Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout27 - Refuse Collection StudyaEVUVpRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FoR City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 27 November 27, 2012 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Municipal Operations Department Mark Harmon, Municipal Operations Department Director 949 644 -3055, mharmon(o.newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Mark Harmon, Municipal Operations Department Director APPROVED: n A TITLE: Study of City Refuse Collection Services RECOMMENDATION: Municipal Operations staff recommends that the City Council receive the attached Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study ( "Study ") and direct staff to; a) continue refuse collection services as currently provided and file the Study, or, b) negotiate a contract with HF &H Consultants, LLC, (Consultant) to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit proposals from private companies for providing this service. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no financial impact to the City in evaluating the information in this report. If the Council directs staff to begin the RFP solicitation process, the additional fee for that work would be negotiated with the Consultant and the City Manager would enter into an agreement with Consultant to complete that process. The current adopted budget includes sufficient funding in the Professional and Technical Services account (3150- 8080) to fund the Consultant's work in developing the RFP. DISCUSSION /SUMMARY On January 24, 2012, City Council entered into an agreement with Consultant to analyze the services performed by the City Refuse Division (Attachment A). On October 4, 2012, the Consulting Team submitted their report titled "Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study" (Study) for the City of Newport Beach (Attachment B). The Study of City Refuse Collection Services November 27, 2012 Page 2 purpose of this agenda report is to highlight and identify the objectives of this study, with the detailed information and findings contained in the attached Study. Objective 1- Existing Refuse Collection Program The first step in the Study was to define the current operation as it is performed with City staff and equipment. Page 6 though 10 in the Study details the personnel and equipment needed, the processing and disposal of materials collected, route management, and other services provided such as limited bulk item collection. Objective 2- Current Solid Waste Operation Costs and Five Year Projection This section identifies the incremental cost of the solid waste operation- the cost directly attributable to the field operation. This is the amount ($4.9M) that would be eliminated if the service was contracted out, or privatized. The remaining cost in the operations budget includes the Newport Coast collection contract and the interdepartmental allocations (i.e. IT charges, Administrative Services fees, etc.), or incremental costs, that would have to be spread or allocated to other departments in the event that the solid waste operation is contracted. These overhead charges that support other operations would not be eliminated. The chart on the top of page 11 shows a five year projection with all costs included. The cost per unit for the fully loaded (budgeted) operation is $17.84 per month. The cost per unit less the incremental costs is $15.56 per month. Objective 3- State Regulations Impacting Solid Waste Collection The regulation that has the greatest impact on the current operation is identified in the Study as AQMD Rule 1193 (page 15). Rule 1193 mandates that all future purchases of solid waste collection equipment is powered by alternative fuel (CNG primarily). This Rule has resulted in an increase of 25 to 35% in the cost of replacing our heavy -duty collection vehicles. Table 5 of the Study (page 16) shows the projected cost of purchasing equipment over the next three years if the equipment is replaced as scheduled. Objective 4- Identify and Compare Local Municipalities with Private Hauler Service The City's current cost per unit/month and cost per ton were compared to the cost of five (5) cities in Orange County: Laguna Beach, San Clemente, Irvine, Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach. Charts on page 17 of the Study show the cost comparison. Study of City Refuse Collection Services November 27, 2012 Page 3 Objective 5 Indentifv and Compare Reaional Cities with Municipal Residential Service The City's current cost per unit/month and cost per ton were compared to the cost of five (5) cities in the region. These included Westminster, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Burbank and Beverly Hills. Charts on page 18 of the Study show the cost comparison. Objective 6- Municipalities that have Privatized Residential Refuse Collection Services The Study examines the case study of the City of Hemet, and their decision to work with a private hauler to develop a strategy and funding mechanism for providing the service to the residents while also providing jobs for displaced workers. The description of "Other Services" provided (page 21) exemplifies many of the special functions that a private company may offer when submitting a proposal for waste collection in a city. Objective 7- Potential Services Alternatives The major change to service alternative for the City of Newport Beach would be the shift from manual collection to an automated collection system. While automation has several benefits such as fewer trucks on the road, decreased worker comp claims, uniform sealed containers and fewer code enforcement issues, the move to automated collection is very costly. Following the analysis of routes, units and tonnage, the Consultant determined that the City would need to purchase seven (7) automated trucks at a cost of approximately $2M, and approximately $4M in automated carts for the residents to maintain current service levels. Objective 8- Ranae of Savinas from Privatizin The Consultant uses several different methodologies to determine a potential costs savings in privatizing the solid waste collection activity. Labor cost is a primary function of the total per unit cost of providing service, and table 14 on page 27 shows the difference in labor cost comparing private and municipal haulers. The city currently contracts for service in the Newport Coast community at a rate of $12.74 per unit. If that cost were applied to the current areas with municipal service, the savings would be approximately $1.67M per year. Also noted in the report is the possible one -time cash infusion of $4.9 to $5.3M due to the sale of existing equipment and the elimination of the equipment replacement fund for the solid waste collection trucks. Request for Proposal Process If the City moves forward with the RFP process, it would be critical that the proposals include a detailed plan on how the firm would work with the City to develop a strategy on collection of solid waste. This strategic plan would include the type of service (manual /automated), special services (green waste, special event collection, hazardous waste including medical and electronic, extra collection for rental unit locations, and bulk Study of City Refuse Collection Services November 27, 2012 Page 4 item collection) and how to phase in the new services. The ability to work with the city to develop a service /cost strategy for future waste management would be an important measure or criteria in the proposal from a company. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Submitted Mark Harmofi v Municipal Operations Director Attachments: A. January 24, 2012 Agenda Report, Selection of a Vendor to Evaluate City Refuse Services B. City of Newport Beach, Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 7 January 24, 2012 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Municipal Operations Department Mark Harmon, Municipal Operations Department Director 949 644 -3055, mharmon @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Mike Pisani, Deputy Municipal Operations Director APPROVED: 0` TITLE: Selection of a Vendor to Evaluate City Refuse Services ABSTRACT: The City Manager has directed staff to evaluate key City services to insure they are provided in an economical and efficient manner. To provide such an evaluation, Municipal Operations staff completed an RFP process to select a qualified consultant to perform a baseline study of refuse collection service operations and total costs, as well as to analyze alternatives and "best practices" models. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with HF &H Consultants, LLC, of Irvine to complete an analysis of the services performed by the City Refuse Division and to perform the requested tasks at a cost of $99,500. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: The current adopted budget includes sufficient funding for this contract. It will be expensed to the Professional and Technical Services account in the Municipal Operations Department (MOD), 3150 -8080. DISCUSSION: In recent years, the City has evaluated several important services to evaluate whether an in- house, outsourced, or hybrid model is appropriate. These include airborne law enforcement, street sweeping, parking meter management, beach refuse collection, restroom maintenance, and more. Refuse collection is one area that the City Manager believes deserves an analysis, too — in part because: Selection of a Vendor to Evaluate City Refuse Services January 24, 2012 Page 2 7 • It is a $5.7 million annual cost item to the City; • Personnel costs — including benefits and injury/claims compensation — remain a significant part of any labor- intensive public operation; • The current system where cans are non- standard and do not have fixed lids can lead to code enforcement issues and limits automation where automation is possible; • Because of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) requirements, the cost of air quality - compliant refuse collection trucks is fairly high; • It is relatively rare that cities provide this service directly, creating a strong group of contracting companies in the marketplace; • Significant portions of the community today are served by private- sector vendors (Santa Ana Heights, Bonita Canyon, Bay Knolls, Newport Coast, all multi - family residential units); and • Single- family homes in portions of the community today with City - provided refuse collection have the service funded via the 1% "Basic Levy" of their property tax, while other portions of the community pay for refuse collection separately and in addition to their property tax — making the City - provided refuse collection service compete with operations in police, fire, EMS, library, and other departments for resources. That noted, staff also recognizes that: • This is a City service that is well- regarded by residents as a critical perquisite for living in those portions of Newport Beach that have City - provided refuse collection; • Staff members who serve in the Refuse Division provide a very physical and challenging job, and they do so with great professionalism and exemplary customer service; • The City's neighborhoods are very diverse — a refuse collection model for Balboa Island may not work as well in the Port Streets, nor West Newport or the Balboa Peninsula; and • Any change to the current service — regardless of in -house versus contracted model — should reduce costs while still meeting or exceed the current service standards (unlimited cans, mixed waste recycling, customer care standards, and more). To evaluate whether refuse collections in MOD are provided in the most economical and efficient fashion, the City Manager directed staff to conduct a study of refuse collection operations. MOD and Finance Department staff prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a qualified firm to conduct a study of existing operations, costs, level of service and a best practices in the refuse collection industry. Selection of a Vendor to Evaluate City Refuse Services January 24, 2012 Page 3 7 The RFP specified three primary tasks and one optional task. Task 1 is to completely analyze the current City refuse collection program through the collection of cost and operational (number of homes collected, tons of waste collected) data. This task will also include an analysis of collection equipment, maintenance, workers comp and liability costs, management costs and take into account future needs. Task 2 will use this data to compare our costs to service delivery models in other municipalities, using examples of cities where solid waste is collected by either city staff or a private company. This task will also include an examination of the potential service changes to City refuse collection (automated collection, source separated vs. commingled recyclable collection, and more). In Task 3, the consultant will develop a report of their findings, review their conclusions with staff, and ultimately report the findings to the City Council. The report will provide the City Council an independent, outside evaluation of the services provided by the City and suggest opportunities for improved service and reduced costs, if any. Task 4 is optional and will only be activated at the City Council's direction. This task is to have the selected firm assist in administrating a separate RFP process to solicit bids to provide refuse collection from private waste hauling firms, or from the current City operations team. This task will only be requested if after receiving the Refuse Service Report the City Council directs staff to begin an RFP solicitation process. RFP Process: On November 9, 2011, the RFP solicitation was publicly distributed. A pre - proposal meeting was conducted on November 17, 2011 to allow interested parties to discuss the scope of services requested in the RFP with City staff. At the submittal deadline, the RFP solicitation generated proposals from three (3) consulting firms: HF &H Consultants, SCS Engineers and Waste Systems Management. To properly evaluate the proposals, an internal evaluation panel was convened whose members are knowledgeable of refuse operations and finance. In accordance with the administrative procedures set forth in Council Policy F -14, a two - step Qualifications -Based Selection process was utilized by the evaluation panel. In the first step, proposals were evaluated on criteria that included: demonstrated understanding of the services requested and the project at hand, experience in public sector solid waste consulting services, qualifications of personnel assigned to the project and overall project methodology. Using these criteria, the proposals were evaluated and ranked against each other. The second step involved opening and assessing the feasibility of the cost proposal of the highest qualified firm. The following is a brief narrative on each proposal received, in order of rank: Selection of a Vendor to Evaluate City Refuse Services January 24, 2012 Page 4 7 HF &H Consultants: This firm, based in Irvine, presented a proposal that reflected the firm's extensive knowledge of the solid waste collection industry and experience in handling similar studies for other local municipalities. HF &H Consultants' proposed project team included dedicated experts in financial analyses, local government policy, accounting, law and solid waste best practices. In their proposal, HF &H Consultants provided samples of studies and reports performed for the cities of Beverly Hills and Long Beach which impressed the evaluation panel. The RFP also contained a Statement of Disclosure requiring all firms to disclose any prior business relationships with solid waste collection hauling firms; HF &H Consultants had no reportable business activities or relationships with any of these firms. SCS Engineers: This firm, based in Long Beach, also impressed the evaluation panel