HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-23 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting
Council Chambers
September 23, 2013
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 September 23, 2013
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be
determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this
agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council
Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give
your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings.
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order
of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after
the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or
to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest
arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW
Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to
make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public
have spoken.
Call to Order
Closed Session 6:00-6:45 PM
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathy Shen, Breena Rowe,
Rebecca Burnside)
Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union,
(SEIU) Local 521; Hourly Unit
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
Special Orders of the Day 6:45-6:55 PM
2. Presentation by Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen
2 September 23, 2013
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 6:55-7:05 PM
Oral Communications 7:05-7:20 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar 7:20-7:25 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
3. Approval for the City Manager to Purchase a Police Records
Management System (RMS), and Field-based Reporting Applications in
Partnership With the Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos for Palo
Alto’s Participation in the Tri-Cities CAD and RMS “Virtual
Consolidation” Project and Related Budget Amendment Ordinance in
the Amount of $100,000 in Contingency Funding from the Information
Technology Internal Service Fund
4. Approval of Crescent Park - No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Trial
Program Resident Permit Application and Program Expansion
5. Council Appointed Officers Committee Recommendation of
Appointment of Acting City Auditor
6. Reauthorization to Engage in a Non-Binding "Smart Cities Alliance
Agreement" with the City of Heidelberg, Germany, and Direction on
Exploring Future "Smart City" Alliance
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7:25-8:15 PM
7. Colleague's Memo From Vice Mayor Shepherd, Council Members
Berman, Holman, and Price Regarding the Building Code and Stalled
Construction
8:15-9:15 PM
8. Colleague's Memo From Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Shepherd, and
Council Member Price Regarding Electric Vehicles
9:15-9:45 PM
9. Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report on Law Enforcement Public
Complaint Procedures
3 September 23, 2013
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 9:45-10:00 PM
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
4 September 23, 2013
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Supplemental Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Council Appointed Officers Committee
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Council Roster
Council Roster
Public Letters to Council
Set 1 Set 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4083)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/23/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval to Purchase Police RMS System
Title: Approval for the City Manager to Purchase a Police Records
Management System (RMS), and Field-based Reporting Applications in
Partnership With the Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos for Palo A lto’s
Participation in the Tri-Cities CAD and RMS “Virtual Consolidation” Project
and related Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $100,000 in
Contingency Funding from the Information Technology Internal Service Fund
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement to
purchase a joint public safety technology Police Records Management System from the
Intergraph Corporation. The system includes Records Management (RMS), applications for
Police field-based reporting and business intelligence. The City has an existing Cooperative
Procurement Agreement with the Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos to share the cost and
maintenance of core public safety applications.
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Intergraph Corporation
for the procurement of the jointly operated Police Records Management System.
2. Allocate $100,000 in contingency funding for the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and
RMS public safety automated information systems from the Technology Fund
Unrestricted Ending Fund Balance to the Public Safety Computer Aided Dispatch
Replacement Capital Improvement Project.
Background
The City operates several mission-critical public safety systems to record, process, and
coordinate response to Police and Fire Department calls for service, as well as to document
City of Palo Alto Page 2
employee-initiated activity. The primary components of these systems are the Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management Systems (RMS). These systems are also used to input,
retain, and retrieve information that is used for operational analysis, and to comply with
regulatory reporting requirements for crime and emergency medical service incidents. The
legacy CAD and RMS systems are more than a decade old. They have exceeded their expected
service lifecycle, and are lacking in features and functionality now available in contemporary
public safety systems.
The City Managers of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos agreed to a broad initiative of
sharing public safety technology as a method to conserve resources, improve response times,
increase the resiliency and redundancy of these critical systems, as well as to enhance
interoperable communications between the three cities’ first responders. This initiative was
part of a Council Study Session on May 2, 2011 that presented the "virtual consolidation"
concept and the framework to share public safety technology and communication systems.
The cornerstones of the “virtual consolidation” project are CAD and RMS. The cities released a
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in 2008 followed by a Request for Proposal (RFP) for CAD and
RMS in 2010. The RFP narrowed the field to three (3) vendors and, after product
demonstrations and extensive evaluation, the Intergraph Corporation was selected as the most
suitable provider for CAD and RMS.
In the spring of 2011 Intergraph acquired a new RMS company. Staff determined that the three
cities needed clear direction from Intergraph on their future path for RMS and assurances that
the system functionality would meet or exceed the requirements agreed to in the initial
proposal. Staff directed Intergraph to divide the CAD project and the RMS project into separate
proposals.
In February of 2012 the three cities entered into a Cooperative Procurement Agreement to
share the costs of CAD and RMS and signed a contract with the Intergraph Corporation for the
CAD system.
The Cities and Intergraph have held protracted negotiations on the RMS system over the past
year. The cost of the web-based RMS product is higher than the previously proposed legacy
system. The new product has enhanced capabilities and is better suited for the networked
environment of the larger virtual consolidation concept. The project is within budget but the
current budget for the project does not include funds for a 10% contingency to cover the costs
for change orders and/or for unforeseen issues or problems arising from the implementation of
the systems.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Discussion
The RMS system is estimated to cost approximately $904,000. The difference between this
amount and the vendor’s pricing in the contract amendment is the estimated sales tax. Based
on the agreed upon cost-sharing formula, the City’s portion of the cost for the Records
Management System is approximately $352,560 Combined hardware costs for the CAD and
RMS projects exceeded original estimates and, in order to remain within the budgeted amount
of $1.3 million, Palo Alto cancelled some non-essential items and reduced CAD costs by
$50,000. Palo Alto’s project costs for CAD and RMS replacement total approximately
$1,296,541.1
Staff recommends an additional contingency of $100,000 from the Technology Fund to cover
any change orders, network issues, or unexpected expenses associated with implementation.
This funding will also be used to increase the functionality of the systems based on updated
technologies. For the CAD system this includes integrating the Pulse Point application and web
based dispatcher licenses. Pulse Point alerts individuals to medical emergencies in real time in
order to start lifesaving procedures, such as CPR, prior to EMS personnel arriving on the scene.
The web based dispatcher licenses allow remote CAD access for the dispatchers from locations
other than emergency communications center such as Stanford Stadium and the Mobile
Emergency Operations Center (MEOC). For the RMS this includes data conversion from the
RMS currently in use and enhanced field interview reporting to capture all the data needed by
patrol and investigating officers.
$1,300,000 was budgeted in information technology CIP TE-09000 in 2009. The additional
contingency would raise the not-to-exceed amount of the project to $1,400,000. Any unused
contingency funds would revert back to the Technology fund.
Ongoing maintenance and support costs for the CAD and RMS systems are calculated using the
same cost sharing formula as for the acquisition of the system and a six year commitment is
required from the participating cities (the first year of maintenance is included in the
acquisition cost of the systems). In 2013, Palo Alto paid $114,165 for CAD and RMS
maintenance from the legacy vendor. The combined cost to the City for CAD, RMS, Mobile
Client and field-based reporting in FY 2015/16 will be $139,518 increasing to $169,534 in FY
2019/20. Funding for maintenance of these systems is currently budgeted in the Information
Technology’s application maintenance fund, and the annual increases will be included in the
budget development process for that fund, beginning with the $25,353 increase for the FY
2015/16 base budget. The contract limits annual maintenance cost increases to five percent
annually after the six year extended warranty period.
1 Palo Alto will be reimbursed by Stanford for 25% of the CAD capital cost, approximately $224,439.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Under the tri-cities’ agreement, the City of Mountain View will serve as the lead agency for the
procurement and will host the core set of equipment that comprises the systems (Palo Alto will
serve as the back-up site). The City of Mountain View will invoice the cities of Palo Alto and Los
Altos as required and make payments to the Intergraph Corporation on behalf of all parties.
Each city will be responsible for providing sufficient technical staff to support the enterprise
system’s use and the joint administration of the systems. Each city will be responsible for the
maintenance of its own data and will mutually indemnify each other with respect to the use of
the systems.
The procurement of regional public safety information systems is a critical phase of the tri-city
“virtual consolidation” project. The enterprise wide applications will serve as the centerpiece
for the larger project including a common 9-1-1 phone system and a shared police radio
frequency. The larger project will provide both technical and physical redundancy for all three
cities.
Resource Impact
The initial costs for the project are within the budget established by the original CIP. However,
Staff is requesting an additional $100,000 in contingency funds for change orders and/or other
unanticipated cost (network issues, optional enhancements or ancillary equipment).
Maintenance costs have been fixed at a five percent annual increase for a ten year period
insuring stability and cost management. The annual maintenance cost will be included in the
Information Technology Fund as part of the annual Base Budget development. Staff time for
Police and IT personnel will be impacted significantly by the twelve to eighteen month project.
Policy Implications
This agreement is consistent with existing City policy.
Timeline
Following the execution of the specified agreements, a project start date in October 2013 is
anticipated. Installation of the primary software is scheduled for January 2014, with cutover to
the new systems tentatively scheduled for the third calendar quarter in 2014.
Environmental Review
The project to purchase and implement the RMS system is not subject to CEQA pursuant to
Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3), and it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
Attachments:
City of Palo Alto Page 5
ATTACHMENT A - Amendment 1 - WebRMS 091913 (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B - Tri-City Cooperative Procurement Agreement (PDF)
ATTACHMENT C - Exhibit A-1 WebRMS Pricing and Detail Summary 091713 (PDF)
ATTACHMENT D - Exhibit B-1 WebRMS Statement of Work (PDF)
ATTACHMENT E - BAO for RMS 092313 (PDF)
ATTACHMENT F - Tri-Cities CAD Contract Staff Report 1829 (PDF)
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN INTERGRAPH CORPORATION
AND
THE CITIES OF LOS ALTOS, MOUNTAIN VIEW AND PALO ALTO
This First Amendment, dated XX/XX/XX (“Amendment”), to the Regional Public Safety
Automated Information Systems Agreement dated March 23, 2012, by and between Intergraph
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, acting on the behalf of its Public Safety business unit, with
its principal office at 19 Interpro Road, Madison, Alabama 35758 (hereinafter referred to as
“Intergraph”) and the Cities of Los Altos, Mountain View, and Palo Alto , all municipal corporations
(individually “City” and collectively “Cities”). Intergraph and the Cities may be referred to
individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.
Whereas, Intergraph and the Cities have previously entered into a Contract dated March
23, 2012 (“Agreement”);
Whereas, the Cities have requested Intergraph furnish additional products and services
contemplated in Section 5.1 of the Agreement which includes a RMS Subsystem and a FBR
Subsystem; and
Whereas, Intergraph and the Cities desire to modify the scope of this Agreement to
include additional terms and conditions which will define and implement the System, as amended
below, in exchange for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged;
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements expressed
herein, Intergraph and the Cities agree as follows:
1. Revise references to “Exhibit A – Pricing and Detail Summary” and “Exhibit
A” throughout the Agreement to reference “Exhibit A – Pricing and Detail Summary and
Exhibit A-1 – RMS Pricing and Detail Summary” collectively.
2. Revise references to ”Exhibit B – Statement of Work” and “Exhibit B”
throughout the Agreement to reference “Exhibit B – Statement of Work and Exhibit B-1 – RMS
Statement of Work” collectively.
3. Revise references to “Exhibit E – Payment Milestones” and “Exhibit E”
throughout the Agreement to reference “Exhibit E – Payment Milestones and Exhibit E-1 –
RMS Payment Milestones” collectively.
4. Revise Section 1, Order of Precedence, entirely to read as follows reflect new Exhibits
for the RMS Subsystems (Red):
“The exhibits listed below are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. In
interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities and notwithstanding anything in the
Exhibits C - Intergraph End-User License Agreement to the contrary, the main body of this
Agreement takes precedence over the exhibits and any inconsistency between Exhibits A through
G will be resolved in their listed order.
Exhibit A Pricing and Detail Summary
Exhibit A-1 RMS Pricing and Detail Summary
Exhibit B Statement of Work
Attachment A-1 Acceptance Test Plan Overview
Attachment A-2 Project Deliverable Sign-Off Form
Attachment A-3 Customer Support Center
Attachment A-4 Training Plan
Attachment A-5 Public Safety CAD System Specifications
Attachment A-6 Draft Project Schedule
Attachment A-7 Interface Descriptions
Attachment A-8 Configuration Diagram
Attachment A-9 I/CAD Message Suite for California State Switch
Attachment A-10 Draft Acceptance Test Plan
Attachment A-11 Sample CAD/MPS Cutover Plan
Exhibit B-1 RMS Statement of Work
Attachment B-1: Acceptance Test Plan
Attachment B-2: Project Deliverable Sign-off Form
Attachment B-3: Customer Support Center
Attachment B-4 Training Plan
Attachment B-5: WebRMS System Specifications
Attachment B-6: Project Schedule
Attachment B-7: Interface Descriptions
Attachment B-8: Configuration Diagram
Attachment B-9: Software Requirements Matrix
Attachment B-10: System Configuration Specifications
Exhibit C Intergraph End-User License Agreement
Exhibit D U.S. Maintenance Terms and Conditions for Software
Exhibit E Payment Milestones
Exhibit E-1 RMS Payment Milestones
Exhibit F Intergraph Proposal Response to Mountain View’s Mountain View R08
Multi-Agency Public Safety Automated Systems Phase II – Request for
Proposal dated 02/20/2008 (including subsequent BAFOs, Revised
Pricing dated 10/11/2011 and Fit and Gap clarifications)
Exhibit G Mountain View R08 Multi-Agency Public Safety Automated Systems
Phase II – Request for Proposal”
5. Revise Section 5.1, Agreement Price, entirely to read as follows:
“The Agreement Price in U.S. dollars for all equipment, software and services pursuant to
this Agreement, including those furnished by subcontractors, shall not exceed $2,903,572 USD,
including $865,116 USD for the RMS Amendment, excluding taxes, maintenance and change
orders for non-option items, as specifically detailed in Exhibit A-1 RMS - Pricing and Detail
Summary. The not to exceed price excludes optional items which may be added at a later date
by the Parties using a Change Order. Optional unit pricing shall remain fixed through September
30, 2014 for Exhibit A-1.
6. Add a new Exhibit A-1, RMS Pricing and Detail Summary, which is attached and
incorporated by reference to this Amendment.
7. Add a new Exhibit B-1, RMS Statement of Work, which is attached and incorporated
by reference to this Amendment.
8. Add a new Exhibit E-1, RMS Milestone Payments, which is attached and
incorporated by reference to this Amendment.
9. Except as expressly modified herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms and conditions.
In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have signed this Amendment as of the date written
above.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Purchasing and Support Services Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW,
a California Charter City and municipal corporation
By:
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF LOS ALTOS,
a municipal corporation
By:
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF PALO ALTO,
a municipal corporation
By:
City Manager
INTERGRAPH CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation
________________________________
By:
________________________________
Its:
________________________________
STATE OF ALABAMA)
) ss.
County of Madison)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of March, 2012, by
_____________________________, the ___________________ of Intergraph Corporation, a
Delaware corporation.
________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
_______________________
Exhibit A-1
RMS PRICING AND DETAIL SUMMARY
[see attached]
EXHIBIT B-1
RMS STATEMENT OF WORK
EXHIBIT E-1
RMS PAYMENT MILESTONES
TBD
-1-
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF REGIONAL
PUBLIC SAFETY AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS
THIS Cooperative Procurement Agreement (Cooperative Agreement) is dated
February, ______, 2012 for identification, by and between the CITIES OF LOS ALTOS,
MOUNTAIN VIEW AND PALO ALTO, all municipal corporations (hereafter "LOS
ALTOS," "MOUNTAIN VIEW" and "PALO ALTO" respectively and individually "City"
or collectively "Cities."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in 2007, the Cities began the process to upgrade and or replace their
existing public safety automated systems and agreed to work together to share
resources in order to achieve cost savings by combining separate vendor selection
processes; and
WHEREAS, the Cities continue to explore sharing the procurement and use of
public safety systems, sharing information, and workload where feasible to share costs
and virtually consolidate the provision of services and agreed this is a common and
important goal for all three cities; and
WHEREAS, the Cities released a Request for Qualifications and a Request for
Proposals, evaluated the vendor proposals for a detailed design of Regional Public
Safety Automated Information Systems and negotiated an agreement with Intergraph
Corporation; and
WHEREAS, based on the Request for Proposals, Intergraph Corporation has been
selected as the vendor to provide a fully integrated Regional Public Safety Automated
Information Systems, including but not limited to Computer Aided Dispatch ("CAD"),
Records Management ("RMS") Mobile for Public Safety ("MPS"), Field Based Reporting
("FBR") and various other subsystems and external interfaces; and
WHEREAS, this Cooperative Agreement is intended to address the terms and
conditions under which the Cities will fund, acquire, operate, maintain and upgrade the
Regional Public Safety Automated Information Systems for the Cities; and
WHEREAS, the Cities now wish to enter into this Cooperative Agreement for
Regional Public Safety Automated Information Systems and to set forth the terms and
conditions under which the Cities will participate in the joint acquisition, installation,
operation and maintenance of the Regional Public Safety Automated Information
Systems.
-2-
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing Recitals, the Cities enter into this
Cooperative Agreement for the Regional Public Safety Automated Information Systems
("Cooperative Agreement").
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Cooperative Agreement for Regional Public
Safety Automated Information Systems is to set forth the terms and conditions under
which the Cities will fund, acquire, install, operate, maintain and upgrade the Regional
Public Safety Automated Information Systems ("the Systems") acquired pursuant to this
Cooperative Agreement.
2. LEAD CITYCITY. The City of Mountain View shall continue as the Lead
City, for the purposes described below in accordance with its purchasing ordinances
and procedures. As Lead City, the City of Mountain View, on behalf of the Cities, shall:
A. Award and administer the contract dated _________ 2012 between the
Cities and Intergraph Corporation to furnish the Systems pursuant to the agreement
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" ("Intergraph Agreement"). The scope of this Cooperative
Agreement also includes RMS should the Cities decide to amend the Intergraph
Agreement to include that subsystem. As part of the administration of the Intergraph
Agreement, the Lead City will receive payments from the Cities and make payments to
Intergraph Corporation on behalf of the Cities for services rendered by Intergraph or
any third party interfaces.
B. Coordinate, in conjunction with Intergraph Corporation, the master
project schedule for the implementation of the Systems.
C. Host the core components of the Systems, including the provision of
sufficient and suitable space, power and cooling for computing, storage, network and
related equipment necessary to operate the Systems.
D. Host the necessary third-party interfaces required in typical public
safety information systems, such as the connection to the California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System ("CLETS"), County of Santa Clara Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System ("SLETS"), County of Santa Clara Criminal Justice
Information Control ("CJIC") and others as agreed to by the Cities.
E. Act as the "Message Switching Computer" (MSC) administrator with
respect to the use of the Systems to access CLETS, and maintain the necessary
documentation and agreements with the California Department of Justice (DOJ).
-3-
F. Invoice Los Altos and Palo Alto quarterly in advance for their respective
share of any costs under the Intergraph Agreement to be incurred during the upcoming
quarter. An itemized breakdown of those costs will be provided with the invoice. City-
specific costs will be invoiced at time of procurement.
G. Make periodic payments within thirty (30) days of receiving and
approving a billing statement from Intergraph Corporation in proportion to the
satisfactory completion of Intergraph's services.
3. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITIES
A. Executive Sponsorship. In support of the shared use of the Systems
and as necessary, the Police Chief or his/her designee from all the Cities shall jointly
prepare written guidelines for the shared use of Systems, including but not limited to
an informal dispute resolution process.
B. Operation of the Systems. Each City will acquire, install, maintain,
operate and periodically maintain the Systems for a minimum of six (6) years from the
go-live date for the Systems in accordance with this Cooperative Agreement, unless
otherwise agreed to by the Cities in writing. Each City will devote sufficient personnel
resources to allow their employees to develop subject matter expertise in the operation
and management of the Systems in order to successfully implement City-specific
workflow(s) required by their respective City.
C. Project Management Team. A Project Management Team shall be
formed and shall be composed of one representative from each City. The Project
Management Team shall be responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the contract
for the delivery, installation, training, operation and implementation of the Systems of
each City.
D. Core Implementation Team. To ensure a successful project and the
implementation of the systems, a "Core Team" of employees, representing a cross-
section of the various disciplines such as dispatch, fire suppression, police patrol,
records and investigations, will be assembled. Each City will select and assign
employees to perform Core Team duties, including but not limited to, participating in
conference calls, traveling to meetings at various locations, developing system usage
policies and procedures, configuring the systems for use, developing training plans and
materials, attending conferences and training classes provided by Intergraph
Corporation or other parties, and other duties as required.
E. Facility Preparation. Each City shall be responsible for the preparation
of its facilities including but not limited to air conditioning, space, all electrical drops,
cabling and any other items to be furnished by the City per the Intergraph Agreement.
-4-
F. Alterations and Upgrades. Each City shall notify the other Cities at
least ninety (90) days in advance of any modifications to or upgrades not included in
the Intergraph Agreement that it intends to make to the Systems in order to provide the
other Cities with the opportunity to participate in the modification or upgrade or
provide comments on the proposed modification or upgrade. Each City understands
and agrees that the modification or upgrade cannot interfere with the public safety
operations of the other Cities nor can it substantially alter the function and form of the
shared Systems. While the other Cities may elect to participate in the modification or
upgrade, they are under no obligation to do so.
G. Training and User Support. Each City shall assign qualified personnel
to attend training classes and in turn, train other users within their respective City.
Each City will, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for their own internal
training and user support. Nothing shall preclude the Cities from sharing personnel
resources and materials, if agreeable and beneficial, for training purposes, however
there is no obligation to do so.
H. Systems Administration and Technical Support. Each City shall assign
qualified personnel to perform the Systems administration tasks necessary for
successful operation and use of the Systems. To the greatest extent possible, each City
shall administer its own City-specific data, within the agreed-to Systems policies. Each
City will, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for its own system
administration and technical support. Nothing shall preclude the Cities from sharing
personnel resources and materials, if agreeable and beneficial, for system
administration and technical support purposes, however there is no obligation to do so.
I. Information Security and Confidentiality. Each City shall be
responsible for the accuracy, timeliness and completeness of information entered into or
through the Systems by their respective Systems users. Each City shall be the owner of
record for all information entered into and stored by the Systems users authorized by
that City. Each City shall act as their own custodian of records for data or records
entered into the Systems.
J. Interfaces and Supporting Systems. Third-party independent systems
are the responsibility of the hosting City.
K. Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies, Rules and Regulations.
Each City is responsible for compliance with all applicable state and federal laws,
regulations and policies.
L. Software Licenses. At the request of Intergraph Corporation, Mountain
View will hold the software licenses for the benefit of the other Cities and shall transfer
-5-
licenses to Los Altos or Palo Alto in accordance with the Intergraph Agreement if this
Cooperative Agreement is terminated for any reason.
M. Project Deliverable Sign Off. The Cities will prepare a mutually agreed
upon sign off form to document each City’s sign off on the Project
Deliverables/Milestones in Exhibit “_” to the Intergraph Agreement (“Milestones”) as
the Milestones are completed . Each City understands and agrees that Intergraph
Corporation requires Mountain View to sign the Project Deliverable Sign Off on behalf
of all Cities within fifteen (15) workdays of the completion of the Milestones itemized
(insert reference document). Accordingly, each City shall endeavor to sign the mutually
agreed upon sign off form for the Cities at least ten (10) workdays of completion of a
Milestone. If a Milestone is rejected for any reason, the City rejecting the Milestone or
the Cities jointly, as the case may be, will prepare a written description of the
deficiencies within ten (10) workdays of the rejection. The Cities understand and agree
that if Mountain View fail to accept or reject a Milestone on behalf of the Cities within
fifteen (15) workdays, or if the Cities elect to place a Subsystem into production
operation, then Intergraph requires full payment of the contract price for the Milestone.
4. COSTS/FUNDING
A. Cost Allocation Calculation. The parties have agreed to share the cost
of the acquisition, implementation, and ongoing maintenance and support costs to
operate and maintain the Systems ("Total Project Cost") as shown on Exhibit "B." The
City's share of the Total Project Cost shall be calculated using the following formula:
i. Each City shall pay a one-third (1/3) share of fifty percent (50%) of
the Total Project Cost.
ii. Each City shall also pay a proportionate share of the remaining
fifty percent (50%) of the Total Project Cost. This proportionate share shall be
calculated based upon the ratio of population served by each City to the total
population served by the Systems. For purposes of this calculation, the population for
each City shall be the 2010 United States Census information. For purposes of this
calculation, the population of the Stanford Community as shown in the 2010 United
States Census shall be included in the population of Palo Alto.
B. Cost Allocation Calculation Estimate. A Cost Allocation Calculation
Estimate of each Party's share of the Total Project Cost is attached as Exhibit "C" to this
Cooperative Agreement.
-6-
C. Per-User License Costs. Costs for per-user or per-seat software licenses
used with Systems shall be the responsibility of the user City.
D. Computer Workstation Hardware. Costs for computer workstations
and their associated peripheral equipment purchased via the Intergraph Agreement
and for use with the Systems shall be the responsibility of the user City, with the
exception of the "Map Maintenance Workstation," as described in _________ of the
Intergraph Agreement.
E. Fire Specific Costs. Los Altos shall not be responsible for enhancements
and interfaces to the CAD System for fire specific services as denoted above and
described in detail in _______ of the Intergraph Agreement.
F. Quarterly Invoicing. The Cities shall pay the quarterly payment to the
City of Mountain View within thirty (30) calendar days from the receipt of an invoice
from the City of Mountain View.
G. Detail Design Agreement. On behalf of the Cities, Mountain View
retained Intergraph Corporation to provide the Cities with a detailed design for the
Systems. Each City agreed to share in the cost of obtaining these services. The cost of the
detailed system design is Sixty Thousand Dollars. Accordingly, each CITY shall pay
Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) for the detailed system design.ʺ
5. THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS. It is not the intent of the Cities of this Cooperative
Agreement to create any third-party beneficiary. Any failure to perform under the
terms of this Cooperative Agreement shall not create any claim or right by any
individual or entity who is not a signatory to this Cooperative Agreement.
6. TERM OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. The term of this Cooperative
Agreement shall commence on the date the City of Mountain View awards the contract
to Intergraph Corporation and shall continue through June 30, 2019.
7. TERMINATION. Any City may terminate its participation in this
Cooperative Agreement by giving written notice of not less than ninety (90) days before
the beginning of the next fiscal year (hereby defined as July 1 of each year) and effective
only on July 1 of each year. If a City terminates its participation in this Cooperative
Agreement, it shall pay its portion of costs for which it has been billed pursuant to
Paragraph 4 above to the date of termination. Upon termination of a City's
-7-
participation in this Cooperative Agreement, the City shall relinquish its interest in any
jointly purchased equipment acquired pursuant to this Cooperative Agreement.
8. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES. By executing this Cooperative Agreement,
each City agrees to complete any and all necessary actions to accomplish successfully
the purpose of this Cooperative Agreement and all other agreements authorized
pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Cooperative Agreement.
9. GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM REGIONAL COOPERATION.
The Cities recognize that the existence of an up-to-date and accurate Geographical
Information System ("GIS") for all Cities is necessary for the effective operation of
centralized CAD System for law enforcement and fire protection services. Each City
agrees to participate and cooperate in all activities necessary to maintain an up-to-date
and accurate GIS.
10. MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION. In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro-rata
risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed between the parties pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.6, the parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by
a party shall not be shared pro rata, but instead, the Cities agree that pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, each of the parties hereto shall fully indemnify and
hold each of the other parties, their officers, board members, employees and agents
harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as
defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or
omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, board members,
employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority
or jurisdiction delegated to such party under this Cooperative Agreement. No party,
nor any officer, board member, employee or agent thereof shall be responsible for any
damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful
misconduct of other parties hereto, their officers, board members, employees or agents,
under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction
delegated to such other parties under this Cooperative Agreement.
-8-
11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
11.1 Notice. All notices required by this Cooperative Agreement will be
deemed given when in writing and delivered personally or deposited in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the other party at
the address set forth below or at such other address as the party may designate in
writing:
To Los Altos:
To Mountain View:
To Palo Alto:
Police Services Manager
City of Los Altos
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022-3088
Senior Systems Specialist
Police Department
City of Mountain View
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA
94039-7540
Technical Services Director
City of Palo Alto
275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
11.2 Governing Law. This Cooperative Agreement has been executed and
delivered in, and will be construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the
State of California.
11.3 Assignment. The parties may not assign this Cooperative Agreement or
the rights and obligations hereunder without the specific written consent of the others.
11.4 Entire Agreement. This document represents the entire Cooperative
Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. All prior
negotiations and written and/or oral agreements between the parties with respect to
the subject matter of this Cooperative Agreement are merged into this Cooperative
Agreement.
11.5 Amendments. This Cooperative Agreement may only be amended by
an instrument signed by the parties.
11.6 Counterparts. This Cooperative Agreement may be executed in one or
more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
11.7 Severability. If any provision of this Cooperative Agreement is found
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, invalid or unenforceable, the same will
either be reformed to comply with applicable law or stricken if not so conformable, so
as not to affect the validity or enforceability of this Cooperative Agreement.
-9-
11.8 Waiver. No delay or failure to require performance of any provision of
this Cooperative Agreement shall constitute a waiver of that provision as to that or any
other instance. Any waiver granted by a party must be in writing and shall apply to the
specific instance expressly stated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities have caused this Cooperative Agreement to be
executed by their respective governing officials duly authorized by their respective
legislative bodies.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attorney
FINANCIAL APPROVAL:
Finance and Administrative
Services Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW,
a California Charter City and municipal
corporation
By:
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF LOS ALTOS,
a municipal corporation
By:
City Manager
-10-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF PALO ALTO,
a municipal corporation
By:
City Manager
JLQ/4/ATY
010-01-31-12A-E^
P
r
i
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Va
l
i
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
1
1
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
3
Vi
r
t
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
W
e
b
R
M
S
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
U
S
$
U
S
$
U
S
$
IT
E
M
It
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
B
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
Q
t
y
U
n
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
c
e
So
f
t
w
a
r
e
Ma
i
n
t
.
(3
2
1
)
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
W
e
b
R
M
S
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
e
r
#
1
(
L
o
a
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
)
32
4
We
b
R
M
S
S
e
r
v
e
r
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
0
0
1
6
)
1
8
7
,
0
0
0
$
8
7
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
1
6
$
32
5
We
b
R
M
S
S
e
r
v
e
r
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
-
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
(
R
M
S
0
0
1
6
A
G
Y
)
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
a
n
d
L
o
s
A
l
t
o
s
2
7
,
5
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
4
8
0
$
32
7
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
o
r
E
c
l
i
p
s
e
1
32
8
St
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
s
(
C
H
P
5
5
5
,
5
5
6
&
5
5
6
D
)
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
)
Th
i
s
b
i
d
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
ac
c
i
d
e
n
t
d
a
t
a
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
.
1
1
0
,
6
6
6
$
1
0
,
6
6
6
$
2
,
1
3
3
$
33
0
St
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
(
C
H
P
1
8
0
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
3
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
c
u
s
t
o
m
f
o
r
m
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
pr
i
n
t
e
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
1
1
1
,
5
5
5
$
1
1
,
5
5
5
$
2
,
3
1
1
$
33
2
St
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
F
o
r
m
a
n
d
P
r
i
n
t
e
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
U
C
R
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
2
)
Re
p
o
r
t
(
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
pr
i
n
t
e
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
l
o
o
k
e
x
a
c
t
l
y
l
i
k
e
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Vi
e
w
'
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
)
.
