five (5) years from the date this
Page 7 of 23 ContracUPT LLC (PayLock) 082011
23083
000338
Agreement is terminated.
In addition, at City's sole discretion, Contractor may be responsible for liquidated damage in the amount of $50 per employee per day for each and every instance of an underpayment to an employee. It is mutually understood and agreed that Contractor's failure to pay any of its eligible employees at least the applicable living wage rate will result in damages being sustained by the City; that the nature and amount of the damages will be extremely difficult and impractical to fix; that the liquidated damage set forth herein is the nearest and most exact measure of damage for such breach that can be fixed at this time; and that the liquidated damage amount is not intended as a penalty or forfeiture for Contractor's breach. City may deduct any assessed liquidated damages from any payments otherwise due Contractor.
11.7. Berkeley Equal Benefits Ordinance
a. Contractor hereby agrees to comply with the provisions of the Berkeley Equal Benefits Ordinance, B.M.C. Chapter 13.29. If Contractor is currently subject to the Berkeley Equal Benefits Ordinance, as indicated by the Equal Benefits Certification form, attached hereto, Contractor will be required to provide all eligible employees with City mandated equal benefits, as defined in B.M.C. Chapter 13.29, during the term of this Agreement, as well as comply with the terms enumerated herein.
b. If Contractor is currently or becomes subject to the Berkeley Equal Benefits Ordinance, Contractor agrees to provide the City with all records the City deems necessary to determine compliance with this provision. These records are expressly subject to the auditing terms described in Section 11.8 of this Agreement.
c. If Contractor fails to comply with the requirements of this Section, City shall have the rights and remedies described in this Section, in addition to any rights and remedies provided by law or equity.
Contractor's failure to comply with this Section shall constitute a material breach of the Agreement, upon which City may terminate this Agreement. In the event the City terminates this Agreement due to a default by Contractor under this provision, the City may deem Contractor a non-responsible bidder for not more than five (5) years from the date this Agreement is terminated.
In addition, at City's sole discretion, Contractor may be responsible for liquidated damages in the amount of $50.00 per employee per day for each and every instance of violation of this Section. It is mutually understood and agreed that Contractor's failure to provide its employees with equal benefits will result in damages being sustained by City; that the nature and amount of these damages will be extremely difficult and impractical to fix; that the liquidated damages set forth herein is the nearest and most exact measure of damages for such breach that can be fixed at this time; and that the liquidated damage amount is not intended as a penalty or forfeiture for Contractor's breach. City may deduct any assessed liquidated damages from any payments otherwise due Contractor.
11.8. Audit
Pursuant to Section 61 of the Berkeley City Charter, the City Auditor'S Office may conduct an audit of Contractor's financial, performance and compliance records maintained in connection with the operations and services performed under
Page 8 of 23 ConlracUPT LLC (PayLock) 082011
23084
000339
this Agreement. In the event of such audit, Contractor agrees to provide the City Auditor with reasonable access to Contractor's employees and make all such financial, performance and compliance records available to the Auditor's Office. City agrees to provide Contractor an opportunity to discuss and respond to any findings before a final audit report is filed.
11.9. Set Off Against Debts
Contractor agrees that City may deduct from any payments due to Contractor under this Agreement any monies that Contractor owes City under any ordinance, contract or resolution for any unpaid taxes, fees, licenses, unpaid checks or other amounts.
11.10. Confidentiality of Information
Contractor understands and agrees that, in the performance of the services under this Agreement or in the contemplation thereof, Contractor may have access to private or confidential information which may be owned or controlled by City and that such information may contain proprietary or confidential details, the disclosure of which to third parties may be damaging to City. Contractor agrees that all information disclosed by City to Contractor shall be held in confidence and used only in performance of the Agreement. Contractor shall exercise the same standard of care to protect such information as a reasonably prudent consultant would use to protect its own proprietary data.
Provider acknowledges that all data created by the City including confidential information such as customer social security number, address and phone number, bank account information and any internal City communications, constitute proprietary information ("City's Proprietary Information") of City and will remain the sole property of the City. Provider agrees that it shall not at any time sell, assign, transfer or otherwise make available to, or allow use by Provider, agent of Provider or a third party any of the City's Proprietary Information. Provider shall hold in confidence the City's Proprietary Information and allow its employees access to City's data only for the purposes of complying with this Contract. Additionally, Provider will take all necessary measures to secure and protect City's data including, but not limited to, daily backups, offsite storage of backup media, physical security, software access controls, encryption and proper backup rotations, and Provider will comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. Provider acknowledges that City asserts it is entitled to copy, export or otherwise duplicate City's data at any time.
11.11. Governing Law
This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed in Alameda County. The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflict of laws rules. Venue for all litigation relative to the formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be in Alameda County, California.
11.12. Amendments
The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be altered or otherwise modified except by a written amendment to this Agreement executed by City and Contractor.
Page 9 of 23 ContracUPT LLC (PayLock) 082011
23085
000340
11.13. Entire Contract
a. The terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the Exhibits referenced in Section 3 above represent the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement shall supersede any and all prior contracts, oral or written, regarding the subject matter between City and Contractor. No other contract, statement, or promise relating to the subject matter of this Agreement shall be valid or binding except by a written amendment to this Agreement.
b. If any conflicts arise between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the terms and conditions of the attached exhibits, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control.
11.14. Severability
If any part of this Agreement or the application thereof is declared invalid for any reason, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the proVisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable.
11.15. Waiver
Failure of City to insist on strict performance shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement or a waiver of any other default of Contractor.
11.lB. Assignment
Contractor may not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City, except that Contractor may assign its right to any money due or to become due hereunder.
11.17. Effect on Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto.
11.18. Consultants to Submit Statements of Economic Interest
The City's Conflict of Interest Code, Resolution No. BO,788-N.S., as amended, requires conSUltants who make a governmental decision or act in a staff capacity as defined in 2 Cal. Code of Regs. §18700, as amended from time to time, to disclose conflicts of interest by filing a Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700). ConSUltants agree to file such statements with the City Clerk at the beginning of the contract period and upon termination of Contractor's service.
11.19. Section Headings
The sections and other headings of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in the interpretation of this Agreement.