with demonstrated knowledge of the solid waste collection industry and project history. However the proposal from SCS Engineers proposed a collaborative effort with a firm named R3 Consulting Group in performing the requested analyses. Among the evaluation panel there was some reservation regarding this proposed collaboration, resulting in a slightly higher rank for HF &H Consultants due to their experienced and balanced proprietary project staff. Furthermore, SCS Engineers disclosed some project history with a number of private solid waste collection hauling firms. Waste Systems Management: While the proposal from this La Mirada -based firm demonstrated a working knowledge of the project and the analyses required, it also appeared to present the least amount of similar project experience of all the proposals received. Although highly skilled, there were only two (2) staff members proposed to be assigned to this project and that concerned the evaluation panel. Waste Systems Management had no reportable business activities or relationships to disclose. Final Ranking. After evaluating all three (3) received proposals, the evaluation panel ranked HF &H Consultants as the most qualified firm for this project. The cost proposal from HF &H Consultants was then opened and at Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($99,500.00) was concurrent with the projected cost for this project. The RFP detailed three (3) key objectives to be performed by the selected consultant: (1) analysis of the City's current refuse collection program, (2) analysis and comparison of the City's service levels to those of other local municipalities and (3) development and reporting of the findings of these analyses. The proposal also included the optional 4`h task to assist in an RFP process if direction from Council is received. The cost proposal of $99,500.00 from HF &H Consultants provides for 484 total hours to complete these objectives. Selection of a Vendor to Evaluate City Refuse Services January 24, 2012 Page 5 7 Attached is a Professional Services Agreement with HF &H Consultants to perform the requested services. Following City Council approval, the Agreement will be executed by the City Manager. Staff will not proceed into Task 4 unless directed to do so by formal vote of the City Council upon completion and public discussion of the HFH report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Cnhmiffori hv- Municipal Operations Department Attachments: A. Professional Services Agreement with HF &H Consultants, LLC for Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Consultation Services PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH H F & H CONSULTANTS, LLC FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ( "Agreement ") Is made and entered into as of this day of January, 2012 by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Califomia municipal corporation and charter city ( "City"), and H F & H CONSULTANTS, LLC, a Caliifomia limited liability company ( "Consultant"), whose address is 19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 360, Irvine, California 92612 and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on Its business as It is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City currently provides residential solid waste and recycling services to many City residents. C. City desires to engage Consultant to assess the service level of the City's current residential solid waste and recycling program, including comparison of the City's service levels to those of other agencies and private refuse collection operational models ( "Project"). D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement. E. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project shall be Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President. F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in ,this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on July 31, 2012 unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED City and Consultant acknowledge that the above Recitals are true and correct and are hereby Incorporated by reference. Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference ( "Work" or "Services "). The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. and Consultant shall perform the Services in accordance with the schedule included in Exhibit A. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule may result in termination of this Agreement by City. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT 4.1 City shall pay Consultant for the Services on a time and expense not-to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and Incorporated herein by reference. Consultants compensation for all Work performed in accordance with this Agreement, Including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and no/100 ($99.500.00) without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. 4.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the Work performed the preceding month. Consultants bills shall include the name of the person who performed the Work, a brief description of the Services performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the Services were performed, the number of hours spent on all Work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days'after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. 4.3 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: 4.3.1 The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the Services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with this Agreement. 4.3.2 Approved reproduction charges. 4.3.3 Actual costs and/or other costs and /or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 4.4 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work' means any Work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 2 Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B. 5. PROJECT MANAGER 7 5.1 Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel. 5.2 Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of Services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that It will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 6. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Municipal Operations Department. Mark Hannon, Municipal Operations . Director, or his/her designee, shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the Services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES 7.1 in order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable: 7.1.1 Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing relevant Information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultants Work schedule. 8. STANDARD OF CARE 8.1 All of the Services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultants supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all Services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards. All Services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not'employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. By delivery of completed Work, Consultant certifies that the Work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws and the professional standard of care. 8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 3 licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement. 7 8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's Work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies. 9. HOLD HARMLESS 9.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, Its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees (,collectively, the "Indemnified Parties ") from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attomey's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any breach of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, any Work performed or Services provided. under this Agreement including, without limitation, defects in workmanship or materials or Consultant's presence or activities conducted on the Project (including the negligent and /or willful acts, errors and /or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors, suppliers, subconsultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of them). 9.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this Indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Consultant. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is .understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the Work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing the Work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 4 the performance or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the Services. 11. COOPERATION 7 Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the Work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 12. CITY POLICY Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 13. PROGRESS' Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and /or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 14. INSURANCE 14.1 Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and •prior to commencement of Work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the tern of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. 14.2 Proof of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsement must be .approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 14.2.1 Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The cost of such Insurance shall be included In Consultant's bid. 14.3 Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an Insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the Cfty's Risk Manager. H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 5 14.4 Coveraae Requirements. 14.4.1 Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000)) for Consultant's employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 of the Labor Code In addition, Consultant shall require each subconsultant to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of Califomia, Section 3700 for all of the subcontractor's employees. 14.4.1.1 Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days (ten (10) calendar days written notice of non - payment of premium) prior to such change. 14.4.1.2 Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. 14.5 General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance In an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, blanket contractual liability. 14.6 Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, Including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each accident. 14.7 Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) limit per claim and in the aggregate. 14.8 Other Insurance Provisions or Reauirements. 14.8.1 The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 14.8.1.1 Waiver of Subrogation. All Insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, .agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or, others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these requirements to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subcontractors. 14.8.1.2 Enforcement of Agreement Provisions. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 6 inform Consultant of non - compliance with any requirement Imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder. 14.8.1.3 Requirements not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not Intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as It pertains to a given issue and is not Intended by any party or Insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. 14.8.1.4 Notice of Cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige Its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with thirty (30) days notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which ten (10) days notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. 14.9 Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. 14.10 Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which In its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the Work. 15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the Services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the Issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the Interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant If Consultant is a partnership or joint - venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty - five percent (25 %) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint - venture. 16. SUBCONTRACTING The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering Into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express written consent of City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the Work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of City. 17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 17.1 Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced (hereinafter "Documents "), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of Implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 7 shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request. 7 17.2 Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents for other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. 18. CONFIDENTIALITY All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and communications that result from the Services in this Agreement, shall be kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information. 19. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, Including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. 20. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the Work to be performed under this Agreement Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any Services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and Invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow Inspection of all Work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement: 21. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue Work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an Immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his/her designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 8 the rate of return that City eamed on Its investments during the time period, from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 22. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS 7 In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the Work accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and/or restoration expense shall be bome by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under the law or any other sections of this Agreement. 23. CITY S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the Project. 24. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 24.1 The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the Califomia Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act "), which (1) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the Work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. 24.2 If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 25. NOTICES 25.1 All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be given in writing, and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first -class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All nodoes, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: Attn: Mark Harmon, Municipal Operations Director Municipal Operations Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach,. CA 92658 Phone: 949- 6443055 Fax: 949 -650 -0747 25.2 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at H F &-H Consultants, LLC Page 9 Attention: Laith Ezzet, Senior Vice President H F & H Consultants, LLC 19200 Von Karmen Avenue, Suite #360 7 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949 -251 -8902 Fax: 949- 251 -9741 26. CLAIMS The Consultant and the City expressly agree that in addition to any claims filing requirements set forth In the Agreement, the Consultant shall be required to file any claim the Consultant may have against the City in strict conformance with the Tort Claims Act (Government Code sections 900 et seq.). 