1
3
,
6
1
1
$
3
,
6
1
1
$
7
2
2
$
33
4
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
C
a
s
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
9
)
Re
p
o
r
t
Wi
l
l
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
n
e
w
F
B
R
f
o
r
m
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
to
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
a
p
d
f
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
i
n
t
e
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
1
2
8
,
8
8
8
$
2
8
,
8
8
8
$
5
,
7
7
8
$
(3
3
9
)
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
W
e
b
R
M
S
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
e
r
#
2
(
L
o
a
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
)
34
1
We
b
R
M
S
S
e
r
v
e
r
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
-
R
e
d
u
n
d
a
n
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
0
0
1
6
R
D
T
)
1
6
0
,
9
0
0
$
6
0
,
9
0
0
$
1
4
,
0
1
6
$
34
3
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
o
r
E
c
l
i
p
s
e
1
(3
4
5
)
BI
D
i
r
e
c
t
S
e
r
v
e
r
34
7
BI
D
i
r
e
c
t
f
o
r
W
e
b
R
M
S
(
S
B
N
D
3
0
9
0
L
)
1
2
4
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
5
2
0
$
(3
4
9
)
BI
D
i
r
e
c
t
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
S
e
r
v
e
r
35
1
MS
S
Q
L
S
e
r
v
e
r
2
0
0
8
R
2
S
E
R
u
n
t
i
m
e
(
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
r
)
(
E
6
5
-
0
0
1
7
5
)
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
(R
D
B
M
S
)
1
3
,
7
5
4
$
3
,
7
5
4
$
7
2
0
$
(3
5
4
)
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
W
e
b
R
M
S
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
S
e
r
v
e
r
35
6
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
C
A
G
I
S
-
S
v
r
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
0
0
0
8
)
1
3
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
9
3
6
$
35
7
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
L
i
n
k
(
I
P
S
0
0
3
0
-
1
)
1
35
8
I/
I
n
f
o
r
m
e
r
t
o
i
n
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
(
I
P
S
0
0
0
4
A
)
1
36
0
Ed
g
e
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
(
I
P
S
2
0
4
2
)
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
4
6
8
$
36
2
Ed
g
e
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
P
a
c
k
(
I
P
S
2
0
4
2
A
)
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
6
4
$
36
4
Ed
g
e
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
A
d
a
p
t
e
r
K
i
t
f
o
r
i
n
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
R
M
S
(
I
P
S
2
0
4
4
)
1
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
8
,
0
4
0
$
37
8
EF
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
t
o
C
o
p
L
o
g
i
c
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
3
)
1
-
w
a
y
I
m
p
o
r
t
1
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
4
,
3
3
3
$
38
2
EF
E
x
p
o
r
t
t
o
E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
T
r
a
c
k
e
r
.
c
o
m
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
5
)
2
-
w
a
y
E
x
p
o
r
t
1
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
4
,
3
3
3
$
38
4
EF
E
x
p
o
r
t
t
o
E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
O
n
Q
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
6
)
2
-
w
a
y
E
x
p
o
r
t
1
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
4
,
3
3
3
$
38
6
Cu
s
t
o
m
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
f
o
r
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
U
C
R
a
n
d
E
C
A
R
S
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
)
1
-
w
a
y
E
x
p
o
r
t
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
,
0
0
0
$
38
8
Cu
s
t
o
m
I
/
I
n
f
o
r
m
e
r
Q
u
e
r
i
e
s
f
r
o
m
W
e
b
R
M
S
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
7
)
1
-
w
a
y
E
x
p
o
r
t
1
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
4
,
3
3
3
$
39
0
Cu
s
t
o
m
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
f
o
r
"
E
n
t
e
r
s
"
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
S
w
i
t
c
h
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
8
)
In
c
l
u
d
e
s
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
(
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
B
o
a
t
,
St
o
l
e
n
a
n
d
M
i
s
s
i
n
g
)
,
P
e
r
s
o
n
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
W
a
n
t
e
d
,
Mi
s
s
i
n
g
)
a
n
d
A
r
t
i
c
l
e
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
P
a
w
n
,
S
t
o
l
e
n
)
.
1
2
3
,
1
1
0
$
2
3
,
1
1
0
$
2
,
8
8
9
$
39
4
In
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
t
o
C
o
p
l
i
n
k
V
i
a
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
1
39
6
In
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
t
o
C
r
i
m
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
.
c
o
m
V
i
a
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
1
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
t
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
t
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
Mt
V
i
e
w
_
W
e
b
R
M
S
_
$
0
9
1
8
1
3
$
d
l
s
(
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
)
.
x
l
s
m
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
a
r
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
7
P
r
i
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Va
l
i
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
1
1
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
3
Vi
r
t
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
W
e
b
R
M
S
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
U
S
$
U
S
$
U
S
$
IT
E
M
It
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
B
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
Q
t
y
U
n
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
c
e
So
f
t
w
a
r
e
Ma
i
n
t
.
(4
0
1
)
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
F
B
R
W
e
b
S
e
r
v
e
r
40
3
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
F
i
e
l
d
B
a
s
e
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
S
v
r
L
i
c
(
R
M
S
0
0
0
4
)
1
2
9
,
0
0
0
$
2
9
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
7
0
8
$
40
4
Ap
a
c
h
e
T
o
m
C
a
t
7
(
F
r
e
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
e
t
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
)
1
40
5
Mi
c
r
o
s
o
f
t
S
Q
L
S
e
r
v
e
r
2
0
0
8
R
2
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
(
F
r
e
e
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
)
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
(R
D
B
M
S
)
1
(4
3
0
)
Ap
a
c
h
e
/
I
I
S
H
o
s
t
S
e
r
v
e
r
#
1
(
L
o
a
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
)
43
2
Ap
a
c
h
e
T
o
m
C
a
t
7
(
F
r
e
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
e
t
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
)
1
(4
3
4
)
Ap
a
c
h
e
/
I
I
S
H
o
s
t
S
e
r
v
e
r
#
2
(
L
o
a
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
)
43
6
Ap
a
c
h
e
T
o
m
C
a
t
7
(
F
r
e
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
e
t
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
)
1
(4
3
8
)
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
W
e
b
R
M
S
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
S
e
r
v
e
r
#
1
(
F
a
i
l
o
v
e
r
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
)
44
0
MS
S
Q
L
S
e
r
v
e
r
2
0
0
8
R
2
E
E
R
u
n
t
i
m
e
(
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
r
)
(
E
6
6
-
0
0
1
6
5
)
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
(R
D
B
M
S
)
1
1
3
,
9
6
6
$
1
3
,
9
6
6
$
2
,
6
5
2
$
(4
4
2
)
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
W
e
b
R
M
S
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
S
e
r
v
e
r
#
2
(
F
a
i
l
o
v
e
r
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
)
44
4
MS
S
Q
L
S
e
r
v
e
r
2
0
0
8
R
2
E
E
R
u
n
t
i
m
e
(
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
r
)
(
N
o
C
h
a
r
g
e
)
(
E
6
6
-
0
0
1
6
5
N
C
)
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
(R
D
B
M
S
)
1
(4
4
6
)
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
W
e
b
R
M
S
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
s
t
/
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
e
r
44
8
We
b
R
M
S
S
e
r
v
e
r
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
-
T
e
s
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
0
0
1
6
T
S
T
)
1
44
9
Ap
a
c
h
e
T
o
m
C
a
t
7
(
F
r
e
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
e
t
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
)
(
D
e
n
a
l
i
-
7
)
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
(R
D
B
M
S
)
1
45
0
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
f
o
r
E
c
l
i
p
s
e
1
(4
5
2
)
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
W
e
b
R
M
S
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
T
e
s
t
/
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
e
r
45
4
MS
S
Q
L
S
e
r
v
e
r
2
0
0
8
R
2
S
E
R
u
n
t
i
m
e
(
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
r
)
(
E
6
5
-
0
0
1
7
5
)
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
(R
D
B
M
S
)
1
3
,
7
5
4
$
3
,
7
5
4
$
7
2
0
$
(4
6
0
)
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
W
e
b
R
M
S
F
B
R
T
e
s
t
/
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
e
r
46
1
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
F
i
e
l
d
B
a
s
e
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
T
e
s
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
0
0
0
4
T
S
T
)
1
46
2
Ap
a
c
h
e
T
o
m
C
a
t
7
(
F
r
e
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
e
t
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
)
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
(R
D
B
M
S
)
1
46
3
Mi
c
r
o
s
o
f
t
S
Q
L
S
e
r
v
e
r
2
0
0
8
R
2
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
(
F
r
e
e
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
)
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
(R
D
B
M
S
)
1
(4
6
5
)
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
W
e
b
R
M
S
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
T
e
s
t
/
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
e
r
46
7
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
L
i
n
k
(
I
P
S
0
0
3
0
-
1
)
1
46
9
I/
I
n
f
o
r
m
e
r
t
o
i
n
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
-
T
e
s
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
I
P
S
0
0
0
4
A
T
S
T
)
1
47
1
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
C
A
G
I
S
S
e
r
v
e
r
-
T
e
s
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
0
0
0
8
T
S
T
)
1
47
9
Ed
g
e
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
-
T
e
s
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
I
P
S
2
0
4
2
T
S
T
)
1
48
1
Ed
g
e
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
P
a
c
k
-
T
e
s
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
I
P
S
2
0
4
2
A
T
S
T
)
1
48
3
Ed
g
e
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
A
d
a
p
t
e
r
K
i
t
f
o
r
i
n
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
R
M
S
-
T
e
s
t
(
I
P
S
2
0
4
4
T
S
T
)
1
(4
9
6
)
vC
e
n
t
e
r
S
e
r
v
e
r
49
8
Mi
c
r
o
s
o
f
t
S
Q
L
S
e
r
v
e
r
2
0
0
8
R
2
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
(
F
r
e
e
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
)
Re
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
(R
D
B
M
S
)
1
49
9
vC
e
n
t
e
r
S
e
r
v
e
r
1
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
t
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
t
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
t
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
t
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
t
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
t
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
t
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
t
n
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
Mt
V
i
e
w
_
W
e
b
R
M
S
_
$
0
9
1
8
1
3
$
d
l
s
(
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
)
.
x
l
s
m
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
a
r
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
g
e
2
o
f
7
P
r
i
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Va
l
i
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
1
1
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
3
Vi
r
t
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
W
e
b
R
M
S
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
U
S
$
U
S
$
U
S
$
IT
E
M
It
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
B
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
Q
t
y
U
n
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
c
e
So
f
t
w
a
r
e
Ma
i
n
t
.
(5
7
0
)
Su
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
W
o
r
k
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
57
4
We
b
R
M
S
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
U
s
e
r
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
0
0
1
7
)
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
1
1
,
6
0
0
$
1
,
6
0
0
$
3
7
2
$
(5
9
3
)
We
b
R
M
S
W
o
r
k
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
/
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
/
L
o
s
A
l
t
o
s
)
59
4
RM
S
W
o
r
k
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
I
B
M
C
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
D
u
a
l
C
o
r
e
I
n
t
e
l
o
r
AM
D
,
2
G
B
,
8
0
G
B
H
a
r
d
D
r
i
v
e
,
F
l
o
p
p
y
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
1
6
x
C
D
/
D
V
D
-
R
O
M
,
G
i
g
a
b
i
t
Et
h
e
r
n
e
t
P
o
r
t
;
1
S
e
r
i
a
l
P
o
r
t
;
1
U
S
B
P
o
r
t
;
W
i
n
d
o
w
s
®
X
P
P
r
o
o
r
7
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
(U
A
C
D
i
a
b
l
e
d
)
3
2
b
i
t
o
r
6
4
b
i
t
;
D
u
a
l
1
9
"
F
l
a
d
P
a
n
e
l
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
;
1
0
2
4
x
7
6
8
,
2
5
6
Vi
d
e
o
;
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
M
S
O
f
f
i
c
e
W
o
r
d
a
n
d
E
x
c
e
l
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
;
W
e
b
B
r
o
w
s
e
r
fo
r
W
e
b
R
M
S
We
b
R
M
S
W
o
r
k
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
/
P
a
l
o
Al
t
o
/
L
o
s
A
l
t
o
s
)
24
59
6
We
b
R
M
S
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
U
s
e
r
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
0
0
1
7
)
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
2
4
1
,
6
0
0
$
3
8
,
4
0
0
$
8
,
9
2
8
$
59
7
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
C
A
G
I
S
-
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
U
s
e
r
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
0
0
0
9
)
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
3
1
,
5
0
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
0
4
4
$
(6
0
0
)
Mo
b
i
l
e
D
a
t
a
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
(
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
/
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
/
L
o
s
A
l
t
o
s
)
60
3
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
F
i
e
l
d
B
a
s
e
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
-
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
1
1
0
5
)
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
4
0
1
,
5
9
0
$
6
3
,
6
0
0
$
1
4
,
4
0
0
$
(6
0
9
)
We
b
R
M
S
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
D
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
e
r
A
c
a
d
e
m
y
-
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
/
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
)
61
1
We
b
R
M
S
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
U
s
e
r
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
-
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
(
R
M
S
0
0
1
7
T
R
N
)
5
8
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
8
6
0
$
(6
3
2
)
Ot
h
e
r
H
a
r
d
w
a
r
e
a
n
d
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
63
5
De
l
l
P
o
w
e
r
E
d
g
e
R
6
2
0
D
u
a
l
E
i
g
h
t
-
C
o
r
e
I
n
t
e
l
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
r
s
;
1
9
2
G
B
D
D
R
#
R
A
M
;
T
w
o
(2
)
2
G
B
S
D
C
a
r
d
s
,
M
i
r
r
o
r
e
d
;
D
V
D
-
R
O
M
C
o
m
b
o
D
r
i
v
e
;
E
S
X
5
.
1
E
E
+
O
S
;
F
o
u
r
(
4
)
1G
B
N
I
C
,
C
o
p
p
e
r
;
Q
l
o
g
i
c
2
5
6
2
D
u
a
l
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
8
G
B
O
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
i
b
r
e
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
H
B
A
;
U
He
i
g
h
t
-
1
,
P
l
u
g
t
y
p
e
-
C
1
3
(
Q
t
y
2
)
V
M
w
a
r
e
5
.
1
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
P
l
u
s
C
P
U
(
Q
t
y
2
)
;
5
y
e
a
r
s
Pr
o
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
I
T
(
2
4
x
7
H
W
/
S
W
)
;
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
(
4
-
h
o
u
r
s
7
x
2
4
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
su
p
p
o
r
t
)
(
T
B
D
H
W
1
)
Ho
s
t
S
e
r
v
e
r
s
f
o
r
W
e
b
R
M
S
V
i
r
t
u
a
l
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
s
3
(6
4
2
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
64
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
1
8
0
,
8
0
0
$
8
0
,
8
0
0
$
64
7
BI
-
D
i
r
e
c
t
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
1
1
5
,
9
7
4
$
1
5
,
9
7
4
$
67
0
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
R
M
S
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
1
2
2
9
,
4
5
2
$
2
2
9
,
4
5
2
$
(6
8
6
)
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
76
8
We
b
R
M
S
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
1
6
,
7
5
6
$
6
,
7
5
6
$
76
9
FB
R
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
1
5
,
3
1
2
$
5
,
3
1
2
$
77
0
We
b
R
M
S
/
F
B
R
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
T
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
1
6
,
7
5
6
$
6
,
7
5
6
$
77
1
We
b
R
M
S
U
s
e
r
T
r
a
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
T
r
a
i
n
e
r
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
1
8
,
2
0
0
$
8
,
2
0
0
$
77
2
FB
R
T
r
a
i
n
-
t
h
e
-
T
r
a
i
n
e
r
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
1
6
,
7
5
6
$
6
,
7
5
6
$
77
3
We
b
R
M
S
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
&
D
e
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
1
5
,
3
1
2
$
5
,
3
1
2
$
77
4
BI
D
i
r
e
c
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
1
6
,
7
5
6
$
6
,
7
5
6
$
77
5
BI
D
i
r
e
c
t
E
n
d
U
s
e
r
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
1
9
,
6
4
4
$
9
,
6
4
4
$
77
6
Cr
i
m
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
G
I
S
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
1
8
,
2
0
0
$
8
,
2
0
0
$
(7
8
5
)
Sh
i
p
p
i
n
g
,
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
B
o
n
d
s
,
E
s
c
r
o
w
,
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
,
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
78
6
Sh
i
p
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
1
1
6
0
$
1
6
0
$
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
Mt
V
i
e
w
_
W
e
b
R
M
S
_
$
0
9
1
8
1
3
$
d
l
s
(
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
)
.
x
l
s
m
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
a
r
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
g
e
3
o
f
7
P
r
i
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Va
l
i
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
1
1
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
3
Vi
r
t
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
W
e
b
R
M
S
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
U
S
$
U
S
$
U
S
$
IT
E
M
It
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
B
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
Q
t
y
U
n
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
c
e
So
f
t
w
a
r
e
Ma
i
n
t
.
(7
9
5
)
TO
T
A
L
S
Y
S
T
E
M
B
A
S
E
P
R
I
C
E
:
79
6
Su
b
-
T
o
t
a
l
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
o
f
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
,
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
&
T
a
x
e
s
1,
0
2
9
,
0
4
6
$
1
3
9
,
2
1
0
$
79
7
On
e
T
i
m
e
S
y
s
t
e
m
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
f
o
r
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
n
l
y
(2
9
6
,
7
1
9
)
$
79
8
Su
b
-
T
o
t
a
l
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
o
f
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
&
T
a
x
e
s
73
2
,
3
2
7
$
1
3
9
,
2
1
0
$
80
0
In
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
F
i
r
s
t
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
)
91
,
7
2
8
$
80
1
In
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
i
r
s
t
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
(6
,
4
2
1
)
$
80
2
In
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
F
i
r
s
t
Y
e
a
r
C
u
s
t
o
m
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
)
39
,
1
6
6
$
80
3
Th
i
r
d
P
a
r
t
y
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
-
F
i
r
s
t
Y
e
a
r
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
)
8,
3
1
6
$
80
6
Gr
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
o
f
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
O
p
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
a
x
e
s
Ta
x
E
x
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
86
5
,
1
1
6
$
80
8
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
F
i
r
s
t
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
)
1
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
B
a
s
e
81
0
Se
c
o
n
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
F
o
r
m
s
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
I
t
e
m
i
z
e
d
Se
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
B
e
l
o
w
(
b
e
g
i
n
s
a
f
t
e
r
1
2
M
o
n
t
h
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
P
e
r
i
o
d
)
In
c
l
u
d
e
s
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
a
n
d
T
h
i
r
d
-
P
a
r
t
y
Sy
s
t
e
m
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
1
1
2
4
,
9
0
4
$
81
1
Se
c
o
n
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
Fo
r
m
s
(
C
H
P
5
5
5
,
5
5
6
&
5
5
6
D
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
)
1
2
,
2
4
0
$
81
2
Se
c
o
n
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
(C
H
P
1
8
0
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
3
)
1
2
,
4
2
7
$
81
3
Se
c
o
n
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
F
o
r
m
a
n
d
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
2
)
1
7
5
8
$
81
4
Se
c
o
n
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
C
a
s
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
9
)
1
6
,
0
6
6
$
81
5
Se
c
o
n
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
F
i
e
l
d
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
5
)
1
3
,
0
3
3
$
81
7
T
h
i
r
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
F
o
r
m
s
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
I
t
e
m
i
z
e
d
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
B
e
l
o
w
1
1
3
1
,
1
4
8
$
81
8
Th
i
r
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
Fo
r
m
s
(
C
H
P
5
5
5
,
5
5
6
&
5
5
6
D
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
)
1
2
,
3
5
2
$
81
9
Th
i
r
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
(C
H
P
1
8
0
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
3
)
1
2
,
5
4
8
$
82
0
Th
i
r
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
F
o
r
m
a
n
d
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
2
)
1
7
9
6
$
82
1
Th
i
r
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
C
a
s
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
9)
1
6
,
3
7
0
$
82
2
Th
i
r
d
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
F
i
e
l
d
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
5
)
1
3
,
1
8
5
$
82
4
F
o
u
r
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
F
o
r
m
s
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
I
t
e
m
i
z
e
d
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
B
e
l
o
w
1
1
3
7
,
7
0
6
$
82
5
Fo
u
r
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
Fo
r
m
s
(
C
H
P
5
5
5
,
5
5
6
&
5
5
6
D
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
)
1
2
,
4
6
9
$
82
6
Fo
u
r
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
(C
H
P
1
8
0
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
3
)
1
2
,
6
7
5
$
82
7
Fo
u
r
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
F
o
r
m
a
n
d
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
2
)
1
8
3
6
$
Mt
V
i
e
w
_
W
e
b
R
M
S
_
$
0
9
1
8
1
3
$
d
l
s
(
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
)
.
x
l
s
m
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
a
r
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
g
e
4
o
f
7
P
r
i
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Va
l
i
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
1
1
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
3
Vi
r
t
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
W
e
b
R
M
S
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
U
S
$
U
S
$
U
S
$
IT
E
M
It
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
B
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
Q
t
y
U
n
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
c
e
So
f
t
w
a
r
e
Ma
i
n
t
.
82
8
Fo
u
r
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
C
a
s
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
9)
1
6
,
6
8
8
$
82
9
Fo
u
r
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
F
i
e
l
d
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
5
)
1
3
,
3
4
4
$
83
1
F
i
f
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
F
o
r
m
s
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
I
t
e
m
i
z
e
d
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
B
e
l
o
w
1
1
4
4
,
5
9
1
$
83
2
Fi
f
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
s
(C
H
P
5
5
5
,
5
5
6
&
5
5
6
D
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
)
1
2
,
5
9
3
$
83
3
Fi
f
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
(C
H
P
1
8
0
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
3
)
1
2
,
8
0
9
$
83
4
Fi
f
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
F
o
r
m
a
n
d
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
2
)
1
8
7
8
$
83
5
Fi
f
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
C
a
s
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
9
)
1
7
,
0
2
3
$
83
6
Fi
f
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
F
i
e
l
d
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
5
)
1
3
,
5
1
1
$
83
8
S
i
x
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
F
o
r
m
s
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
I
t
e
m
i
z
e
d
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
B
e
l
o
w
1
1
5
1
,
8
2
1
$
83
9
Si
x
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
s
(C
H
P
5
5
5
,
5
5
6
&
5
5
6
D
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
)
1
2
,
7
2
3
$
84
0
Si
x
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
(C
H
P
1
8
0
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
3
)
1
2
,
9
4
9
$
84
1
Si
x
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
F
o
r
m
a
n
d
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
2
)
1
9
2
2
$
84
2
Si
x
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
C
a
s
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
9)
1
7
,
3
7
4
$
84
3
Si
x
t
h
Y
e
a
r
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
-
F
i
e
l
d
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
5
)
1
3
,
6
8
7
$
84
5
To
t
a
l
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
o
u
r
Y
e
a
r
s
'
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
f
t
e
r
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
77
0
,
4
2
7
$
85
8
(8
5
9
)
Op
t
i
o
n
s
:
86
0
(P
r
o
j
e
c
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
.
T
h
i
r
d
p
a
r
t
y
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
p
r
i
c
e
s
86
1
a
r
e
v
a
l
i
d
f
o
r
o
n
l
y
9
0
d
a
y
s
.
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
c
a
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
i
x
e
d
q
u
o
t
e
w
h
e
n
o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
e
m
s
a
r
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
.
)
86
2
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
:
86
3
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
R
M
S
D
a
t
a
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
1
5
2
,
1
6
4
$
5
2
,
1
6
4
$
86
4
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
R
M
S
D
a
t
a
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
1
1
6
,
9
0
4
$
1
6
,
9
0
4
$
86
8
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
C
u
s
t
o
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
86
9
EF
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
t
o
L
i
v
e
S
c
a
n
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
)
1
-
w
a
y
E
x
p
o
r
t
1
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
4
,
3
3
3
$
87
1
Fi
e
l
d
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
R
e
p
o
r
t
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
G
a
n
g
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
F
i
e
l
d
s
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
8
)
1
6
,
3
1
9
$
6
,
3
1
9
$
1
,
2
6
4
$
87
3
Im
p
o
r
t
G
a
n
g
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
D
a
t
a
t
o
F
i
e
l
d
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
o
d
u
l
e
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
9
)
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
i
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
n
g
F
i
e
l
d
In
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
F
i
e
l
d
s
t
o
t
h
e
W
e
b
R
M
S
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
1
3
,
6
1
1
$
3
,
6
1
1
$
7
2
2
$
Mt
V
i
e
w
_
W
e
b
R
M
S
_
$
0
9
1
8
1
3
$
d
l
s
(
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
)
.
x
l
s
m
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
a
r
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
g
e
5
o
f
7
P
r
i
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Va
l
i
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
1
1
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
3
Vi
r
t
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
W
e
b
R
M
S
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
U
S
$
U
S
$
U
S
$
IT
E
M
It
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
B
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
Q
t
y
U
n
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
c
e
So
f
t
w
a
r
e
Ma
i
n
t
.
87
5
Fi
e
l
d
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
5
)
Re
p
o
r
t
CO
T
S
F
i
e
l
d
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
f
o
r
m
w
i
l
l
b
e
cu
s
t
o
m
i
z
e
d
t
o
m
o
r
e
c
l
o
s
e
l
y
r
e
s
e
m
b
l
e
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Vi
e
w
’
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
1
1
4
,
4
4
4
$
1
4
,
4
4
4
$
2
,
8
8
9
$
88
0
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
/
F
o
r
m
s
:
88
1
El
d
e
r
A
b
u
s
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
1
)
C
u
s
t
o
m
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
1
8
,
0
5
5
$
1
8
,
0
5
5
$
3
,
6
1
1
$
88
3
Ch
i
l
d
A
b
u
s
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
4
)
Re
p
o
r
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
F
B
R
f
o
r
m
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
th
e
d
a
t
a
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
a
pd
f
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
i
n
t
e
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
1
3
6
,
1
1
0
$
3
6
,
1
1
0
$
7
,
2
2
2
$
88
5
Af
f
i
d
a
v
i
t
:
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
I
d
e
n
t
i
t
y
o
f
V
i
c
t
i
m
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
0
)
Re
p
o
r
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
F
B
R
f
o
r
m
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
u
s
e
a
c
u
s
t
o
m
se
a
r
c
h
t
o
a
u
t
o
-
f
i
l
l
v
i
c
t
i
m
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
fo
r
m
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
i
m
p
o
r
t
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
M
S
b
u
t
c
a
n
b
e
ma
n
u
a
l
l
y
s
c
a
n
n
e
d
a
n
d
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
af
t
e
r
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
.
1
2
5
,
2
7
7
$
2
5
,
2
7
7
$
5
,
0
5
5
$
88
7
Ju
v
e
n
i
l
e
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
3
)
Re
p
o
r
t
De
v
e
l
o
F
B
R
f
o
r
m
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
th
e
d
a
t
a
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
a
pd
f
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
i
n
t
e
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
.
1
2
8
,
8
8
8
$
2
8
,
8
8
8
$
5
,
7
7
8
$
88
9
Si
n
g
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
i
n
g
S
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
p
e
r
A
g
e
n
c
y
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
6
)
1
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
89
1
Af
f
i
d
a
v
i
t
:
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
C
a
u
s
e
a
n
d
B
a
i
l
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
F
o
r
m
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
7
)
Fo
r
m
De
v
e
l
o
p
F
B
R
F
o
r
m
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
a
u
t
o
-
f
i
l
l
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
c
a
u
s
e
a
f
f
i
d
a
v
i
t
an
d
a
l
l
o
w
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
e
n
t
r
y
.
T
h
i
s
fo
r
m
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
i
m
p
o
r
t
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
R
M
S
b
u
t
c
a
n
b
e
ma
n
u
a
l
l
y
s
c
a
n
n
e
d
a
n
d
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
af
t
e
r
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
.
1
2
8
,
8
8
8
$
2
8
,
8
8
8
$
5
,
7
7
8
$
89
3
Pr
e
-
B
o
o
k
i
n
g
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
S
h
e
e
t
F
o
r
m
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
8
)
Fo
r
m
De
v
l
o
p
F
B
R
f
o
r
m
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
u
s
e
a
c
u
s
t
o
m
se
a
r
c
h
t
o
a
u
t
o
-
f
i
l
l
a
r
r
e
s
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
pr
e
-
b
o
o
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
m
a
n
d
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
o
f
f
i
c
e
r
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
a
s
n
o
t
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
d
a
s
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
r
e
s
t
.
T
h
i
s
f
o
r
m
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
i
m
p
o
r
t
in
t
o
t
h
e
R
M
S
b
u
t
c
a
n
b
e
m
a
n
u
a
l
l
y
s
c
a
n
n
e
d
an
d
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
r
e
s
t
,
i
f
d
e
s
i
r
e
d
.
1
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
4
,
3
3
3
$
89
5
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
-
F
B
R
D
r
i
v
i
n
g
U
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
A
r
r
e
s
t
-
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
v
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
C
H
P
20
2
)
(
I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
1
9
)
1
5
7
,
7
7
6
$
5
7
,
7
7
6
$
1
1
,
5
5
5
$
89
7
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
-
W
e
b
R
M
S
A
d
m
o
n
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
o
b
r
i
e
t
y
T
e
s
t
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
9
0
9
A
)
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
0
)
1
5
7
,
7
7
6
$
5
7
,
7
7
6
$
1
1
,
5
5
5
$
Mt
V
i
e
w
_
W
e
b
R
M
S
_
$
0
9
1
8
1
3
$
d
l
s
(
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
)
.
x
l
s
m
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
a
r
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
g
e
6
o
f
7
P
r
i
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Va
l
i
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
1
1
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
3
Vi
r
t
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
W
e
b
R
M
S
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
U
S
$
U
S
$
U
S
$
IT
E
M
It
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
B
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
Q
t
y
U
n
i
t
P
r
i
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
c
e
So
f
t
w
a
r
e
Ma
i
n
t
.
90
0
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
a
t
r
i
x
I
t
e
m
C
u
s
t
o
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
90
1
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
F
B
R
-
A
d
d
t
h
e
A
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
P
a
s
s
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
4
)
1
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
2
1
,
6
6
6
$
4
,
3
3
3
$
90
3
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
F
B
R
-
A
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
n
d
P
e
r
s
o
n
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
5
)
1
4
,
3
3
3
$
4
,
3
3
3
$
8
6
7
$
90
5
in
P
U
R
S
U
I
T
F
B
R
-
A
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
F
i
e
l
d
(I
P
S
R
M
S
C
U
S
T
-
2
6
)
1
1
8
,
0
5
5
$
1
8
,
0
5
5
$
3
,
6
1
1
$
90
8
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
:
90
9
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
1
6
,
7
5
6
$
6
,
7
5
6
$
10
0
3
10
0
4
No
t
e
s
:
10
0
5
1
.
A
n
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
.
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
s
c
o
p
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
m
a
y
c
h
a
n
g
e
t
he
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
a
m
o
u
n
t
.
A
l
s
o
,
a
n
y
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
g
i
v
e
n
10
0
6
f
o
r
l
i
n
e
i
t
e
m
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
a
C
h
a
n
g
e
O
r
d
e
r
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
i
n
e
p
r
o
r
a
t
e
d
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
o
n
e
-
t
i
m
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
.
