The Zipcar fiasco was seemingly completely unnecessary. For months, members of the public and columnist Bob Dunning complained about the City’s 74,000 dollar contract with Zipcar, much of which would have been removed through appropriate levels of usage.
Under the terms of the contract, the City was required to pay a maximum of $18,600 per quarter for use of the 4 vehicles in the Zipcar program. According to the agreement, this amount would be reduced by the amount of revenue received from member usage.
Forty to fifty percent vehicle usage was needed to exceed the minimum amount due and have no cost to the City. If the City met the minimum utilization for two consecutive quarters, Zipcar would remove the minimum payment requirement for the remainder of the contract.
According to city staff: “As the City exceeded the minimum payment for two consecutive quarters, Zipcar removed the payment requirement for the remainder of the contract. Funds paid to Zipcar to implement this program totaled $8,712, which is significantly lower than the initial estimate of $20,000 per year. Funds for implementation of this program came from subdivision environmental mitigation project funding.”
The Zipcar controversy should never have occurred. It was a $74,000 contract from non-general fund sources. And yet, the fact that it did illustrates huge problems with city government in Davis.
It begins with the failure of council to do proper oversight over a contract. Then Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson would correctly point out this was their very first council meeting
While the Davis City Council quickly passed approval of a contract with Zipcar, neither city council nor the staff scrutinized the contract in a sufficient manner that would have revealed a gulf between the city’s expressed view of the contents of the contract and what was actually written on paper.
The Council would approve the contract 5-0 in a July meeting known more for speed than meticulousness.
In the ensuing weeks, Davis Enterprise Bob Dunning began to hammer the city for the deal, arguing that this was a subsidy to a private company, that the city was advantaging an out-of-town car rental company over existing business, and that the city could face liability in the case of an accident.
After getting hammered for several weeks, the city eventually put forth a Fact Sheet and Joe Krovoza and Stephen Souza wrote an op-ed based on the Fact Sheet, defending the program.
In a letter to council, then-acting City Manager Paul Navazio stated, “Contract amendments are being worked out to essentially reflect the agreements reached with ZipCar – on selected program elements – after the Council approved the original contract, and prior to the roll-out of the program last month.”
Mr. Navazio continued with a shocking admission, “The need for the amendment(s) came to light as inconsistencies were identified between the current, executed contract and the ZipCar Program FACT SHEET that we have on our City website.”
On November 9, 2010, after defending the Zipcar program several times, the Vanguard learned that the staff knowingly put out a Fact Sheet that was at odds with the Zipcar Contract. The city staff allowed council to pass a contract when they knew there were problems with some of the language.
Furthermore, the city staff put out information to the public that reflected their verbal agreements with Zipcar but not their written contract, meaning the released information had no force of law behind it.
At the time, the Vanguard was told that the situation would be rectified shortly. Now, more than a month after this article and four months after city staff knowingly provided a flawed contract for the council to sign, the city is finally formally amending the contract, if council passes the changes next week.
Writes the city staff, “After the agreement was approved, and prior to the program launch event on September 22nd, city staff worked with Zipcar to clarify the City’s roles and responsibilities for marketing and managing the service. Adjustments to these responsibilities were all favorable to the City and have been applied since the program inception.”
There were four key changes.
First, the program start date is changed from August 15 to October 1. Not sure what the implications are for this, as the staff report does not elaborate.
Second, they clarify “that the program will be promoted to city as a whole, not only to students and employees, as inadvertently stated in the original language.” Also, they state that “Zipcar, not the City, will maintain and fill postcard drop boxes at or adjacent to Zipcar parking locations.”
Third, “Clarifies and formalizes the practical working agreement between Zipcar and City regarding marketing roles and responsibilities. City will work with Zipcar by identifying strategies to assist in marketing and promotion of the Zipcar service to residents of the City. Zipcar will implement the marketing plan.”
Fourth and most important, it “removes the City’s responsibility for transporting vehicles to service.”
The good news is despite the horrendous mistakes made by staff turning a tiny contract and into a huge fiasco, the program has worked. It is breaking even, the city does not owe money to Zipcar for the remainder of the contract.
It worked so well that in in August, Zipcar approached the City with a request to add two vehicles due to high vehicle utilization.
According to the staff report, “Car sharing has many positive aspects including reduction of carbon emissions and saving members money on transportation costs.”
They conclude: “The Davis Zipcar program has proven to be very successful and will continue to grow over time and assist the City in meeting its carbon reduction goals. Staff recommends approval of the contract amendment which will add two vehicles to the program, at the Depot parking lot, and will remove the City’s minimum usage requirement.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I am glad it is successful and glad we do not incur charges any longer however at risk of beating this dead horse, it was still $8K spent and unfair competition to rental agencies in town AND it could have been much higher. Let’s hope the city and CC learned something from this horse.