27. TERMINATION 27.1 In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement at the time and In the manner required, that party shall be deemed in default In the performance of this Agreement. If such default Is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, and thereafter diligently take steps to cure the default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. 27.2 Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by giving seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for Services satisfactorily performed and costs Incurred up to the effective date of termination for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other information developed or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form. 28. STANDARD PROVISIONS 28.1 Compliance With all Laws. Consultant shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities, Including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted. In addition, all Work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City, county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City. 28.2 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 10 28.3 Integrated Contract. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. 28A Conflicts or Inconsistencies. In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 28.5 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 28.6 Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 28.7 Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, Illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 28.8 Controlling Law and Venue. The laws of the State of Califomia shall govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange, state of California. 28.8 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, age or any other impermissible basis under law. 28.10 No Attorney's Fees. In the event'of any dispute or legal action arising under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall not be entitled to attorney's fees. 28.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the dates written below. 7 APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE A California municipal corporation and charter city Date: I /I z. At- Date: By: �lf C for } By: Aaron C. ,lip, Dave Kiff City Attorney \1`\ City Manager ATTEST: CONSULTANT: H F & H Consultants, Date: LLC, a California limited liability company Date: By: Lellani I. Brown City Clerk By: Leith B. Ezzet Senior Vice President Date: By: John Famkopf Secretary [END OF SIGNATURES] Attachments:. Exhibit A — Scope of Services Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 12 EXHIBIT A — SCOPE OF SERVICES 7 Objective 1: Analysis of current City refuse collection program Consultant shall perform a comprehensive operational and financial analysis of the City's existing residential refuse collection program. As part of this objective, the Consultant shall review the City's existing In -house operations for residential refuse collection services. Operationally, the Consultant shall define the current service level being provided by assessing the service levels of the existing refuse collection operation, including schedules, routes, and more, and analyzing recent program satisfaction ratings by residents relative to the service levels currently provided. The Consultant shall also assess current and projected facility requirements based on the existing operations. Financially, the Consultant shall calculate the City's current program costs and projected cost increases for the in -house refuse collection services provided by the City, including a valuation of the City's existing solid waste collection equipment. Consultant shalt perform the following specific tasks which comprise Objective 1: 1A. Prepare a preliminary data request for City staff; 1B. Prepare for and conduct a study kickoff meeting with City staff; 1C. Identify and document the City s existing refuse collection program; 1D. Calculate current solid waste operation costs and prepare a five (5 }year projection of costs; and 1E. Identify and discuss changes in State of California regulations related to waste collection and diversion. Objective 2: Best practice models Consultant shall explore residential refuse collection service levels of other local municipalities and Identify possible service alternatives and service provision options from other contracts. As part of this objective, the Consultant shall report on what programs other local municipalities have undertaken to effectively and• creatively provide refuse collection. This provision may include discussions regarding those cities that have transitioned from In -house operations to working with a private residential refuse collection service, or any cities that have actually replaced outsourced providers. The Consultant shall review these contracts and/or agreements to privatize and identify any services, operating models, service enhancements or alternatives that may be feasibly adopted by the City, that might include, but not be limited to: • Automated collection, • Environmentally - friendly (i.e. "green ") collection practices, • Collection practices that might allow one resident to curbside recycle desptte another on the same block wishing not to do so; • Quieter collection practices, • Bulk item collections, • Alley collections. This review will also include looking at other municipalities for any examplew that demonstrate alternative service delivery approaches that enable the City to provide refuse collection at levels that meet or exceed current standards. The Consultant shall also evaluate :and compare the contract rates and costs for those local municipalities that have privatized residential refuse collection, the City's current program cost, as well as the costs incurred by municipalities that currently operate residential refuse collection programs In- house. Consultant shall perform the following specific tasks which comprise Objective 2: 2A. Identify and compare the residential refuse collection service levels and cost metrics in five (5) selected local municipalities and rates charged to customers; 2B. Identify and compare the residential refuse collection service levels and cost metrics in five (5) regional cities with municipal residential refuse Collection and the rates charged to customers; 2C. Describe other municipalities that have privatized refuse collection; 2D. Describe the potential service aftematives that could be provided by the City; and 2E. Review the City's existing commercial refuse collection program. Objective 3: Develop and present report of findings Consultant shall compile the Information gathered from the previous Objectives and develop a formal report presenting the findings, highlighting strengths of the City's current refuse collection program and discussing potential options for service improvement. ' The Consultant shall develop a formal report detailing the findings from Objectives 1 and 2. The report shall also discuss the City's current in house service model; comparing service levels relative to other agencies, highlighting strengths of the current refuse collection program and providing potential areas of improvement of the current refuse collection program. The Consultant shall assess and quantify the future needs of the City's . refuse collection program, such as resource and facilities requirements needed to sustain the current in house program. The report shall also discuss the cost and benefits of outsourcing options detailing how a private option could address the City .of Newport's service level expectations. The report should also address any service level enhancements from recent refuse collection contracts that the City may feasibly Implement, including any potential benefits. Any examples of cost savings proposed must also be accompanied with an analysis of both the magnitude and sustainability of the proposed cost savings. The Consultant shall be required to present the report and its corresponding findings to the Newport Beach City Council at up to two (2) Council meeting sessions. These meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. As part of the response to the requirements of this Objective, the Consultant shall also provide its methodology for compiling the report and presenting the findings to a formal body, including content and approach. H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 14 Consultant shall perform the following specific tasks which comprise Objective 3: 3A. Prepare a draft report of findings; 7 313. Review draft report with City staff; 3C. Prepare the final report; and 3D. Present findings to the City Council at up to two (2) meetings. H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 15 EXHIBIT B — SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES R4 ey fH iT - 2 9 4 85 $1 _ . _ CODIECTIVE�f':'ANALYSLS;OF NPREN7iC1TYCPEFUSE :CDLLEGTION;P,ROGRAML' ,..4 ,_c ... ,s,'L,.'��'_,�2.i____. ��:. ',.� ��. Task 1: Provide a Comprehensive Analysis of the Existing Refuses Collection S tem 1A Prepare a preliminary data request for City staff. 1. 2 2 2 7 IB Prepare for and conduct a study kickoff meeting with City staff. 4 8 4 2 0 18 lC Identify and document thin Cltys existing refuse collection program. 8 8 16 32 1D Calculate current so lid waste operation costs and prepare five -year projection of costs 8 8 16 32 IE Identify and discuss changes In State of California regulations related to waste collection and diversion. 8 4 12 24 Total Hours Task -1 29 1 0 1 30 1 6 1 36 1 12 113 Total Estimated Cost -Task 1. 7,221$ -$ 1 6,270$ 1 11 1 6,660$ 1 2,268$ 23,649$ goEDEl71VE 2.' rANALYSIS 'Of$ESLF,WI=IICE.MODEISI �'mbr i+�-' r: -'T uw"u =°�.'. �e� "."ya ' "•' ., s.:"P`M,z ..' x�'., Ni Task 2: Identify residential refuse collection service level of other local murd patties and potential sevice alternatives and service provision o pitions In other contracts. 2A Identify and compare the residential refuse collection service levels and cost metric In five selected local municipalities and rates charged to customers. 1 8 12 2 51 2 75 28 Identify and compare the residential refuse collection service levels and cost metrics In five regional cities with municipal residential refuse collection and the rates charged to customers. 8 12. 2 so 2 74 2C Describe other municipalities that have privatized refuse collection. 4 4 4 12 20 Describe the potential service alternatives that could be provided by the Clt . 3 B 2 16 2 31 2E Review the Ct 's exktln commercial collection ro ram. I Optional Task Total Hours -Task 2 23 0 36 10 117 6 192 Total Estimated Cost -Task 2 FOMEOIIVEi DEVELOP. ?AaD.'PRESEkl IAO'Cr i KF1A -61 ill i.?1. ,Ci 111 51 -$ 7,524$ 2,050$ 21,645$ 1,134$ 38,080$ -- • wss. ..n _- �::,i1 Task 3: Develop and Present a Report documenting our findings 3A Prepare a draft report of findings! 16 2 32 4 40 4 98 38 Review draft report with City staff. 3 3 3 9 3C Prepare the Mal report. 6 8 16 30 3D Present findings to the City Council. (Up to 2 meetings) 8 2 16 16 42 Total Hours -Task 3 33 4 59 4 75 4 179 Total Estimated Cost -Task 3 8,217$ 996$ Total Hours 85 1 4 1 12,331$ 125 820$ 20 13,875$ 228 756$ 22 36,995$ 484 Total Estimated Cost 21,165$ 1 996$ 1 26,125$ 41 42,180$ 1 4,158$ 98,724$ Other Expenses or Charges Total Estimated Project Cost 776 99,500$ H F & H Consultants, LLC Page 16 October 4, 2012 This document is printed on 100% post- consumer content recycled paper 19200 Von Karman Avenue; Suite 360 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: 949/251-8628 Fax: 949/251 -9741 www.hfh-consuitcints.com October 4, 2012 Mr. Mark Harmon General Services Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 Dear Mr. Harmon, Managing Tomorrow's Resources Today Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Robert D. Hilton, CIVIC John W. Farnkopf, PE Laith B. Ezzet, CIVIC Richard J. Simonson, CIVIC Marva M. Sheehan, CPA We have completed the City of Newport Beach's ( "City') residential solid waste and recycling study. The enclosed report describes the study's background, objectives, scope of work and findings. An executive summary follows the cover letter. We are pleased to have had the opportunity to assist the City of Newport Beach with this study. We would like to express our appreciation for the assistance provided by Mike Pisani, Dan Matusiewicz, Tracy McCraner and Evelyn Tseng. If you have any questions, please call Laith at (949) 251 -8902 or Darrell at (949) 251 -0231. Very truly yours, HF &H CONSULTANTS, LLC Laith B. Ezzet, CIVIC Darrell L. Bice, CPA Senior Vice President Director of Solid Waste and Recycling Audits This page intentionally left blank of Newport Beach Table of Contents Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. ..............................1 SECTION I: BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES, AND SCOPE OF WORK ........................4 Background................................................................................. ............................... 4 StudyObjectives .......................................................................... ..............................4 Scopeof Work ............................................................................ ............................... 5 SECTION II: FINDINGS .................................................................... ..............................6 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Solid Waste Operation Costs — Budget FY 2011/12 (1) (2) .............................. ............................... 9 Table 2: Five Year Projection — FY 2012/13 to FY 2016/17 (1) (2 11 Table 3: Estimated Incremental Solid Waste Operation Costs M .................................. .............................11 Table 4: Costs that would be Reallocated to Other Departments i1i ............................. .............................12 Table 5: Anticipated Vehicle Replacements in FY 12/13, FY 13/14 and FY 14/15 (l) ..... .............................16 Table 6: Comparison of Adjusted Cost per Residential Dwelling Unit per Month (Orange County Cities) ('� ....................................................................................................................................... .............................17 Table 7: Comparison of Adjusted Cost per Ton Collected (Orange County Cities (l) (z) 17 Table 8: Comparison of Adjusted Cost per Residential Dwelling Unit per Month (Municipal Residential Service) (l) ....................................................................................................................... .............................18 Table 9: Comparison of Adjusted Cost per Ton (Municipal Residential Service) " )") ... .............................19 Table 10: Summary of Payments by CR &R to Hemet Over 20 Years ............................ .............................20 Table 11: Comparison of Current System to Alternative Rate Structure ....................... .............................24 Table 12: Distribution of Proposed Rate Revenues above the Lowest Price ( 1) ............. .............................25 Table 13: Estimate Savings (Costs) from Privatization ................................................... .............................26 Table 14: Estimated Savings from Private Sector Labor Cost 11i .................................... .............................27 Table 15: Estimated Savings from Private Sector Cost Net of Private Sector Profit (1) ( z ) ............................27 Table 16: Estimate Annual Savings based on Commercial Net Receipts per Ton .......... .............................28 Table 17: Estimate Annual Savings based on Newport Coast per Ton ........................ ............................... 29 TABLES OF FIGURES Figure 1: Newport Beach Historical Diversion ........................ Figure 2: Distribution of Budgeted Costs * .............................. Figure 3: Orange County Residential Collection Methods...... EXHIBITS .................................... ............................... 9 .................................. ............................... 13 .................................. ............................... 23 Exhibit 1: Projection of Solid Waste Operations Cost Exhibit 2A: Comparison with Orange County Cities Exhibit 2B: Comparison of Cities with Municipal Residential Services Exhibit 2C: City Services Cost Adjustment Factors Exhibit 3: Calculation of Projected Savings (Costs) of Waste Collection Drivers City of Newport Beach i October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Table of Contents Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Exhibit 4: Estimate of Annual Depreciation Cost for Solid Waste Vehicles and Equipment Exhibit 5: Refuse Vehicle Original Cost, Net Book Value and Valuation APPENDICES Appendix A: Assumptions Appendix B: Comparison of Orange County Municipalities Summary of Key Services Appendix C: Comparison of Cities with Municipal Residential Collection Summary of Key Services Appendix D: Summary of Solid Waste Collection Costs /Revenue Appendix D: Competitive Procurement Results City of Newport Beach ii October 4, 2012 of Newport Beach Executive Summary Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective 1: Identify and Document the City's Existing Refuse Collection Program Finding 1: The City's municipal refuse collection program consists of 24 employees, 18 refuse collection vehicles and a small volume transfer station in the Corporation Yard. The residents receive unlimited refuse collection in containers provided by the resident and are not charged for callback service. Residents are charged $2.96 per home per month for mixed waste processing service to recover recyclables. Residents in Newport Coast are served by a private hauler, CR &R, Incorporated. Objective 2: Calculate Current Solid Waste Operation Costs and Prepare a Five -Year Projection of Costs Finding 2A: Total solid waste operation cost, including the Newport Coast contract cost, other contract costs and interdepartmental charges, is $6,379,000 in the FY 2011/12 budget, and is projected to increase from 1.0% to 3.0% per year per year through FY 2016/17. Finding 213: The cost of solid waste operations performed by the City that would be eliminated if the operations were privatized ('incremental cost ") is estimated at $4,949,000 for FY 2011/12, excluding Newport Coast and interdepartmental charges that would be reallocated to other City departments if solid waste collection is privatized. Finding 2C: Labor costs that would be eliminated initially if solid waste operations were privatized represent 39% of the total budgeted solid waste operations cost for FY 2011/12, and 50% of incremental solid waste operations cost. The estimated one -time labor cost payoff, if the solid waste operations were privatized, would be approximately $505,000. Finding 2D: The estimated market value of the solid waste vehicles and equipment ranges between $1.0 million and $1.4 million, and there is an additional $3.9 million in the vehicle replacement reserve. Therefore, privatizing residential solid waste collection could provide a one -time cash infusion of approximately $4.9 million to $5.3 million. Objective 3: Identify and Discuss Changes in State of California Regulations Related to Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Finding 3: Legislation that may affect solid waste operations and rates include: • AB 341, also known as the "Jobs and Recycling Act," was signed by Governor Brown on October 6, 2011. This legislation includes an increased goal for statewide diversion to 75% by 2020, mandatory commercial recycling requirements plus additional changes to current legislation. • Proposition 26 - In November 2010, the voters of California passed Proposition 26, which requires that certain state fees be approved by a two - thirds vote of the Legislature and certain local fees be approved by two - thirds of the voters. • Rule 1193 — Clean On -Road Residential and Commercial Refuse Collection Vehicles was adopted by the Southern California Air Quality Management District ( "AQMD ") in June 2000. Rule 1193 City of Newport Beach 1 October 4, 2012 of Newport Beach Executive Summary Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study was designed to reduce toxic air emissions associated with older diesel powered sold waste refuse collection vehicles. In July 2010, Rule 1193 was amended by the AWMD based on court decisions, and identifies the timing in which owners of public and private fleets of solid waste collection vehicles are required to obtain compliant refuse vehicles. Objective 4: Identify and Compare the Residential Refuse Collection Service Levels and Cost Metrics in Five Selected Local Orange County Municipalities with Private Hauler Service Finding 4A: The cost per residential dwelling unit per month for the City's municipal residential collection for FY 2011/12 is $15.56 on an incremental basis and $17.84 on a full -cost basis and is at the high end of the range of rates billed to residential customers for the five Orange County cities' included in the comparison that ranged from $9.96 to $16.96 per residential dwelling unit per month. However, some other cities residential costs may benefit from integrated residential and commercial contracts and rate structures. Finding 46: The cost per ton collected of $146 on an incremental basis and $167 on a full -cost basis are higher than the cost per ton reported in four Orange County cities included in the comparison that ranged from $88 to $109 per ton. However, other cities residential costs may benefit from integrated residential and commercial contracts. Objective 5: Identify and Compare the Residential Refuse Collection Service Levels and Cost Metrics in Five Regional Cities with Municipal Residential Collection Finding 5A: The cost per residential dwelling unit per month for the City's municipal residential collection for the FY 2011/12 is $15.56 on an incremental cost basis and $17.84 on a full -cost basis and are at the low end of the range of rates charged to residential customers for the five cities with municipal residential collection included in the comparison that ranged from $14.25 to $65.09 per residential dwelling unit per month. Finding 513: The cost per ton collected is $146 on an incremental basis and $168 on a full -cost basis for the City's municipal residential collection are in the middle of the range for the five cities with municipal residential collection in the comparison that ranged from $102 to $260 per ton. Objective 6: Describe Other Municipalities that have Privatized Residential Refuse Collection Finding 6: The City of Fresno ( "Fresno ") privatized commercial refuse services in October 2011 and the City of Hemet ( "Hemet ") privatized its solid waste collection services (residential and commercial) at the end of calendar year 2011. Objective 7: Describe the Potential Service Alternatives that Could be Provided by the City Finding 7A: The City has several options for modernizing residential refuse collection and potentially increasing its diversion level, including: City of Newport Beach 2 October 4, 2012 of Newport Beach Executive Sum Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study • Maintaining the existing manual collection system with mixed waste processing and adding a separate green waste collection container,• • Converting the existing manual collection system to a two -cart automated collection system with one cart for refuse, with continued mixed waste processing, and one cart for separate green waste collection; and • Converting the existing manual collection system to a three -cart automated collection system for the separate collection of refuse, recyclable materials and green waste, eliminating the mixed waste processing requirement. Finding 7B: By implementing a two - container or three - container collection system, the City may be able to allocate a larger share of solid waste costs to customers through billing for recycling services. Objective 8: Estimate the Range of Savings or Costs from Privatizing Residential Solid Waste Collection Finding 8A: The City would see a significant range of costs from private proposers to take over residential solid waste operations. Based on recent proposals from private haulers in other cities, the difference between the low and high cost proposals ranged from 31% to 128 %. Finding 8B Using several alternative methods to estimate potential savings from privatization results in a maximum estimate of between $1.5 million and $1.7 million annually and could be substantially less or even result in a small cost increase depending on the bids received and the programs selected. The high end of the range of $1.5 to $1.7 million represents 26% to 29% of the annual Refuse Division budget. City of Newport Beach 3 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section I: Background, Objectives, and Scope of Work Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study SECTION I: BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES, AND SCOPE OF WORK Background Two of the 34 cities in Orange County provide municipal residential refuse collection service: the City of Newport Beach ( "City ") and the City of Westminster (service performed by Midway City Sanitary District). The City's refuse collection program consists of 24 employees and 18 refuse collection vehicles servicing approximately 26,500 residential accounts on a weekly basis. The residents receive unlimited manual refuse collection in containers provided by the resident. Residential recycling is achieved through mixed waste processing, where the refuse is collected and transported to a material recovery facility (CRT MRF in Stanton) for processing and diversion of recyclable materials. Approximately 15% of the cities in Orange County utilize residential mixed waste processing to achieve their recycling goals. While the Municipal Code contains a provision that refuse collection costs are funded from ad valorem tax revenue, residents are billed a $2.96 surcharge each month to fund the additional cost of the mixed waste processing program to recover recyclables. Based on a customer satisfaction survey conducted in 2010, 92% of City residents are satisfied or very satisfied with the refuse collection service. Although satisfaction with the service provided by City crews was high, 61% of the residents that responded were in agreement that the City should contract out residential trash collection to non -City employees. In addition to the municipal solid waste collection services, the City contracts with a private company, CR &R, to provide solid waste and recycling collection services to the recently annexed Newport Coast community. Newport Coast includes approximately 4,200 single family accounts that receive refuse collection at no charge and these customers do not pay the monthly recycling surcharge. Study Objectives The City's objectives for this study were to 1. Identify and document the City's existing refuse collection program. 2. Calculate current solid waste operation costs and prepare a five -year projection of costs. 3. Identify and discuss changes in State of California regulations related to solid waste collection and diversion. 4. Identify and compare the residential refuse collection service levels and cost metrics in five selected local Orange County municipalities with private hauler service. 5. Identify and compare the residential refuse collection service levels and cost metrics in five cities in the counties of Orange and Los Angeles with municipal residential collection. 6. Describe other municipalities that have privatized residential refuse collection. 7. Describe the potential service alternatives that could be provided by the City. 8. Estimate the range of savings or costs from privatizing residential solid waste collection. City of Newport Beach 4 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section I: Background, Objectives, and Scope of Work Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Scope of Work In order to achieve the City's objectives, we: 1. Prepared a preliminary data request for City staff; 2. Prepared for and conducted a study kickoff meeting with City staff on February 22, 2012; 3. Identified and documented the City's existing refuse collection program; 4. Calculated current operational costs and prepared a five -year projection of costs; 5. Identified and discussed changes in State of California regulations related to waste collection and diversion; 6. Identified and compared the residential refuse collection service levels and costs in Newport Beach to five local municipalities in Orange County with private hauler service; 7. Identified and compared the residential refuse collection service levels and costs in Newport Beach to five cities in the counties of Orange and Los Angeles with publicly - provided residential refuse collection; 8. Described other municipalities that have privatized refuse collection; and 9. Described the potential service alternatives that could be provided by the City. City of Newport Beach 5 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study SECTION II: FINDINGS Objective 1: Identify and Document the City's Existing Refuse Collection Program Finding 1: The City's municipal refuse collection program consists of 24 employees, 18 refuse collection vehicles (eight 1 -man front load and ten 2 -main rear load) and a small volume transfer station in the Corporation yard. The residents receive unlimited refuse collection in containers provided by the resident and are not charged for callback service. The Municipal Code contains a provision that refuse collection costs are funded from ad valorem tax revenue. Residents are billed a $2.96 surcharge per dwelling unit each month to fund the additional cost of the mixed waste processing program to recover recyclables. No separate green waste collection services are provided. Residents in Newport Coast are served by a private hauler, CR &R, Incorporated. Overview of Collection Services The Refuse Division is part of the Municipal Operations Department. The City provides residential solid waste collection in most areas of the City, except for the Newport Coast community, which is collected under contract by CR &R Incorporated ( "CR &R "), and the Santa Ana Heights area, which is served by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Commercial collection is provided by a variety of private haulers under a non - exclusive franchise system. The City provides manual refuse collection to approximately 26,500 residential accounts on a weekly basis. The City's refuse collection program consists of 24 employees, 18 refuse collection vehicles and a small volume transfer station in the Corporation Yard. The residents receive unlimited refuse collection in containers provided by the resident and are not charged for callback service. Processing and Transfer The residential solid waste collected by City personnel is brought to the City's transfer station at the Corporation Yard to be transferred for processing and disposal. The City entered into an agreement with CR &R for residential solid waste transfer services and material processing and recycling in June 2008 ( "Processing Agreement "). The Processing Agreement requires that CR &R perform all of the solid waste transfer, processing and disposal for material collected at the City's transfer station. The term of the Processing Agreement is ten years, with five one -year extensions at the City's discretion. CR &R is required to recover a minimum of 40% by weight of the materials received under the Processing Agreement and dispose the remaining solid waste in the Orange County landfill system. The current processing rate, including disposal, is $46.32 per ton. The City receives a per load credit of $92.51 for the transfer of the solid waste collected from the City's transfer station to CR &R's material recovery facility ( "MRF ") in Stanton. The rates paid to CR &R are adjusted as follows: 1. The processing fee, less the disposal cost shall be adjusted by the change in the Consumer Price Index ( "CPI ") with a maximum 4% increase. 