I
t
e
m
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
10
0
7
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
c
r
e
d
i
t
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
b
e
i
n
g
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
,
n
o
t
a
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
r
e
d
u
c
t
io
n
.
T
h
i
s
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
10
0
8
o
f
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
’
s
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
T
e
r
m
s
a
n
d
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
10
0
9
2
.
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
t
o
b
e
p
a
i
d
y
e
a
r
l
y
i
n
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
a
n
u
p
l
i
f
t
i
s
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
i
f
n
o
t
p
a
i
d
i
n
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
.
10
1
0
3
.
I
t
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
t
o
s
u
p
p
l
y
a
l
l
M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t
C
l
i
e
n
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
s
(
C
A
L
s
)
,
a
n
d
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
an
c
y
w
i
t
h
M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t
’
s
l
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
f
o
r
10
1
1
C
l
i
e
n
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
s
.
10
1
2
4
.
U
n
l
e
s
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
n
o
t
e
d
,
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
A
R
E
N
O
T
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
o
p
t
i
o
n
p
r
i
c
i
n
g
.
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
10
1
3
v
a
l
i
d
f
o
r
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
a
n
d
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
p
r
i
c
i
n
g
i
s
v
a
l
i
d
f
o
r
o
n
e
y
e
a
r
a
f
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
.
P
r
i
c
i
n
g
f
o
r
o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
h
i
r
d
p
a
r
t
y
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
v
a
l
i
d
f
o
r
10
1
4
9
0
d
a
y
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
d
a
t
e
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
r
i
c
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
.
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
c
a
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
i
x
e
d
q
u
o
t
e
w
h
e
n
o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
e
m
s
a
r
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
ed
.
10
1
5
5
.
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
r
e
m
o
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
'
s
e
r
v
e
r
s
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
e
f
f
o
r
t
a
s
q
u
o
t
e
d
.
10
1
6
6
.
S
a
l
e
s
t
a
x
i
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
q
u
o
t
e
.
F
i
n
a
l
s
a
l
e
s
t
a
x
b
i
l
l
e
d
w
i
l
l
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
t
a
x
r
a
t
e
s
a
t
t
i
m
e
o
f
s
a
l
e
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
l
a
w
.
10
1
7
7
.
T
h
i
r
d
-
P
a
r
t
y
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
T
e
s
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
a
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
of
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
r
T
h
i
r
d
-
P
a
r
t
y
V
e
n
d
o
r
(
s
)
.
10
1
8
8
.
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
t
h
e
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
E
O
C
w
i
l
l
o
n
l
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
l
i
v
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
o
f
c
a
t
a
s
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
d
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
a
t
t
h
e
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
.
10
1
9
9
.
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
o
n
t
h
e
T
e
s
t
/
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
e
r
s
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
u
p
t
o
3
0
d
a
y
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
f
o
r
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
B
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
i
s
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
e
r
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
10
2
0
1
0
.
W
e
b
R
M
S
i
s
t
o
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
A
D
V
i
r
t
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
10
3
6
Mt
V
i
e
w
_
W
e
b
R
M
S
_
$
0
9
1
8
1
3
$
d
l
s
(
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
)
.
x
l
s
m
I
n
t
e
r
g
r
a
p
h
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
a
r
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
g
e
7
o
f
7
Statement of Work
Security, Government and Infrastructure, a Division of Intergraph
Corporation
For the Cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto
and Los Altos
Intergraph Corporation
Statement of Work
For
Records Management Solution and
Field Based Reporting Implementation
[02/20/2013]
Statement of Work Page 1
Table of Contents
Statement of Work Introduction ......................................................................................................... 2
Project Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Customer Project Team Structure ................................................................................................................... 4
Project Management Guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 5
Statement of Work Task Format ...................................................................................................................... 7
Initial System Level Project Tasks ..................................................................................................... 8
1. Project Kick‐Off Meeting .............................................................................................. 8
2. Project Schedule Review ............................................................................................ 11
3. System Hardware Ordering ........................................................................................ 12
4. System Hardware Delivery and Installation ............................................................... 13
RMS/FBR Implementation Tasks ...................................................................................................... 16
5. RMS Business Process Analysis .................................................................................. 16
6. RMS Detailed Requirements Analysis (If Purchased, but not required) .................... 17
7. RMS Interface Control Documentation (ICD) Review and Submittal ......................... 18
8. RMS/FBR Customizations Design Review ................................................................... 20
9. RMS COTS Product Installation in Production Environment ...................................... 21
10. RMS Configuration Training ....................................................................................... 22
11. FBR Configuration Training ......................................................................................... 23
12. Customer Configuration Of RMS and FBR .................................................................. 24
13. FBR Workflow Configuration ...................................................................................... 26
14. RMS/FBR Product Customizations Development (If Purchased) ............................... 27
15. RMS Interface Development ...................................................................................... 28
16. BI Direct and Ad Hoc Reporting .................................................................................. 29
17. RMS/FBR Functional Test Development .................................................................... 31
18. RMS/FBR Integration And Testing by Intergraph ....................................................... 32
19. RMS/FBR System Functional Testing .......................................................................... 33
20. RMS Build Test/Training System ................................................................................ 34
21. RMS Product Documentation ..................................................................................... 36
22. RMS/FBR Training ....................................................................................................... 37
23. RMS Cutover Plan ....................................................................................................... 39
24. RMS System Cutover Readiness Review .................................................................... 40
25. RMS/FBR Cutover ....................................................................................................... 41
26. RMS/FBR 30‐day Functional and Reliability Test ....................................................... 43
27. RMS/FBR Project Closure ........................................................................................... 45
Statement of Work Page 2
STATEMENT OF WORK INTRODUCTION
Intergraph has contracted with the Mountain View California known as (“Customer”) to provide the products and
services identified in the Pricing Detail and Deliverables Summary in Exhibit A-1 of the Mountain View CA Agreement
(“Agreement”) and which are necessary to implement an integrated public safety system for the Customer.
The term “System,” refers to the proposed computer system that Intergraph will provide the Customer, and includes
all hardware, system software, application software, interfaces, ancillary systems and services listed in Exhibit A-1 of
the Agreement. The System is comprised of two primary Systems:
Law Enforcement Records Management (RMS) and Field Based Reporting(FBR) System, collectively
referred to herein as RMS/FBR
The software provided by Intergraph for this system will be the latest certified version available at the time of initial
software installation, and will be the major product version used for production operations cutover. If a major
software release occurs during project implementation, this software release will not be included in the project.
Intergraph generally releases one major features version of the software every 12 to 18 months. Major features
releases are generally accompanied by multiple minor point releases, on a quarterly basis. During project
implementation and prior to “live” production operations, if the inclusion of a point release is mutually determined by
both the Customer and Intergraph to be required to meet system requirements, that point release version may be
installed and implemented.
The Statement of Work herein guides the primary activities and responsibilities for the implementation of the System.
It documents project implementation requirements, identifies each major task within the implementation process, sets
expectations for each party and identifies the criteria by which a task will be considered complete. The Statement of
Work herein is tailored to accommodate the Customer’s-specific requirements. Intergraph will implement the RMS
and FBR Mobile Reporting Systems concurrently, each following a separate set of tasks as detailed in this Statement
of Work and the Project Schedule in Attachment B-6. Several tasks, however, will overlap at the beginning and the
end of the project. These tasks are identified as System Level Project tasks in the Statement of Work.
The Statement of Work includes the following Attachments:
Attachment B-1 – Acceptance Test Plan
Attachment B-2 – Project Deliverable Sign-Off Form
Attachment B-3 – Customer Support Center
Attachment B-4 – Training Plan
Attachment B-5 – WebRMS System Specifications
Attachment B-6 – Project Schedule
Attachment B-7 – Interface Descriptions
Attachment B-8 - Configuration Diagram
Attachment B-9 – Software Requirements Matrix
Attachment B-10 – System Configuration Specifications
The remainder of this section details System Level Project Assumptions that bear on the project cost, schedule and
scope, Project Team Composition, and Project Management Responsibilities.
Statement of Work Page 3
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
The following list includes Intergraph’s assumptions about the Pricing Detail and Deliverables Summary in Exhibit A-1
of the Agreement. Changes in any of the assumptions will affect the scope, schedule and/or cost of the project.
WebRMS and Field Based Reporting will be implemented in a SQL environment;
All “end-user” training will follow a Train-the-Trainer model.
Training will take place during normal business hours, which is typically from 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, and will not
exceed ten (10) hours per 24-hour period.
Training will be provided per the curriculum described in B-4.
Customer is responsible for the WAN/LAN.
Customer is responsible for the wireless infrastructure.
Customer’s wireless infrastructure is similar for all agencies (cellular 3G/4G) and meets minimum bandwidth
requirements as stated in the System Configuration Specifications in Attachment B-10.
Customer is responsible for the purchase, installation and testing of the client/mobile hardware.
All server hardware will conform to the System Configuration Specifications document in B-10.
Customer is responsible for the purchase of physical servers.
Customer is responsible for the installation and testing of all server hardware.
Intergraph and the Customer will be responsible for testing the final system configuration as documented in
the WebRMS, Configuration Diagram as per Attachment B-8.
The operation and availability of the external systems or third party software is the responsibility of the
Customer and necessary for the success of project.
Intergraph will install FBR-related client software on five (5) workstations. Intergraph will train the
Customer’s System Administrator on how to install the client applications on the remaining FBR-related
workstations, per the licenses purchased for each.
Customer is responsible for any hardware and third party software necessary for implementing the systems,
beyond that provided by Intergraph per the contract agreement.
Customer is responsible for maintaining in good working order the third party systems that it operates and
that interface with Intergraph software as part of this project.
The Intergraph Implementation teams must have access to all servers and workstations that are applicable
to the RMS and FBR project. This includes having a Domain Login with local administrative privileges to
remove/install software, access to registries, the ability to set scheduled tasks and remote access to
applicable desktops.
During system implementation, unrestricted VPN access is required for Intergraph developers and
implementers who will need to have multiple resources connecting at the same time. This requirement
enables rapid development and testing of those interfaces that Intergraph cannot test in-house, resolution of
system configuration issues, and troubleshooting capabilities. Intergraph will also require external VPN
access while on site to access various Intergraph resource libraries. After system cutover, Intergraph will
VPN into the live system only at the Customer’s request, and will follow all of the Customer’s required VPN
access procedures.
Statement of Work Page 4
Intergraph will endeavor to provide assistance to the Customer as it identifies process changes and
develops its training tools and materials to facilitate the transition to the Intergraph systems. This assistance
is expected to be provided during the normal course of project work and training. Any additional assistance
may be provided, if desired, at additional cost.
CUSTOMER PROJECT TEAM STRUCTURE
The Customer is responsible for providing resources to staff the Core Project Teams required for a successful
System implementation. The Core Project Teams, Roles and Responsibilities are described in the following sections.
Core Team Roles and Responsibilities:
Core Project Teams must consist of designated agency personnel with the various skill sets, knowledge and
backgrounds required to implement the new RMS/FBR system. The following list identifies the suggested Core
Project Team roles and corresponding responsibilities.
Project Manager – responsible for the day-to-day coordination of project activities with the Customer of
Core Team and Intergraph
Departmental Sponsors – responsible for making decisions on recommended business process changes
and other related items
System Administrator Personnel – responsible for all system administration and configuration
responsibilities related to the new system, all system interfaces and the mobile system
GIS Administrator – responsible for providing Intergraph Map Lead with mapping updates during the
course of the project and for installing map updates after system implementation
RMS Database Administration Personnel – responsible for monitoring and tuning the RMS database to
meet Customer needs
Training Personnel – responsible for training other agency personnel
Subject Matter Experts (i.e. Dispatch supervisor, Records supervisor) – responsible for representing end-
users’ needs;
Core RMS/FBR Project Team
The Customer’s Core RMS/FBR Project Team will consist of the following personnel:
Project Management
Applications Development Manager
Telecommunications Manager
Business Analysts
GIS Programmer/Analyst
MDC Analysts
Database Administrator
Officers
Statement of Work Page 5
Note: Other Subject Matter Experts can be included in specific meetings pertaining to their functional areas (i.e.,
Internal Affairs, Risk Management, etc.).
PROJECT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
In the interest of managing project scope, schedule and cost, all parties agree to adhere to the following:
Project Task Completion Sign-Off Procedure
At the completion of each Task in this Statement of Work, the Intergraph Project Manager and the Customer Project
Manager will jointly sign both the Project Deliverable Sign-Off Form. A template of this form is included in Error!
Reference source not found.-2.
General Project Management Responsibilities
Project management occurs throughout the project and is a component of every task. Overall project management
activities for both Intergraph and the Customer are listed here for reference.
Intergraph’s Project Management Team responsibilities include the following:
Maintaining project communications with the Customer’s Project Manager
Managing the efforts of the Intergraph staff and coordinating Intergraph’s activities with the Customer’s
Project Manager
Conducting monthly status meetings with the Customer’s Project Manager
Conducting weekly project review meetings with the Customer’s Project Manager via telephone conference
calls
Responding to issues raised by the Customer’s Project Managers within ten (10) business days
Preparing and submitting monthly status report which include: the accomplishments of the previous month,
planned activities, and an updated project schedule in Microsoft Project
Preparing and submitting project Change Orders to the Customer’s Project Manager as necessary
Ensuring Intergraph personnel have ample time, resources, and expertise to carry out their respective tasks
and responsibilities
Customer Project Manager Responsibilities include the following:
Maintaining project communications with the Intergraph Project Manager
Managing the efforts of Customer staff and coordinating Customer activities with the Intergraph Project
Manager
Providing input to Intergraph for creation of the monthly status reports
Ensuring that Customer personnel have ample time, resources, and expertise to carry out their respective
tasks and responsibilities
Participating in the status meeting with the Intergraph Project Manager on a monthly basis or as may
otherwise be reasonably required to discuss project status
Statement of Work Page 6
Participating in the weekly project review meetings with the Intergraph Project Manager via telephone
conference calls
Providing responses to issues raised by the Intergraph Project Manager within ten (10) business days
Serving as liaison with all Customer-provided third-party vendors and associated systems
Ensuring that acceptable Change Orders are approved by authorized signature(s)
Ensuring timely payment of invoices
Ensuring Intergraph have access to server and network equipment and work areas on a 24x7 basis, with
pre-authorization for off-hours
Providing workspace for Intergraph personnel as reasonably requested
Escalation Procedures
During the course of project implementation, the Cities will have access to various Intergraph resources to assist on
any issues that may need attention. However, the Project Manager identified below will act as a single point of
contact at Intergraph, and is assigned and empowered to handle any situation before, during, and extending to after
the deployment of the project. If the Cities feel that tasks are not being performed to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Cities, the following hierarchical escalation process will be used to ensure that the appropriate personnel of
Intergraph are aware of such issue(s) and will assist the parties with resolution.
Intergraph’s hierarchical escalation will be as follows:
Intergraph Escalation
Position
Contact Information
Project Manager David Bonini
(510)223-5818
david.bonini@intergraph.com
Executive Manager-
Technical, Project
Operations
Will Daniels
(256)730-8160
will.daniels@intergraph.com
Vice President, Public
Safety Operations
David McDonald
(256)730-8710
david.mcdonald@intergraph.com
Cities’ hierarchical escalation will be as follows:
Cities Escalation
Position
Contact Information
Project Manager TBD
Statement of Work Page 7
Cities Escalation
Position
Contact Information
Mountain View Police Field
Operations Commander
Mountain View Police Chief
Mountain View City
Manager
STATEMENT OF WORK TASK FORMAT
Each task identified in the Statement of Work includes the following: Task Description, Intergraph/Customer
Participants, Prerequisites, Deliverables, Intergraph/Customer Responsibilities and Completion Criteria. All parties
recognize that the tasks defined in the SOW may not be listed chronologically, and that the actual project
implementation tasks and time lines will follow the mutually agreed to Project Schedule, unless otherwise noted.
Statement of Work Page 8
INITIAL SYSTEM LEVEL PROJECT TASKS
The following four (4) tasks occur at the system level and include the RMS/FBR Project Teams.
1. PROJECT KICK-OFF MEETING
The objective of this task is to ensure that all project assumptions are valid and all requirements understood prior to
beginning any significant work. Cost adjustments may apply if assumptions are not correct, or requirements have
evolved, per the agreed upon Change Order process. A meeting for project kick-off will be held on-site after the
SOW has been executed. During this meeting, the following topics will be covered:
Contract Review
A review of Intergraph project team roles, assignments, and support levels
Identification of the Cities project team requirements
Process review of how the system will be implemented
Contract Change Order process
Communication to other personnel who will be involved with utilizing the system
Cities’ facility access and security requirements (during and after normal business hours)
Work space requirements for Intergraph personnel while on site
Facility tour to be conducted by the Cities’ Project Manager
Identification of any known project schedule constraints
Discussion of interfaces and the information needed from the Cities for special interface
development
Review of hardware being supplied by Intergraph and the Cities (if applicable)
Review of software and software versions being supplied by Intergraph and the Cities plus a
clarification of the operating system, Database version to be implemented, and a review of third-
party products specified in the contract pricing
Third-party products specified in the contract pricing
Known project risks
Additionally, Intergraph will provide the Customer with questionaires to gather information regarding workflows in
areas affected by the implementation of the new System.
The software provided by Intergraph for this system will be the latest certified version available at the time of initial
software installation, as mutually agreed upon Intergraph generally follows a software release schedule with a
release of one major Features version software every 12 to 18 months. This major Features release is accompanied
by multiple point “fixes” releases, generally on a quarterly basis. During project implementation and prior to “live”
operations, it will be mutually agreed upon between the Cities and Intergraph which point fixes release version will be
installed and implemented (if one is available).
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Implementation Manager
Statement of Work Page 9
RMS Lead/Business Analyst
Project Manager(s)
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Contract Signature and/or PO/Notice to Proceed (if applicable)
Distribution of Statement of Work to the Project Team
Deliverables:
Intergraph on-site and remote services
Workflow questionnaires
Project kick-off meeting notes
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Review the project organization, roles and responsibilities with the Customer
Conduct the Project Overview including a review of the Statement of Work to answer any outstanding
questions and verify all aspects of the Project approach, per the topics listed above
Issue Business Process Questionnaires and review the expectations regarding completing the
Questionnaires
Issue Map Specification Document
Work with the Customer to identify and document any potential project risks.
Provide meeting minutes, documented risks and action items that affect project schedule, resources and/or
SOW
Inform Customer of VPN requirements for project implementation and continued system maintenance
Ensure technical accuracy of the Interface Descriptions in Attachment B-7.
Work with the Cities personnel in designing and approving the format of an action item log to be used in
conjunction with the Project Schedule. The purpose of the log is to identify outstanding issues, provide
continual status updates on specific tasks, and to identify responsibilities of the parties.
Work with the Cities to complete required California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) fingerprint/background
clearances prior to Intergraph personnel working within any of the three police facilities and/or on DOJ-
connected systems.
Customer Responsibilities:
Review the SOW and work with Intergraph to verify the project approach
Provide location and logistical support for project planning meeting
Provide Subject Matter Experts and any other resources as recommended by the Customer and Intergraph
Statement of Work Page 10
Project Managers
Begin completing the Business Process Questionnaires
Provide Intergraph with VPN access to the Customer as appropriate for this project and continued software
maintenance
Designate and prepare workspace for Intergraph and Subcontractor personnel
Provide a point of contact for vendors for Customer hardware and software components with which the
Intergraph deliverables will interface
To the extent that it is able to do so, introduce Intergraph to third parties, including other vendors, state and
local agencies, that control products and/or databases with which Intergraph products will be interfaced.
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when the Project Kickoff Session has been held with Intergraph Project
Manager in attendance, an action item/issue tracking log and format for maintaining project meeting minutes
has been developed and agreed to by both Intergraph and the Cities.
Statement of Work Page 11
2. PROJECT SCHEDULE REVIEW
The initial Project Schedule is in Attachment B-6 to this Statement of Work. The Project Schedule identifies all tasks
to be completed by Intergraph and the Customer during the lifecycle of the project, the responsible party for each
task and the project milestones.
During this task, the Intergraph and Customer Project Managers, as well as the Customer Department Project
Sponsors, Intergraph resource allocation or scheduling personnel, and other Customer, Intergraph personnel who
can assist in scheduling decisions, will meet to review the schedule. Intergraph and the Customer will verify the
availability of resources to complete scheduled tasks and adjust the schedule to accommodate any known variations
in availability. The Intergraph Project Manager will update the schedule. It is anticipated that Intergraph will have a
final project schedule ready for review within ten (10) days of completing the Project Schedule Review meeting.
The Project Schedule will be updated as necessary over the course of the Project. All changes to the schedule will
be mutually agreed upon and, if required, documented via the mutually agreed upon Change Order process. Any
schedule changes that occur will be a part of the monthly Project Status Report provided by the Intergraph Project
Manager.
Intergraph Team Participation:
Project Manager(s)
Customer Team Participation:
Department Project Sponsors
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Contract signing
Deliverables:
Completed Project Schedule
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Review with the Cities personnel the identified implementation tasks, priorities, inter-dependencies and
other requirements needed to establish the final Project Schedule.
Prepare the final Project Schedule document and deliver it to the Cities Project Manager.
Review the Project Schedule with the Cities personnel and make changes and/or corrections that are
mutually agreed upon.
Customer Responsibilities:
Analyze with Intergraph project personnel the identified requirements and make such implementation
decisions as are reasonably required to finalize the Project Schedule.
Review the final Project Schedule and identify in writing any specific deficiencies found within ten (10)
business days.
Completion Criteria:
Statement of Work Page 12
This task is considered completed upon mutual agreement of the final Project Schedule. To accommodate
unanticipated Task durations, changes in resource availability and Change Orders, updates to the Project
Schedule will continue until project close.
3. SYSTEM HARDWARE ORDERING
The objective of this task is to complete the Customer purchase orders for hardware and operating system server
software required for the RMS/FBR Reporting System. Based on the RMS Pricing and Detail Summary in Exhibit A-1
and the System Configuration Specifications document in Attachment B-10, and the Configuration Diagram in
Attachment B-8 to this Statement of Work, Intergraph and the Customer will agree upon the hardware and software
that the Customer will purchase. The Customer will provide Intergraph with copies of the purchase requisition for
hardware and operating system software. When Intergraph agrees that the purchase requisition is accurate, the
Customer will order the hardware and operating system software for which they are responsible. Intergraph will fulfill
its responsibilities for this task off-site.
As part of this task, Intergraph will facilitate a discussion with the Customer regarding the Customer’s hardware and
network environment, and will prepare and deliver a Site Preparation Plan specific to the Customer. The Customer
will also need to order any other hardware and system software for which it is responsible, and which it will need to
establish the System’s virtual servers.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Lead
Project Manager(s)
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Project Planning Meeting
Deliverables:
Site Preparation Plan specific to Customer
Final hardware and operating system server software purchase requisitions
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Develop and deliver Site Preparation Plan specific to the Customer
Review Site Preparation Plan, System Configuration Specification Document, RMS Configuration Diagram,
Pricing Detail and Deliverables Summary, and hardware purchase requisition with the Customer
Customer Responsibilities:
Review RMS Configuration Diagram, System Configuration Specification Document, and hardware
requisition
Statement of Work Page 13
Approve of the purchase requisition for hardware and operating system server software
Confirm the Customer location for delivery of hardware and operating system server software
Place order for hardware and operating system server software to be shipped directly to the Customer
location
Order other System hardware and operating software for which the Customer is responsible
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete after Intergraph has delivered the required documents to the Customer, both
the Customer and Intergraph have agreed upon the hardware and operating system server software that is to
be ordered and the Customer has placed the order for the System hardware and operating system server
software.
4. SYSTEM HARDWARE DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION
The objective of this task is for the Customer to install all System hardware, and network components. Before the
hardware is delivered, the Customer will review the locations where the Customer is housing the servers to verify that
the sites are ready for hardware installation. The Customer will inventory the system hardware upon its delivery
before installing the hardware. The Customer will install the hardware and operating system server software and any
other components for which it is responsible. Before Intergraph can install the Intergraph Software, the Customer will
need to provide Intergraph with IP addresses and node names for hardware equipment.
The Customer will confirm that the hardware was delivered and installed in accordance with the following:
Attachment B-8 - Configuration Diagram
Attachment B-10 – System Configuration Specifications
Exhibit A-1 – RMS Pricing and Detail Summary
Intergraph will update the WebRMS Configuration Diagram to depict as-built hardware and server software
information.
Intergraph/Intergraph Team Participation:
Project Manager(s)
RMS Hardware Specialist
Customer Team Participation:
Project Manager
System Administrator
Network Administrator
Hardware Specialist
Prerequisites:
Statement of Work Page 14
Completion of System Hardware Ordering Task
Delivery of System hardware
Delivery of Site Preparation Plan specific to Customer
Deliverables:
Server hardware and Operating System installed and servers configured in accordance with WebRMS
Configuration Diagram and the System Configuration Specification Document
Updated WebRMS Configuration Diagram depicting as-built hardware and server software information
Intergraph responsibilities:
Confirm the Customer site(s) is/are ready for hardware installation
Confirm that the hardware and operating system delivered is accurate per the Intergraph-issued purchase
orders
Customer responsibilities:
Provide IP addresses and node names to Intergraph
Supply all Microsoft Client Access Licenses (CALs) and maintain compliancy with Microsoft’s licensing
policies for Client Access Licenses
Take ownership of hardware received
Inventory hardware upon receipt
House hardware until installation
Confirm hardware delivery location meets environmental requirements
Provide the network and wireless infrastructure, ensuring that the network is ready, and power and serial
port requirements have been met
Install the Customer supplied server hardware
Install the Operating System software
Ensure the System Administrator and Network Administrator are available for the duration of the hardware
and server software installation
Provide electrician and data technician support necessary to facilitate equipment movement and installation
activities as necessary to comply with Customer site-specific regulations and union guidelines
Install additional products not purchased under this contract, such as third-party backup software and
telephony software
Configure the Active Directory (Native Mode) domain, if desired (note that Intergraph recommends a
separate server be used as a domain controller)
Supply any required conduit or cable raceways
Install any network devices such as switches or hubs
Completion Criteria:
Statement of Work Page 15
This task is considered complete when the Customer has installed the server hardware and operating system
software as defined in the Configuration Diagram, Attachment B-8, and the System Configuration Specifications
, Attachment B-10; and the Customer’s Project Manager has verified the hardware and server system software
installation has been completed.
Statement of Work Page 16
RMS/FBR IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
The following Law Enforcement Intergraph product(s)/services will be provided in accordance with this Statement of
Work. Note that the term “RMS” includes WebRMS, FBR, and Crime Analysis in the following sections.
5. RMS BUSINESS PROCESS ANALYSIS
Intergraph will conduct Business Process Analysis (BPA) sessions early in the project lifecycle. The purpose of the
BPA sessions is to enable Intergraph to gain an understanding of the current business processes in place with the
Customer. Additionally, these sessions are designed to help Intergraph and the Customer begin to determine the
most effective and efficient use of the proposed solution before it is implemented. Intergraph will conduct two (2) on-
site BPA session, lasting five (5) days each.
Following the conclusion of the BPA session, Intergraph will develop a Business Process Analysis document. This
document will provide a summary of the Customer’s business processes, as discussed during the BPA meetings,
and will be a combination of narrative and workflow diagrams. The document will also list any decisions and issues
identified during the sessions. Intergraph will provide the BPA document to the Customer for review and incorporate
any Customer feedback and comments into the final version.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Business Analyst
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
SMEs Included in portions of the meeting, as required
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Project Planning Meeting
Project Kick-off Meeting
Deliverables:
Intergraph on-site services– two (2) on-site sessions of five (5) days each
Draft Business Process Analysis Document
Final Business Process Analysis Document
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Conduct Business Process Analysis sessions
Develop Business Process Analysis materials, including an agenda
Statement of Work Page 17
Document Business Process Analysis session findings
Develop draft Business Process Analysis Document
Develop final Business Process Analysis Document
Customer Responsibilities:
Coordinate BPA sessions with Intergraph
Identify BPA attendees and ensure they attend the sessions
Provide meeting room for BPA sessions
Review and approve the Business Process Analysis Document for completeness and accuracy
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when Intergraph has delivered the final Business Process Document
incorporating Customer feedback and the customer has accepted it. The customer will approve the document
within ten business days of receipt or provide (in writing) additional feedback and/or comments.
6. RMS DETAILED REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS (IF PURCHASED, BUT NOT REQUIRED)
The purpose of the Detailed Requirements Analysis task is to finalize the requirements for any product
customizations that the Customer is procuring.
If there are additional RMS/FBR customizations that result from the BPA or other project implementation activities,
Intergraph will provide a quotation and change order.
If required and purchased, Intergraph will conduct two (2) on-site requirements analysis sessions, each lasting four
(4) days. During the requirements analysis sessions, Intergraph will review and confirm its understanding of any
customizations it will need to make to the COTS applications to comply with the Customer’s functional requirements.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Technical Lead
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
SMEs Included in portions of the meeting, as required
Third Party Interface Stakeholders
Project Manager
Deliverables:
Intergraph on-site services – two (2) on-site sessions of four (4) days each
Statement of Work Page 18
Detailed RMS Requirements Analysis Summary
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Conduct on-site Requirements Analysis sessions
Develop the draft RMS Requirements Analysis Summary
Develop the final RMS Analysis Summary
Customer Responsibilities:
Coordinate Requirements Analysis Sessions with Intergraph, as required
Identify the appropriate Subject Matter Experts for the Requirements Analysis sessions (note: appropriate
Subject Matter Experts have the authority to make requirements decisions)
Ensure Subject Matter Experts are available to participate in their designated sessions
Provide meeting rooms for the Requirements Analysis sessions
Identify the appropriate attendees for the Analysis Summary Review meeting; ensure they are available to
participate in the meeting; and have the authority to make requirements decisions
Review the Analysis Summary and provide comments, as required
Approve the final Analysis Summary
Completion Criteria:
This task will be considered complete upon review and approval of the completed Requirements Analysis
Summary developed by Intergraph.
7. RMS INTERFACE CONTROL DOCUMENTATION (ICD) REVIEW AND SUBMITTAL
The Interface Descriptions in Attachment B-7 provide a high-level overview of the interfaces that Intergraph will
develop as part of the System. The goal of this task is to identify and obtain the specific information needed to
configure the interfaces described in Attachment B-7. The Customer will provide a point of contact for all Customer
hardware and software components with which the Intergraph deliverables will interface. The Customer will also
introduce Intergraph to third parties, including other vendors, state agencies, and local agencies that control products
and/or databases with which Intergraph products are to be interfaced. Intergraph is responsible for ensuring that the
third party points of contacts are the appropriate sources of information needed to develop the ICDs and for mutually
agreeing with the third party vendors on the operational and technical interface requirements.
Intergraph will interview points of contact, research interface requirements, and gather any available documentation
that can clarify data schema, protocols and query specifications. Intergraph will develop draft ICDs, which will be
provided to the Customer for review. The Customer will review the functional content of the ICDs and provide
feedback to Intergraph within ten (10) business days. After receiving feedback from the Customer on the draft ICDs,
Intergraph will finalize the ICDs and deliver the final documents to the Customer for approval of the functional content
of the ICDs. Intergraph is responsible for ensuring the technical accuracy of the ICDs.
