1. COLLEGE STATION POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Vehicle Towing & Storage
Services

2. Current Vehicle and Towing
Services System
 Current Tow Rotation system is based upon
City of College Station Code of Ordinances,
Chapter 4, “Business Regulations” Section 10
“Tow Truck & Vehicle Storage Business
Regulations”
 This ordinance was adopted on April 24, 2003
and has not been amended since it was
adopted.

3. Current Definitions
 Consent Tow means any tow of a vehicle initiated by the
owner or operator of the vehicle or by a person who has
possession, custody, or control of the vehicle (No fee
regulation)
 Non-consent tow means any tow of a vehicle that is not a
consent tow. Examples include those that are initiated by the
Police Department for incident management or arrest
situations ($100 maximum fee can be charged)
 Tow away means a tow authorized by a property owner. For
example, apartment complex, shopping center, or restaurant
parking lots ($75.00 maximum fee can be charged)

4. Current Ordinance Requirements
 All tow businesses making non-consent tows
in College Station must have a current and
valid tow truck license listing each tow truck
operated by the tow company
 Must utilize a licensed storage facility located
within Brazos County.
 The ordinance currently requires a tow
rotation list

5. Tow Rotation List
 The College Station Police Department maintains
a tow rotation list
 30 minute response time requirement
 Annual fee of $200.00 per company to be on the
rotation list
 Each company on the rotation list are required to
allow their trucks and storage facility to be
inspected

6. CSPD Inspection Checklist
 Verify information on each truck
 Color, Make, Model, Etc.
 State Licensing Information
 Verify required equipment is on each truck
and in working order
 Verify required lettering is on each truck

7. CSPD Inspection Checklist
 Storage Facility Inspection – State Standards
 Verify fencing requirements
 Verify vehicles are properly secured
 Verify the surface of the storage facility is
acceptable
 Verify the appropriate facility contact information
is provided

8. 2012 Inspection
 In 2012, Police Department employees
inspected:
 29 Companies
 61 Wreckers
 11 Storage Facilities

9. 2012 Inspection
 Personnel required for inspection:
 One Sergeant – 16 Hours
 Two Police Officers – 80 Hours Each
 One Police Assistant – 80 Hours
 256 Total man-hours
 Total Estimated Cost: $7,605.50
 With 29 companies inspected, $5,800 was
paid in Administrative fees

10. Concerns with Rotation
System
 Annual fee does not cover the expense of
required inspections
 Only the trucks and vehicle storage facilities
are annually inspected
 The drivers are not permitted by the City and
do not go through any type of background
check by the City
 The ordinance must be amended to do away
with the tow rotation list

11. RFP 13-025 – Vehicle Towing
& Storage Services
 Solicited proposals from qualified contractors
 Award a non-exclusive contract with the right to award
additional contracts reserved
 Released RFP on November 16, 2012
 Advertised RFP on November 16 & 23, 2012
 Pre-proposal Meeting November 27, 2012
 Submission Deadline December 6, 2012
 Eight responses received by the City and reviewed by the
City.

12. RFP 13-025 – Vehicle Towing
& Storage Services
Scope of Work included:
 Vehicle Storage
 Incident Clean up
 Towing Services
 Consent
 Non-Consent
 City Owned Vehicles

13. RFP 13-025 – Vehicle Towing
& Storage Services
 Evaluation Criteria:
 Qualifications & Experience
 Rates & Expenses
 Methodology
 Safety Record, Compliance, Claims, Litigation,
Reputation, & References
 Compliance with Proposal Requirements Including
Clarity and Content of Responses
 Each response was evaluated based on these
criteria according to an evaluation matrix

14. RFP 13-025 – Vehicle Towing
& Storage Services
 A draft of the City’s proposed ordinance was
sent to the state for review and has been
approved
 Complaint and fine information from the
state was requested on the contractor
proposals that were reviewed

15. Concerns of Company Owners
Rumor:
 Eliminating the rotation system will force ½ to ¾ of the
County’s tow companies out of business
Fact:
 In 2012, CSPD called for a rotation wrecker 1,990 times.
($199,000)
 $3,262 per truck on the list
 $6,862 per company on the list

16. Concerns of Company Owners
Rumor:
 Elimination of rotation system will create a monopoly
Fact:
 Any and all qualified contractors were invited to
respond to the RFP
 Anticipated that a review will periodically be done and
proposals requested on a regular basis
 Same concept with any other contractor the City
utilizes

17. Concerns of Company Owners
 Tow aways called into CSPD was 3,238
($242,850)
 $3,981 per truck
 $8,374 per company
 61% more tow aways than rotation tows
 These numbers do not include the consent tows
that are done

18. Company Owners’
Recommendations
 Convert to a “one owner, one rotation”
system
 Eliminate Inspections
 Require Communication Between Law
Enforcement and Tow Companies

19. Eliminating the Rotation
System
 Changing our system will not affect the
rotation list in Bryan, which is used by BPD,
BCSO, and DPS
 In 2012, these agencies logged 1,770 rotations
($177,000)
 In addition, there were 1,209 tow aways or
repossessions logged

20. Eliminating the Rotation
System
 Multiple other entities already on sole source
or limited source wrecker systems
 Fayetteville, Arkansas
 Southlake, Texas
 University Park, Texas
 New Braunfels, Texas
 Lancaster, Texas
 Wichita Falls, Texas
 University of North Texas
 Texas A&M University

21. Eliminating the Rotation
System
 Fayetteville, Arkansas
 Limited sources for five years
 Has resulted in fewer complaints from citizens and officers
 Despite the reduction in police tows to companies not on
contract, they are unaware of any who have gone out of
business due to no longer utilizing a rotation system
 “I feel comfortable this system is far more manageable and is
the best system for our customers and our department.
Timeliness of response has greatly been improved over our
previous rotation method”

22. Final Thoughts
 Moving from a rotation system allows for a more
consistent and efficient system to be utilized
 Inspections are critical and often reveal
concerns. Moving from a rotation system
reduces the number of inspections that will be
required to be done
 By summonsing a wrecker to a scene, we are
endorsing that company. It is imperative that we
have confidence in those we allow to remove
property

23. Final Thoughts
 Eliminating the rotation system only affects
those tows that are initiated by the City
 All wrecker companies licensed by and in
good standing with the state will still be able
to make consent and tow away tows within
College Station