2. The City's transportation cost per load shall be adjusted by the change in the Consumer Price Index ( "CPI ") with a maximum 4% increase. The Processing Agreement should not impact the City's ability to privatize the solid waste operation. Section 28B of the Processing Agreement states, "Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by City of Newport Beach 6 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study giving one hundred eighty (180) calendar days prior written notice to Hauler. Upon termination, City shall pay to Hauler that portion of compensation specified in the Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the commencement date of termination" Vehicles and Equipment Of the 18 trucks owned and operated by the City, ten are front load trucks and eight are rear load trucks. The front load trucks are used on one -man routes and the rear load trucks are used on two -man routes. The City purchased four compressed natural gas ( "CNG ") vehicles (two front load trucks and two rear load trucks) in 2010. The average age of the refuse collection vehicles, including the four trucks acquired in 2010, is approximately 10 years. The City is projecting the replacement of the existing vehicles that have reached or exceeded their useful lives. The vehicles will be replaced with CNG vehicles (four in Fiscal (FY) 2012/13, three in FY 2013/14 and three in FY 2014/15. The remaining diesel vehicles will be replaced with CNG vehicles after reaching their useful lives beyond FY 2016/17. The City operates three additional pieces of equipment at the Corporation Yard; a yard mule, a tractor and a backhoe. We estimate the current total value of the City vehicles ranges from $1.0 million to $1.4 million. The low end estimate is based on the net book value of each vehicle or $25,000 salvage value for each fully depreciated vehicle. The upper end estimate is based on the current on -line advertised prices for most similar vehicles (year, body style and size, if available) from a national company. If there were no advertisements for a vehicle's year, the closest later year was used. There were no front load vehicles advertised with a 27 cubic yard packer. The advertised prices for front load vehicles with a 40 cubic yard packer were used. If only one advertisement was available for a vehicle, the advertised price from the one advertisement was used for the low and the high value. Routes The City operates 14 truck routes per day five days per week. During the summer month, the City runs eight additional routes (half -day) on Saturdays in the West Newport and Balboa areas, and for the Balboa Island residents who pay Transient Occupancy Tax ('TOT "). The Refuse Division has one Refuse Superintendent and one Refuse Supervisor. On Mondays, the Refuse Division operates seven front load routes (one -man) and seven rear load routes (two -man). On Tuesday through Friday the Solid Waste Department operates nine front load routes and five rear load routes. One of the front load routes is roughly'' /: day and that operator assists with transfer station operations for the remainder of the day. If the front load drivers finish their routes early, they will often move to assist on one of the rear load routes. Other Services There is no formal bulky item collection, but the City will collect items that can be easily broken up. This service is provided after the resident contacts the City to obtain approval for the items to be collected. Appliances are not included in the bulky item collection. Additionally, the City collects abandoned items. The City is unable to collect household hazardous waste ( "HHW "), or sharps (syringes, needles, lancets, etc.) Residents are directed to Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Centers in several locations in the County that accept HHW, and the City provides a Sharps and Medication Disposal Directory to residents. City of Newport Beach 7 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study The City partners with Goodwill Industries to provide electronic waste ( "e- waste') collection events. Residents drop -off a -waste at the City's Corporation Yard. Goodwill Industries is a state - certified e- waste collector. Street Litter Containers The servicing of the City's street litter containers is provided by City staff for approximately $300,000 per year funded by the Operations Support Division. During FY 2010/11, street litter containers accounted for 845 tons of solid waste, which was disposed of at the City transfer station and processed at CR &R's MRF. City Facilities Collection Solid waste collection from City facilities is contracted to Ware Disposal for $31,950 per year charged to: • $16,400 — Other City Divisions; and • $15,550 — Refuse Division The Refuse Division amount of $15,550 is based on the following: o $500 — Corporation Yard; o $13,750— Washington Street bin area; and o $1,300 —City Hall. Ware Disposal provides the containers. Beach Collection The City contracts with Rainbow Disposal for beach container collection for $127,441 per year. This cost is funded from the Operations Support Division and not the Refuse Division. Rainbow Disposal provides the containers. Solid Waste Operation Costs As reflected in Table 1, adjusted solid waste operation costs for FY 2011/12 are $5,673,000. This is based on a total budget of $6,379,000, net of the $612,000 budgeted contract costs for the refuse collection service provided by CR &R in the Newport Coast area of the City, $20,000 in other contract costs and the net difference between the vehicle replacement interdepartmental charge and estimated annual depreciation for the fleet. Based on the adjusted solid waste operations costs, the current level of services costs the City $17.84 per unit per month or $168 per ton of refuse collected. City of Newport Beach 8 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Table 1: Solid Waste Operation Costs – Budget FY 2011/12 (1) (2) Exhibit 1 ZI Rounded to thousands Exhibit Diversion Rate The citywide diversion rate in 2010 was approximately 71% based on CalRecycle statistics. As shown in Figure 1, the City is exceeding the AB 939 requirement and is close to meeting the AB 341 statewide diversion goal of 75% by 2020 based on the State's current reporting methodology. Figure 1: Newport Beach Historical Diversion City of Newport Beach Diversion % by Year 80 70 m ho so a 40 — Diversion % 30 20 OHO Opt ODti OQM h 'b� �6 1 00 O°j tie ,ti0 'L b 'L 'L 'L � 'L� le 4 ti� City of Newport Beach 9 October 4, 2012 %of Total Solid Line Description Budget Waste Operation FY 2011/12 Costs 1 Salaries & Benefits $ 2,488,000 39% 2 Operating Expenses 3,322,000 52% 5,810,000 91% 3 Total Refuse Collection Expenses 4 Interdepartmental Allocation 569,000 9% 6,379,000 100% 5 Total Solid. Waste Operation Costs 6 Vehicle Replacement Charge (410,000) -6% 7 Estimated Depreciation of Refuse Vehicles (') 336,000 5% 8 Less: 9 Newport Coast Contract Cost (612,000) -10% 10 Other Contract Costs (20,000) 0% 11 Adjusted Solid Waste Operation Costs $ 5,673,000 89% 26,500 12 Residential Units 13 Solid Waste Operation Cost /Unit /Month $ 17.84 14 Tans Collected 33,800 15 Solid Waste Operation Cost /Ton $ 168 Exhibit 1 ZI Rounded to thousands Exhibit Diversion Rate The citywide diversion rate in 2010 was approximately 71% based on CalRecycle statistics. As shown in Figure 1, the City is exceeding the AB 939 requirement and is close to meeting the AB 341 statewide diversion goal of 75% by 2020 based on the State's current reporting methodology. Figure 1: Newport Beach Historical Diversion City of Newport Beach Diversion % by Year 80 70 m ho so a 40 — Diversion % 30 20 OHO Opt ODti OQM h 'b� �6 1 00 O°j tie ,ti0 'L b 'L 'L 'L � 'L� le 4 ti� City of Newport Beach 9 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study 2010 Newport Beach Community Survey In August 2010, the City commissioned a survey of the Newport Beach Community with ETC Institute ( "ETC "). A similar survey was performed in 2007. According to the survey report, "The purpose of the survey was to assess citizen satisfaction with the delivery of major City services to ensure that the City's priorities are aligned with the needs of the residents." ETC sent the survey to a random sample of 3,500 households in the City. A total of 727 households completed the survey. The residents were asked to respond to 31 questions. Two of the 31 questions involved the residential refuse service. The specific questions and results relating to residential refuse collection were: Question 12a. Residential Trash Collection Service. Please rate your satisfaction using a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "very satisfied" and 1 means "very dissatisfied." The residents (excluding those that responded "don't know ") responded 66% "very satisfied" and 26% "satisfied." Accordingly, 92% of the respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the residential trash collection service. Question 21b. "Contracting Out of Services. Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 means "strongly agree" and 1 means "strongly disagree," please rate contracting out residential trash collection. The residents (excluding those that responded "don't know ") responded 35% "strongly agree" and 26% "somewhat agree" In summary, 61% of the respondents somewhat agreed or strongly agreed with contracting out of services. Residential Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Services in Newport Coast On August 14, 2007, the City of Newport Beach entered into an agreement with CR &R for the residential solid waste collection and recycling services in Newport Coast ( "Newport Coast Agreement "). The Newport Coast Agreement began on August 14, 2007 and terminates on October 1, 2017, unless terminated earlier according to the terms of the agreement. The Newport Coast Agreement will be automatically extended for five (5) additional one (1) years terms, unless the City notifies CR &R at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the end of the initial term or any extended term of its intent to terminate the agreement. There are approximately 4,200 single family residents that receive solid waste collection and recycling under the Newport Coast Agreement. The cost of the Newport Coast solid waste collection is specifically excluded from this study. Objective 2: Calculate Current Solid Waste Operation Costs and Prepare a Five -Year Projection of Costs Finding 2A: Total solid waste operation cost, including the Newport Coast contract cost other contract costs and interdepartmental charges, is $5,379,000 in the FY 2011112 budget and is projected to increase from 1.0% to 3.0% per year per year through FY 2016/17. As shown in Table 1, total solid waste operation cost based on the budget for FY 2011/12 is $6,379,000. Table 2 provides a five -year projection of solid waste operating costs using assumptions provided by City staff, assuming that the existing municipal solid waste program continues with current services and collection methods. The total solid waste operation cost is projected to increase by 1.0% to 3.0% per year. Projection assumptions are described in Appendix A. City of Newport Beach 10 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Table 2: Five Year Projection — FY 2012/13 to FY 2016/17111(2) Line Description Projected Costs FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 1 2 3 4 5 6 Salaries & Benefits Operating Expenses Total Refuse Collection Expenses Interdepartmental Allocation Total Solid Waste Operation Costs Projected Percent Increase Over Prior Year $ 2,506,000 3,355,000 $ 2,493,000 3,439,000 $ 2,569,000 3,541,000 $ 2,647,000 3,648,000 $ 2,728,000 3,757,000 5,861,000 580,000 5,932,000 595,000 6,110,000 613,000 6,295,000 631,000 6,485,000 650,000 6,441,000 6,527,000 6,723,000 6,926,000 7,135,000 1.0% 1.3% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% "' See Exhibit 1 for detailed calculations. (2) Rounded to thousands Finding 2B: The cost of solid waste operations performed by the City that would be eliminated if the operations were privatized ('incremental cost') is estimated at $4,949,000 for FY 2011112, excluding Newport Coast and interdepartmental charges that would be reallocated to other City departments if solid waste collection is privatized. As shown in Table 3, the incremental cost of the City's solid waste operation is approximately $4,949,000 based on the FY 2011/12 budget or $15.56 per residential dwelling unit per month. This reflects the estimated costs that would "go away" if the solid waste operation was eliminated. This amount would be fully or partially offset by the cost that would be incurred by the City to contract with a private hauler for solid waste collection and recycling, as discussed later in the report. Table 3: Estimated Incremental Solid Waste Operation Costs (1) Line Description Budget FY 2011/12 1 Salaries & Benefits $ 2,488,000 2 Operating Expenses 3,322,000 5,810,000 3 Total Refuse Collection Expenses 4 Interdepartmental Allocation 569,000 6,379,000 5 Total Solid Waste Operation Costs 6 Vehicle Replacement Charge (410,000) 7 Estimated Depreciation of Refuse Vehicles 336,000 8 Less: 9 Newport Coast Contract Cost (612,000) 10 Other Contract Costs (20,000) 5,673,000 11 Adjusted Solid Waste Operation Costs 12 Less Cost to be Reallocated to Other Departments (2) (724,000) 13 Estimated Incremental Solid Waste Operation Costs $ 4,949,000 26,500 14 Residential Units 15 Incremental Solid Waste Operation Cost /Unit /Month $ 15.56 16 Tons Collected 33,800 17 Incremental Solid Waste Operation Cost /Ton $ 146 "' Rounded to thousands (2) Table 4 One of the potential options for the City is to contract with a private hauler for the residential collection and recycling of solid waste — "privatization." Based on discussions with City staff and an evaluation of the items included in the solid waste operations cost, it was assumed that in the event of a privatization of the solid waste operations, only the Interdepartmental Allocations and a portion of equipment City of Newport Beach 11 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study maintenance overhead (Table 4) would remain. It was assumed that privatization would not result in a reduction of costs in other departments (reflected as interdepartmental charges in the solid waste operations budget). Based on discussions with management, we understand these costs would be retained by the City and potentially transferred or redirected to other areas of the City government. Table 4: Costs that would be Reallocated to Other Departments Ill Department Allocated Costs City Council $ 10,000 City Manager- PIO 25,000 Personnel 44,000 Risk Management 30,000 Fiscal Services 5,000 Information Techonology 21,000 Revenue 12,000 Accounting 48,000 General Services - Administration Izl 365,000 PW -Admin 9,000 569,000 Subtotal: Interdepartmental Charges 124,000 Equipment Maintenance (estimated) (3) Information Techonology- ISF 31,000 Total Costs to be Reallocated $ 724,000 "' Rounded to thousands ai General Services - Administration costs (overhead) allocated to the Refuse Division. (3) Equipment maintenance overhead included in Operating Expenses. Finding 2C: Labor costs that would be eliminated initially if solid waste operations were privatized represent 39% of the total budgeted solid waste operations cost for FY 2011/12, and 50% of incremental solid waste operations cost. The estimated one -time labor cost payoff, if the solid waste operations were privatized, would be approximately $505,000. Labor cost is the single largest expense in the solid waste operation. As shown in Figure 2, labor cost (Salaries & Benefits) is 39% of the total budgeted solid waste operation cost (including Newport Coast). Labor cost is 50% of the incremental Solid Waste Operation Costs from Table 3 ($2,488,000 - $4,949,000 = 50 %). These labor costs could be eliminated if the solid waste operations were privatized. Some future benefits for existing employees have not been funded. If the solid waste operations are privatized and solid waste employees are laid -off, benefits paid to these employees in excess of the accrued benefits (unfunded liabilities) would be allocated to other City operations. It is estimated that the one -time labor cost payoff to privatize the solid waste operations would total approximately $505,000, including $229,000 for the payoff of accrued vacation and sick leave and $276,000 for severance payments. City of Newport Beach 12 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study SO% re c: wistnoution or ouugeteu Lusts g% ■ Salaries & Benefits C£' ■ Equipment Maintenance 69% Vehicle Replacement "Total Solid Waste Operation Costs = $6,379,000 ■ CR &R Processing ■ Newport Coast Contract Cost ■ Other Operating Expenses ■ Interdepartmental Allocation Finding 2D: The estimated market value of the solid waste vehicles and equipment ranges between $1.0 million and $1.4 million, and there is an additional $3.9 million in the vehicle replacement reserve. Therefore, privatizing residential solid waste collection could provide a one -time cash infusion of approximately $4.9 million to $5.3 million. We estimated a range of market value for the solid waste vehicles and equipment between $1.0 million and $1.4 million (Exhibit 5). The low end of the market value was estimated using a minimum of $25,000 for fully- depreciated vehicles and net book value for the most recently acquired vehicles. The high end of the market value was determined by obtaining advertised prices for the most similar solid waste vehicles of the nearest year and body type. Annually the Refuse Division is charged for vehicle replacement in order to accumulate funds for future vehicle acquisition. As of June 30, 2012, there is $3.9 million in the Vehicle Replacement Reserve for the future purchase of Refuse Division vehicles and equipment. Should the solid waste operation be privatized, the Vehicle Replacement Reserve could be redirected to the General Fund. Objective 3: Identify and Discuss Changes in State of California Regulations Related to Solid Waste Collection and Diversion Finding 3: Legislation that may affect solid waste operations and rates include: • AB 341, also known as the "Jobs and Recycling Act," was signed by Governor Brown on October 6, 2011. This legislation includes an increased goal for statewide diversion to 75% by 2020, mandatory commercial recycling requirements plus additional changes to current legislation. • Proposition 26 - In November 2010, the voters of California passed Proposition 26, which requires that certain state fees be approved by a two - thirds vote of the Legislature and certain local fees be approved by two - thirds of the voters. • Rule 1193 — Clean On -Road Residential and Commercial Refuse Collection Vehicles was adopted by the Southern California Air Quality Management District ( "AQMD ") in June 2000. Rule 1193 City of Newport Beach 13 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study was designed to reduce toxic air emissions associated with older diesel powered sold waste refuse collection vehicles. In July 2010, Rule 1193 was amended by the AWMD based on court decisions, and identifies the timing in which owners of public and private fleets of solid waste collection vehicles are required to obtain compliant refuse vehicles. Regardless of whether the City continues to perform the residential solid waste activities or privatize it, the City has a responsibility to manage and comply with certain legislative and regulatory requirements surrounding its solid waste system. A summary of certain relevant legislative and regulatory requirements is presented below. This summary is not intended to be exhaustive, but instead to identify some of the major requirements that will need the City's attention in the future and in the event of privatization of the solid waste operations. AB 939, known as the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, requires that all cities in the State must divert no less than 50% of their waste stream through waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Failure to meet this target and /or implement adequate recycling programs can lead to fines from the State of up to $10,000 per day. In addition to the operational programs, each local government throughout the state is required to submit a detailed annual report documenting each program and its effectiveness. Since AB 939 was passed, the City has implemented numerous diversion programs designed to meet this State target. While the City could contract for the operation of the programs, the City will still bear the responsibility of managing and monitoring the programs, submitting the annual report, and paying any fines levied by the State. AB 341, known as the "Jobs and Recycling Act," was signed by Governor Brown on October 6, 2011. This legislation includes an increased goal for statewide diversion, mandatory commercial recycling requirements plus additional changes to current legislation. Specific impacts are provided below. Diversion This bill makes a legislative declaration that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled or composted by the year 2020, and requires CalRecycle to provide, by January 1, 2014, a report to the Legislature that provides strategies to achieve that policy goal (41780 -01(a) and 41780.02(a)). It is anticipated that the report would provide the basis for future legislation required to achieve the goal. Section 41780.01(b) of the bill states that "the department (CalRecycle) shall not establish or enforce a diversion rate on a city or county that is greater than the 50 percent diversion rated established pursuant to Section 41780." As such, the pounds per capita target established for each agency will not be adjusted as a direct result of AB 341. While AB 341 does not increase the current diversion requirement of 50 %, a 75% statewide requirement is likely to ultimately require that local jurisdictions increase the diversion of the large remaining segments of the current waste stream (e.g., organics, construction debris, etc.). The City's citywide diversion rate for calendar year 2010 was approximately 71 %. Annual Reporting AB 341 changes the due date of the AB 939 Annual Reports from September 1 to May 1 of each year, beginning on May 1, 2012 for reporting year 2012. City of Newport Beach 14 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Commercial and Multi - Family Recycling AB 341 provides CalRecycle authority to implement the mandatory commercial recycling program contained in AB 32. The legislation requires businesses that generate 4 or more cubic yards of commercial solid waste per week, and multi - family dwelling units of five units or more to arrange for recycling services, on and after July 1, 2012. The bill requires jurisdictions, on and after July 1, 2012, to implement a commercial solid waste recycling program that meets requirements specified in the bill. Jurisdictions that already have a commercial recycling program that meets the requirements of AB 341 are not required to implement a new or expanded commercial recycling program or update their Source Reduction and Recycling Element ( "SRRE "). Jurisdictions shall report the progress achieved in implementing its commercial recycling program, including education, outreach, identification, and monitoring, and if applicable, enforcement efforts, by providing updates in the AB 939 Annual Reports. Cost Incurred by Jurisdictions AB 341 provides that no reimbursement is required. However, the legislation authorizes the local agency to charge and collect a fee from a commercial waste generator to recover the costs incurred by the agency in complying with the commercial recycling requirements. The Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule ( "SWCV ") was passed in September 2003 to reduce the impacts from diesel fueled collection trucks. The SWCV requires all of the owners of diesel -fuel commercial and residential solid waste and recycling vehicles to use California Air Resources Board ( "ARB ") verified controls that reduce diesel particulate matter. The ARB verified control methodology is referred to as the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). This regulation may require acquisition of new alternative fuel vehicles. Rule 1193 - The Southern California Air Quality Management District ( "SCAQMD ") governs solid waste refuse vehicles through Rule 1193. Rule 1193 requires that public agencies with fleets of 15 or more vehicles purchase rule compliant vehicles at the time of replacement or addition. The City acquired four CNG refuse collection vehicles in FY 2010. Assuming that the City continues providing residential solid waste collection, it would be required to replace the remaining collection vehicles. As summarized in Table 5, assuming the City continues residential refuse collection in the current form, Municipal Operations management estimates that the City would need to replace four collection vehicles in FY 2012 -13, three collection vehicles in FY 2013 -14 and three in FY 2014 -15. The purchase price of rear load vehicles is estimated to be $225,000 per vehicle. The purchase price for the front load vehicle is estimated at $275,000 per vehicle. By the end of FY 2014/15, 14 of the City's 18 vehicles are projected to be CNG vehicles. The City has 14 active routes each week. City of Newport Beach 15 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Table 5: Anticipated Vehicle Replacements in FY 12/13, FY 13/14 and FY 14/151 '1 Type of Vehicle Fiscal Year Qty 2012/13/1 Qty 2013/14 Qty 2014/15 Rear Load Front Load Total Projected Vehicle Purchases 2 2 $ 450,000 550,000 3 $ 825,000 1 2 $ $ 225,000 550,000 4 $ 1,000,000 3 $ 825,000 3 $ 775,000 1 �1 Appendix A Izl Not budgeted for 2012/13; would require a budget amendment. In FY 2009/10, the City reported to the ARB that it was in compliance with the Waste Collection Vehicle Regulation. The City installed the required diesel engine control strategies (DECS) on all of the solid waste collection vehicles that were acquired prior to 2008. Proposition 218 In November 1996, the voters of California passed Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act." This constitutional amendment limits the methods by which local governments can create or increase taxes, fees and charges without taxpayer consent. The measure requires voter approval prior to the imposition or increase of taxes, fees or charges. Proposition 26 In November 2010, the voters of California passed Proposition 26, which requires that certain state fees be approved by a two - thirds vote of the Legislature and certain local fees be approved by two - thirds of the voters. Objective 4: Identify and Compare the Residential Refuse Collection Service Levels and Cost Metrics in Five Selected Local Orange County Municipalities with Private Hauler Service Finding 4A: The cost per residential dwelling unit per month for the City's municipal residential collection for FY 2011112 is $15.56 on an incremental basis and $17.84 on a full -cost basis and is at the high end of the range of rates billed to residential customers for the five Orange County cities' included in the comparison that ranged from $9.96 to $16.96 per residential dwelling unit per month. However, some other cities residential costs may benefit from integrated residential and commercial contracts and rate structures. Table 6 compares the residential monthly cost in Newport Beach to some other Orange County cities. The Orange County cities were selected by City staff primarily based on geographic proximity to Newport Beach, population and coastal proximity. Franchise fees and other fees remitted to the cities are deducted so only the hauler compensation is shown. All of the cities except Newport Beach and Costa Mesa may benefit from integrated residential and commercial solid waste agreements with private haulers, whereas Costa Mesa and Newport Beach both have non - exclusive commercial systems with multiple haulers. The rates charged in other cities may also be affected by the size of container used by residents. The solid waste services provided in the cities selected for comparison are summarized in Appendix B. City of Newport Beach 16 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Table 6: Comparison of Adjusted Cost per Residential Dwelling Unit per Month (Orange County Cities) I'I Ill Exhibit 2A. Excludes franchise fees and other fees required to or remitted by the cities. Finding 48: The cost per ton collected of $146 on on incremental basis and $168 on a full -cost basis are higher than the cost per ton reported in four Orange County cities included in the comparison that ranged from $88 to $109 per ton. However, some other cities residential costs may benefit from integrated residential and commercial contracts and rate structures. Table 7 compares the residential cost per ton in Newport Beach to the rate revenue per ton in some other Orange County cities. Franchise fees and other fees remitted to the cities are deducted so only the hauler compensation is shown. All of the cities except Newport Beach and Costa Mesa may benefit from integrated residential and commercial solid waste agreements with private haulers, whereas Costa Mesa and Newport Beach both have non - exclusive commercial systems with multiple haulers. We also note that master - planned communities, such as Irvine, may be less congested and therefore less costly to service. The solid waste services provided in the cities selected for comparison are summarized in Appendix B. Table 7: Comparison of Adjusted Cost per Ton Collected (Orange County Cities) (1) (2) City (Contractor) Cost per Residential City (Contractor) $ Dwelling Unit per San Clemente (CR &R) $ Month Irvine (WMOC) $ 9.96 Laguna Beach (WMOC) $ 12.34 San Clemente (CR &R) $ 15.31 Newport Beach - Incremental Cost (Table 3) $ 15.56 Huntington Beach (Rainbow Disposal) $ 16.08 Costa Mesa (CR &R) $ 16.96 Newport Beach- Full Cost $ 17.84 Ill Exhibit 2A. Excludes franchise fees and other fees required to or remitted by the cities. Finding 48: The cost per ton collected of $146 on on incremental basis and $168 on a full -cost basis are higher than the cost per ton reported in four Orange County cities included in the comparison that ranged from $88 to $109 per ton. However, some other cities residential costs may benefit from integrated residential and commercial contracts and rate structures. Table 7 compares the residential cost per ton in Newport Beach to the rate revenue per ton in some other Orange County cities. Franchise fees and other fees remitted to the cities are deducted so only the hauler compensation is shown. All of the cities except Newport Beach and Costa Mesa may benefit from integrated residential and commercial solid waste agreements with private haulers, whereas Costa Mesa and Newport Beach both have non - exclusive commercial systems with multiple haulers. We also note that master - planned communities, such as Irvine, may be less congested and therefore less costly to service. The solid waste services provided in the cities selected for comparison are summarized in Appendix B. Table 7: Comparison of Adjusted Cost per Ton Collected (Orange County Cities) (1) (2) City (Contractor) Cost per Ton Laguna Beach (WMOC) $ 88 San Clemente (CR &R) $ 100 Irvine (WMOC) $ 102 Costa Mesa (CR &R) $ 109 Newport Beach - Incremental Cost (Table 3) $ 146 Newport