Intergraph Team Participation:
Project Manager
Statement of Work Page 19
RMS Interface Lead
Customer Team Participation:
Project Manager
Subject Matter Experts
Prerequisites:
Completion of RMS Detailed Requirements Analysis (If Purchased)
Deliverables:
Interface Control Documentation
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Lead the interface requirements gathering process, tracking outstanding items requiring resolution
Confer with Customer and third party points of contacts to gather information required to develop ICDs
Ensure that third party points of contacts are appropriate sources of information necessary to develop ICDs
Mutually agree with the third party vendors on the operational and technical interface requirements
Gather all commercially available interface data detailed schema, protocols, and query specifications, as
needed
Prepare draft ICDs and submit to Customer for feedback
Incorporate Customer feedback into draft ICDs
Finalize Interface Control Documents for Customer review and approval
Customer Responsibilities:
Provide points of contact who are knowledgeable of the workflow and data requirements for each Customer
hardware and software component with which Intergraph deliverables will interface
Provide Intergraph with schema, protocols, and query specifications for Customer hardware and software
components with which Intergraph deliverables will interface
Introduce Intergraph to a primary point of contact for third parties, including other vendors, state agencies,
and local agencies that control products and/or databases with which Intergraph products are to be
interfaced
Provide any additional hardware or software that a third party requires for an interface with the third party
system to operate properly
Respond to Intergraph questions and requests for information in a timely manner
Ensure that design decisions are made conclusively and in a timely manner
Review draft ICDs and provide Intergraph feedback on any necessary changes or updates within ten (10)
business days of receipt
Review and approve the functional content of the final ICDs
Statement of Work Page 20
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when the Customer has reviewed and approved the functional content of the
finalized ICDs.
8. RMS/FBR CUSTOMIZATIONS DESIGN REVIEW
The COTS RMS, FBR, and CAGIS applications will meet the majority of the Customer’s RFP requirements. During
the RMS Customizations Design task, Intergraph will develop designs for FBR custom forms, RMS customizations
and confirm with the Customer that the designs are consistent with its expectations. This effort includes the design of
custom report outputs sold in the contract. Those reports are:
State of California Accident Report Forms (CHP555, 556 & 556D) as specified in the most recent revision of
the California Highway Patrol Collision Investigation Manual (to be provided by the customer)
State of California Vehicle Report Form (CHP180)
State of California Incident Form and Printed Report (UCR)
Combined Case Report
Field Interview Information Report
Intergraph will develop design review materials, including GUI layouts which include the mapping of data entry fields
to the printed report output, FBR mock-up input forms, and FBR output report designs for the procured
customizations. Intergraph will present the customization designs in a “Design Review Decisions Document” and
review with the Customer. Should the Customer discover any inaccuracies they will notify Intergraph within ten (10)
business days. Intergraph will document all feedback and decisions provided by the Customer during this review in a
“Design Review Decision Document.”
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Technical Lead
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
SMEs included in portions of the meeting, as required
Project Manager
Deliverables:
Design Review
Design Review Materials
Design Review Decision Document
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Develop a high level system design, depicting the information flows between all system components
Statement of Work Page 21
Develop design for any significant customizations that are procured, such as FBR custom forms or new
RMS modules
Develop materials for the Design Review
Document Design Review Decisions
Customer Responsibilities:
Coordinate meetings with Intergraph, as required
Identify the appropriate Subject Matter Experts for the Design Review (note that appropriate attendees have
the authority to make requirements and design decisions)
Ensure the Subject Matter Experts are available to participate in the Design Review meeting
Review and approve any design materials, as required
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when the Customer has reviewed and accepted the Design Review Decision
Document.
9. RMS COTS PRODUCT INSTALLATION IN PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT
Intergraph will install the COTS RMS, FBR, and Crime Analysis applications in the Production environment as soon
as Intergraph procures, installs and configures the hardware, providing the Customer with access to the applications
as early as possible in the project lifecycle so it can begin configuration tasks.
Product installation and configuration will include remote services. After the remote installation of the base software,
Intergraph will access the System remotely for subsequent implementation tasks, including configuring components,
setting up interfaces, conducting installation testing, and troubleshooting problems.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Lead
RMS QA Specialists
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
IT Resources
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
VPN access is available
Completion of RMS/FBR System Hardware Delivery and Installation
Deliverables:
COTS RMS, FBR, and Crime Analysis software installed in the Production environment
Statement of Work Page 22
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Install Microsoft SQL Relational Database Management Software
Install COTS WebRMS server software
Install COTS FBR server software
Install COTS FBR client software on five (5) test workstations
Install COTS Crime Analysis server software
Install COTS Crime Analysis client software on two (2) test workstations
Conduct installation “Check Out” testing
Customer Responsibilities:
Provide IT support, as required
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete once the COTS RMS, FBR, and Crime Analysis software has been installed in
the Production environment and is available for testing by the customer.
10. RMS CONFIGURATION TRAINING
Once Intergraph has installed the COTS software, it will conduct the RMS Configuration Training course. The
purpose of this three (3) day course is to inform the RMS Core Team and System Administrators about the
configuration tools they have within the system, as well as the configuration decisions they will need to make.
Examples of decisions include:
What modules will go live at the initial cutover?
What Security Permission Groups are required?
What are the security requirements for each module?
What workflows role need to be defined?
The RMS Configuration Training course will instruct the RMS Core Team and System Administrators how to use
built-in configuration tools. This training will enable them to start configuring the system. This will give the Customer
the opportunity to establish user accounts, define security permission groups, populate code tables, and define
Workflows roles prior to system testing and end-user training. Using bulk loading methods and tools like Microsoft
Excel, Intergraph will assist the customer with loading large tables like code tables and employee data tables.
Intergraph will provide a more detailed System Administrator Training course later in the project lifecycle.
Intergraph Team Participation:
Configuration Trainer
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
Statement of Work Page 23
RMS Core Team, including System Administrators
Project Manager
Deliverables:
RMS Configuration Training Course (3 days)
RMS System Administrator Manual
Prerequisites:
Completion of RMS Detailed Requirements Analysis (If Purchased)
COTS Product Installation in Production Environment
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Conduct RMS Configuration Training course (3 days)
Provide documentation required to support the Customer in their configuration tasks
Customer Responsibilities:
Identify RMS Configuration Training attendees
Provide the RMS Configuration Training facility, which includes one workstation per attendee; one instructor
workstation; and a projector
Ensure RMS Configuration Training attendees attend the full three (3) days of the training session
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete at the conclusion of the RMS Configuration Training session and upon
delivery of the RMS System Administration Manual.
11. FBR CONFIGURATION TRAINING
Once Intergraph has installed the COTS software, it will conduct the FBR Configuration Training course. The
purpose of this two (2) day course is to inform the RMS Core Team and System Administrators about the workflow
configuration tools and options with regard to adding and customizing workflows.
The FBR Configuration Training course will instruct the RMS Core Team and System Administrators how to use and
leverage the FBR administrative tools for successful FBR administration. The class will also allow the Agency to
begin setting up the FBR user groups and roles.
Intergraph will provide a more detailed System Administrator Training course later in the project lifecycle.
Intergraph Team Participation:
Configuration Trainer
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
Statement of Work Page 24
RMS Core Team, including System Administrators
Project Manager
Deliverables:
FBR Configuration Training Course (2 days)
FBR System Administrator Manual
Prerequisites:
Completion of RMS Detailed Requirements Analysis
COTS Product Installation in Production Environment
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Conduct FBR Configuration Training course (2 days)
Provide documentation required to support the Customer in their configuration tasks
Customer Responsibilities:
Identify FBR Configuration Training attendees
Provide the FBR Configuration Training facility, which includes one workstation per attendee; one instructor
workstation; and a projector
Ensure FBR Configuration Training attendees attend the full two (2) days of the training session
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete at the conclusion of the FBR Configuration Training session and upon delivery
of the FBR System Administration Manual.
12. CUSTOMER CONFIGURATION OF RMS AND FBR
During this task, the Customer RMS Core Team and System Administrators will configure the RMS. For example,
they will have the ability to define the following:
Security Permission Groups and Permissions
Record Locking Groups
Code Table Values for every Drop Down Field
Screen Configurations
User Defined Fields
Workflow Management Groups and Processes
The RMS contains many “drop down menus,” which are populated by master code tables. The Customer is
responsible for populating these code tables with allowable code values. For large tables, Intergraph will assist the
customer with loading the data by utilizing bulk loading methods and tools like Microsoft Excel.
Statement of Work Page 25
The Workflow Management Utility provides a powerful tool for the Customer to control the flow of information
throughout the RMS. The Customer has the flexibility to define its Workgroups and the Workflows for each RMS
module.
Concurrent with the FBR configuration period, Intergraph will conduct five onsite RMS/FBR workshops to assist the
customer with their tasks and overcoming challenges that they face. Since each customer is different, there is not a
standard course description for the workshops. Workshops will all be 5 days in duration and intended to be hands on
working sessions. Prior to each workshop, Intergraph will meet and confer with the customer on agendas/goals for
the week as well as schedules.
Intergraph Team Participation:
Configuration Trainer
RMS Lead
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team, including System Administrators
Subject Matter Experts
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
COTS Product Installation in Production Environment
RMS Configuration Training
FBR Configuration Training
Deliverables:
Intergraph remote and onsite services
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Provide guidance to the Customer, as needed via remote and onsite workshops
Customer Responsibilities:
Populate the RMS code tables
Establish RMS user accounts and security permissions
Configure the RMS Workflow Management component
Enter employee data into the Master Employee Index module
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when the Customer has configured the RMS and the RMS is ready for end-
user training. For end-user training to commence, Intergraph requires the Customer complete, at a minimum,
the following configuration tasks:
Statement of Work Page 26
Population of RMS code tables
Security Permission Group definitions
RMS Workflow definitions
Note that while configuration is an ongoing task continuing even after system cutover, the Customer should
define the above minimum configurations before starting end-user training.
13. FBR WORKFLOW CONFIGURATION
The FBR enables each report type (i.e., Incident Report, Field Interview, Crash Report, etc.) to have its own approval
workflow. During this task, Intergraph will work with the Customer to identify the required FBR approval workflow
processes for each FBR report type as well as to define the roles (e.g., Officer, Supervisor, Records, etc.) the
Customer will assign users within the FBR. The Customer will document their FBR workflow roles and processes.
Once the Customer has completed documenting the FBR configurations, Intergraph will assist the customer in
configuring the customer’s FBR Workflows.
Concurrent with the RMS configuration period, Intergraph will conduct five onsite RMS/FBR workshops to assist the
customer with their tasks and overcoming challenges that they face. Since each customer is different, there is not a
standard course description for the workshops. Workshops will all be 5 days in duration and intended to be hands on
working sessions. Prior to each workshop, Intergraph will meet and confer with the customer on agendas/goals for
the week as well as schedules.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Software Engineers
RMS QA Specialists
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team, including System Administrators
Subject Matter Experts
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Completion of RMS/FBR Configuration Training
Deliverables:
FBR Configuration Template
Configured FBR Workflow Component in Production Environment
Statement of Work Page 27
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Provide a blank FBR Configuration Template to the Customer, along with instructions for completing
Support the Customer, as required, as it documents the FBR Workflow requirements in the FBR
Configuration Template
Review the FBR Configuration Template for completeness and accuracy and clarify any issues with the
Customer during weekly meetings and the 5 onsite configuration workshops
Configure the FBR Workflow in the Production environment, per the completed FBR Configuration Template
Conduct FBR Workflow testing in the Production environment
Customer Responsibilities:
Complete the FBR Configuration Template within 10 business days.
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when the agreed upon FBR Workflow has been configured and approved by
the customer as well as deployed in the Production environment and is ready for testing.
14. RMS/FBR PRODUCT CUSTOMIZATIONS DEVELOPMENT (IF PURCHASED)
During this task, Intergraph will develop any customizations approved during of the RMS/FBR Customizations Design
Task and the Design Review Decision Document. Intergraph will install and test the customizations in the Production
Environment. The RMS/FBR system will be ready for Functional Testing upon completion of this task.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Lead
RMS Software Engineers
RMS QA Specialists
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team, including System Administrators
Subject Matter Experts
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
RMS/FBR Customizations Design
Deliverables:
Statement of Work Page 28
Customized RMS application (If Purchased)
Customized FBR application
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Participate in Technical Interchange Meetings to discuss design and implementation of required product
customizations
Implement procured RMS and FBR customizations
Conduct internal unit, integration, and regression testing at Intergraph
Customer Responsibilities:
Review customizations and provide feedback, as required
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when Intergraph has deployed and tested and the customer has approved the
customized RMS and FBR applications, as documented in the Design Review Decision Document, in the
Production environment.
15. RMS INTERFACE DEVELOPMENT
During this task, Intergraph will develop the RMS interfaces per the approved ICDs. Once the interfaces have
passed Intergraph’s internal testing, the interface software will be ready for on-site installation and testing in the
Production environment.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Technical Lead
RMS Interfaces Lead
RMS Software Engineers
RMS QA Specialists
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
SMEs, as Required
Third Party Interface Stakeholders
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Customer review and approval of the Interface Control Documents
Operation or availability of the external system or third-party software
Statement of Work Page 29
Deliverables:
Interface software deployed to the Production environment for testing
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Work with the required stakeholders to review interface requirements and design interfaces
Develop interface use cases
Develop interface test cases
Develop interface software
Conduct internal interface testing, prior to deployment in the Production environment
Install interface software in the Production environment and conduct integration testing
Customer Responsibilities:
For custom interfaces, ensure the required internal and third party stakeholders are available to work with
Intergraph to design interfaces, develop interface software, and test interface software
Provide Subject Matter Expertise to Intergraph, as needed
Verify the physical connectivity between the Customer’s servers, remote agency servers, and external
servers
Provide the following values to Intergraph:
o IP addresses for remote databases
o Socket value for remote systems
o Operator IDs (ORIs, terminal mnemonics, as needed by remote systems
Provide support from the Customer System Administrator to the Intergraph Team, as needed
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when each RMS interface is installed and tested in accordance with the
mutually agreed ICDs and acceptance test plans. The operation or availability of the external system or third-
party software is necessary for task completion.
16. BI DIRECT AND AD HOC REPORTING
During this task, Intergraph will implement the Business Intelligence Direct software (BI Direct) and its Ad hoc
reporting capabilities.
BI Direct offers the ability to perform interactive reporting and analysis on data available in the WebRMS database. BI
Direct provides capabilities for the user to view and modify reports and conduct ad-hoc queries through a secure web
portal. With minimal knowledge of underlying database structures, users can create custom formulas and reports and
analyze data using pre-configured Universes designed for easy reporting use and built with industry terminology.
Statement of Work Page 30
BI reports can be modified and along with Ad hoc reports enable operators to enhance and refine the data in a report
on demand. Report users can modify or build queries that generate an existing report or create a new report. With ad
hoc reporting, operators can also:
View metadata so to see the data that generates the reports and how reports are structured and filtered
Add new tables and charts to existing reports
Modify the format of reports, including the layout of charts and tables
Add new data objects to reports
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Technical Lead
RMS Interfaces Lead
RMS Software Engineers
RMS QA Specialists
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
SMEs, as Required
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Installation and access to BI server and the WebRMS databases that will allow Intergraph to prepare for the
system installation and setting up BI direct product using customer data
VPN access to the BI System servers and WebRMS servers for Intergraph engineers
System Administrator ― Customer is responsible for ensuring that the System Administrator is available to
work with the Intergraph team during installation and configuration.
Deliverables:
Business Intelligence (BI Direct) software products:
Software installation and configuration services
Training services outlined in SOW section 22 and Attachment B-4 – Training Plan including creation of ad
hoc reports
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Provide the software as defined in the contract.
Remote installation and configuration of the BI Direct Solution and SAP BusinessObjects Applications.
Perform training services listed in deliverables of this section including ad hoc reports training.
Perform minor functional training and informal knowledge transfer with System Administrator on all systems
Statement of Work Page 31
installed, reviewing documentation and standard reports.
Customer Responsibilities:
Observe system installation and support as necessary.
Participate in informal knowledge transfer, as well as documentation and system review.
Install additional products not purchased under this contract, such as third-party backup software.
Confirm that the software installation and delivery has been completed by Intergraph.
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when BI is setup and configured and reports are available (both standard
delivered reports and ad hoc) for users with customer data and informal knowledge transfer with System
Administrator has been executed.
17. RMS/FBR FUNCTIONAL TEST DEVELOPMENT
Recognizing that WebRMS is still in development and rapidly evolving, Intergraph will develop the Acceptance Test
Plan as part of this project. Intergraph will provide a Standard Functional Acceptance Test Plan to formally verify
system functionality. Intergraph will also include test procedures that verify the RMS and FBR Performance Criteria.
The Customer will review the Standard Acceptance Test Plan and can add additional site-specific scenarios and
tests, as long as they comply with the functional requirements in the RFP. Intergraph will review all site-specific
scenarios and tests added by the Customer. Intergraph and the Customer will mutually agree upon the final
Functional Test.
The Functional Test criteria and scenarios will include cases to test the ability of the RMS/FBR Systems to work
together as intended. The focus of these criteria and scenarios will be on accessing and transferring data between
the two Systems. Intergraph and the Customer will have input into these integration scenarios.
At the conclusion of the Functional Test development, the Customer will have the ability to use the Functional Tests
to perform independent testing of the RMS and FBR prior to the formal Functional Testing Process with Intergraph.
Intergraph recommends that the Customer perform the independent testing to validate the Functional Test scenarios
and submit any potential changes to Intergraph before formal testing begins.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Technical Lead
Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Completion of the Interfaces Configuration Documentation Review and Submittal
Completion of RMS/FBR Customizations Design
Statement of Work Page 32
Completion of RMS/FBR Configuration Training
Deliverables:
Intergraph remote services to develop Functional Acceptance Test Plan
Functional Tests
Intergraph Responsibilities
Develop and Provide the Standard Functional Acceptance Test Plan
Review and approve Customer revisions to the Functional Tests
Provide input into the Functional Tests that test the integration between the RMS/FBR Systems
Review and approve Customer revisions to the Functional Tests that involve the integration between the
RMS/FBR Systems
Customer Responsibilities:
Review the Functional Tests provided by Intergraph and add any additional tests desired by the Customer
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when the Customer and Intergraph have mutually approved the final
Functional Test Plan.
18. RMS/FBR INTEGRATION AND TESTING BY INTERGRAPH
Once the RMS/FBR Customizations and Interfaces have been tested internally at Intergraph’s facility, Intergraph will
install them in the Production environment. Intergraph will then conduct integration and additional testing activities to
ensure all components are operating as designed. This level of testing is performed by Intergraph and third party
interface stakeholders. It will occur prior to the formal RMS/FBR system Functional Testing. Intergraph will perform
the majority of this task remotely.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Technical Lead
RMS Software Engineers
RMS QA Specialists
RMS Interfaces Lead
Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
IT Resources
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Statement of Work Page 33
Completion RMS/FBR Customization Development
Completion of Interface Development
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Deploy customized RMS and FBR applications to the Production environment
Deploy interfaces to the Production environment
Conduct integration and testing activities remotely
Customer Responsibilities:
Provide IT support, as required
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when the RMS Integration Testing of all RMS Interfaces has been completed
and is operating in accordance with standards as set forth within the mutually agreed ICDs and acceptance test
plans.
19. RMS/FBR SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL TESTING
Per the Acceptance Test Plan in Attachment B-1, the Customer, with on-site assistance from Intergraph will conduct
Functional Testing to confirm RMS/FBR System functionality using the mutually developed Functional Test Plan.
The Customer will verify the operability of each functional item in the Functional Test Plan using a scenario or test
case. Intergraph and the Customer will jointly document and track the results of the test as either pass or fail.
Intergraph will have up to ten (10) business days to correct any functional item that fails a test, or provide a mutually
acceptable written explanation of when the failed item will be addressed. The Customer may conduct additional
Functional Testing within ten (10) business days following the delivery of any corrections.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Technical Lead
RMS Interface Lead
Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Successful completion of all prior RMS/FBR-related tasks
Completion of Intergraph internal RMS/FBR Integration and Functional Testing and mutual confirmation by
the Customer and Intergraph that the RMS/FBR System is ready for testing
Development of Functional Test Document
Statement of Work Page 34
Deliverables:
Intergraph on-site services
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Confirm the basic system capabilities as part of Intergraph standard software certification procedures
Confirm all applicable software, systems and ancillary systems including the redundancy of production
system to be ready for RMS/FBR Functional Testing
Provide on-site assistance during the Functional Testing
Review any discrepancies found by the Customer during the Functional Testing
Correct any functional item that fails a test, or provide a mutually acceptable written explanation of when
Intergraph will correct the failed item
Customer Responsibilities:
Execute Functional Testing
Track and document test results
Conduct re-testing within five (5) business days of receipt of Intergraph provided correction
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when the Customer has provided acknowledgement that the RMS/FBR
System operates in accordance with the Functional Tests and Intergraph has either remedied items that failed
the test or provided a mutually acceptable written explanation of how and when these will be addressed.
20. RMS BUILD TEST/TRAINING SYSTEM
Once the RMS/FBR System has been demonstrated to operate in accordance with the Functional Test Document,
Intergraph will replicate the Production environment into the Test/Training environment. Intergraph will be
responsible for building the Test/Training environment, which it will do remotely.
The Customer and Intergraph will work together to develop mutually acceptable test-case scenarios appropriate to
the Test/Training environment to ensure it operates as intended.
After Intergraph has built the Test/Training environment, this will be tested by both the Customer and Intergraph.
Cutover cannot occur until Intergraph has corrected test failures and the system as a whole passes the tests
indicating that the system will operate as intended in the Test/Training environment and/or mutually acceptable
remedies for the test failures have been developed.
The Customer reserves the right to conduct tests on a corrected Test/Training Environment to ensure that the
failures have been corrected and the Environment operates as intended.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Lead
RMS Software Engineers
Statement of Work Page 35
RMS QA Specialists
RMS Project Manager
Statement of Work Page 36
Customer Team Participation:
IT Resources
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Completion of Functional Testing
Deliverables:
Intergraph on-site services and remote services
RMS/FBR System installed and tested in the Test/Training Environment
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Install the RMS/FBR system in the Test/Training environment and conduct testing to ensure the
Environment operates as intended
Correct any Failures before System Cutover
Customer Responsibilities:
Provide IT support as required
Develop scenarios to test that the Test/Training Environment operates as intended
Document Failures
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when the RMS/FBR System has been installed and tested in the Test/Training
Environment and Intergraph and the Customer both agree that the Test/Training Environment operates as
intended.
21. RMS PRODUCT DOCUMENTATION
Intergraph will deliver the technical and end-user documentation listed under the “Deliverables” section below. To
enable the Customer to copy and distribute the documentation within the Customer to support the project, Intergraph
will deliver documentation in electronic format. If appropriate, the product documentation will be tailored to include
any customizations purchased by the Customer, such as custom FBR forms; however, Intergraph will not be
responsible for customizing the documentation to match the Customer’s system configurations.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Documentation Manager
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
Statement of Work Page 37
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
RMS Product Customizations and Testing
Interface Development and Testing
Deliverables:
Intergraph will deliver the following inPURSUIT product documentation:
System Administration/Technical Documentation:
o RMS System Administrator Manual
o FBR System Administrator Manual
o FBR Client Installation Manual
o RMS Entity Relationship Diagram
o Edge Frontier Technical Manual
User Documentation:
o FBR User Manual
o WebRMS User Manual
o Incident Based Reporting System (IBRS) User Manual
o Crime Analysis Geographical Information System User Manual
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Deliver the product documentation listed above
Customer Responsibilities:
N/A
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete upon delivery, review and acceptance by the Customer of the product
documents listed above under the “Deliverables” section.
22. RMS/FBR TRAINING
Intergraph will provide RMS/FBR Train-the-Trainer courses per the Training Plan in Attachment B-4. The Training
curriculum includes Train-the-Trainer courses designed to prepare Customer trainers for end-user training and
Administration courses designed to prepare Customer technical personnel to operate and support the RMS/FBR
System.
After completion of the Train-the-Trainer courses, the Customer will conduct end-user training for the RMS, FBR and
CAGIS System. Intergraph recommends that the Customer will conduct concurrent training sessions to minimize the
time between training and operational use of the systems in the live environment. It is the Customer’s responsibility
Statement of Work Page 38
to ensure that the majority of end-users are trained prior to Cutover. The Customer and Intergraph will mutually
agree upon the level of end-user training that the Customer needs to complete before Cutover, and the Customer
agrees to fulfill its obligation to train that level of users. Final System Acceptance will not be withheld due to
Customer not completing its training obligations.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Training Manager
RMS Trainers
RMS Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
Designated Customer Trainers
RMS Core Team
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Completion of Functional Testing
Installation and testing of the RMS/FBR in the Testing/Training environment
Delivery of Product Documentation
Deliverables:
Intergraph on-site training services
Intergraph will deliver the following training courses:
o WebRMS Configuration Training (3 days, 1 instructor, 12 students maximum)
o FBR Configuration Training (2 days, 1 instructor, 12 students maximum)
o WebRMS/FBR System IT Administration Training (3 days, 1 instructor, 6 students maximum)
o WebRMS Train the Trainer Training (4 days, 1 instructor, 12 students maximum)
o FBR Train the Trainer Training (3 days, 1 instructor, 12 students maximum)
o Crime Analysis End-User Training (4 days, 1 instructor, 12 students maximum)
o WebRMS Reports Development & Deployment (2 days, 1 instructor, 12 students maximum)
o BI Direct System Administrator Training (2 days, 1 instructor, 6 students maximum)
o BI Direct End User Training (4 days, 1 instructor, 6 students maximum)
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Provide RMS/FBR training for Customer Technical and Training staff members for all installed RMS/FBR
software per a mutually agreed to schedule and as defined in the Pricing Detail Provide one (1) complete
set of printed training materials per student in classes conducted by Intergraph (note that printed training
materials will not include the User Manual, which, due to its large size, will be provided in electronic format
only)
Statement of Work Page 39
Provide machine-readable documents in Microsoft Word, based upon Intergraph’s documentation standard
at the time of delivery. Documentation files will not be password protected
Customer Responsibilities:
Designate and assign personnel to receive training in groups not to exceed the class size listed above
Provide the facilities, supplies and equipment necessary to support training classes, including one full-
function workstation per student, one full-function workstation for the instructor, an LCD, a projection screen,
a whiteboard and connectivity to the server
Provide sufficient copies of the documentation supplied by Intergraph to support all students in the training
classes
Ensure that appropriate Customer Training personnel and system administrator are available to actively
participate in the scheduled training programs and attendees attend scheduled training classes in their
entirety
Ensure that Customer personnel to receive RMS/FBR training are proficient Microsoft Windows users
Provide end-user training to users of the system
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete upon conclusion of the scheduled System Administrator and Train-the-Trainer
courses as per the contract.
23. RMS CUTOVER PLAN
Intergraph and the Customer will jointly develop a Cutover Plan that will detail the steps necessary to move into live
operations. To ensure that the move to live operations goes as smoothly as possible, the Cutover Plan will assign
tasks and responsibilities to both Intergraph and Customer personnel during the final month before cutover to live
operations. The Plan will cover Customer staffing, movement of equipment into final locations, final database clean
out of test events, issue reporting procedures and planned sequence of events for the cutover day.
Intergraph will provide the initial draft of the Cutover Plan to the Customer for review. The Customer will review the
draft and provide feedback to Intergraph within ten (10) business days, which Intergraph will then incorporate the
feedback into a final Cutover Plan.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Lead
Interface Lead
Training Lead
Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
Project Manager
Statement of Work Page 40
Prerequisites:
N/A
Deliverables:
Intergraph remote services
Cutover Plan
Intergraph responsibilities:
Create a draft RMS Cutover Plan
Work with Customer personnel to refine the Cutover Plan
Review and approve the final Cutover Plan
Customer responsibilities:
Review and comment on the draft RMS Cutover Plan within ten (10) business days
Work with Intergraph personnel to refine the Cutover Plan
Review and approve the final Cutover Plan
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when the Customer has received, reviewed and approved the final Cutover
Plan.
24. RMS SYSTEM CUTOVER READINESS REVIEW
The purpose of this meeting between Intergraph and the Customer is to confirm that all preparations for go-live
activities have been completed. This meeting may be conducted via conference call.
The Readiness Review verifies that the following has occurred:
Cutover Plan approval
Pre-Cutover Testing according to the Acceptance Test Plan
Establishment and approval of a schedule for cutover activities
Identification and scheduling of Intergraph and Customer resources required for go-live activities
Notification of planned system cutover to internal and external interface stakeholders supplying systems
integral to go-live operations
Data conversion audit complete and approved (If Purchased)
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Lead
Interface Lead
Data Conversion Lead (if data conversion is purchased)
Statement of Work Page 41
Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Completion of all Pre-Cutover Testing
Completion of all end-user training designated by the Customer as being required for “go-live”
Deliverables:
Completion and acceptance of the Readiness Review
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Provide above noted resources to attend Readiness Review meeting
Customer Responsibilities:
Provide above noted resources to attend Readiness Review meeting
Provide final “go-live” approval
Completion Criteria:
The deliverable will be completed upon conclusion of the Readiness Review meeting and documentation of
Customer approval to proceed with RMS/FBR System cutover.
25. RMS/FBR CUTOVER
Once testing is complete, and Intergraph and the Customer have held the Readiness Review meeting, Intergraph will
certify the RMS/FBR System as operational and ready for production operation. The final decision to cut over to live
operations is ultimately a Customer decision; however, both Intergraph and the Customer will review system status
and jointly make a recommendation to move into production. Intergraph personnel will assist the Customer in placing
the system into productive use. Upon cutover, Intergraph personnel will be on-site at least one (1) day prior to live
operations and will provide post-live on-site support for three (3) days, with on-going focused phone support following
the on-site support period. Intergraph intends to cutover the both the RMS and FBR components of the RMS/FBR
System at the same time; should the Customer decide to cutover RMS a significant period of time before the FBR
Cutover, the Customer and Intergraph will need to initiate a Change Order and adjust the Project Schedule and
Payment Milestones accordingly.
Customer technical personnel must be present to provide support for the system. Customer training personnel and
core team members will be scheduled to provide knowledgeable Customer support to all shifts during the first few
days after cutover to live operations in conjunction with the scheduled Intergraph staff.
As of cutover of the RMS, FBR and CAGIS to live operations, the System enters the extended warranty period, and
the 30-day reliability test period will begin.
Statement of Work Page 42
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Technical Lead
RMS Interface Lead
Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
Project Manager
IT Resources
Trainers
Prerequisites:
Completion of all prior projects tasks pertaining to the implementation of the RMS/FBR System
Completion and acceptance of the Cutover Plan
Completion of the Readiness Review meeting
Deliverables:
Intergraph on-site services during Cutover (Intergraph personnel will be on-site at least one (1) day prior to
live operations and will provide post-live on-site support for three (3) days
Remote technical and training support immediately following the on-site Cutover support
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Assist the Customer staff in placing RMS/FBR into a production status
Monitor the initial operation of RMS/FBR and answer any operational questions raised by the Customer
Assist the training staff in utilizing the RMS/FBR System
Assist the technical staff in supporting the RMS/FBR System
Provide remote support following on-site Cutover support
Customer Responsibilities:
Place the software into production and begin operational use in consultation with Intergraph and in
accordance with the Project Schedule
Provide technical staff to support the System
Provide training staff to answer end-user questions, in conjunction with the Intergraph staff
Provide a detailed list of questions and issues that still require explanation or resolution by Intergraph at the
end of each day during the on-site activities
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete when RMS/FBR is placed into successful live operations by all three Cities.
