IBJNews

City panel tables approval of new towing contract

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Board of Code Enforcement put off voting on a new citywide towing-management contract Thursday after members said they wanted more information about the bids from San Francisco-based AutoReturn and its local competitors.

“In light of what’s happened in city government in the last week, we need more oversight,” board member Susan Blair said, referencing the federal indictments of two Department of Metropolitan Development employees alleged to have accepted kickbacks in Land Bank deals.

Code enforcement staff is recommending AutoReturn for a five-year contract to manage about 29,000 city-ordered tows per year. Currently, three local firms, Last Chance Wrecker, Wheeler's and Hanna's, split most of the towing work according to their assigned zones, which align with police districts.

AutoReturn uses GPS technology to deploy local towing subcontractors under what would be a brand-new system, which is supposed to streamline the service. The management contract would consolidate city towing services under one manager for the first time, said Kate Johnson, deputy director of the Department of Code Enforcement. AutoReturn already has worked out deals with local subcontractors, some of which would have their first chance to earn city business, she said.

The city would be guaranteed revenue of $1.5 million a year under terms of the request for proposals issued in December. Code enforcement officials would not discuss terms of AutoReturn’s proposal or name the other bidders.

Marc Lloyd, an attorney representing Last Chance, said his client was one of three local firms that bid. He didn’t know the names of the other two.

The city averages about $1.2 million per year in towing revenue, which comes from a $45 fee that the contracted firms pay when they receive a referral from police. The money flows to the Department of Public Safety and offsets the cost of police officers' time, Johnson said.

The fee to vehicle owners on all city-ordered tows is capped at $90.

Code enforcement spokesman Adam Baker said he could not discuss whether that fee would increase under AutoReturn’s proposal.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Another OOS Firm!
    Could we really not find a local firm to handle towing for the city? Last year we awarded a 15 year Lottery management contract to a company in Rhode Island. Guess our city/state leaders don't think Indiana based companies are sophisticated enough to handle their contracts. What other state/city contracts have been awarded to out of state owned companies?
  • Rates
    It's interesting that Adam Baker could not discuss if the towing fee would increase. Of course it will increase, you're adding an out of state middleman.
  • Forgot to mention...
    Another thought, how do we really think doing something like this will effect the employment rate here in Indy? Do we think San Fran really cares what OUR unemployment rate is... Doubt it... This would definitely send some local companies right into the ground. Lets not kick more Hoosiers lives upside down.
    • Why would we do this?
      Why is the city not looking at the other proposals. GPS is not new technology, it's being used already in our city. There's no reason to put money in to San Fran, when it would make more sense and be easier to put it right back here in Indy. So what we all really want to know is who's pockets are getting fat off this one.
    • Get Real John
      The California company hired Barnes & Thornburg lobbyists. B&T all but runs the Mayor's Office. Did you expect a different result?
    • Hire Local!!!!!!!!
      See, another Land Bank! Just hire a local towing firm!!!!!!!!!!!! Why give San Fran more money, they have enough! All these HOOSIERS need work and the city hires a firm in San Fran to tow cars?!?!? This is stupid!

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

      2. If you only knew....

      3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

      4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

      5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

      ADVERTISEMENT