Beach - Full Cost $ 168 Ill Exhibit 2A. Excludes franchise fees and other fees required to or remitted by the cities. Izl Rounded to the nearest dollar City of Newport Beach 17 October 4, 2012 of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Objective 5: Identify and Compare the Residential Refuse Collection Service Levels and Cost Metrics in Five Regional Cities with Municipal Residential Collection Finding 5A: The cost per residential dwelling unit per month for the City's municipal residential collection for the FY 2011112 is $15.56 on an incremental cost basis and $17.84 on a full -cost basis and are at the low end of the range of rates charged to residential customers for the five cities with municipal residential collection included in the comparison that ranged from $14.25 to $65.09 per residential dwelling unit per month. Table 8 compares the residential monthly cost in Newport Beach to some other cities with municipal residential service. In Westminster the residential refuse is collected by the Midway City Sanitary District and is the only other city in Orange County with municipal collection. The other cities in the comparison are located in Los Angeles County and we understand these cities have been used by Newport Beach to benchmark some other city services. Table 8: Comparison of Adjusted Cost per Residential Dwelling Unit per Month (Municipal Residential Service) I'I i'i Exhibit 2B Finding 5B: The cost per ton collected is $146 on an incremental basis and $168 on a full -cost basis for the City's municipal residential collection are in the middle of the range for the five cities with municipal residential collection in the comparison that ranged from $102 to $260 per ton. Table 9 compares the residential cost per ton in Newport Beach to some other cities with municipal residential service. City of Newport Beach 18 October 4, 2012 Adjusted Cost per ,i Residential Dwelling Unit per Month Westminster $ 14.25 Newport Beach - Incremental Cost (Table 3) $ 15.56 Newport Beach - Full Cost $ 17.84 Santa Monica $ 23.68 Pasadena $ 26.69 Burbank $ 30.57 Beverly Hills $ 65.09 i'i Exhibit 2B Finding 5B: The cost per ton collected is $146 on an incremental basis and $168 on a full -cost basis for the City's municipal residential collection are in the middle of the range for the five cities with municipal residential collection in the comparison that ranged from $102 to $260 per ton. Table 9 compares the residential cost per ton in Newport Beach to some other cities with municipal residential service. City of Newport Beach 18 October 4, 2012 of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Table 9: Comparison of Adjusted Cost per Ton (Municipal Residential Service) I'I tzl City Adjusted Cost perTon Westminster $ 102 Newport Beach - Incremental Cost (Table 3) $ 146 Pasadena $ 147 Newport Beach - Full Cost $ 168 Beverly Hills $ 213 Burbank $ 235 Santa Monica $ 260 "' Exhibit 2B Izl Rounded to the nearest dollar Objective 6: Describe Other Municipalities that have Privatized Residential Refuse Collection Finding 6: The City of Fresno ( "Fresno ") privatized commercial refuse services in October 2011 and the City of Hemet ( "Hemet) privatized its solid waste collection services (residential and commercial) at the end of calendar year 2011. City of Hemet Background In CY 2011, the City of Hemet developed and issued an RFP for franchising Hemet's residential and commercial waste collection and disposal. In FY 2011/12, Hemet's General Fund was facing a $4.8 million deficit, which it ultimately balanced using a temporary loan from the Equipment Replacement Fund. Hemet was also projecting a minimum General Fund deficit of approximately $4.5 million for FY 2012/13. The budget for the refuse operation for FY 2012, prior to privatization, reflected a deficit of approximately $0.9 million, consisting of $9.8 million in revenue and $10.7 million in expenses. As a result, the city evaluated privatizing the municipal solid waste collection and disposal services. Hemet decided to privatize the solid waste collection for two reasons: 1. The primary reason was to develop an ongoing, consistent and legitimate source of revenue for the General Fund through franchising payments; and 2. To obtain enhanced services for customers compared to Hemet's current operations. Process Overview and Results Hemet privatized its solid waste collection services (residential and commercial) in October 2011. Hemet entered into a comprehensive franchise agreement with CR &R Incorporated on October 11, 2011 valued at approximately $10 million per year. Assuming an average annual increase of 5% for inflation and growth, the total estimated value over the 20 -year term is approximately $300 million. The term of the franchise agreement is 20 years, beginning December 1, 2011 and expiring on November 30, 2031. The term may be extended through a negotiation prior to the expiration of the agreement during an Exclusive Negotiating Period. The Exclusive Negotiating Period begins November 1, 2028 and ends October 31, 2030. City of Newport Beach 19 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Hemet will receive nearly $95 million, as shown in Table 10, over the 20 -year term of the agreement. According to the agreement, CR &R is to make the following payments and reimbursements to the City: • A $25 million franchise fee over the 20 -year contract term; an initial payment of $12.5 million plus $657,895 annually in 19 annual payments; • Approximately $65 million in monthly payments beginning at $225,000 per month and increasing over the term of the agreement; • A one -time $340,000 transition payment; • $2,760,000 for the purchase of all personal property used in the provision of refuse services in the City; • $51,333 15 days after the start of the agreement and $88,000 per year for a Compliance Officer ($1,760,000); and, • Additionally, CR &R agreed to pay the salaries for a Refuse Superintendent and an Office Specialist 11 on a time and materials basis for up to 90 days after the effective date of the agreement. Table 10: Summary of Pavments by CR &R to Hemet Over 20 Years Description Amount Franchising Payments: Initial Payment $ 12,500,000 Annual Payments ($657,895 peryear) 12,500,005 Monthly Payments (varies by year) 65,010,900 90,010,905 Total Franchising Payments Transition Cost 340,000 Purchase of Personal Property 2,760,000 Compensation for Solid Waste Compliance Officer 1,760,000 $ 94,870,905 Total Payments to Hemet All of Hemet displaced employees were to be offered employment, including street sweeping personnel. Retained employees would maintain current seniority levels and current hourly pay. Employees were guaranteed a minimum of six month compensation. Employees were also to receive a guaranteed one month severance policy after six months and a $1,000 retention bonus for all employees meeting the minimum employment term of six months. Description of Services Residential solid waste collection service includes: • A three -cart system (black container with a black lid for refuse, grey or black container with a blue lid for mixed recyclables and a green or black container with a green lid for organic waste). • The refuse carts may be 32, 64 or 96- gallon automated containers and are collected weekly. • The recycling carts may be 64 or 96- gallon automated containers and are collected bi- weekly. City of Newport Beach 20 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Commercial solid waste collection service includes collection of refuse, recyclables, food waste and green waste. Temporary bins and roll -off containers are available for cleanup projects and other disposal needs. Other Services Bulky Item Collection CR &R will provide on -call bulky item pick -up from single family dwelling at no cost up to two times per year. CR &R will provide on -call bulky item pick -up from multi - family dwellings based on agreed -upon rates. Household Hazardous Waste Pick -up CR &R will provide on -call household hazardous waste pick -up from both single family dwellings and multi - family dwellings based on agreed -upon rates. Electronic Waste Pick -up Electronic or E -Waste is collected on request for special pick -up. City Facilities CR &R will provide collection of solid waste, recyclable materials and organic waste from city facilities, including public facilities, at no charge. Other special services provided at no charge: • Collection services for Code Enforcement; • City- sponsored Events • Abandoned Waste Collection • Composting — CR &R will provide a minimum of two composting workshops in the first year of service; • Neighborhood Watch Program — CR &R will implement a neighborhood watch program in coordination with a city representative and train drivers on how to safely report potential incidents of crime, vandalism or child safety. • Local Purchase Preference Program — CR &R will provide a 5% purchase preference to businesses located within the city's boundaries. Street Sweeping Services CR &R will provide street sweeping services to the City at no charge (CR &R offered to donate the street sweeping service as corporate goodwill). City of Newport Beach 21 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study City of Fresno Background After having cut more than $80 million and 600 employees from the general fund budget in two years, the city was faced with another $12 million gap as it planned the fiscal year 2011 budget. The City Manager's office, working with the Mayor, identified "franchising" of the commercial solid waste activities as a potential opportunity to help close the budget gap. In April 2010, HF &H was engaged by the City of Fresno to conduct a procurement for commercial and multi - family solid waste, recycling, and organics collection and processing services. Fresno had historically provided these services with municipal staff through its Department of Public Utilities ( "DPU "). As part of this process, the city wanted to make progress towards their Zero Waste goal and existing mandatory recycling policies by improving on the existing diversion programs, pricing signals, and education provided to the commercial and multi - family sectors. Results The RFP resulted in proposals from five companies. Each proposal significantly expanded on the programs and services offered to multi - family and commercial customers. The proposals included the purchase of City equipment ($8 million) and will provide approximately $2.5 million annually in franchise fees. The top three proposals received also offered a rate reduction between 3% and 11% to commercial customers than the rates charged by the City (though multi - family rates would increase because of the historic subsidy to those customers). At the end of the process, the final negotiated rate revenues were approximately revenue neutral (0.1% rate revenue decreases in the north zone, 0.3% rate revenue increase in the south zone) compared to the current system. Objective 7: Describe the Potential Service Alternatives that Could be Provided by the City Finding 7A: The City has several options for modernizing residential refuse collection that may potentially increase its diversion level and potentially reduce costs, including: • Maintaining the existing manual collection system with mixed waste processing and adding a separate green waste collection container,• • Converting the existing manual collection system to a two -cart automated collection system with one cart for refuse, with continued mixed waste processing, and one cart for separate green waste collection; and • Converting the existing manual collection system to a three -cart automated collection system for the separate collection of refuse, recyclable materials and green waste, eliminating the mixed waste processing requirement. Automating residential solid waste collection service where operationally feasible will increase productivity, reduce worker injuries and may reduce collection costs. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of residential collection methods in Orange County for refuse, recycling and green waste. Three of 34 cities City of Newport Beach 22 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study or 9% have manual refuse collection service similar to Newport Beach. Most of the cities in Orange County have automated collection service: a 91% of the cities have automated refuse service; a 82% have automated recycling collection service; and a 73% have automated green waste collection. Six of the 34 Orange County cities do not offer separate green waste collection service. Figure 3: Orange County Residential Collection Methods Refuse Recycle Yardwaste 9% Is% 3% 12% 3% 6% 3% 40 3% ft 73 % 91% 82% ■Automated ■ Automated ■ Manual ■Automated ■Manual ■Manuel /Auto Manual /Auto ■N /A -Mixed Waste Processing ■Mulched Onsite a N/A -Mixed Waste Processing ■ N/A -Not offered Finding 7B: By implementing a two - container (refuse and recycling) or three - container (refuse, recycling and green waste) collection system, the City may be able to allocate a larger share of solid waste costs to customers through billing for recycling services. Potential Automated Service Table 11 provides a comparison of the costs of the existing system to an example of the potential costs of a three -cart automated system, assuming that all of the City's residential collection operations were converted. This comparison is based on industry averages and is shown for example purposes only. If the City were to automate part or all of the residential service, it would need to replace or modify its current fleet to collect automated containers, and it would need to buy containers. City operations staff estimates it would need to acquire at least seven (7) automated side loaders and modify the retained rear loaders with cart tippers to handle the automated carts. The acquisition of the seven new automated vehicles would cost approximately $2 million. Assuming three containers per customer (one container each for refuse, recycling and green waste), the purchase cost for containers would be approximately $4 million at an average cost of approximately $50 per cart. The trucks and carts could be financed or lease- purchased to reduce up -front costs. City of Newport Beach 23 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Table 11: Comparison of Current System to Alternative Rate Structure I11 Including adjustments for Newport Coast contract cost and the difference between vehicle replacement cost and the estimated annual depreciation expense as shown i n Table 1. Because of the geographic diversity in the City, there are areas in the City that would not be conducive to a three -cart system and may as a result continue with the current manual collection system. Based on discussions with City staff, approximately 85% of the City could reasonably be converted to a three - cart system. Under a three -cart system, if the City could bill customers for the commingled recycling and green waste recycling service, the remaining refuse cost paid by the General Fund may be reduced. In this example, although the total cost per home per month would increase by $2.00 per month, the City could potentially bill $6.40 per home per month for recycling - related services, as shown in Table 11, versus the $2.96 per home per month billed currently for recycling processing. The net cost paid by the General Fund would decrease from $14.88 per home per month to $13.38 per home per month and reduce the General Fund burden by $477,000 per year. The City could choose to privatize recycling collection and /or green waste collection while retaining municipal refuse collection. The City of Long Beach has a similar system, with publically provided refuse collection and contracted recycling service. Objective 8: Estimate the Range of Savings or Costs from Privatizing Residential Solid Waste Collection Finding 8A: The City would see a significant range of costs from