Statement of Work Page 43
26. RMS/FBR 30-DAY FUNCTIONAL AND RELIABILITY TEST
Per the Acceptance Test Plan Attachment B-1, the Intergraph RMS/FBR System will undergo a 30-day Functional
and Reliability Test during which the System will maintain the functional and reliability standards identified in
Attachment B-1. See the Acceptance Test Plan in Attachment B-1 for a description of the Functional and Reliability
Criteria testing, definitions of error types, and the plan to remedy found errors.
The Customer is responsible for maintaining a log of any discovered problems. The log should contain information
as to the sequence of events leading up to the problem, time of day, node name or unit involved, and other pertinent
details. Intergraph is responsible for remedying found errors per the Acceptance Test Plan.
At the conclusion of the Functional and Reliability Test, Intergraph will provide the Customer a final summary report
documenting all issues that occurred during the thirty (30) day Functional and Reliability period, as well as the
resolution activities for the issues.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Lead
Interface Lead
Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS Core Team
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Cutover to live operations of the RMS/FBR system
Deliverables:
Intergraph remote services
Final summary report documenting all issues that occurred during the thirty (30) day Functional and
Reliability period, as well as the resolution activities for the issues
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Address and/or correct found errors per the appropriate resolution identified in Attachment B-1
Customer Responsibilities:
Use and monitor the RMS/FBR system in a production environment
Maintain a log of problems found
Contact Intergraph personnel in a timely manner in the event of system problems or failures
Begin system monitoring in support of the Extended Warranty period
Statement of Work Page 44
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete after the RMS/FBR System successfully passes the 30-day Functional and
Reliability Test per the Acceptance Test Plan in 0.
27. UCR/BCS RELIABILITY TEST – CONFIRMATION OF SUCCESSFUL RECEIPT OF UCR/BCS DATA
BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
UCR/BCS data will not be available to submit to the state of California at the cutover as no real time statistical data
will be present in the new system. Through normal, day-to-day use of the system data will be collected and entered
into the WebRMS.
The State of California requires that each agency report, on a monthly basis the following:
Monthly Return of Offenses Known to the Police (Return A)
Property Stolen by Classification
Property Stolen by Type and Value (Supplement to Return A)
Monthly Arrest and Citation Register (Adult)
Monthly Arrest and Citation Register (Juvenile)
Monthly Report of Domestic Violence Related Calls for Assistance
Number of Violent Crimes Committed Against Senior Citizens
Monthly Return of Arson Offenses Known to Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted (LEOKA)
Supplementary Homicide Report
Monthly Report of Biased Motivated Crimes (Hate Crimes)
Monthly Report of Anti-Reproductive Rights Crimes
The data is due to be reported to the State by the 10th of the month following the month of cutover. The customer and
Intergraph will work together to resolve issues within 30 days of notification from the state that an error has occurred.
Intergraph Team Participation:
RMS Lead
Interface Lead
Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
RMS UCR/BCS Lead
Records Manager
Project Manager
Statement of Work Page 45
Prerequisites:
Cutover to live operations of the RMS/FBR system
Deliverables:
Intergraph remote services to monitor and resolve issues with submitted report
Intergraph Responsibilities:
Address and/or correct errors reported by the State of California
Customer Responsibilities:
Submit the UCR/BCS report to the State of California
Maintain a log of problems reported by the State
Contact Intergraph personnel in a timely manner in the event of system problems or failures
Assist in the resolution of issues where appropriate
Facilitate communications between the customer, Intergraph and the State of California
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete after the UCR/BCS report has been accepted by the State of California.
28. RMS/FBR PROJECT CLOSURE
During this task, Intergraph and Customer project managers will review project activities and deliverables, and
mutually agree that all RMS and FBR-related items purchased under the Contract have been delivered and are
operational, all RMS- and FBR-specific tasks are complete, major issues identified in use of the system in production
have been corrected and all Payment Milestones to-date have been met.
Intergraph Team Participation:
Project Manager
Customer Team Participation:
Project Manager
Prerequisites:
Completion of Statement of Work RMS Implementation Tasks
Deliverables:
Intergraph remote services
Intergraph/Intergraph responsibilities:
Verify with the Customer Project Manager that all RMS and FBR-related items purchased under the
Statement of Work Page 46
Contract have been delivered and are operational, all RMS and FBR specific tasks are complete, and all
Payment Milestones to-date have been met
Ensure the payment of all invoices for Payment Milestones that have been met to-date
Customer responsibilities:
Verify that all RMS and FBR-related items purchased under the Contract have been delivered and are
operational, all RMS and FBR specific tasks are complete, and all Payment Milestones to-date have been
met
Ensure the payment of all invoices for Payment Milestones that have been met to-date
Completion Criteria:
This task is considered complete upon verification by the Intergraph and Customer project managers that all
RMS/FBR-related items purchased under the Agreement have been delivered and are operational, Statement
of Work RMS Implementation Tasks are complete and all Payment Milestones to-date have been met.
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO
INCREASE THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH
REPLACEMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR CONTINGENCY FUNDING FOR PALO
ALTO’S PARTICIPATION IN THE TRI-CITIES CAD AND RMS
“VIRTUAL CONSOLIDATION” PROJECT AND DECREASE THE
TECHNOLOGY FUND UNRESTRICTED ENDING FUND BALANCE IN
THE AMOUNT OF $100,000.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 10,
2013 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2014; and
B. As part of the 2009 Capital Budget, the Council approved
$1,300,000 for Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records
Management System (RMS) replacement in Capital Improvement
Project (CIP) TE-09000. During the initial stages of the process
to replace these systems, the City Managers of Palo Alto,
Mountain View, and Los Altos discussed the feasibility of sharing
automated information systems to leverage purchasing power and
lower costs. This initiative was discussed at a Council Study
Session on May 2, 2011 that presented the "virtual consolidation"
concept and the framework to share public safety technology and
communication systems; and
C. Palo Alto’s project costs for CAD and RMS replacement
total approximately $1,296,541; therefore, staff recommends a
contingency of $100,000 to cover any change orders, network
issues, or unexpected expenses associated with implementation of
the system, and the City Council must approve a Budget Amendment
Ordinance for the expenses; and
D. An additional appropriation of One Hundred Thousand
($100,000) is needed to fund contingency costs related to the
Tri-Cities CAD and RMS “Virtual Replacement” Project; and
E. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2014
budget as hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2. The sum of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) is
hereby appropriated to the Public Safety Computer-Aided Dispatch
Replacement capital project and the Technology Fund Unrestricted
Ending Fund Balance is correspondingly reduced.
SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
SECTION 4. The actions taken in this ordinance do not
constitute a project requiring environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________
City Clerk
__________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Senior Assistant City
Attorney
__________________________
City Manager
__________________________
Director of Public Works
__________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1829)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/21/2012
February 21, 2012 Page 1 of 6
(ID # 1829)
Summary Title: Tri Cities CAD Project
Title: Approval for the City Manager to Enter Into an Agreement with the Cities
of Mountain View and Los Altos to Purchase Public Safety Systems Technology,
Including Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Police Records Management (RMS),
and In-Vehicle Mobile and Reporting Applications for Police and Fire
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an
agreement to purchase and maintain, for a minimum of six (6) years, a joint public
safety technology platform with the cities of Mountain View and Los Altos. The
platform includes Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System
(RMS), in-vehicle mobile applications for Police and Fire, in-field reporting and
business intelligence.
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement between the Cities of
Los Altos, Palo Alto and Mountain View for the purpose of procuring,
sharing, and jointly operating regional public safety automated information
systems.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Intergraph
Corporation for the procurement of the jointly operated regional public
safety automated information systems in an amount not to exceed
$1,300,000.
Background
The City operates mission-critical public safety systems to record, process, and
coordinate response to Police and Fire Department calls for service, as well as to
document employee-initiated activity. The primary components of these systems
are the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS), and
Field Based Reporting (FBR) systems. These systems are also used to input,
February 21, 2012 Page 2 of 6
(ID # 1829)
retain, and retrieve information that is used for operational analysis, and to
comply with regulatory reporting requirements for crime and emergency medical
service incidents. The existing systems are twelve years old, have exceeded their
expected service life, and are lacking features and functionality now available in
contemporary public safety systems.
During the initial stages of the process to replace these systems in 2007, the City
Managers of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos discussed the feasibility of
sharing automated information systems to leverage purchasing power and lower
costs. Currently, the cities operate with three separate systems for CAD, RMS,
Mobile and 9-1-1, and none of these systems are interoperable. Representatives
from the three cities began working collaboratively towards the goal of a shared
procurement process.
These efforts progressed into a broader initiative of sharing additional public
safety technology as a method to share resources, improve response times,
increase the resiliency and redundancy of these critical systems, as well as to
enhance interoperable communications between the three cities’ first
responders.
In 2007, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was released to 26 potential vendors
of which 12 responded. From that group, six candidates were invited to
participate in a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Five of those vendors
responded to the RFP. The RFP process was overseen by the City of Mountain
View Purchasing Department. Of those five, three elected to participate in a
product demonstration. Staff from the Police and Fire Departments from all three
cities participated in the product evaluation. After the systems’ demonstrations
and a thorough analysis by staff and the project's consultant, the proposal
submitted by the Intergraph Corporation was identified as representing the best
choice for the three cities.
In August 2010, Intergraph Corporation conducted a detailed system design
process with project stakeholders from the three Cities in order to validate the
proposed system design and ensure that all three cities' requirements would be
met or exceeded. Since the conclusion of this process, project team members
have been working with Intergraph to further refine the scope of the project and
to ensure all required features, functions, and interfaces will be present in the
February 21, 2012 Page 3 of 6
(ID # 1829)
proposed system. The cities equally shared a total of $77,120 in consulting
services and $60,000 in design phase costs. The City of Palo Alto’s portion for
these two costs is $45,681 ($25,681 for consulting and $20,000 for detailed
design review).
In spring of 2011, Intergraph acquired a new RMS company. Staff determined that the
three cities needed clear direction from Intergraph on their future path for RMS and
assurances that the system functionality would meet or exceed the requirements agreed to
in the initial proposal. Staff directed Intergraph to divide the CAD project and the RMS
project into separate proposals. After a second detailed design review of the new RMS
system, staff is confident that the newly acquired product provides a more robust solution
than the initial proposal with the legacy system.
This initiative was discussed at a Council Study Session on May 2, 2011 that presented
the "virtual consolidation" concept and the framework to share public safety technology
and communication systems. Staff anticipates that once the shared systems are
implemented, the Cities will be able to reduce costs in a variety of areas.
Discussion
The project has two separate, but related phases, and each phase has a separate
contract. The primary contract is to purchase the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
system and the Mobile applications that operate in the Police and Fire vehicles.
The second contract is to purchase the Police Records Management System (RMS)
which includes an automated in-field reporting system for Police. The CAD
contract is in the final review process with the Intergraph Executive team and will
be at places at Council on February 21st. The RMS contract has a not-to-exceed
price established and details will be finalized by May 1st and submitted to Council
for approval.
The anticipated cost for the CAD and Mobile products is approximately
$2,352,201. The RMS base system will not exceed $675,266. The three Cities’
have developed a cost-sharing agreement for the purchase and maintenance of
these systems. The proposed cost-sharing formula is based on a previous regional
agreement to fund the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA).
Fifty percent of the project will be divided equally between the three cities. The
remaining fifty percent will be allocated based on population (2010 US Census
data). Stanford University contracts with the City of Palo Alto for Police and Fire
dispatch services and Stanford’s population is included in Palo Alto’s percentage.1
February 21, 2012 Page 4 of 6
(ID # 1829)
Fire Service specific costs will not be included in Los Altos’ portion as those
services are outsourced by the City of Los Altos. The cost for specific “per seat”
software licenses will be borne by the city that requires their use.
Total joint system costs are estimated at $3,027,467. The City’s portion based on
the proposed cost-sharing formula is $897,757 for CAD and $257,726 for RMS for
a total of $1,155,483. Final acquisition cost for the City will be determined by
final software license counts and selected system configuration options, but will
not exceed $1,300,000 without Council approval. There are systems interface and
data conversion costs that are still under negotiation, however, staff is confident
that project costs will not exceed the allocated funding. Intergraph’s pricing for
the CAD/Mobile systems includes a discount of $200,000 that expires on March 1,
2012. As part of the 2009 Capital Budget, Council approved $1,300,000 for CAD
replacement in CIP TE-09000.
Ongoing maintenance and support costs for the CAD system are calculated using
the same cost-sharing formula and a six year commitment is required from the
participating cities (the first year of maintenance is included in the contract). The
cost for Palo Alto will increase from $89,585 annually, starting in FY 2014/15, to
$108,891 in FY 2018/19. The Cities negotiated a fixed five percent increase
annually for an additional five years. Estimated support costs are within currently
budgeted amounts for these services. In 2011, Palo Alto paid $103,535 for CAD
and RMS maintenance on the existing systems. There is a potential for cost
savings by sharing costs for 3rd party services and other intergovernmental
agreements currently borne by all three cities separately. For example, the City of
Palo Alto pays approximately $50,000 annually for DOJ access through Santa Clara
County. It is anticipated that most if not all of that expense will be eliminated by
connecting directly through the City of Mountain View. Additional cost savings
including reduced overtime and personnel costs are anticipated once the system
is implemented.
In the proposed agreement the City of Mountain View will serve as the lead
agency for the procurement and Mountain View and will host the core set of
equipment that comprises the systems (Palo Alto will serve as the back-up site).
The City of Mountain View will invoice the other two participating cities as
required and make payments to the Intergraph Corporation on behalf of all
1 Palo Alto will be reimbursed by Stanford for 25% of the CAD capital cost, approximately $224,439.
February 21, 2012 Page 5 of 6
(ID # 1829)
parties. Each city will be responsible for providing sufficient technical staff to
support the enterprise system’s use and the joint administration of the systems.
Each city will be responsible for the maintenance of its own data and will mutually
indemnify each other with respect to the use of the systems.
The procurement of regional public safety information systems is the first phase
of the tri-city “virtual consolidation” project. The enterprise wide applications will
serve as the centerpiece for the larger project that includes a common 9-1-1
phone system and a shared police radio frequency. “Virtual Consolidation” will
provide both technical and physical redundancy for public safety systems and
communications for all three cities. The Mountain View City Council approved the
tri-city agreement and Intergraph Contract process on January 24, 2012 and the
agreement and contract are on the agenda for the Los Altos City Council meeting
on February 28th.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The initial costs for the project, estimated at $1,155,483, are within the budget
established by the CIP, which has a balance of $1,300,000, and the City will be
reimbursed by Stanford University for a portion of the CAD system expense
(Stanford has their own RMS system). With the estimated Stanford
reimbursement of $224,439, the estimated net City cost is $931,044.
Maintenance costs have been fixed for an eleven year period ensuring stability
and cost management. The Police Department pays allocated charges into the IT
Application Maintenance fund to cover these costs. Staff time for Police and IT
personnel will be impacted significantly by the twelve to eighteen month project.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This agreement is consistent with existing City policy.
TIMELINE
Following the execution of the specified agreements, a project start date in April,
2012 is anticipated. Installation of the primary hardware and software is
scheduled for June 2012, with cutover to the new systems tentatively scheduled
for the second calendar quarter in 2013.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
February 21, 2012 Page 6 of 6
(ID # 1829)
The project to purchase and implement CAD and RMS systems is not subject to
CEQA pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3), and
it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect on
the environment.
Attachments:
Coop Agreement for Procurement 2-16 (PDF)
Prepared By:Charles Cullen, TSD Coordinator
Department Head:Dennis Burns, Police Chief
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF REGIONAL
PUBLIC SAFETY AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS
THIS Cooperative Procurement Agreement (Cooperative Agreement) is dated
February, ______, 2012 for identification, by and between the CITIES OF LOS ALTOS,
MOUNTAIN VIEW AND PALO ALTO, all municipal corporations (hereafter "LOS
ALTOS," "MOUNTAIN VIEW" and "PALO ALTO" respectively and individually "City"
or collectively "Cities."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in 2007, the Cities began the process to upgrade and or replace their
existing public safety automated systems and agreed to work together to share
resources in order to achieve cost savings by combining separate vendor selection
processes; and
WHEREAS, the Cities continue to explore sharing the procurement and use of
public safety systems, sharing information, and workload where feasible to share costs
and virtually consolidate the provision of services and agreed this is a common and
important goal for all three cities; and
WHEREAS, the Cities released a Request for Qualifications and a Request for
Proposals, evaluated the vendor proposals for a detailed design of Regional Public
Safety Automated Information Systems and negotiated an agreement with Intergraph
Corporation; and
WHEREAS, based on the Request for Proposals, Intergraph Corporation has been
selected as the vendor to provide a fully integrated Regional Public Safety Automated
Information Systems, including but not limited to Computer Aided Dispatch ("CAD"),
Records Management ("RMS") Mobile for Public Safety ("MPS"), Field Based Reporting
("FBR") and various other subsystems and external interfaces; and
WHEREAS, this Cooperative Agreement is intended to address the terms and
conditions under which the Cities will fund, acquire, operate, maintain and upgrade the
Regional Public Safety Automated Information Systems for the Cities; and
WHEREAS, the Cities now wish to enter into this Cooperative Agreement for
Regional Public Safety Automated Information Systems and to set forth the terms and
conditions under which the Cities will participate in the joint acquisition, installation,
operation and maintenance of the Regional Public Safety Automated Information
Systems.
-1-
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing Recitals, the Cities enter into this
Cooperative Agreement for the Regional Public Safety Automated Information Systems
("Cooperative Agreement").
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Cooperative Agreement for Regional Public
Safety Automated Information Systems is to set forth the terms and conditions under
which the Cities will fund, acquire, install, operate, maintain and upgrade the Regional
Public Safety Automated Information Systems ("the Systems") acquired pursuant to this
Cooperative Agreement.
2. LEAD CITYCITY. The City of Mountain View shall continue as the Lead
City, for the purposes described below in accordance with its purchasing ordinances
and procedures. As Lead City, the City of Mountain View, on behalf of the Cities, shall:
A. Award and administer the contract dated _________ 2012 between the
Cities and Intergraph Corporation to furnish the Systems pursuant to the agreement
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" ("Intergraph Agreement"). The scope of this Cooperative
Agreement also includes RMS should the Cities decide to amend the Intergraph
Agreement to include that subsystem. As part of the administration of the Intergraph
Agreement, the Lead City will receive payments from the Cities and make payments to
Intergraph Corporation on behalf of the Cities for services rendered by Intergraph or
any third party interfaces.
B. Coordinate, in conjunction with Intergraph Corporation, the master
project schedule for the implementation of the Systems.
C. Host the core components of the Systems, including the provision of
sufficient and suitable space, power and cooling for computing, storage, network and
related equipment necessary to operate the Systems.
D. Host the necessary third-party interfaces required in typical public
safety information systems, such as the connection to the California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System ("CLETS"), County of Santa Clara Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System ("SLETS"), County of Santa Clara Criminal Justice
Information Control ("CJIC") and others as agreed to by the Cities.
E. Act as the "Message Switching Computer" (MSC) administrator with
respect to the use of the Systems to access CLETS, and maintain the necessary
documentation and agreements with the California Department of Justice (DOJ).
-2-
F. Invoice Los Altos and Palo Alto quarterly in advance for their respective
share of any costs under the Intergraph Agreement to be incurred during the upcoming
quarter. An itemized breakdown of those costs will be provided with the invoice. City-
specific costs will be invoiced at time of procurement.
G. Make periodic payments within thirty (30) days of receiving and
approving a billing statement from Intergraph Corporation in proportion to the
satisfactory completion of Intergraph's services.
3. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITIES
A. Executive Sponsorship. In support of the shared use of the Systems
and as necessary, the Police Chief or his/her designee from all the Cities shall jointly
prepare written guidelines for the shared use of Systems, including but not limited to
an informal dispute resolution process.
B. Operation of the Systems. Each City will acquire, install, maintain,
operate and periodically maintain the Systems for a minimum of six (6) years from the
go-live date for the Systems in accordance with this Cooperative Agreement, unless
otherwise agreed to by the Cities in writing. Each City will devote sufficient personnel
resources to allow their employees to develop subject matter expertise in the operation
and management of the Systems in order to successfully implement City-specific
workflow(s) required by their respective City.
C. Project Management Team. A Project Management Team shall be
formed and shall be composed of one representative from each City. The Project
Management Team shall be responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the contract
for the delivery, installation, training, operation and implementation of the Systems of
each City.
D. Core Implementation Team. To ensure a successful project and the
implementation of the systems, a "Core Team" of employees, representing a cross-
section of the various disciplines such as dispatch, fire suppression, police patrol,
records and investigations, will be assembled. Each City will select and assign
employees to perform Core Team duties, including but not limited to, participating in
conference calls, traveling to meetings at various locations, developing system usage
policies and procedures, configuring the systems for use, developing training plans and
materials, attending conferences and training classes provided by Intergraph
Corporation or other parties, and other duties as required.
E. Facility Preparation. Each City shall be responsible for the preparation
of its facilities including but not limited to air conditioning, space, all electrical drops,
cabling and any other items to be furnished by the City per the Intergraph Agreement.
-3-
F. Alterations and Upgrades. Each City shall notify the other Cities at
least ninety (90) days in advance of any modifications to or upgrades not included in
the Intergraph Agreement that it intends to make to the Systems in order to provide the
other Cities with the opportunity to participate in the modification or upgrade or
provide comments on the proposed modification or upgrade. Each City understands
and agrees that the modification or upgrade cannot interfere with the public safety
operations of the other Cities nor can it substantially alter the function and form of the
shared Systems. While the other Cities may elect to participate in the modification or
upgrade, they are under no obligation to do so.
G. Training and User Support. Each City shall assign qualified personnel
to attend training classes and in turn, train other users within their respective City.
Each City will, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for their own internal
training and user support. Nothing shall preclude the Cities from sharing personnel
resources and materials, if agreeable and beneficial, for training purposes, however
there is no obligation to do so.
H. Systems Administration and Technical Support. Each City shall assign
qualified personnel to perform the Systems administration tasks necessary for
successful operation and use of the Systems. To the greatest extent possible, each City
shall administer its own City-specific data, within the agreed-to Systems policies. Each
City will, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for its own system
administration and technical support. Nothing shall preclude the Cities from sharing
personnel resources and materials, if agreeable and beneficial, for system
administration and technical support purposes, however there is no obligation to do so.
I. Information Security and Confidentiality. Each City shall be
responsible for the accuracy, timeliness and completeness of information entered into or
through the Systems by their respective Systems users. Each City shall be the owner of
record for all information entered into and stored by the Systems users authorized by
that City. Each City shall act as their own custodian of records for data or records
entered into the Systems.
J. Interfaces and Supporting Systems. Third-party independent systems
are the responsibility of the hosting City.
K. Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies, Rules and Regulations.
Each City is responsible for compliance with all applicable state and federal laws,
regulations and policies.
L. Software Licenses. At the request of Intergraph Corporation, Mountain
View will hold the software licenses for the benefit of the other Cities and shall transfer
-4-
licenses to Los Altos or Palo Alto in accordance with the Intergraph Agreement if this
Cooperative Agreement is terminated for any reason.
M. Project Deliverable Sign Off. The Cities will prepare a mutually agreed
upon sign off form to document each City’s sign off on the Project
Deliverables/Milestones in Exhibit “_” to the Intergraph Agreement (“Milestones”) as
the Milestones are completed . Each City understands and agrees that Intergraph
Corporation requires Mountain View to sign the Project Deliverable Sign Off on behalf
of all Cities within fifteen (15) workdays of the completion of the Milestones itemized
(insert reference document). Accordingly, each City shall endeavor to sign the mutually
agreed upon sign off form for the Cities at least ten (10) workdays of completion of a
Milestone. If a Milestone is rejected for any reason, the City rejecting the Milestone or
the Cities jointly, as the case may be, will prepare a written description of the
deficiencies within ten (10) workdays of the rejection. The Cities understand and agree
that if Mountain View fail to accept or reject a Milestone on behalf of the Cities within
fifteen (15) workdays, or if the Cities elect to place a Subsystem into production
operation, then Intergraph requires full payment of the contract price for the Milestone.
4. COSTS/FUNDING
A. Cost Allocation Calculation. The parties have agreed to share the cost
of the acquisition, implementation, and ongoing maintenance and support costs to
operate and maintain the Systems ("Total Project Cost") as shown on Exhibit "B." The
City's share of the Total Project Cost shall be calculated using the following formula:
i. Each City shall pay a one-third (1/3) share of fifty percent (50%) of
the Total Project Cost.
ii. Each City shall also pay a proportionate share of the remaining
fifty percent (50%) of the Total Project Cost. This proportionate share shall be
calculated based upon the ratio of population served by each City to the total
population served by the Systems. For purposes of this calculation, the population for
each City shall be the 2010 United States Census information. For purposes of this
calculation, the population of the Stanford Community as shown in the 2010 United
States Census shall be included in the population of Palo Alto.
B. Cost Allocation Calculation Estimate. A Cost Allocation Calculation
Estimate of each Party's share of the Total Project Cost is attached as Exhibit "C" to this
Cooperative Agreement.
-5-
C. Per-User License Costs. Costs for per-user or per-seat software licenses
used with Systems shall be the responsibility of the user City.
D. Computer Workstation Hardware. Costs for computer workstations
and their associated peripheral equipment purchased via the Intergraph Agreement
and for use with the Systems shall be the responsibility of the user City, with the
exception of the "Map Maintenance Workstation," as described in _________ of the
Intergraph Agreement.
E. Fire Specific Costs. Los Altos shall not be responsible for enhancements
and interfaces to the CAD System for fire specific services as denoted above and
described in detail in _______ of the Intergraph Agreement.
F. Quarterly Invoicing. The Cities shall pay the quarterly payment to the
City of Mountain View within thirty (30) calendar days from the receipt of an invoice
from the City of Mountain View.
G. Detail Design Agreement. On behalf of the Cities, Mountain View
retained Intergraph Corporation to provide the Cities with a detailed design for the
Systems. Each City agreed to share in the cost of obtaining these services. The cost of the
detailed system design is Sixty Thousand Dollars. Accordingly, each CITY shall pay
Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) for the detailed system design.ʺ
5. THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS. It is not the intent of the Cities of this Cooperative
Agreement to create any third-party beneficiary. Any failure to perform under the
terms of this Cooperative Agreement shall not create any claim or right by any
individual or entity who is not a signatory to this Cooperative Agreement.
6. TERM OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. The term of this Cooperative
Agreement shall commence on the date the City of Mountain View awards the contract
to Intergraph Corporation and shall continue through June 30, 2019.
7. TERMINATION. Any City may terminate its participation in this
Cooperative Agreement by giving written notice of not less than ninety (90) days before
the beginning of the next fiscal year (hereby defined as July 1 of each year) and effective
only on July 1 of each year. If a City terminates its participation in this Cooperative
Agreement, it shall pay its portion of costs for which it has been billed pursuant to
Paragraph 4 above to the date of termination. Upon termination of a City's
-6-
participation in this Cooperative Agreement, the City shall relinquish its interest in any
jointly purchased equipment acquired pursuant to this Cooperative Agreement.
8. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES. By executing this Cooperative Agreement,
each City agrees to complete any and all necessary actions to accomplish successfully
the purpose of this Cooperative Agreement and all other agreements authorized
pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Cooperative Agreement.
9. GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM REGIONAL COOPERATION.
The Cities recognize that the existence of an up-to-date and accurate Geographical
Information System ("GIS") for all Cities is necessary for the effective operation of
centralized CAD System for law enforcement and fire protection services. Each City
agrees to participate and cooperate in all activities necessary to maintain an up-to-date
and accurate GIS.
10. MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION. In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro-rata
risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed between the parties pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.6, the parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by
a party shall not be shared pro rata, but instead, the Cities agree that pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, each of the parties hereto shall fully indemnify and
hold each of the other parties, their officers, board members, employees and agents
harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as
defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or
omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, board members,
employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority
or jurisdiction delegated to such party under this Cooperative Agreement. No party,
nor any officer, board member, employee or agent thereof shall be responsible for any
damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful
misconduct of other parties hereto, their officers, board members, employees or agents,
under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction
delegated to such other parties under this Cooperative Agreement.
-7-
11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
11.1 Notice. All notices required by this Cooperative Agreement will be
deemed given when in writing and delivered personally or deposited in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the other party at
the address set forth below or at such other address as the party may designate in
writing:
To Los Altos:
To Mountain View:
To Palo Alto:
Police Services Manager
City of Los Altos
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022-3088
Senior Systems Specialist
Police Department
City of Mountain View
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA
94039-7540
Technical Services Director
City of Palo Alto
275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
11.2 Governing Law. This Cooperative Agreement has been executed and
delivered in, and will be construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the
State of California.
11.3 Assignment. The parties may not assign this Cooperative Agreement or
the rights and obligations hereunder without the specific written consent of the others.
11.4 Entire Agreement. This document represents the entire Cooperative
Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. All prior
negotiations and written and/or oral agreements between the parties with respect to
the subject matter of this Cooperative Agreement are merged into this Cooperative
Agreement.
11.5 Amendments. This Cooperative Agreement may only be amended by
an instrument signed by the parties.
11.6 Counterparts. This Cooperative Agreement may be executed in one or
more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
11.7 Severability. If any provision of this Cooperative Agreement is found
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, invalid or unenforceable, the same will
either be reformed to comply with applicable law or stricken if not so conformable, so
as not to affect the validity or enforceability of this Cooperative Agreement.
-8-
11.8 Waiver. No delay or failure to require performance of any provision of
this Cooperative Agreement shall constitute a waiver of that provision as to that or any
other instance. Any waiver granted by a party must be in writing and shall apply to the
specific instance expressly stated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities have caused this Cooperative Agreement to be
executed by their respective governing officials duly authorized by their respective
legislative bodies.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Attorney
FINANCIAL APPROVAL:
Finance and Administrative
Services Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW,
a California Charter City and municipal
corporation
By:
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF LOS ALTOS,
a municipal corporation
By:
City Manager
-9-
-10-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF PALO ALTO,
a municipal corporation
By:
City Manager
JLQ/4/ATY
010-01-31-12A-E^
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4118)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/23/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Crescent Park - No Overnight Parking Program Update
Title: Approval of Crescent Park - No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Trial
Program Resident Permit Application and Program Expansion
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution (Attachment D) to establish a fee structure
for resident permits for use through the Crescent Park – No Overnight Parking (2AM – 5AM)
Trial Program and allow for expansion of the program.
Executive Summary
The Crescent Park – No Overnight Parking (2AM – 5AM) Trial Program was approved for staff
implementation at August 12, 2013 City Council meeting. A detailed history of the resident
interest and involvement leading up to this ban is covered in the August 12th staff report
(attached). This parking ban precludes overnight parking (2am-5am) on certain streets in the
Crescent Park neighborhood.