[quote]”The Davis Zipcar program has proven to be very successful and will continue to grow over time and assist the City in meeting its carbon reduction goals. Staff recommends approval of the contract amendment which will add two vehicles to the program, at the Depot parking lot, and will remove the City’s minimum usage requirement.”[/quote]So, is all that in writing, as part of a legally binding document?
[quote]At the one-year point in the contract, the council received the status report. Far from the $74,000 boondoggle that was described by critics, the program has broken even since March.[/quote]
If the city is helping w marketing and providing “free” parking spaces, then in my opinion this program is not yet “breaking even”.
[quote]According to the staff report, “Car sharing has many positive aspects including reduction of carbon emissions and saving members money on transportation costs.”[/quote]
I’m not buying this claim. The person drives their car or Zipcar, its still the same amount of pollution, unless they happen to own a super polluting car…
“I’m not buying this claim. The person drives their car or Zipcar, its still the same amount of pollution, unless they happen to own a super polluting car…”
Not only that, if the Zipcar option wasn’t there maybe the person renting it would have rode their bike or taken public transportation instead.
One possible benefit of having Zipcar in Davis that has not yet been used, but could be in the future, would be to allow some residential development downtown which has no parking spaces. From a planning standpoint, that is a tough sell. It’s probably impossible to enforce an agreement which says, “the resident will not have a car.” But if Zipcar is an option, and there is nowhere practical for the downtown resident to park his own car, then new core area residents might find it perfectly acceptable to exclusively use Zipcar when they have to drive around town. That kind of arrangement could be built into leases through perhaps a discount on Zipcars paid for by the developer.
One of the main reasons I thought it would have made sense to construct the E-F garage (which apparently won’t be built) was to allow off-site parking for new second or third story apartments over retail and office spaces downtown. But if the new residents have the option of Zipcar and bicycles and Amtrak and Unitrans and Yolo Bus, maybe we really can allow new three story buildings which don’t provide their own parking spaces. Doing so is really the only way you can get actual densification.
As the citizens of Davis continue to be caught in a reactive posture on many issues (such as the Zip Car contract, the Surface Water Project, the Crown Castle Distributed Antenna System, the Results Radio tower relocation fiasco, and others), it is becoming clear that our fair City of Sheep has bred a Government of Wolves!
Agree with most of your report, David. But still have a few observations and questions about how this episode was (and, worse, [u]still is[/u]) being handled by the city.[i][quote]”Far from the $74,000 boondoggle that was described by critics, the program has broken even since March.”[/quote][/i]Let’s not suggest critics were quite so ignorant as to be insisting that the $74,000 would be spent rather than understanding that this is was a $74,000 [u]insurance/guarantee[/u] boondoggle. I’m assuming you’re using the first definition for “boondoggle”–[i][quote]”1. a scheme that wastes time and money, or 2. a ‘scoubidou’, a knotting and plaiting craft known in the U.S. as ‘boondoggle’.”[/quote][/i]SODA is correct, it’s important that some things get learned here rather than just covered up with general comments about success and positive aspects.[i][quote]The Zipcar controversy should never have occurred. It was a $74,000 contract from non-general fund sources.[/quote][/i]Sorry, this is one of the worst justifications for stupid staff recommendations and council approvals ever invented and we get it all the time from council members and even the [u]Vanguard[/u]. I thought we had a new year’s resolution to stop using “it’s just redevelopment money” so we can waste it without having to justify the decisions.
Not quite clear to me that its breaking even either.
Factor in exclusive parking spaces (a very short and valuable commodity downtown)
and staff time (time = $, no?) for program oversight and marketing.
Also, I seem to recall that there had been an issue regarding whether the City of Davis shared some aspects of liability with Zipcar? What about the costs of that liability adding to city liability insurance costs?
[quote]Also, I seem to recall that there had been an issue regarding whether the City of Davis shared some aspects of liability with Zipcar? What about the costs of that liability adding to city liability insurance costs? [/quote]
I had forgotten about that aspect. Good question…
In a confirmation of the arbitrary censorship that Dr Wu describes my post confirming his remarks was taken down for no reason other than they were critical of the censor’s failings.
“I’m not buying this claim. The person drives their car or Zipcar, its still the same amount of pollution, unless they happen to own a super polluting car…”
The argument is that people with Zipcars will drive less and thus pollute less.
[quote]The argument is that people with Zipcars will drive less and thus pollute less.[/quote]
LOL