Following the Council approval, staff and a number of Councilmembers received a large number
of emails with concerns about implementation details, potential “spill-over” parking, and the
price of single-use overnight guest permits. Per the adopted resolution, single-use guest
permits would cost up to $5 per night. Based on those concerns, staff and the Mayor scheduled
a neighborhood meeting. The meeting was attended by approximately 50 residents, and
consensus was reached on all the primary issues. Specifically, it was agreed that each
household within the approved no overnight parking area could purchase two (2) overnight
resident guest permits. Each permit would cost $100 and would allow overnight parking in the
impacted area for the length of the pilot program. The pilot program could last a year, with a
review at six months to determine if it should continue. Furthermore, staff agreed to expedite
the schedule for inclusion of additional blocks into the program if requested by residents.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Both of those items are the subject of this report. Council review and approval is being sought.
Background
Since Council approval of the parking restrictions on August 12th, staff has been working on
implementation of the program, including placement of temporary a-frame “no parking” signs,
installation of similar permanent signage, and additional outreach to the community. The
Police Department has also increased patrols in the area, and has been issuing warning fliers.
Since then, parking has decreased significantly in the trial program area, however there has
been some amount of “spill over” parking into nearby streets.
During approval of the program in August Council directed staff to develop a fee schedule for
the distribution of resident permits through the trial period. The maximum cost of each permit
would be up to $5.00 per night. These would be single-use (one night only) guest permits that
could be purchased at City Hall. This raised a lot of concern with residents in the area,
especially those with multiple drivers in the family. Staff and the Mayor met with residents on
September 10th to listen to concerns and solicit input on adjustments that could be made to the
program to alleviate neighbor concerns and objections.
In addition to the fee structure of resident permits, residents from several near-by street blocks
near the trial program have expressed interest in participating in the program. Interest has
further increased due to “spillover” parking associated with the ban. This issue was brought up
during the neighborhood meeting. Attachment A provides a map highlighting the streets
currently being signed for no parking restrictions, streets previously approved by Council but
for which no petitions have been yet received, and the additional streets where staff has
received participation interest.
Since Council’s initial approval, staff has also continued to work with East Palo Alto staff and the
owners of the nearby apartment complexes. The meetings have focused on long-term parking
solutions for East Palo Alto residents. Equity Residential, the company who owns a majority of
the nearby units, has further explained their parking policies and timeline for bringing 88 new
parking spaces online. More than 40 of these spaces are near the impacted area. Furthermore,
East Palo Alto and Palo Alto Transportation staff continue to meet to potentially identify
additional on-street parking opportunities in East Palo Alto.
Discussion
Based on public input during the September 10th community meeting with the Crescent Park
Neighborhood, staff is recommending that a prepaid parking permit be made available for use
City of Palo Alto Page 3
by residents and their guests at a cost of $100 per permit. The permits would be available on
“hang tags” that can be easily removed from the rear-view mirror of one vehicle and
transferred to another vehicle. Staff recommends making up to two (2) permits available per
household. Additional single-use permits at a cost of $5.00 each would still be available to meet
additional guest parking demands of residents. Residents participating in the September 10th
community meeting were supportive of the fee structure. The proposed Crescent Park Resident
Permit – Permit Instructions and Application are provided in Attachment B.
Enforcement would be intense at first, followed by episodic patrol and an on a complaint basis.
Staff has made it clear to residents that other police calls for service in the 2am-5am period
could take precedence. Staff is urging residents to only utilize permitted street parking when
absolute necessary, as enforcing the ban becomes increasingly difficult with additional cars
parked on-street.
Although the Crescent Park – No Overnight Parking (2AM – 5AM) Trial Program is still in the
implementation phase, several residents from street blocks nearby to the trial area requesting
the opportunity to be able to participating in the program at a future time. The following
additional street blocks are included in the attached resolution because of resident requests or
in anticipation of resident requests in the future:
Newell Road (Dana Avenue to Pitman Avenue-Louisa Court)
Dana Avenue (North of Newell Road to Center Drive)
Dana Avenue (South of Newell Road to Alester Avenue)
Pitman Avenue (Newell Road to Center Drive)
Southwood Drive (Center Drive to East End)
Kings Lane
Crescent Drive
East Crescent Drive
Center Drive (University Avenue to Southwood Drive)
West Crescent Drive
Hamilton Avenue (W Crescent Drive to Center Drive)
Inclusion of these streets will allow residents to submit petitions to the City. Following the
receipt of the petitions staff can then initiate postal surveys to validate petition signatures.
Pending a 70% positive response to the postal surveys from surveys received, the City may then
sign the streets and allow for the distribution of permits to those streets under the proposed
fee structure above. With Council approval of inclusion of the additional streets (potential)
staff will be able to respond to their addition through the petition and survey process. Typically
will send out these surveys within one week of receiving petition, and allow 2 weeks for
resident response. Program implemetation will begin immediately thereafter.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Timeline
Implementation of the Crescent Park – No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Trial Program is currently
underway (sign installation and warning fliers) and scheduled for completion on October 1,
2013. Beginning in October the Palo Alto Police Department will begin the issuance of parking
citations to vehicles without permits that are parked on the Phase 1 streets shown on the map
in Attachment A. The trial could continue through September 31, 2014 with monitoring
through parking occupancy counts and monitoring of adjacent streets, with a six month review.
Permit sales will begin on September 26, 2013 and will be available for purchase in Revenue
Collections on the 1st floor of City Hall. Staff will send out additional details to the Crescent Park
email list and via US Mail.
Resource Impact
The cost of implementing the Crescent Park – No Overnight Parking (2AM – 5AM) Trial Program
is estimated at $25,000 including new signs that will be installed in the field and the cost of
permits. The up front cost of the program is being made through the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) PL-12000, Parking & Transportation Improvements. As part of the trial program,
the revenues from permits will go to the General Fund. Staff will track and will analyze the
amount of permit revenue and associated cost to establish and maintain the trial program. As
part of the midyear budget adjustment, process a recommendation will be brought forward to
reimburse the Capital Program from the General Fund. It is important to note that the current
funding sources for the Transportation and Parking Improvements CIP are the Gas Tax Fund and
the Infrastructure Reserve, should the trial become permanent, staff will establish proper
budgeting and accounting to support the district.
The trial program will have an impact on City staffing such as in the processing of permit
requests. While the additional volume of permits generated by Crescent Park appear to be
manageable and will be covered by Trial Program revenues, future Residential Parking
programs will likely require additional staffing whose costs would be ideally covered via permit
fees.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Project Limits Map (PDF)
Attachment B: NOP Application (PDF)
Attachment C: City Manager's Report of August 5, 2013 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
Attachment D: Resolution (PDF)
Attachment E: Excerpt of City Council Minutes of August 12, 2013 (PDF)
Crescent Park
No Overnight Parking (2AM – 5AM) Trial Program
Project Limits
Legend:
SCALE: NONE
•••••••
Channing Av
Crescent Park
No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM)
Survey Findings
Phase 1 -Implementation in September 2013
Phase 2 -Approved Pending Resident Petition/Survey
Resident Interest in Petition for Future Phases
Last Update: 9-16-13
DRAFT
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS
City of Palo Alto, Revenue Collections – Parking Permit Program
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca 94301
Phone (650) 329 – 2317 Fax (650) 617 – 3122
Office Hours: Mon – Thurs, 8:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. and Friday 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
1. PROPER DISPLAY OF PERMIT: Your Crescent Park permit is to hang from the REAR VIEW MIRROR. Failure to properly
display the permit could result in a citation being issued.
2. ONE DAY SCRATCHERS: One day scratcher permits are to hang from the REAR VIEW MIRROR and are valid from 2:00 a.m.-
5:00 a.m. on the date scratched off. The month, day, and year MUST be completely scratched off for the permits to be VALID. Failure
to properly display the permits could result in a citation being issued.
3. REPLACEMENT FEE: There is a permit replacement fee of $100.00 for LOST permits that need to be reissued so that the
previous permit can be voided. If a permit is LOST an affidavit must be completed at Revenue Collections prior to replacement. If a
permit is DAMAGED it can be returned for a replacement permit and will be made available at a cost of $10.00.
4. PERMIT USE: Permits are for the use of residents of Crescent Park only. Permits cannot be transferred to another person and
cannot be resold. Your permit cannot be loaned to another individual, damaged or altered in any way. Any misrepresentation of the
information or misuse will result in revocation of the permit.
5. STORAGE OF VEHICLE: Parking a vehicle (unmoved) longer than 72 consecutive hours on a city street is in violation of PAMC 10.60.07 (d). The vehicle will be considered stored, cited and towed.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at 650-329-2317 or e-mail Revenue Collections at RevColl@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Name:_______________________________________________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________________________________
Permit No._________________________________________
DRAFT
CRESCENT PARK
APPLICATION FOR PARKING PERMITS
ADDRESS: __________________________________ PHONE# ____________________________
PERMIT(S) # _________________________________ DATE ISSUED_______________________
FIRST NAME _________________________ LAST NAME ________________________
CHECK LIST
Proof of Residency
(Must have 1 of 3 listed below)
Current driver’s license with Crescent Park address. __________
Recent utility bill with Crescent Park address and photo I.D. __________
Current rental agreement and photo I.D. __________
Permit Fees
Residential Permits ($100.00 Each) Quantity _________ __________
Replacement Fee ($100.00) __________
Replacement Fee with Old Permit ($10.00) __________
TOTAL __________
NAME: _____________________________________________ ______________
Signature Date
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3969)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/5/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Resolution
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Allowing the Implementation of a One-Year
Trial No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Program on Streets within the
Crescent Park Neighborhood
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to implement a one-year
trial for No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) program within certain street blocks of the Crescent
Park Neighborhood.
Background
Citizens from the Crescent Park Neighborhood reached out to the City earlier this year
requesting that the City implement parking restrictions within their neighborhood in order to
limit parking intrusion from outside the neighborhood. This request was based on complaints
involving overcrowded streets, blocking of driveways, noise and litter caused by overnight
street parking. Following the initial request, the City implemented full-time, “No Parking”
restrictions along Newell Road between Edgewood Drive and the Newell Road Bridge. Traffic
calming improvements to improve pedestrian safety at Newell Road and Edgewood Drive and
Newell Road and Hamilton Avenue were also implemented. These improvements included
crosswalk improvements and all-way stop intersection controls.
The Crescent Park citizens requested additional parking restrictions, initially along Edgewood
Drive and worked with staff to develop and circulate petitions for No Overnight Parking (2AM-
5AM) for the following roadway segments, to manage the expected limits of parking intrusion:
Edgewood Drive: Southwood Drive to Jefferson Drive
Phillips Road: Edgewood Drive to Madison Way
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Hamilton Avenue: Island Drive to Madison Way
Dana Avenue: Half-Block sections north and south of Newell Road
Newell Road: Dana Avenue to Edgewood Drive
Following receipt of the petitions in June, staff released a follow-up post card survey to validate
resident interest from each separate street block. These surveys were released throughout the
month of July. Please note that the additional street block segments of Edgewood Drive
between Southwood Drive and Island Drive were added to the post card survey following a
petition received after the release of the initial post card surveys. The following additional
street blocks have requested or submitted petitions for the No Overnight Parking restrictions
but postal surveys have not yet been administered:
Edgewood Drive: Jefferson Drive to Patricia Lane
Hamilton Avenue: Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive
Hamilton Avenue: Madison Way to Alester Avenue
Madison Way: Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive
Jefferson Drive: Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive
City staff required a minimum 70% support response from each street block to forward the
restrictions to the Council for consideration. 70% has been the standard positive response rate
used in Palo Alto for traffic calming programs. These restrictions would apply to resident
vehicles, not just non-residents, and would be enforced by the Police Department. Overnight
guest permits will be made available for residents that require parking for their guests at a cost
of $5.00 per permit per night. Even with the guest permits, standard parking restrictions
governed by the California Vehicle Code and Palo Alto Municipal Code continue to apply
including a 72-hour parking restriction to avoid the storage of vehicles within the public right-
of-way.
The City has continued to accept responses to the post card survey through the month of July
leading to the council meeting where this resolution will be considered. Table 1 below provides
the findings of the post card survey through July 30th:
Table 1
Crescent Park Neighborhood Post Card Survey Response
No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Considerations
City of Palo Alto Page 3
No. Street Block Segment No. of
Households
No. of Survey
Responses
(Yes and No)
% Positive
Support from
Responses
1 Edgewood
Drive
Southwood Dr
to Island Dr
7 5 100%
2 Edgewood
Drive
Island Dr to
Newell Rd
20 18 94%
3 Edgewood
Drive
Newell Rd to
Jefferson Dr
18 15 80%
4 Phillips
Road
Edgewood Rd
to Madison Wy
9 9 89%
5 Hamilton
Avenue
Island Dr to
Newell Rd
28 20 70%
6 Hamilton
Avenue
Newell Rd to
Madison Wy
14 10 70%
7 Dana
Avenue
North of Newell
Rd
14 10 30%
8 Dana
Avenue
South of Newell
Road
16 13 54%
9 Newell
Road
Edgewood Dr
to Hamilton Av
3 3 100%
10 Newell
Road
Hamilton Av to
Dana Av
4 4 100%
The post card survey shows that a majority of residents living on street blocks along Newell
Road and towards the easterly limits of Crescent Park are in support of the No Overnight
Parking Restrictions with only both blocks of Dana Avenue not currently in support of the
restrictions.
Staff recommends implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) for the streets that
have positive support (70%+) for the restrictions to be implemented as a Phase 1 deployment
City of Palo Alto Page 4
by September. Streets that opt to add in later can be deployed immediately upon receipt of a
new petition and administration of another post card survey as a Phase 2 deployment.
Under the current proposal, street blocks that did not have strong support for immediate
implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) restrictions could opt in later. This
recommendation is consistent with the conversations staff has had with neighborhood leaders.
Therefore, staff requests authorization to implement additional restrictions in the future as part
of this resolution including the blocks of: Edgewood Drive between Jefferson Drive and Patricia
Lane; Hamilton Avenue: Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive; Hamilton Avenue
between Madison Way and Alester Avenue; Madison Way: Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive;
and Jefferson Drive: Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive, if supported by residents, for which a
post card survey will be released following approval of the proposed resolution. Attachment A
includes the Resolution. Attachment B describes the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 No Parking
(2AM-5AM) considerations. Attachment C includes a sample of the post card survey released
by the City.
It is important to note that this is a proposed as a one-year pilot program. Staff will continue to
work with neighborhood residents, as well as adjacent neighborhoods and communities to
ensure that the program is being implemented as effectively as possible. Furthermore, staff will
evaluate the ultimate request from many neighborhood residents for a Residential Permit
Parking (RPP) program. Finally, staff will continue to work with City of East Palo Alto staff and
nearby apartment owners on addressing the parking supply issue that is resulting in the need
for this parking restriction trial.
The City held a community meeting July 30th to present the above findings to residents.
Residents noted that the proposed No Overnight Parking restrictions were not an ideal solution
and that Residential Parking Permit (RPP) was a preferred alternative but that the proposal was
a good step forward while solutions for RPP options are discussed further with the community.
Residents from streets on Hamilton Avenue near Center Drive-Southwood Drive and on
Madison Way and Jefferson Drive requested inclusion in the future Phase 2 program.
Policy Implications
The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 – Restrictions Established – Signs Designating
allows the installation of parking restrictions by time-of-day following a city council ordinance
or resolution. Vehicles that are cited for parking in areas where time restrictions have been
established are cited by the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.40.020 (b) – Signs or Curb
Markings to Indicated No Stopping and Parking Regulations.
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22507.5 – Local Regulations allows the issuance of
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Day Permits for parking through parking restricted periods of the day for residents and their
guests.
Resource Impact
The design and construction of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) are estimated to cost
approximateyl $12,000 and will be funded through the existing Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) – PL12000 (Parking & Transportation Improvements) project. The Revenue Collections
Department will make available for purchase Overnight Guest Permits for specific use by the
Crescent Park Neighborhood on a limited basis at a cost of $5.00 per permit. Permits are good
one night only and a limited amount of permits will be available.
Timeline
The City recommends implementation of the signage restrictions through the remainder of
August followed by a 2-week warning period for vehicles that continue to park during the new
No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) period with citations being issued on an as-needed basis by
mid-September.
City staff expects to meet with neighborhood residents at the six-month mark and again near
the end of the one-year trial to assess te effectiveness of the program and at the year end to
coniser recommendation for continuation or discontinuation of the program.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution for Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (PDF)
Attachment B: Crescent Park - No Overnight Parking Survey Findings (PDF)
Attachment C: Sample Crescent Park Postal Survey (PDF)
*Not Yet Approved*
1
130820 dm 0131119 Reso2
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expanding No Overnight Parking
Restrictions around the Crescent Park Neighborhood as a One Year Trial Program
and Adding Pre-Paid Parking Permit
R E C I T A L S
A. On August 12, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution 9367establishing a trial
program prohibiting overnight parking from 2AM to 5AM on certain blocks in Crescent Park. In
addition the resolution established a process for implementing this parking restriction on
additional blocks in the Crescent Park neighborhood to avoid parking spillover impacts.
B. Since adoption of the Resolution neighbors and staff have identified additional
blocks that should be included in this trial program. These blocks are listed below:
No. Street Street Block Segment
No Parking
Restriction
Period
Post Card
Survey
Support
16 Newell Road Dana Avenue to Pitman Avenue-Louisa Court 2AM – 5AM Pending
17 Dana Avenue North of Newell Road to Center Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending
18 Dana Avenue South of Newell Road to Alester Avenue 2AM – 5AM Pending
19 Pitman Avenue Newell Road to Center Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending
20 Southwood Drive Center Drive to East End 2AM – 5AM Pending
21 Kings Lane 2AM – 5AM Pending
22 Crescent Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending
23 East Crescent Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending
24 Center Drive (University Avenue to Southwood Drive) 2AM – 5AM Pending
25 West Crescent Dr. 2AM – 5AM Pending
26 Hamilton Avenue West Crescent Drive to Center Drive 2AM – 5 AM Pending
C. The City Council finds that there is a parking intrusion problem in parts of the
Crescent Park neighborhood and desires to implement a pilot one year program to attempt to
mitigate this problem.
D. Staff will expedite the schedule for including of additional blocks into the program if
requested by residents.
*Not Yet Approved*
2
130820 dm 0131119 Reso2
E. The California Vehicle Code Section 22507.5 authorizes the City to enact, by
ordinance or resolution, parking restrictions on public streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and
6 a.m. and further authorizes the City to provide for a system of permits for the purpose of
exempting from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution, disabled persons,
residents, and guests of residents of residential areas.
F. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 allows for the implementation of
parking restrictions.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council authorizes staff to implement No Overnight Parking
Restrictions on all of the street block segments identified in Recital B as petitions by residents
are received in accordance with this Resolution. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking
restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block upon receipt and verification of a minimum
70% support from surveys received.
SECTION 2: The City shall provide overnight guest permits for residents that require
parking for their guests at a cost not to exceed $5.00 per permit per night. A prepaid parking
permit will be made available for use by residents and their guests at a cost of $100 per permit.
Two (2) pre-paid permits will be available per household.
SECTION 3: Vehicles displaying overnight residential parking permits for the designated
streets shall be exempt from the posted parking restriction.
SECTION 4: The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and,
therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
*Not Yet Approved*
3
130820 dm 0131119 Reso2
SECTION 5: This program shall be reviewed in six (6) months to determine if it should
continue and expire within one year of adoption unless extended by City Council.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
_____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 11
Special Meeting August 12, 2013
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:08 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff, Schmid,
Shepherd
Library Advisory Commissioners: Chin, Hochberg, Landauer, Moss, Train
Absent:
ACTION ITEMS
3. Resolution 9367 entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Allowing the Implementation of a One-Year Trial No Overnight
Parking (2:00 A.M.-5:00 A.M.) Program on Streets within the Crescent
Park Neighborhood” (Continued from August 5, 2013).
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official, reported several residents of
the Crescent Park neighborhood approached the City approximately one year
ago regarding overcrowding of streets, blocked driveways, and litter. Over
the last year, Staff worked with the neighborhood to implement a series of
traffic calming measures. The main concern was overcrowding of parking.
Staff provided residents with options focusing on an overnight parking
restriction, and made it clear that neighborhood residents would have to
lead efforts to initiate parking restrictions. Staff asked residents to circulate
petitions, notified surrounding residents about petitions, and provided a
process for implementing restrictions. The restrictions focused on a ten-
block buffer area around the eastern portion of Crescent Park neighborhood. Following receipt of the petitions, the City administered a postcard survey to
validate signatures on the petitions and to gauge community support for the
specific project. There was strong support within the neighborhood on the
blocks surveyed. Residents on streets not part of the original petition
requested to participate in the survey. The one-year trial would affect
anyone parking in the neighborhood. An overnight parking permit could be
MINUTES
Page 2 of 11
City Council Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/12/13
sold at a cost of $5, the same cost as permits sold in the College Terrace
neighborhood. Permits could be made available at City Hall and would
expire after two years. Residents of the neighborhood could purchase as
many permits as they wanted. Staff recommended the Council adopt a
Resolution authorizing Staff to implement a one-year trial program for no
overnight parking between 2:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. within the select blocks
of Crescent Park with the addition of Island Drive.
Norma Jean Kelly supported the parking restriction and permits.
Richard Yankowich supported the trial program. The problem was spillover
parking from apartments located in East Palo Alto.
Leo Ware concurred with Mr. Yankowich's comments. Cars were parked
bumper-to-bumper along streets, blocking driveways and lines of sight.
Frank Branson supported the trial parking program. He and his wife were
concerned that drivers parking along the street would burglarize their home.
Chris Goumas felt the character of the neighborhood changed due to
extrinsic forces. The high-density apartment complexes did not provide
adequate parking for their residents. He encouraged the Council to approve
the trial program as soon as possible.
Herb Borock provided a history of overnight parking within Palo Alto. An
overnight parking restriction was the solution for the Crescent Park
neighborhood.
Jason White stated the problems were litter and lack of street sweeping.
Ben Ball reported more than 90 non-resident vehicles parked along
Edgewood Drive and Newell Road nightly. Neighborhood residents worked
with City Staff to understand the issues of the problem and identified five
objectives. The temporary overnight parking ban accomplished those
objectives.
Daniel Hanson supported the trial program. Cars parked along the streets
and left trash. The City of East Palo Alto closed on-street parking along
Woodland Avenue, resulting in more on-street parking in Palo Alto.
David Dorosin also supported the overnight parking ban.
MINUTES
Page 3 of 11
City Council Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/12/13
Bhusan Gupta felt the inconvenience of the ban was a small price to pay to
eliminate overcrowded parking. He suggested the City begin work on a
Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program for Crescent Park.
Trish Mulvey requested the City delay action to obtain additional information
from the City of East Palo Alto.
Bruce Nixon supported implementation of the trial program; however, he
had no room to park five cars off the street. He favored an RPP program or
a long-term mitigated fee.
Andrew Vought wanted to implement the program and requested the Council adopt the trial program.
Vanessa Belland requested the Council implement the trial program as it
would assist the neighborhood residents.
Glenn R. Campbell indicated the people parking in Crescent Park could not
afford to park elsewhere. The owners of the apartment complexes should be
required to provide adequate parking.
Rob Zucker suggested the City stripe the streets for parking and add parking
to a portion of Woodland Drive. This would allow more cars to park along
the streets. Charging for overnight parking permits was not right.
Gioia Zucchero stated many of the people parking on neighborhood streets
worked in Palo Alto. She requested the Council work with the City of East
Palo Alto to find a better solution.
Jane Kershner encouraged the Council to approve the trial parking program.
Neighborhood residents needed relief now.
Stephanie Munoz related a parking program utilized by the City of San
Francisco. She suggested photographs of license plates be collected for use
in investigating crimes. Shuttles could be used for Crescent Park residents
to park in East Palo Alto.
Sarah Sans supported the trial program, but hoped it would not push
parking to her home.
Jeff Levinsky objected to the requirement of 70 percent of residents on a
block support the program. A better requirement would be 51 percent of
residents.
MINUTES
Page 4 of 11
City Council Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/12/13
Council Member Klein inquired whether Staff fully understood the reasons for
the increase in the number of vehicles parked on the street in Crescent Park.
Mr. Rodriquez reported that Equity Partners' purchase of the apartment
complexes and subsequent increased rental of apartments resulted in the
parking congestion in Crescent Park.
Council Member Klein asked if the number of rental units increased.
Aaron Aknin, Interim Director Planning and Community Environment, replied
no. Equity Partners leased more units and separated the cost of parking
from the rental of the unit.
Council Member Klein inquired whether the parking spaces at the apartment
complexes were fully occupied.
Mr. Aknin understood most of the parking areas were fully occupied.
Parking at complexes undergoing remodeling was not being used.
Council Member Klein asked if the City had talked with the owners of the
apartment complexes.
Mr. Aknin indicated Staff had not talked with the owners. The City Manager
and he talked with the East Palo Alto City Manager who talked with the
property owners regarding short-term and long-term plans for parking. In
the short term, the property owners wanted to utilize two offsite parking lots
containing 42 and 46 spaces. He understood the owners would charge
renters for use of those parking lots.
Council Member Klein inquired about the cost to the renters for those
parking spaces.
Mr. Aknin did not know.
Council Member Klein asked if the intentions were mere proposals or official
actions.
Mr. Aknin understood the property owners obtained some type of use permit
for offsite parking.
Council Member Klein asked if the apartment complexes originally provided
adequate parking.
MINUTES
Page 5 of 11
City Council Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/12/13
Mr. Aknin reported the complexes provided one parking space per rental
unit. The overcrowded parking resulted from more people living in each
unit.
Council Member Klein inquired whether the two offsite parking lots would
solve the parking problem.
Mr. Aknin did not know if the additional parking spaces would solve the
entire problem.
Mr. Rodriguez estimated 80 cars parked in Crescent Park. One of the
parking lots was closer to the Newell Street Bridge and the other was closer to Bayshore Road.
Council Member Klein inquired whether Staff proposed a one-year trial
program because of the impending utilization of the two parking lots.
Mr. Aknin wanted to try the program for one year to determine how it
worked and to develop policies for possible RPP programs for neighborhoods
in Palo Alto.
Council Member Klein inquired about a timeframe for a discussion of an RPP
program.
Mr. Aknin felt Staff could provide an overall policy to the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) and the Council in the next few months.
Staff discussed such a program with the Crescent Park and Downtown
neighborhoods.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss
to adopt a Resolution authorizing Staff to implement a one-year trial
program for No Overnight Parking (2:00 A.M.-5:00 A.M.) within certain
street blocks of the Crescent Park Neighborhood.
Council Member Klein indicated the trial program would provide relief for the
neighborhood and send a message to the property owners of the apartment
complexes. Staff should observe the situation to determine whether the
parking problem moved to another neighborhood.
Council Member Kniss requested Staff comment on the cost of the overnight
parking permit. She noted other neighborhoods continued to suffer from
parking problems. It was important for the City of East Palo Alto to know
that Palo Alto was coping with the parking problem. She inquired whether the $5 cost of a permit was included in the Motion.
MINUTES
Page 6 of 11
City Council Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/12/13
Council Member Klein responded that his intent was for it to be included. He
inquired whether the purchase could be made online.
Mr. Aknin reported $5 was the same cost as a guest permit provided in other
programs. If the Council wanted to lower the cost, then the permit cost
should be sufficiently high to pay for administrative and printing costs. He
would determine whether the City had the capability to sell the permits
online.
Council Member Kniss asked about the procedure to obtain an overnight
parking permit.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated a permit cost of $1 would pay for administrative and
printing costs. A resident could purchase several permits at one time. He
needed to determine whether overnight permits could be purchased online.
Council Member Kniss requested Staff return with additional information
regarding online purchases.
Council Member Price inquired whether Staff would communicate with Equity
Partners and the City Manager and Mayor of East Palo Alto.
Mr. Aknin replied yes.
Council Member Price requested a schedule to address an RPP program.
Mr. Aknin noted Staff held several outreach meetings primarily for
Downtown residents and commercial property owners. In September, Staff
would present a proposal for an RPP program for Downtown to the P&TC and
then to the Council. Once Staff developed the parameters for a program in
the Downtown area, then they could utilize those guidelines for other
neighborhoods.
Council Member Price asked if the $5 cost for a permit included costs for
enforcement.
Mr. Rodriguez understood enforcement would result from residents'
complaints.
Council Member Price inquired whether people without an overnight permit
would be warned or receive a citation.
MINUTES
Page 7 of 11
City Council Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/12/13
Mr. Rodriguez explained warnings would be issued during the first two weeks
of the trial period. After that the Police Department would issue citations.
Council Member Price asked if Staff's analysis of the program would include
impacts to adjacent streets.
Mr. Rodriguez reported Staff would return to the area to count cars.
Council Member Holman asked why the 51 percent versus 70 percent
requirement and information about the East Palo Alto parking lots were not
included in the Staff Report.
Mr. Rodriguez explained that Staff viewed the program as traffic calming,
and traffic calming guidelines typically utilized 70 percent. Guidelines for an
RPP program used 51 percent for parking.
Mr. Aknin did not have the information on the parking lots when preparing
the Staff Report.
Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff had asked the City of East
Palo Alto about the legality of charging for a parking space separate from the
unit rental.
Mr. Aknin answered no. Charging separately was a common practice for
rental units located near transit stations. It was a bit unusual for rental
units isolated from transit to charge separately for parking spaces. Staff
could inquire with the East Palo Alto City Manager.
Council Member Holman asked if street sweeping could occur during the
2:00 A.M. to 5:00 A.M. timeframe.
Mr. Rodriguez would inquire about the issue with the Public Works
Department.
Council Member Holman expressed concern about the cost of a parking
permit being too low. If the cost was too low, then residents would simply
purchase permits to park in front of their homes.
Mr. Aknin would monitor that effect during the trial period. Pricing the
permit was difficult to gauge.
Council Member Holman hoped Staff would contact the City of East Palo Alto
as well as the property owners to report the Council's action.
MINUTES
Page 8 of 11
City Council Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/12/13
Vice Mayor Shepherd understood Equity Partners purchased additional rental
units in East Palo Alto. Staff should open a dialog with the City of East Palo
Alto and the property owners. She inquired about parking on Woodland
Drive.
Mr. Rodriguez would talk with the City of East Palo Alto the parking situation.
He understood East Palo Alto restricted parking along Woodland Drive
because of flooding in the area. Portions of Woodland Drive did not meet
federal guidelines for parking.
Vice Mayor Shepherd requested that Staff communicate with the City of East
Palo Alto about parking along Woodland Drive. She was concerned about the separate charge of parking from the rental cost, and asked about State
prohibitions against that.
Mr. Aknin noted each rental unit received one parking space. The two-
bedroom units formerly received two free parking spaces. Now, the renter
paid for a second space.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked why the number of parking spaces could deviate
among cities.
Mr. Aknin felt Ordinances had not caught up to the market charges for
parking spaces. Charging for additional parking spaces was feasible when
the rental units were located close to transit and ample free parking was not
available.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about possible legal recourse. She asked if
the two parking lots were lots or garages.
Mr. Aknin stated they were parking lots.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if there were plans to build garages on the lots
for a future apartment complex.
Mr. Aknin did not know. There were no long-term plans for anything other
than parking on those lots.
Vice Mayor Shepherd felt the property owners should provide adequate
parking.
Council Member Berman asked if Staff obtained a baseline analysis of the
parking situation outside the proposed restricted area for future comparison.
MINUTES
Page 9 of 11
City Council Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/12/13
Mr. Rodriguez indicated by the end of August 2013 Staff would have an
expanded footprint.
Council Member Berman shared his experience counting cars in the Crescent
Park area in January 2013. He hoped an RPP program was not
implemented. He would reach out to the City of East Palo Alto regarding the
parking problem.
Council Member Schmid noted the approval vote for Hamilton Avenue was
exactly 70 percent. He asked Staff how they would draw the boundaries for
counting residences.
Mr. Aknin explained the 70 percent requirement came from traffic calming
guidelines and was used to inform the Staff recommendation. For an RPP
program, Staff would provide percentages for the P&TC and the Council to
make their own determinations. Because Staff utilized 51 percent for the
College Terrace permit program, they would utilize it again for other RPP
programs.
Council Member Schmid stated the definition of a block was very important,
especially along the periphery of the affected area. Palo Alto had city-wide
parking problems. He inquired whether Staff would utilize the same policies
for permit programs in other neighborhoods.
Mr. Aknin indicated the rules for an RPP program would be slightly different
from the rules for an overnight parking permit program. Staff needed to
develop policies for an RPP program.
Council Member Schmid was referring to the emergency Ordinance of no
overnight parking.
Mr. Aknin reported no other neighborhood had requested an overnight
parking ban. Most requests focused on RPP programs related to commercial
intrusion into residential neighborhoods.
Council Member Schmid asked if parking ratios for dense commercial
development or dense housing development were appropriate. East Palo
Alto apartments were looking more like Palo Alto apartments.
Mr. Aknin explained that parking ratios would be one of the critical points of
the Downtown Development Cap process.
Council Member Schmid inquired if the Downtown Development Cap Study would be performed soon.
MINUTES
Page 10 of 11
City Council Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/12/13
Mr. Aknin responded yes.
Council Member Burt inquired whether signage would be placed prior to
implementation and enforcement of parking restrictions.
Mr. Rodriguez explained the plan was to place signs on all the streets in the
program over the next two to three weeks.
Council Member Burt asked if Staff was working collaboratively with the City
of East Palo Alto on the parking problem.
Mr. Rodriguez answered yes.
Council Member Burt suggested parking on Woodland Drive could be a
stopgap measure until the new parking lots were ready. It was appropriate
to have super majority support to opt into a parking program. He inquired
whether Staff should be given discretion to grant hardship permits.
Mr. Aknin indicated neighborhood residents had not raised that concern. If
the issue was raised, Staff could return to the Council for guidance.
Council Member Burt supported adding Staff discretion to the Motion to
prevent Staff from returning to the Council for direction.
Mr. Aknin wanted to consider criteria for a hardship.
Council Member Burt wanted to leave hardship criteria to Staff discretion.
Mr. Aknin was agreeable.
Council Member Burt understood there were vacant parking spaces since
Equity Partners began charging for them. However, Staff indicated there
were no vacant spaces. He requested clarification of that issue.
Mr. Aknin was not sure all parking spaces were occupied.
Mayor Scharff inquired whether the parking problem began in 2011 when
Equity Partners bought the apartment complexes.
Mr. Aknin indicated the problem arose in 2012 once Equity Partners
implemented its policies.
MINUTES
Page 11 of 11
City Council Meeting
Final Minutes: 8/12/13
Mayor Scharff recalled the previous owners of the apartment complexes
attempted to raise rental rates. He agreed with Council Member Burt's
suggestion to allow Staff discretion to set criteria for hardships. He
requested the Motion include Staff discretion to extend permits for more
than one night.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported State law required the program be
authorized by Resolution or Ordinance. Under those circumstances, allowing
Staff discretion needed to be considered carefully and parameters set.
Mr. Aknin recommended the cost of the overnight permit be decreased to $1
or $2.
Mayor Scharff preferred Staff draft criteria and place the item on the
Consent Calendar. If three Council Members objected to the item, then they
could remove it from the Consent Calendar. The Council wanted the
program to work for the neighborhood.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the residential parking permits shall not
exceed $5 a night and if possible may be purchased online from the City.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4119)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/23/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appointment of Acting City Auditor
Title: Council Appointed Officers Committee Recommendation of
Appointment of Acting City Auditor
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
RECOMMENDATION
Motion: Approve Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Committee recommendation to appoint
Senior Performance Auditor Houman Boussina as Acting City Auditor for a temporary period
pending recruitment and appointment of a new City Auditor. Mr. Boussina will be
compensated under the Management & Professional Compensation Plan at 10% above current
salary ($121,264).
DISCUSSION
City Auditor Jim Pelletier has left Palo Alto for a new career opportunity in Florida. The
executive search firm of Ralph Andersen & Associates has been retained to conduct the
recruitment for the new City Auditor and this process will take several months.
The CAO Committee met on August 23, 2013 to discuss various interim options and as a result
recommends that Senior Performance Auditor Houman Boussina be appointed as Acting City
Auditor on a temporary basis. Mr. Boussina has worked with the City Auditor’s Office since
June 2010 and he will provide the necessary stability and continuity needed at this time.
Mr. Boussina has conducted audits covering a variety of subject areas including contract
management and compliance, effectiveness and efficiency of business processes and
information systems, use of government funds, and investigations. Boussina has emphasized
use of computer-assisted audited techniques and database analytic procedures in audit work
that has resulted in high impact audits, including two audits which received the prestigious
Knighton Award from the Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA). Boussina was a
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Performance Auditor at the City and County of San Francisco and was promoted to Audit
Manager prior to joining Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4122)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/23/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Update to Heidelberg Agreement
Title: Reauthorization to Engage in a Non-Binding "Smart Cities Alliance
Agreement" with the City of Heidelberg, Germany, and Direction on
Exploring Future "Smart City" Alliance
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council reapprove the agreement between the City of
Heidelberg, Germany and the City of Palo Alto, replacing the word “partnership”
with “alliance”.
Background
On August 12, 2013, City Council approved Staff Report #3973 to authorize the
Mayor to execute the “Smart Cities Partnership Agreement” with the City of
Heidelberg, Germany at a ceremony to be held in October, 2013.
Discussion
The City of Palo Alto received a request from Heidelberg’s Mayor to change the
word “partnership,” in the agreement to “alliance.” The term “alliance” is more
typically used in Europe than “partnership”. While we may continue to refer to
our Smart City initiatives as partnerships, this change would be appropriate. The
word change would not change the conditions of the agreement. The Heidelberg
Mayor feels that the word change better highlights the difference between smart
city agreements and sister city agreements.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Mayor and City Manager will also be traveling to our Sister City Enschede, The
Netherlands, on this trip. Enschede is also interested in exploring a Smart City
“alliance” with Palo Alto. Mayor Scharff and I will be discussing this with their
Mayor and City Manager. Our trip will occur October 6-13.
In related matters, Vice Mayor Shepherd will traveling to China on behalf of the
City with the Bay Area Council, October 12-20. On that trip, she will be
participating in a Smart City Symposium in Yangpu District Shanghai (our Smart
City Partner in China).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Heidelberg Agreement with Edits (PDF)
Attachment B: Heidelberg Agreement Final (PDF)
Attachment C: 8-12-13 Staff Report (PDF)
Attaachment D: 08-12-13 CC Minutes Excerpt (DOC)
Page | 1
Smart Cities Alliance Partnership between the City of Heidelberg, Germany, and the City of Palo Alto,
California, USA
Introduction
The City of Heidelberg, Germany and the City of Palo Alto, California are interested in formalizing their
relationship, especially in the areas of cultural exchange, environmental sustainability and innovation-
driven economic development. As such, both entities would like to engage in a non-binding “Smart
Cities” Alliance Partnership to work together to strengthen ties.
Goal of the agreement
The principal goal of the alliance partnership is to leverage the assets of both Heidelberg and the City of
Palo Alto (cutting-edge research, talented workforce, world class educational institutions, emerging
technologies, engaged communities, forward-thinking policies and strategies, diverse populations, etc.)
to exchange ideas and value, especially in the areas of environmental sustainability and innovation-
driven economic development.
Areas for collaboration
Heidelberg and Palo Alto, through the sharing of information and “best practices” will assist each other
by sharing our perspectives, successes, and challenges, especially in the areas of economic and
environmental sustainability. We will strive to understand our respective places and cultures, and seek
to align partner in specific areas with a focus on mutual benefit. Once we have built a strong foundation,
we will seek to create mutual programs with measurable results. These programs will target the areas
of sustainable practices & community engagement, as well as the development, market introduction,
and application of new technologies.
Areas of specific interest include assistance to businesses that are developing technology in energy
efficiency, cloud computing, interactive digital arts and gaming, nanotechnology, biotechnology/
medical devices/ health care, sustainable development, electric vehicles and “smart automotive”,
renewable energy, and design. Cooperation or collaboration in these areas will be on an activity-by-
activity basis and through mutual consultation.
Both Palo Alto and Heidelberg will facilitate global growth for local businesses and community
engagement by functioning as the gateway to European and United States’ markets and communities
respectively. This gateway concept will include assisting in identifying community leaders, research
institutions, and companies for visitation, venues for further outreach, and the sharing of information to
assist business growth.
A contact person will be identified in each location to assist with coordination of activities. The identified
contact person will work with business associations and research institutes to assist with connectivity to
the appropriate resources or investment locations in Heidelberg and Palo Alto.
Page | 2
Partners The Cities will work to promote mutually beneficial relationships through Stanford and
Heidelberg Universities to foster internships and cross-businesses/ cultural exchanges. In addition, at
least one joint event will be pursued to engage leaders in both cities towards some meaningful dialogue
and measurable outcomes.
Alliance Partner Organizations
To effectively accomplish the above goals, it is critical that other organizations partners in addition to
the local government participate in this mission. The following are potential Alliance Partner
organizations
Heidelberg
Heidelberg University
Heidelberg Club International
Chamber of Industry and Commerce Rhine-
Neckar
Heidelberg Technologiepark
Palo Alto
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Stanford University
Stanford Research Park
Palo Alto Unified School District
Palo Alto Community Environmental Action
Partnership
Neighbors Abroad
Duration of the Alliance Partnership
The partnership Alliance will be in effect between Heidelberg and Palo Alto for a period of five years
from November 1, 2013. After November 1, 2018, this Alliance will automatically renew on each
anniversary date unless notice of non-renewal is provided by either party 30 days prior to the renewal
date. Both cities agree to review progress on a bi-annual basis.
This alliance partnership expresses the mutual intention of Heidelberg and Palo Alto to foster
collaboration in areas of economic and environmental sustainability. Nothing contained in this
document shall be construed as forming a contract, business entity, partnership or fiduciary relationship
or any other legal obligation between Heidelberg and Palo Alto.
This alliance Partnership is acknowledged and agreed to on behalf of the City of Heidelberg, Germany
and this _________ day of _____________, 2013 in the City of Heidelberg, Germany by
_______________________________, Dr. Eckart Würzner, Mayor of the City of Heidelberg
(Signature)
Page | 3
This alliance partnership is acknowledged and agreed to on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, California,
USA, on this __________ day of _____________________in the City of Heidelberg, Germany, by
______________________________, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, California
(Signature)
Page | 1
Smart Cities Alliance between the City of Heidelberg, Germany, and the City of Palo Alto, California,
USA
Introduction
The City of Heidelberg, Germany and the City of Palo Alto, California are interested in formalizing their
relationship, especially in the areas of cultural exchange, environmental sustainability and innovation-
driven economic development. As such, both entities would like to engage in a non-binding “Smart
Cities” Alliance to work together to strengthen ties.
Goal of the agreement
The principal goal of the alliance is to leverage the assets of both Heidelberg and the City of Palo Alto
(cutting-edge research, talented workforce, world class educational institutions, emerging technologies,
engaged communities, forward-thinking policies and strategies, diverse populations, etc.) to exchange
ideas and value, especially in the areas of environmental sustainability and innovation-driven economic
development.
Areas for collaboration
Heidelberg and Palo Alto, through the sharing of information and “best practices” will assist each other
by sharing our perspectives, successes, and challenges, especially in the areas of economic and
environmental sustainability. We will strive to understand our respective places and cultures, and seek
to align in specific areas with a focus on mutual benefit. Once we have built a strong foundation, we will
seek to create mutual programs with measurable results. These programs will target the areas of
sustainable practices & community engagement, as well as the development, market introduction, and
application of new technologies.
Areas of specific interest include assistance to businesses that are developing technology in energy
efficiency, cloud computing, interactive digital arts and gaming, nanotechnology, biotechnology/
medical devices/ health care, sustainable development, electric vehicles and “smart automotive”,
renewable energy, and design. Cooperation or collaboration in these areas will be on an activity-by-
activity basis and through mutual consultation.
Both Palo Alto and Heidelberg will facilitate global growth for local businesses and community
engagement by functioning as the gateway to European and United States’ markets and communities
respectively. This gateway concept will include assisting in identifying community leaders, research
institutions, and companies for visitation, venues for further outreach, and the sharing of information to
assist business growth.
A contact person will be identified in each location to assist with coordination of activities. The identified
contact person will work with business associations and research institutes to assist with connectivity to
the appropriate resources or investment locations in Heidelberg and Palo Alto.
Page | 2
The Cities will work to promote mutually beneficial relationships through Stanford and Heidelberg
Universities to foster internships and cross-businesses/ cultural exchanges. In addition, at least one joint
event will be pursued to engage leaders in both cities towards some meaningful dialogue and
measurable outcomes.
Alliance Organizations
To effectively accomplish the above goals, it is critical that other organizations in addition to the local
government participate in this mission. The following are potential Alliance organizations
Heidelberg
Heidelberg University
Heidelberg Club International
Chamber of Industry and Commerce Rhine-
Neckar
Heidelberg Technologiepark
Palo Alto
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Stanford University
Stanford Research Park
Palo Alto Unified School District
Palo Alto Community Environmental Action
Partnership
Neighbors Abroad
Duration of the Alliance
The Alliance will be in effect between Heidelberg and Palo Alto for a period of five years from
November 1, 2013. After November 1, 2018, this Alliance will automatically renew on each anniversary
date unless notice of non-renewal is provided by either party 30 days prior to the renewal date. Both
cities agree to review progress on a bi-annual basis.
This alliance expresses the mutual intention of Heidelberg and Palo Alto to foster collaboration in areas
of economic and environmental sustainability. Nothing contained in this document shall be construed
as forming a contract, business entity, fiduciary relationship or any other legal obligation between
Heidelberg and Palo Alto.
This alliance is acknowledged and agreed to on behalf of the City of Heidelberg, Germany and this
_________ day of _____________, 2013 in the City of Heidelberg, Germany by
_______________________________, Dr. Eckart Würzner, Mayor of the City of Heidelberg
(Signature)
Page | 3
This alliance is acknowledged and agreed to on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, California, USA, on this
__________ day of _____________________in the City of Heidelberg, Germany, by
______________________________, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, California
(Signature)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3973)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/12/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: International Relationships
Title: Review of the City of Palo Alto/ Neighbor's Abroad Sister Cities
Program, Discussion of International Relationships Strategy, Authorization to
Engage in a Non-Binding "Smart Cities Partnership Agreement" with the City
of Heidelberg, Germany, and Direction on Exploring Future "Smart City"
Partnerships
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council review and discuss the background and history of
the City’s international relationships, and Motion:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached “Smart Cities Partnership
Agreement” (Attachment 5) with the City of Heidelberg, Germany at a
ceremony to be held in October, 2013.
2. Discuss the Bay Area Council’s invitation to the Mayor and/or other Council
Members to represent the Council in the US-China Collaboration Symposium
in October, 2013, with special focus on the Smart Cities Conference in
Yangpu, Shanghai
3. Direct staff to work with Stanford University to explore the creation of a
Government Innovations and Entrepreneurship Fellowship.
4. Direct staff to work in collaboration with Neighbors Abroad and other
community volunteers to explore the addition of the “Smart City” concepts
to existing Sister Cities who might be interested.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background
Sister Cities International and Neighbors Abroad
Sister Cities International (SCI) was created in 1956 by President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, who “envisioned an organization that could be the hub of peace and
prosperity by creating bonds between people from different cities around the
world.” In a post-war era, SSI promoted “citizen diplomacy”; promoting peace and
prosperity by creating opportunities for people to learn about other people and
cultures and build lifetime friendships [see additional sources 1 below]. The
intent was that upon a foundation of mutual understanding, a new era of
peaceful collaboration between cities, and ultimately nations, would be catalyzed.
In the early 1960s, citizen leaders in Palo Alto formed Neighbors Abroad, an
organization meant to create and manage the City’s emerging international
relations strategy based on the principles of SCI, focused primarily on cultural and
educational exchanges. Palo Alto’s first official Sister City relationship was forged
in 1963 with Palo, Leyte, Philippines. It was followed in 1964 by Oaxaca, Mexico.
Since then, several more official Sister City relationships developed: Enschede,
Netherlands (1980); Linkoping, Sweden (1987); Albi, France (1994); and Tsuchiura,
Japan (2009).
With the goal of “promot[ing] international and inter-cultural understanding” [see
additional sources 2 below], the 50 years of international relationships for Palo
Alto through Neighbors Abroad has been very successful. This is evidenced not
only by the continued relationships between citizens in Palo Alto and our sister
cities, but also in the numerous programs, visits, and student exchanges that
continue to be organized and produced by Neighbors Abroad. Many of these
events are documented in El Chisme de Neighbors Abroad, their bi-monthly
publication. In fact, within the last year, the City has partnered with Neighbors
Abroad to host visits from citizens and leaders from 5 of our 6 Sister Cities (Palo,
Oaxaca, Enschede, Linkoping, and Tsuchiura). It is important to note that in
conversations with each of our Sister Cities it has become clear that they are all
interested in a more focused relationship, especially as it relates to economic
development.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Managing an official Sister-City relationship requires a great deal of energy and
commitment. Neighbors Abroad established a program management structure
that largely relies on a volunteer Vice President to lead each relationship. This
creates a risk to the sustainability of the program if their effort to engage new
members in the leadership pipeline is unsuccessful. Further, while SCI has
adapted its emphasis to include economic partnerships as a focus area, Neighbors
Abroad has deliberatively not done so. Staff recommends working together with
Neighbors Abroad to ensure that our established relationships continue, allowing
the flexibility to transition the nature of our collaborations as appropriate.
“Smart Cities” Partnerships
In the 50 years since 1963, Palo Alto/Stanford has emerged as a global center for
technology and innovation. This has had an important impact on our appeal to
other cities as a potential strategic partner. This interest is evidenced by the
regular visits by leaders from cities all over the world. Environmental
sustainability, innovation-driven economic development, and educational
exchanges are just a few areas where a mutually beneficial, strategic, and focused
relationship could be fruitful for those cities and ours.
Especially in the last decade, changes in the geo-political landscape, technological
advancements, and the globalization of the world economy have made new types
of collaboration and partnership possible. It is now appropriate to review our
international relationships and explore structures and strategies attuned to this
changing landscape and which allow for the flexibility to experiment with new
approaches. Because the Sister-City model does not allow for such smaller,
focused, relationships, the concept of a “Smart-City” partnership has materialized
as a potential new model worth testing.
A smart city, as defined by the United Cities for Local Governments, is “a type of
city that uses new technologies to make them more livable, functional,
competitive, and modern through the use of new technologies, the promotion of
innovation and knowledge management, bringing together 6 key fields of
performance: the economy, mobility, the environment, citizenship, quality of life
and, finally, management.” [See additional sources 3 below]
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The idea of the “Smart City” partnership is to create a vehicle by which the City
can engage with another city or region of the world around strategically targeted
topic areas that benefits the City, its people, and community. The partnership
would be short-term (less than 5 years) in duration, and be expected to provide
valuable results measured through mutually-established metrics. These topic
areas could draw from the Smart City movement, which includes:
Support for Entrepreneurship
Retaining and attracting talent and promoting creativity
Education
Online public services
Transparent governance
Promoting ICT (information and communications technology) and Innovation
Smart mobility
Culture and Identity
Accessibility and e-inclusion [3]
City of Heidelberg, Germany
For several years, the City of Heidelberg, Germany, has been in discussions with
City Leaders about engaging in such a partnership.
In October, a presentation was given to the Council by representatives from
Heidelberg and SAP regarding the City of Heidelberg. This presentation is
attached (Attachment 4), and highlights several of the key aspects of Heidelberg
as well as areas of potential collaboration with the City of Palo Alto. Heidelberg is
a city of approximately 150,000 people that takes up approximately 68 square
miles at the center of the Neckar River Triangle in Germany. It is home to several
institutions of scientific and technical research, and boasts an economy largely
driven by invention and innovation.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Staff was especially impressed with their leadership in the area of environmental
sustainability, both in terms of their City’s goals as well as their robust programs-
especially those that engaged their citizenry in behavioral changes. This is
exemplified by their inclusion in the C40, an internationally respected Climate
Leadership Group, made up mostly of much larger cities. An overview of their
environmental efforts is included in their collateral entitled “Climate Protection
Commitment” included in this report (Attachment 6)
Staff has also identified several current residents in Palo Alto from the Heidelberg
region who have expressed their interest in volunteering in any effort to connect
our two cities. In follow-up efforts and meetings, a “Smart City Partnership
Agreement” has been drafted for the Council’s Consideration (Attachment 5)
Yangpu District of Shanghai, China
In November of 2012, the Council authorized the Mayor to execute an
exploratory agreement with the District of Yangpu, Shanghai, China (Attachment
3). Staff and Council Members traveled to China with a Bay Area Council (BAC)
Delegation, and returned with a presentation on their experiences in December.
At that point, staff was given directions specific to continuing the Yangpu/Palo
Alto relationship. An update of the efforts of staff and volunteers thus far was
included in the Council Packet for 8/5/13 as an informational item. Of particular
note is the successful completion of a pilot student exchange/ experiential
learning program by six teens from Palo Alto High Schools. Staff was also directed
to return to Council with a study session on International Relations. This action
session of the Council is intended to allow for discussion, but also includes the
flexibility for some specific actions for Council’s consideration.
As noted in the informational report on 8/5/13, The City has also been invited by
the Bay Area Council to take part in the “Smart City” Conference 2013 to be held
in China. It begins outside Beijing in Tianjin and concludes in Yangpu, Shanghai.
The Mayor and the City Manager (or appointees) have been invited to speak at
the conference. Vice Mayor Shepherd has been participating in the steering
committee process and expects to have an informative program involving green
tech leaders, government officials and industry. The purpose is to promote 21st
Century thinking on green efforts as China develops their domestic economy and
City of Palo Alto Page 6
public services. The conference is scheduled for October 13-20, and all council
members are welcome to attend. The Bay Area Council has created a special
government rate for those interested in participating.
City of Espoo, Finland and Aalto University
In late May, 2013, The Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Manager, and Asst. Planning
Director met with representatives from the Stanford Technology Venture
Program, leaders from the City of Espoo, Finland, and the University of Aalto in
Espoo. Through this interesting discussion, an idea emerged that a program
between Palo Alto and a Stanford graduate student could be developed with a
focus on government innovations and entrepreneurship. If such a program was
also developed simultaneously between the City of Espoo and Aalto University, it
could form the initial foundation for a very interesting “Smart Cities” Partnership
as well.
Discussion
The City of Palo Alto has an opportunity to build on its international identity and
the existing strong foundation of international relationships to create new value
for the City. In this Digital Age, it is appropriate to build upon our goodwill and
cultural exchanges to reach beyond to form new economic, technical, and
innovation focused programs with other cities in the world.
We can leverage our existing international relationships and add some new ones,
especially those that benefit our city and enhance our position in the global
marketplace. A nimble model such as the “Smart Cities” partnership allows us to
explore potential relationships and engage in shorter term, focused collaboration
towards specific and measureable goals.
The “Sister City” model has an important place in the history of Palo Alto. It has
provided a strong foundation for our international relations. The efforts of the
Neighbors Abroad volunteers and Staff over the last 50 years have been
remarkably valuable and fruitful for the City, especially from a cultural,
City of Palo Alto Page 7
educational, and ambassadorial perspective. Staff recommends that the City
continue to support the Sister City programs, visits, and exchanges largely
managed by Neighbors Abroad. At the same time Staff can also work with
Neighbors Abroad and other interested community members to create new
strategic opportunities as well. These results-oriented relationships need not rise
to the level of depth and permanence of the “Sister City”, and indeed should be
lithe and flexible in their structure. It is intended that through the inclusion of a
new Smart Cities model, Staff and Neighbors Abroad can work to attract a
broader range of citizens to volunteer in the efforts.
Given the background and meetings between the City of Palo Alto and the City of
Heidelberg, a short term Smart City Partnership between the two cities is a good
chance to experiment with a new model and a chance to develop some
measurable results. Additionally, Staff anticipates using it as a test case to draw
new people and interest into our collaboration with Neighbors Abroad. A draft of
a non-binding and exploratory agreement with Heidelberg was created for the
Council’s consideration and approval, and is attached as (Attachment 5)
Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship Fellowship
Staff is also seeking the Council’s direction to work with Stanford to explore the
interest in designing a fellowship that would focus on innovations in local
government and entrepreneurialism. Staff would develop a framework for a
potential program and return to Council for discussion/ action at a later time.
Timeline
Staff intends to return to Council with an update in the first quarter of 2014.
Resource Impact
Some staff time will be dedicated to this effort. it is likely that additional
resources may be requested as part of any further staff recommendations,
especially the creation of a Government Innovations/ Entrepreneurship
Fellowship.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Additional Sources
[1] www.sister-cities.org/mission-and-history
[2] www.neighborsabroad.org
[3] http://www.cities-
localgovernments.org/committees/cdc/Upload/formations/smartcitiesstudy_en.pdf
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Excerpt Minutes 10-22-12 (Heidelberg Presentation) (JPG)
Attachment 2: Excerpt Minutes 12-17-12 (Yangpu Partnership and Direction for Study
Session) (PDF)
Attachment 3: Yangpu Partnership Agreement_Final (PDF)
Attachment 4: Heidelberg Presentation 10-12 PPT (PPTX)
Attachment 5: Heidelberg-Palo Alto Draft MOU_7-1-13 (DOCX)
Attachment 6: Heidelberg Climate Protection Commitment (PDF)
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 4
Special Meeting
August 12, 2013
Review of the City of Palo Alto/Neighbor's Abroad Sister Cities Program,
Discussion of International Relationships Strategy, Authorization to Engage
in a Non-Binding "Smart Cities Partnership Agreement" with the City of
Heidelberg, Germany, and Direction on Exploring Future "Smart City"
Partnerships.
Thomas Fehrenbach, Manager of Economic Development, reported the intent
of the item was to build a framework and strategy for choosing cities and
regions for partnership and methods to measure success. Staff sought
Council direction to work with Neighbors Abroad and other volunteer leaders
to explore a new model for future global partnerships. The first part of the
recommendation authorized the Mayor to execute a Smart Cities Partnership
Agreement with Heidelberg, Germany. Staff would utilize the non-binding
agreement as a test case for a new model of partnership and work with
Neighbors Abroad and other community members who supported the
partnership. The idea was to build a structure for a fruitful exchange and to
measure outcomes. If approved, the Mayor and Council Members would
sign the agreement in October 2013 in Germany. Staff recommended the
Council discuss the Bay Area Council's invitation to participate in the U.S.-
China Symposium in October 2013 in Shanghai, China. The conference
aligned with the City's current exploratory agreement with the Yangpu
District in Shanghai. Staff could work with Stanford University to explore
creation of a Local Government Innovations and Entrepreneurship Fellowship
in the City Manager's office. That position could be mirrored at the
University of Aalto in the City of Espoo, Finland. Staff could return to the
Council in early 2014 with any plans for a fellowship. Staff requested
Council direction to work with Neighbors Abroad to determine whether
current sister cities were interested in a new relationship.
Robert Moss felt the potential agreement with Yangpu regarding
technological and scientific information could be a problem.
Bing Wei, Bay Area Council, stated the agreement was designed to provide a
broad structure for partnership. She supported the City signing an
agreement with the City of Heidelberg.
MINUTES
Page 2 of 4
City Council Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 8/12/13
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked why Heidelberg would be considered a test case
when the Yangpu agreement was in place.
Mr. Fehrenbach indicated the cultural and business differences between the
US and China allowed for the building of cultural understanding. Because
the City had worked with Heidelberg over the past few years, the relationship was more tangible.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss
to: 1) authorize the Mayor to execute the attached “Smart Cities
Partnership Agreement” (Attachment 5) with the City of Heidelberg,
Germany at a ceremony to be held in October 2013; 2) discuss the Bay Area
Council’s invitation to the Mayor and/or other Council Members to represent
the Council in the US-China Collaboration Symposium in October 2013, with
special focus on the Smart Cities Conference in Yangpu, Shanghai; 3) direct
Staff to work with Stanford University to explore the creation of a
Government Innovations and Entrepreneurship Fellowship; and 4) direct
staff to work in collaboration with Neighbors Abroad and other community volunteers to explore the addition of the “Smart City” concepts to existing
Sister Cities who might be interested.
Vice Mayor Shepherd believed the City should work with Neighbors Abroad
to develop economic relationships. She reported on the student exchange
with Yangpu. A closer relationship with Yangpu would provide good
experiences. Palo Alto had a natural synergy with Heidelberg's green
energy. All Council Members were invited to the symposium in Shanghai.
Council Member Kniss indicated Neighbors Abroad made a difference in the
cultural aspects of Sister Cities. The new model provided an opportunity to
interact on a different level with Sister Cities.
Council Member Price inquired whether Staff would provide additional details
concerning the fellowship position with Espoo, Finland.
Mr. Fehrenbach reported the partnership with Stanford University to create
the fellowship was a concept at the current time. Staff requested Council
direction to explore that opportunity.
Council Member Price inquired about the expenses Council Members were
expected to pay for the trips to Germany and China.
Mr. Fehrenbach stated Council Members were expected to pay their
expenses. The Bay Area Council provided a reduced rate.
MINUTES
Page 3 of 4
City Council Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 8/12/13
Council Member Price asked if Staff would present information regarding
resources needed to work on these programs.
Mr. Fehrenbach could return with information for Council consideration.
Council Member Holman expressed concern about the impact of these programs on City resources.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by
Council Member Klein to go forward with Staff recommendations 1 and 3 at
this time: 1) authorize the Mayor to execute the attached “Smart Cities
Partnership Agreement” (Attachment 5) with the City of Heidelberg,
Germany at a ceremony to be held in October 2013; and 3) direct Staff to
work with Stanford University to explore the creation of a Government
Innovations and Entrepreneurship Fellowship.
Council Member Holman felt proceeding in phases was prudent. Because of
earlier Council comments, Recommendation Numbers 1 and 3 were logical first steps.
Council Member Klein agreed the future was global partnerships. However,
the Council needed to define its goals and determine metrics and resource
impacts. He did not understand why Recommendation Number 2 needed
Council action.
Pamela Antil, Assistant City Manager, recalled that previously the Council
decided Council Members would pay for travel. Staff provided
Recommendation Number 2 to allow the Council to discuss payment of
expenses.
Council Member Schmid was excited by the prospect of building relationships
with foreign cities. The intent was to build relationships with respect to
technology, innovation and sustainability. One of the goals of the Heidelberg
partnership was to assist businesses, which was not the City's responsibility.
With respect to sustainability, exchanges with Heidelberg would benefit the
City. He was attracted to Recommendation Number 3, because of the
potential flow of ideas regarding government operations. That type of
relationship could be valuable to the Council.
Council Member Berman supported the Substitute Motion in order to
understand the Smart City concepts and to solidify those concepts with a
few cities.
MINUTES
Page 4 of 4
City Council Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 8/12/13
Mayor Scharff agreed with limiting action to Recommendation Numbers 1
and 3. The Substitute Motion did not preclude acting on Recommendation
Number 4 once relationships were solidified with concrete proposals.
Council Member Burt recommended the primary focus of the relationships
relate to technology, innovation and government and best practices in
sustainable cities. Heidelberg implemented innovative technologies that could benefit Palo Alto. He supported the Substitute Motion.
Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to include Recommendation Number 2 to allow
Council discussion regarding payment of expenses. Recommendation
Number 4 should be implemented to build a better relationship with
Neighbors Abroad.
Council Member Price supported the Substitute Motion. She acknowledged
the important relationships built with Yangpu and China and the fine work of
Neighbors Abroad. Because of impacts to City resources, she preferred to
focus on Recommendation Numbers 1 and 3. With additional experience,
the City could ensure future relationships were successful and mutually beneficial.
Council Member Holman requested Staff provide possible funding sources for
Council trips.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 7-2 Kniss, Shepherd no
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
September 23, 2013 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 4086)
DATE: September 23, 2013
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Member Holman, Council Member Berman, Vice Mayor
Shepherd, Council Member Price
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUE'S MEMO FROM VICE MAYOR SHEPHERD, COUNCIL
MEMBERS BERMAN, HOLMAN, AND PRICE REGARDING BUILDING CODE AND
STALLED CONSTRUCTION
Recommendation
Council direct staff to draft an ordinance that amends the Municipal Code regarding completion
of residential construction projects in a timely manner. The ordinance should address two
issues: 1) the imposition of time limits for building permits; and 2) daily penalties for projects
that exceed the life of a building permit.
While delays in residential construction projects have created a need for immediate action by
Council, we also ask staff to return to the Policy and Services Committee with a brief update
and analysis of delays in commercial construction projects in Palo Alto, if similar issues have
arisen, along with potential solutions.
Furthermore, this draft shall be reviewed by Council’s Policy and Services Committee for final
recommendation to Council.
Background
Home remodels and new construction projects in Palo Alto’s neighborhoods can cause periodic
traffic, parking, noise, and visual impacts for community residents and businesses. Although
the City encourages prompt completion of construction projects construction can sometimes
stall, at times for a few months but occasionally for years. There may be a wide variety of
reasons for the delay ranging from funding issues, to bad design or contracting, to neglectful
property owners. No matter the reason, the resulting incomplete construction project can
become an eye-sore, attractive nuisance and a problem for the residents and neighborhood.
These incomplete projects detract from neighborhood quality of life and residents deserve an
ordinance that they can rely on to ensure that housing projects start and finish in a reasonable
amount of time.
The Municipal Code does not have specific construction timelines. A building permit can be
extended indefinitely so long as an owner completes enough work in a six-month period to
September 23, 2013 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 4086)
progress to the next level of inspection. If a permit expires, there is no requirement or
incentive in the Municipal Code to renew the permit and finish the project.
Incomplete construction can cause a number of problems: unfinished buildings cause visual
blight; construction fencing can obstruct the view of pedestrians and motorists; and unsecured
buildings can present numerous safety concerns since the properties may become destinations
for unlawful or risky behaviors. Ideally, these situations can be resolved quickly and amicably.
However, when projects are stalled indefinitely or abandoned, Palo Alto must have an
ordinance that encourages their swift completion.
Recommendation
In order to address the issue of delays in completion of construction projects, we propose that
the City Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance, which will be first reviewed by the Policy
and Services Committee, which amends the Municipal Code in two areas:
1. The City of Palo Alto should adopt specific time limits for residential building permits.
The maximum life of a building permit should vary depending on the estimated dollar
value of the project.
2. The City of Palo Alto should adopt daily penalties for projects that exceed the life of a
building permit. Penalties should increase the longer a project is delinquent.
We also ask that staff return to the Policy and Services Committee with a brief update and
analysis of delays in commercial construction projects in Palo Alto, if similar issues have arisen,
along with potential solutions.
Stalled construction is an issue in many communities. Several neighboring jurisdictions have
already adopted similar ordinances to address the numerous problems associated with stalled
or abandoned construction projects. For background information, we have attached two
examples of how nearby cities have addressed this issue through their respective municipal
codes.
Although this proposed ordinance would not apply to existing projects unless a new building
permit is issued, it would give City staff an important enforcement tool going forward. We urge
our colleagues to join us in directing staff to prepare an ordinance addressing delinquent
construction projects.
Staff Impact
Staff time will be spent drafting the ordinance and managing the local code amendment
process. Development Services staff will make applicants and/or homeowners aware of the
building permit time limit ordinance during the permit issuance stage. They will also track and
monitor expired permits subject to the ordinance to ensure compliance. Those expired permits
that warrant further action will involve the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning and
Community Environment Department, and potentially the City Attorney’s Office, on an as-
needed basis. Development Services, Code Enforcement and City Attorney staff resources
September 23, 2013 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 4086)
needed to enforce the ordinance could range from minimal to significant, depending on the
number and complexity of enforcement proceedings required.
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
September 23, 2013 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 4107)
DATE: September 23, 2013
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Member Price, Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Shepherd
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUE'S MEMO FROM MAYOR SCHARFF, VICE MAYOR
SHEPHERD, AND COUNCIL MEMBER PRICE REGARDING ELECTRIC VEHICLES
Recommendation
1. That Council direct staff to review the Electric Vehicle (EV) permit process, and
procedures for station installations to streamline the process and insure that it is
customer friendly.
2. To also direct staff to adopt code changes requiring that all new construction of
single family and multiplex housing install the necessary circuitry for EV chargers.
3. That staff consider ways to encourage and support EV use in the City of Palo
Alto and the Bay Area including the following concepts and return to the Policy and
Services Committee with recommendations to ensure that Palo Alto is one of the most
EV friendly City in America. We would also encourage our colleagues to suggest other
recommendations that staff may want to consider. These recommendations shall be
based on Staff analysis and may include but are not limited to:
1) Ensuring that all new Hotels are required to install EV charging stations and to
the extent feasible that all existing hotels are required to install EV charging stations.
2) That staff review the permitting fee structure for EV charging equipment to
reduce costs, or develop cost incentives for the permits in such a way that it is
streamlined and efficient.
Finally, as the EV celebration is hosted at Palo Alto City Hall on September 25, 2013,
we would like to have it announced that Palo Alto will be a leader in the nation in the
installation of EV stations by mandating that all new housing units be required to install
the necessary circuitry.
Background
A core principle for Palo Alto is environmental sustainability. Palo Alto’s Carbon Neutral
Electricity portfolio and a host of other environmental friendly initiatives makes our city
one of the greenest cities in America. We presume that Palo Alto also already has one
of the highest concentrations of electric vehicle owners in the United States. As
September 23, 2013 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 4107)
community members and businesses begin to transition from fossil fuel vehicles to
electric vehicles, it is important that our ordinances and policies not only support this
transition, but also actively encourage it. This policy is particularly timely as we
approach our International Building Code update which occurs every three years.
Anecdotally, we have heard from residents that our permitting process and procedures
for home electric vehicle charging installation needs to be streamlined and the process
made more customer friendly.
Sven Thesen, a Palo Alto resident in Evergreen Park, has contributed to this effort by
installing a curbside EV station in front of his residence, making Palo Alto the first city in
the nation to have a curbside residential EV "filling station." Based on his observation
that this experience of allowing commuters, neighbors and community members to "fill
up" at his expense near the California Avenue business district has resulted in new
friendships, a hub for EV owners to socialize and now capacity problem. In fact,
vehicles are parked there frequently as more drivers purchase and use electric cars and
find their way to his "station."
While the changes we are proposing would not extend Sven’s curbside demonstration
project elsewhere, our prosed changes will make a big difference. Because of the high
concentration of Electric vehicles in Palo Alto, the interest of our citizens in Electric
vehicles and supporting the environment and fighting climate change we believe that
Electric vehicles should be encouraged and supported. Palo Alto is one of the leading
cities in environmental sustainability and it is time to review our processes, ordinances,
requirements and incentives for installation of EV stations throughout Palo Alto to insure
that we encourage and nurture the Electric Vehicle trend.
Staff Impact
Staff reports that the basic code changes should be achievable pretty quickly. The staff
review of permitting structures and other policy issues to advance EV will take some
time but have been expected improvements to our EV program.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4085)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/23/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Response to Grand Jury Report
Title: Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report on Law Enforcement Public
Complaint Procedures
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council review, provide input, and approve the following response to
the 2012-2013 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, “Law Enforcement Public
Complaint Procedures” (“Grand Jury Report”). A copy of the response is included as
Attachment A.
Background
On June 18, 2013, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released the Grand Jury Report
which surveyed various municipal law enforcement jurisdictions in Santa Clara County to
determine their respective complaint procedures. The report was released publicly on June 24,
2013.
A copy of the Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment B.
Discussion
The Grand Jury Report culminates in thirty (30) findings and recommendations (see pages 9
through 15 of the Report). Two (2) of those recommendations related to law enforcement
complaint practices of the Palo Alto Police Department. The following discussion responds to
the recommendations.
Recommendation 17 – “The Palo Alto Police Department should make their complaint materials
freely available in hard copy in their lobby.”
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Response: Agree. On June 26, 2013, the Palo Alto Police Department adopted this change.
Complaint materials are now freely available in hard copy in the police department lobby.
Recommendation 18 – “The Palo Alto Police Department should make multilingual complaint
materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.”
Response: Agree. On June 26, 2013, the Palo Alto Police Department adopted this change.
Multilingual complaint materials are now freely available in hard copy form in the police
department lobby.
Resource Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact resulting from this report.
Policy Implications
This report is consistent with Council policy to ensure the Palo Alto Police Department’s
complaint procedure is both accessible and transparent.
Environmental Review
There is no environmental review required for this report.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - Response Letter to Grand Jury (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B - Grand Jury Final Report (PDF)
o o
-.»..
*•«••>Jorl 27 /iff||:2|13 jl....•'':'"°
June 24,2013
Honorable Gregory Scharff
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the CityCouncil:
The 2012-2013 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report,Law
Enforcement Public Complaint Procedures.
California Penal Code §933(c)requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or
department which has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under
the control of the governing body. California Penal Code § 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to
Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this letter.
1. As stated in Penal Code §933.05(a),attached,you are required to "Agree"or "Disagree" with
each APPLICABLE Findinq(s)17 &18 .Ifyou disagree, in whole or part,you must include an
explanation ofthe reasons you disagree.
2. As stated in Penal Code §933.05(b),attached, you are required to respond to each
APPLICABLE Recommendation^17 &18 .withone of four possible actions.
Your comments are due in the office of the Honorable Brian C.Walsh,Presiding Judge,
Santa Clara County Superior Court,191 North First Street,San Jose,CA 95113,no later than
Wednesday,September 25,2013.
Copies of all responses shall be placed on file withthe Clerkofthe Court.
SPM:dsa
Enclosures (2)
Sincerely,/^/$4^r^
steven p.Mcpherson
Foreperson
2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury
cc:Mr.James Keene,City Manager,City ofPalo Alto
ChiefDennis Burns,Palo Alto PoliceDepartment
7iN 2012-2013 SANTm CLARA COUNTY |"I L fc\y CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT JUN u m
DAVJDH.YAMASAKI_JChtefB(oc»rtlvBOHie8r/CIefk
LAW ENFORCEMENT PUBLIC COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
Summary
The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury)reviewed and evaluated the
procedures and methods utilized by local law enforcement agencies in receiving
complaints from members ofthe public involving law enforcement agencies.
The State of California requires that each local law enforcement agency establish a
procedure to investigatecomplaints from members ofthe public against their personnel
and make a written description of their procedure available to the public.This report
evaluates the complaint procedures employed bythe Office ofthe Sheriff and municipal
law enforcement agencies in Santa Clara County,notes differences among jurisdictions,
and offers suggestions for improvement.
Background
The function of the Grand Jury is to examine aspects ofcounty and city government and
special districts'operations to ensure that the best interests of the public are being
served.The Grand Jury studied the procedures employed by law enforcement agencies
in accepting complaints from members of the public about their officers or deputies.
California Penal Code Section 832.5 (a)(1) requires that entities that employ peace
officers establish a procedure to:
•investigate complaints from the public against their personnel,and
•make a written description of the complaint procedure available to the public1
Law enforcement functions in the county are performed by police departments in the
cities of Campbell,Gilroy,Los Altos,Milpitas,Morgan Hill,Mountain View,Palo Alto,
San Jose,Santa Clara,Sunnyvale,the Town of Los Gatos,and by the Office of the
Sheriff in the unincorporated county areas and tothe contracted cities ofCupertino,Los
Altos Hills,and Saratoga.The Town of Los Gatos provides law enforcement services to
the Cityof Monte Sereno.
Two cities,Palo Alto and San Jose, have an Independent Police Auditor (IPA).IPAs
provide civilian oversight of the police department.The work and functions of the IPA
are beyond the scope of this report.This report focuses on the practices and
procedures of the law enforcement agencies regarding the complaint procedure.
California Penal Code § 832.5
w o
Methodology
Duringits investigation, the Grand Jury:
•Distributed a survey to the Officeofthe Sheriffand to 11 municipal law
enforcement agencies within the county,with follow-up e-mail clarifications when
necessary
•Compiled and analyzed survey results
•Reviewed California Penal Code Sections 148.6,832.5,and 832.7
•Reviewed California Civil Code Section 47.5
• Reviewed on-line information available to the public relating to filing complaints
• Visitedthe surveyed law enforcement agencies between December 2012
and May 2013 to acquire their respective hardcopy complaint materials available
to the public
• Reviewed the law enforcement agencies'procedures for receiving a complaint
•Reviewed IPA Annual Reports from the cities of San Jose2 and Palo Alto3
Discussion
The Complaint Procedure Overview
California Penal Code Section 832.5 (a)(1), shown in Appendix A,defines the
requirements of a complaint procedure,which requires that each entity establish a
procedure to investigate complaints against peace officers and make a written
description ofthe procedure available to the public.
The Grand Jury surveyed the Office of the Sheriff and municipal law enforcement
jurisdictions in the county to determine their respective complaint procedures.4 The
survey responses revealed that the complaint procedure varied by jurisdiction.
Differences noted were:(a)access to materials in hard copy or on-line;(b)the
existence of a complaint form;and (c)the availability of multilingual materials.
(Hereafter,"complaint materials"includes complaint procedure and complaint form.)
Additionally,in the course of reviewing the jurisdictions'complaint materials,the Grand
Jury discovered that advisory warnings to potential complainants cited legal advisories
that have been found unconstitutional by various courts.
2http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=200
3http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/auditor.asp
4Jurisdictions surveyed were:Campbell,Gilroy,Los Altos,Milpitas,Morgan Hill,Mountain View,Palo Alto,San Jose,
SantaClara,Sunnyvale,the Town ofLosGatos,andtheOffice ofthe Sheriff.The cities ofCupertino,Los Altos Hills,
and Saratoga werenotsurveyed sincetheirlawenforcementdutiesare performed undercontract tothe Office of the
Sheriff.The City of Monte Serenowasnot surveyed sincetheir law enforcement dutiesare performed under contract
to the Town of Los Gatos.
n rs
Written Complaint Procedure
All jurisdictions surveyed responded that they have a procedure,as required by the
Penal Code,to receive complaints from the public.Some jurisdictions make their
procedures available on-line or in hard copy form.The City of Mountain View,however,
does not make its written procedure available to the public,as required by the Penal
Code.
Complaint Forms
Jurisdictions are not required to provide a specific complaint form.However,a
complaint from the public is more likely to result in a thorough investigation if the
complaint includes all relevant information. A detailed complaint form can provide
guidance in this process.
The Grand Jury visited every jurisdiction's office(s),as well as their websites.Every
jurisdiction,except the cities of Campbell and Santa Clara, had a specific form for a
complainant to complete.In lieu of a form,the cities of Campbell and Santa Clara
described in their respective procedures how and what information to include in a
complaint.
The Grand Jury believes that either by the procedure or the form itself,the complainant
should be clearly advised regarding what information to include in their complaint. For
instance,some jurisdictions'complaint materials make it clear to the complainant that
dates,badge numbers,witnesses,and other specific information are helpful to the
investigation. Conversely, the complaint form of San Jose and the on-line version of
Sunnyvale's complaint form provide little guidance to the complainant about what
information the jurisdiction needs for its investigation.5
Public Access to Complaint Materials
As discussed above,all jurisdictions have a written complaint procedure,but Mountain
View does not make their procedure available to the public.When the Grand Jury
examined each jurisdiction's website and visited the jurisdiction's office(s),it found the
following,as shown in Table 1:
•Some have a complaint form.
• Some make their complaint materialsavailable only on theirwebsite.
• Some provide a hard copy of their complaint materials at their office.
•Some make their complaint materials available only upon request.
5Notably,the San Jose IPA's complaint form iswell detailed in this regard.However,a complainant might complain
to the San Jose Police Department ratherthan the IPA.
-
Public Access to
Complaint
Procedure
Public Access to
Complaint Form
* "In lobby"means freely available without request in hard copy
Table 1.Public Access to Complaint Materials
form
Many in the public may prefer to gain access to complaint materials via the internet
rather than to physically go to the agency to secure a specific form or document.Of
note,the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety maintains two,independent,
not mutually linked websites,www.sunnvvaledps.com/and
www.sunnvvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicSafetv.aspx.The first contains their
complaint procedure;the second contains a complaint form.
For those in the public without easy internet access,using a hard copy form may be
their onlyalternative. As set forth inTable 1 above,some jurisdictions provide hard copy
complaint materials in the lobby of their office(s)and some provide the hardcopy
complaint materials only upon request.In the City of Milipitas, a requested complaint
form can only be obtained from the on-duty watch commander,a practice that some
may find intimidating. The City of Mountain View does not make its complaint
procedure available to the public in any form.
Law enforcement agencies should make complaint materials available both on their
website and freely available in hard copy form in the lobby of their office(s).
f~\r\
Availability of Multilingual Complaint Materials
Although there is no legal requirement to do so, and considering the language diversity
in Santa Clara County,providing complaint materials in English,as well as other
languages representative of the demographics of the jurisdiction,would be essential to
a robust complaint process.The Grand Jury survey and investigation revealed that not
all jurisdictions provide multilingual complaint materials,as demonstrated inTable 2.
Multilingual Access
to Complaint
Procedure
Multilingual Access
to Complaint Form
On-line
Hard Copy
On-line
Hard Copy
Jurisdiction In
lobby"
On
request
In
lobby-
On
request
Campbell ;NO,.No No No;;No :m
Gilroy :,Noj:
1""'•••••I'lV
Yes No ;•;M Yes
Los Altos Yes Yes n/a Yes Yes n/a
Los Gatos Yes .No :#,••,•-'No;;.:m
Milpitas Yes Yes •:m:\>•,••••i j Yes
Morgan Hill :Nok;i8$fc-l •r-m-Ma::,:WIS ;#
Mountain View NoV life-;No 'No:;-iNiS p.
Palo Alto Yes rw H6 Yes ';No;||r :VNo
San Jose'Yes »v :.:%''';Np;:No;!.;:N0
City of Santa Clara Yes life NO 'Wr\:No^m
Office of the Sheriff Yes :No No Yes "Nof"»•
Sunnyvale Yes No No
...—
Yes No •No
*"In lobby"means freely available without request in hard copy form
Table 2.Multilingual Access to Complaint Materials
During the Grand Jury's investigation,the City of Los Altos updated its complaint
materials and made them available on-line and in hard copy form in English,Spanish,
and Chinese,which appears to reflect the demographics of its community. The Grand
Jury applauds the quick actions of the City of Los Altos to provide multilingual access to
its complaint materials.
The City of Palo Alto and the Office of the Sheriff allow on-line translation of all
complaint materials.
The City of San Jose's IPA has complaint materials available in English,Spanish,Vietnamese,Braille,and via
audio recording
o o
The cities of Milpitas,San Jose7,Santa Clara,and Sunnyvale,and the Town of Los
Gatos,offer some on-line translation of their complaint materials,but the Grand Jury
found that the translation capability is not comprehensive because not all of their
complaint materials are multilingual.
The cities of Campbell, Gilroy, Morgan Hill,and MountainView do not offer or allowany
on-line translation capability of complaint materials.
Only the City of Los Altos makes multilingual complaint materials in hard copy form
freely available in the lobby of their office.The cities of Gilroy and Milipitas provide
access to hard copy multilingual complaint materials only upon request.The cities of
Campbell, Morgan Hill,Mountain View, Palo Alto,San Jose,Santa Clara, Sunnyvale,
the Town of Los Gatos,and the Office of the Sheriff do not provide multilingual hard
copy complaint materials.
Criminal Advisory to Complainant
California Penal Code Section 148.6 made it a misdemeanor to file a false allegation
against a peace officer.Section 148.6 also required that the entity providean "advisory"
for the complainant to read and sign.That advisory specified that the complainant has
a right to make the complaint and described the law enforcement agency's
responsibilities regarding the handling of the complaint. In addition, the advisory
admonished the complainant that:
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE.
IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE,
YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.!
However,in November of 2005,the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared California
Penal Code Section 148.6(a)(1)to be unconstitutional.Specifically,the Court held that
the statute was unlawful because it only criminalized false allegations against a peace
officer but did not criminalize knowingly false assertions in support of a peace officer,or
made by a peace officer or witness during the course of a misconduct investigation.8
The case was appealed to the U.S.Supreme Court, which declined to review the
decision.As a result,the federal court has found California Penal Code Section
148.6(a)(1)to be unconstitutional and,thus,it cannot be enforced.Continued reference
to this unenforceable code provision presents a risk that citizens will be intimidated from
filing legitimate complaints. As a result, problems may go unrecognized and
uncorrected.
7 ibid
8See Chaker v,Crogan (2005),428 F.3d 1215.On May 15,2006,the United States Supreme Court
denied a petition for review .
n.r\
The cities of Morgan Hill,Mountain View,and Sunnyvale include the advisory language
in their complaint materials indicating that itis a crime forthe complainant to makefalse
allegations against a peace officer.In light of the use of this advisory being held
unconstitutional,the Grand Jury recommends the removal of the California Penal Code
Section 148.6 advisory language from allcomplaint materials.
Civil Advisory to Complainant
Civil Code Section 47.5 was enacted to allow a peace officer to "bring an action for
defamation against an individual who has filed a complaint with that officer's employing
agency alleging misconduct,criminal conduct, or incompetence,if that complaint is
false, the complaint was made with knowledge that it was false and that it was made
with spite,hatred,or ill will.Knowledge thatthe complaint was false may be proved by a
showing that the complainant had no reasonable grounds to believe the statement was
true and that the complainant exhibited a reckless disregard forascertaining the truth."
Unlike the criminal advisory contained in Penal Code Section 148.6,entities were never
required to advise potential complainants about this statute.The California Court of
Appeal,the state's intermediate appellate court,has reached conflicting conclusions
regarding the constitutionality of Civil Code Section 47.5, with the most recent decision
holding that the law is valid. Lower federal courts,however,have found the statute
unconstitutional.The City ofMorgan Hill and the Office ofthe Sheriff retain language in
their complaint materials nearly identical to the above statute.Regardless,the civil
advisory is notmandated and continued referencetothiscode provision of questionable
enforceability presents a risk that citizens will be intimidated from filing legitimate
complaints.As a result,problems may go unrecognized and uncorrected.The City of
Morgan Hill and the Office of the Sheriff should remove this civil advisory from their
complaint materials.
Conclusion
California Penal Code Section 832.5 requires entities that employ peace officers to
establish a procedure:
• To investigatecomplaints from the public against theirpersonnel
•To make a written description ofthe complaint procedure available tothe public
The Grand Jury reviewed and assessed the procedures established bythe Office of the
Sheriff and the municipal law enforcement agencies within the county for receiving
complaints regarding their personnel.The report was prepared using the responsesof
a survey addressed to and answered by 12 jurisdictions, email clarifications when
necessary,a review of their websites,and on-site visits to their offices.
All law enforcement agencies surveyed have a procedure to address complaints from
the public.Through agencies'responses,web searches,and on-site visits, the Grand
Jury determined thatthe availability to the public ofthe complaint procedure varied by
jurisidiction.Differences between agency were: (a)access to complaint materials in
hard copy form or on-line;(b)the existence ofa complaint form;and (c)the availability
of multilingual complaint materials.
\y W
The Grand Jury recommends that agencies make their complaint materials - complaint
procedure and complaint form -available on-line and freely available in hard copy form
in their lobby.Additionally,the Grand Jury recommends that agencies make their
complaint materials available in multiple languages reflective oftheir community.
The Grand Jury noted that the cities of Campbell and Santa Clara do not provide
complaint forms.Complaint forms,when they exist, vary widely among agencies.With
the goal of collecting all relevant complaint information,the Grand Jury recommends
that all agencies make available a detailed complaint form on-line and freely available in
hard copy form intheir lobby.
The Grand Jury found that the complaint materials of some agencies include reference
to California Penal Code Section148.6,which has been held unconstitutional and/or
language similar to California Civil Code Section 47.5,which has been called into
question.Continued reference to these code provisions presents a riskthat citizens will
be intimidated and deterred from from filing legitimate complaints. As a result,problems
may go unidentifed and uncorrected.
The Grand Jury recommends that offending agencies remove reference to California
Penal Code Section 148.6 and/or language similarto California Civil Code Section 47.5
from their complaint materials.
8
n r^
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1
The Campbell Police Department makes their complaint procedure available only in
hard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 1a
The Campbell Police Department should make their complaint procedure available on
line.
Recommendation 1b
The Campbell Police Department should make a complaint form available on-line and
also freely available inhard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 2
The Campbell Police Department makes their complaint procedure available only in
English.
Recommendation 2
The Campbell Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 3
The Gilroy Police Department makes their complaint materials available only upon
request.
Recommendation 3
The Gilroy Police Department should make their complaint materials available on-line
and also freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 4
The Gilroy Police Department makes their multilingual complaint materials available
only upon request.
Recommendation 4
The Gilroy Police Department should make their multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
VJ w
Finding 5
The Los Altos Police Department makes all of their multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 5
None
Finding 6
The Los Altos Police Department complaint form includes reference to the
unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory.
Recommendation 6
The Los Altos Police Department should remove reference to the unconstitutional
California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory from their complaint form.
Finding 7
The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department does not make all of their complaint
materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 7
The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department should make their complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 8
The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department complaint materials are only available
in English.
Recommendation 8
The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department should make multilingual complaint
materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 9
The Milpitas Police Department does not make all of their complaint materials available
on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
10
r>r\
Recommendation 9
The Milpitas Police Department should make their complaint materials available on-line
and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 10
The Milpitas Police Department does not make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 10
The Milpitas Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials available
on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 11
The Morgan Hill Police Department does not make their complaint materials freely
available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 11
The Morgan Hill Police Department should make their complaint materials freely
available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 12
The Morgan Hill Police Department complaint materials are available only in English.
Recommendation 12
The Morgan Hill Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 13
The Morgan Hill Police Department complaint materials include reference to the
unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory and language
that mirrors the California Civil Code Section 47.5 civil advisory.
Recommendation 13
The Morgan Hill Police Department should remove reference to the unconstitutional
California Penal Code Section 148.6 advisory and the language that mirrors the
California Civil Code Section 47.5 civil advisory from their complaint materials.
11
<J <J
Finding 14
The Mountain View Police Department does not make all of their complaint materials
available on-lineand also freely available intheir lobby inhard copy form.
Recommendation 14
The Mountain View Police Department should make their complaint materials available
on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 15
The Mountain View Police Department complaint materials are available only in English.
Recommendation 15
The Mountain View Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 16
The Mountain View Police Department complaint materials include reference to the
unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory.
Recommendation 16
The Mountain View Police Department should remove reference to the unconstitutional
California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory from their complaint materials.
Finding 17
The Palo Alto Police Department does not make their complaint materials freely
available in hard copyform in theirlobby.
Recommendation 17
The Palo Alto Police Department should make their complaint materials freely available
in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 18
The Palo Alto Police Department does not make multilingual complaint materials freely
available in hard copy form in their lobby.
12
O r>
Recommendation 18
The Palo Alto Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials freely
available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 19
The San Jose Police Department complaint form provides little guidance to the
complainant about what information is needed.
Recommendation 19
The San Jose Police Department should add content guidance to their complaint form.
Finding 20
The San Jose Police Department does not make all of their complaint materialsfreely
available in hard copy form inall of their lobbies.
Recommendation 20
The San Jose Police Department should make their complaint materials freely available
inhard copy form inalltheir lobbies.
Finding 21
The San Jose Police Department does not make all of their multilingual complaint
materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in all theirlobbies.
Recommendation 21
The San Jose Police Department should make all of their multilingual complaint
materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in all their lobbies.
Finding 22
The Santa Clara Police Department does not make all complaint materials available on
line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Recommendation 22
The Santa Clara Police Department should make all complaint materials available on
line and also freely available in hard copy form in theirlobby.
13
<J o
Finding 23
The Santa Clara Police Department does not make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 23
The Santa Clara Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 24
The Office of the Sheriff does not make their complaint materials freely available in hard
copy form in alltheir lobbies.
Recommendation 24
The Office of the Sheriff should make their complaint materials freely available in hard
copy form in all their lobbies.
Finding 25
The Office of the Sheriff does not make multilingual complaint materials freely available
in hard copy form in all their lobbies.
Recommendation 25
The Office of the Sheriff should make multilingual complaint materials freely available in
hard copy form inall their lobbies.
Finding 26
The Office of the Sheriff complaint materials include language that mirrors California
Civil Code Section 47.5 civil advisory.
Recommendation 26
The Office of the Sheriff should remove the language that mirrors California Civil Code
Section 47.5 civil advisory from their complaint materials.
Finding 27
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety on-line complaint form provides little
guidance to the complainant about what information is needed.
14
r^r>
Recommendation 27
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should add content guidance to their on
line complaint form.
Finding 28
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety does not make all of their complaint
materials available in all Department of Public Safety websites operated by the City of
Sunnyvale.
Recommendation 28
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should make their complaint materials
available in all Department of Public Safety websites operated by the Cityof Sunnyvale.
Finding 29
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety does not make multilingual complaint
materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Recommendation 29
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should make multilingual complaint
materials freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 30
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety complaint materials include reference to
the unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory.
Recommendation 30
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should remove reference to the
unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory from their
complaint materials.
15
^o
Appendix A
California Penal Code Section 832.5 (a)(1)
Each department or agency in this state that employs peace
officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by
members of the public against the personnel of these
departments or agencies,and shall make a written description of
the procedure available to the public.
16
r\r\
This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors
on this 4th dayofJune,2013.
^3^J^JMk^^iL
Steven P.McPherson
Foreperson
Lyn H.Jefhnson
Foreperson pro tern
Chester F.Hayes
Foreperson pro tern
A\iu^^f
TT
Francis A.Stephens
Secretary
17
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
Ci
v
i
l
Gr
a
n
d
Ju
r
y
19
1
No
r
t
h
Fi
r
s
t
St
r
e
e
t
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
,
CA
95
1
1
3
Ho
n
o
r
a
b
l
e
Gr
e
g
o
r
y
Sc
h
a
r
f
f
Ma
y
o
r
Ci
t
y
of
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
25
0
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
,
CA
94
3
0
1
c c