private proposers to take over residential solid waste operations. Based on recent proposals from private haulers in other cities, the difference between the low and high cost proposals ranged from 31% to 128 %. As reflected in Table 12, the difference between the low and the high cost proposals in five recent competitive proposal processes for solid waste collection services ranged from 31% and 128 %. This demonstrates the wide difference in the rate revenues proposed by various private haulers and accentuates the point that there is no one absolute price for a private solid waste operation. The low cost proposer was the winning proposer in only one of these five cities. City of Newport Beach 24 October 4, 2012 "H.m.t'�, $ 4,732,000 26,500 $ 941,000 26,500 $ 5,673,000 26,500 $ 4,255,000 26,500 $ 763,000 26,500 $ 1,272,000 26,500 $ 6,290,000 26 ,500 $ 14.88 $ 2.96 $ 17.84 $ 13.38 $ 2.40 $ 4.00 $ 19.78 %of Total COSts 83% 17% 100% 68% 12% 20% 100% I11 Including adjustments for Newport Coast contract cost and the difference between vehicle replacement cost and the estimated annual depreciation expense as shown i n Table 1. Because of the geographic diversity in the City, there are areas in the City that would not be conducive to a three -cart system and may as a result continue with the current manual collection system. Based on discussions with City staff, approximately 85% of the City could reasonably be converted to a three - cart system. Under a three -cart system, if the City could bill customers for the commingled recycling and green waste recycling service, the remaining refuse cost paid by the General Fund may be reduced. In this example, although the total cost per home per month would increase by $2.00 per month, the City could potentially bill $6.40 per home per month for recycling - related services, as shown in Table 11, versus the $2.96 per home per month billed currently for recycling processing. The net cost paid by the General Fund would decrease from $14.88 per home per month to $13.38 per home per month and reduce the General Fund burden by $477,000 per year. The City could choose to privatize recycling collection and /or green waste collection while retaining municipal refuse collection. The City of Long Beach has a similar system, with publically provided refuse collection and contracted recycling service. Objective 8: Estimate the Range of Savings or Costs from Privatizing Residential Solid Waste Collection Finding 8A: The City would see a significant range of costs from private proposers to take over residential solid waste operations. Based on recent proposals from private haulers in other cities, the difference between the low and high cost proposals ranged from 31% to 128 %. As reflected in Table 12, the difference between the low and the high cost proposals in five recent competitive proposal processes for solid waste collection services ranged from 31% and 128 %. This demonstrates the wide difference in the rate revenues proposed by various private haulers and accentuates the point that there is no one absolute price for a private solid waste operation. The low cost proposer was the winning proposer in only one of these five cities. City of Newport Beach 24 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Table 12: Distribution of Proposed Rate Revenues above the Lowest Price (') Proposals lowest to highest) Lawndale Manhattan Beach Inglewood Redondo Beach Rancho Palos Verdes Lowest Price 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Proposal 2A Lowest 16% 21% 4% 46% 3rd Lowest 1 21% 15% 31% 23% 80% 4th Lowest 34% 69% 24% 120% 5`h Lowest 42% 31% 121% 6`h Lowest 49% 126% 7m Lowest 59% ------ -------- --------- ----------�_�� .--- ------ 128% ili Winning proposer in each city is identified in bold font. Finding 88: Using several alternative methods to estimate potential savings from privatization results in a maximum estimate of between $1.5 million and $1.7 million annually and could be substantially less or even result in a small cost increase depending on the bids received and the programs selected. The high end of the range of $1.5 to $1.7 million represents 26% to 29910 of the annual Refuse Division budget. The projections of the savings (costs) were estimated using several approaches, including: 1. Estimated savings from private sector labor cost; 2. Estimated savings from private sector labor, less estimated private sector profit; 3. Estimated savings based on the net commercial hauling revenue per ton in the City of Newport Beach as reported by the private haulers (gross receipts net of franchise fees); 4. Estimated savings based on Los Angeles County industry data for municipal and private hauler residential operations; 5. Estimated savings based on the city of Costa Mesa cost per ton collected; and 6. Estimated savings based on the results of competitive proposal processes for private hauler contracts in other cities. The estimated savings or costs from privatization based on the approaches identified above range from an increase in annual costs of $171,000 to a savings of approximately $1,476,000 to $1,670,000 annually. The estimated annual value of savings or costs, and the estimated annual value as a percent of the existing annual solid waste operations budget is summarized in Table 13. City of Newport Beach 25 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Table 13: Estimate Savings (Costs) from Privatization .. .. Estimated Annual Estimated Annual Value as a Value Savings Percent of of or Costs (1) •. 1. Private sector labor cost $394,000 to $670,000 7% to 12% savings iii 2. Private sector labor savings less $(171000) to $448,000 (3)% to 8% private sector profit Izl 3. Estimated savings based on the $1,476,000 26% City's net commercial hauling revenue per ton. 4. Estimated savings based on Los $1,305,000 23% Angeles County industry data S. Estimated savings based on the $1,281,000 23% Costa Mesa cost per ton collected 6. Estimated savings based on the $964,000 17% results of competitive proposal processes in other cities (4) 7. Estimated savings based on the $1,670,000 29% Newport Coast cost per ton collected ry7 Rounded totnousanns (2) Based on a budget of $5,673,000 for FY 2011/12, net of Newport Coast contract and adjusted vehicle replacement cost. Excludes estimated one -time labor cost payoff of $505,000 as described in Finding #2C. ldl Exhibit 3 (4) Appendix D 1. Estimated Savings from Private Sector Labor Cost It is anticipated that the hourly rate for private solid waste vehicle drivers will be lower than the average hourly rate for the City drivers. As shown in Exhibit 3, the City drivers' current average hourly rate, including benefits, is $38.64 per hour. The hourly rates proposed for solid waste vehicle drivers in a recent RFP process, ranged from $26.46 per hour to $33.10 per hour for union labor, with an average hourly rate of $30.04, including benefits. The non -union driver hourly rates ranged from $23.43 per hour to $25.00 per hour, with an average hourly rate of $24.00. As shown in Table 14, the estimated annual savings from private sector labor ranges from $394,000 if a union labor is used, to $670,000 if non -union labor is used, assuming no change in labor efficiencies. If private operators could obtain other operating efficiencies, then overall costs would be reduced. City of Newport Beach 26 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study Table 14: Estimated Savings from Private Sector Labor Cost (') Description Union Labor Non -Union Labor Newport Beach Average Hourly Rate $ 38.64 $ 38.64 Private Sector Average Hourly Rate $ 30.04 $ 5,673,000 24.00 Difference Between Newport Beach and Private Sector $ 8.60 $ 14.64 Percent of Newport Beach Averaage Hourly Rate 22% $ 5,104,000 38% Total Man Hours 13 =11 -12 45,760 45,760 $ 394,000 $ 670,000 Estimated Savings from Private Sector Labor Cost (2) I'i Exhibit 3 l2) Rounded to thousands Employee Impact The City's refuse collection program consists of 24 employees. If services were privatized, these positions would no longer be required. Some of the solid waste employees may be able to find positions in other departments in the City, which may displace other City employees. Other employees may choose to retire, Generally, in the contracting of services, the City may require the private company to offer employment to those laid off due to privatization. Those employees that meet the private company's requirements may be offered employment. In most cases, their compensation would be lower, because of the differences in wage rates and benefits between the private and public sectors. As demonstrated in Table 14, the City pays approximately 22% to 38% more in hourly wages and benefits than the private sector. 2. Estimated Savings (Costs) from Labor, Less Estimated Profit The impact from the lower driver wages of approximately $9 per hour for union drivers and $15 per hour for non -union drivers is estimated to be fully or partially offset by the anticipated profit that would be built into a contract with a private hauler. The estimated average operating profit for private haulers ranges from 5% to 12% of rate revenue, but could be higher or lower in individual cities. Net costs (savings) are shown in Table 15. This assumes no change in overall operating efficiencies. If private operators could obtain other operating efficiencies, then overall costs would be reduced. Table 15: Estimated Savings from Private Sector Cost Net of Private Sector Profit (') (') Line Description Formula Union Labor Non -Union Labor 1 Adjusted Solid Waste Operation Costs (Table 1) $ 5,673,000 $ 5,673,000 2 Less Interdepartmental Charges (569,000) (569,000) $ 5,104,000 $ 5,104,000 3 Total Newport Beach Operating Cost 13 =11 -12 4 Estimated Savings from Private Sector Labor Cost 394,000 670,000 $ 4,710,000 $ 4,434,000 5 Newport Beach Operating Cost Net of Private Sector Labor Cost L5= 13. -L4 6 Private Sector Profit Ranee 7 Private Sector Profit 5% 12% 5% 12% 8 Estimated Private Sector Profit L8 =LSXL7 $ 236,000 $ 565,000 $ 222,000 $ 532,000 $ 158,000 $ (171,000) $ 448,000 $ 138,000 9 Estimated Savings (Costs) from Private Sector Labor Cost, Net of Profit L9 =L4 -18 Exhibit 3 (�) Rounded to thousands City of Newport Beach 27 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study 3. Estimated Savings Based on the City's Net Commercial Hauling Revenue If the City's residential collection operations were performed at the same cost per ton as the commercial operations in the City of Newport Beach done by the private haulers, estimated savings would be $1,476,000 annually or approximately 26% (Table 16). There are different collection features between residential and commercial services, and in some communities' commercial collection is relatively more cost effective than residential collection due to larger waste quantities per customer. This may be offset by reduced commercial efficiency in the City due to overlapping collection routes of different commercial haulers. Table 16: Estimate Annual Savings based on Commercial Net Receipts per Ton Description FY 2011 Estimated Commercial Gross Receipts $ 12,943,000 Franchise Fees Remitted by Commercial Haulers 1,359,000 $ 11,584,000 Net Commercial Gross Receipts Commercial Solid Waste Tonnage 112,726 $ 102.76 Net Commercial Gross Receipts perTon Newport Beach Residential Solid Waste Tonnage Collected 33,800 $ 3,473,000 Estimated Annual Residential Cost Newport Beach Incremental Solid Waste Operation Costs 4,949,000 $ (1,476,000) Estimated Annual Savings 4. Estimated Savings Based on Los Angeles County Industry Data Based on industry data for Los Angeles County, the net residential revenue per ton averages $119 for cities with private residential haulers in cities without integrated residential and commercial contracts and $154 per ton for cities with municipal residential solid waste collection. The residential revenue per ton for cities with private haulers is 23% less that the residential revenue per ton for cities with municipal residential service. The estimated annual savings based on Los Angeles County industry data is approximately $1,305,000 based on 23% of the City's total solid waste operation cost of $5,673,000. S. Estimated Savings Based on the Costa Mesa Residential Cost per Ton If the City of Newport Beach residential collection operations were performed by private haulers at the City of Costa Mesa's net residential cost per ton of $109 per ton (Exhibit 2A), estimated annual savings would be $1,281,000or approximately 23 %. The City of Costa Mesa residential customers are serviced by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District through a contract with CR &R and the commercial refuse collection service is provided by the open competition of private companies. Costa Mesa was selected for comparison as the city with the closest service characteristics and is adjacent to the City of Newport Beach. 6. Estimated Savings Based on the Results of Other Competitive Proposal Processes Competitive proposal processes for private hauler solid waste contracts have resulted in a median cost savings of 17% in cities that competitively re -bid their contracts. Assuming a 17% annual savings based on the City's total solid waste operations cost of $5,673,000, annual cost savings would be approximately $964,000. The results of these RFP processes are shown in Appendix D. It should be City of Newport Beach 28 October 4, 2012 City of Newport Beach Section II: Findings Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study noted that the proposals identified were typically for both residential and commercial solid waste services. 7. Estimated Savings based on the Newport Coast Cost per Ton If the City of Newport Beach residential collection operations were performed by private haulers at the Newport Coast residential cost per ton of $97 per ton (Exhibit 3), estimated annual savings would be $1,670,000 or approximately 29% (Table 17). The Newport Coast area may be easier to serve with automated collection vehicles than other parts of the City that currently receive manual service. Thus this figure is considered a maximum estimate at the top of the range of estimated savings. Table 17: Estimate Annual Savin¢s based on Newport Coast per Ton Description FY 2011/12 Estimated Newport Coast Cost $ 612,000 Estimated Residential Tonnage Collected Ill 6,318 $ 97 Net Cost per Ton Newport Beach Residential Solid Waste Tonnage Collected 33,800 $ 3,279,000 Estimated Annual Residential Cost Ill Newport Beach Incremental Solid Waste Operation Costs Izl 1 4,949,000 $ (1,670,000) Estimated Annual Savings Izl Iil Residential tonnage collected by CR &R in the Newport Coast area during FY 2011/12 (actual data for January 2012, accordingly this month was estimated) Izl Rounded to thousands City of Newport Beach 29 October 4, 2012 This page intentionally left blank EXHIBITS This page intentionally left blank EXHIBIT 1 Projection of Solid Waste Operation Cost FY 2011/12 Budget and Projections for FY 2012/13, FY 2013/14, FY 2014/15, FY 2015/16 and FY 2016/17 Line Reference or Formula Acct# Description FY 31 -12 Budget Assumption FY 12 -13 (Budget( Assumption FY 13-14 Assumption FY 14-15 Assumption FY 15 -16 Assumption FY 1 &17 Row A B C 0 E F G H I J K Reference or Formula Input Input E =(1 +D) G =(1 +F) 1 =(1 +H) K=(1 +J) 1 Salaries & Benefits 2 7000 Salaries - Misc. $ 1,406,877 $ 1,444,514 2.50% $ 1,480,627 3.00% $ 1,525,046 3.00% $ 1,570,797 3.00% $ 1,617,921 3 7040 Overtime, Misc.& 1 /2Time 150,000 150,000 2.50% 153,750 3.00% 158,363 3.00% 163,114 3.00% 168,007 4 7059 One Man Packer Pay 100,000 100,000 2.50% 102,500 3.00% 105,575 3.00% 108,742 3.00% 112,004 5 7063 Certification Pay 5,000 5,000 2.50% 5,125 3.00% 5,279 3.00% 5,437 3.00% 5,600 6 7099 Salary Savings - 7 7114 Cell Phone Stipend Exp - 1,920 2.50% 1,968 3.00% 2,027 3.00% 2,088 3.00% 2,151 8 7210 Health /Dental/Vision 376,992 392,452 3.25% 405,207 3.25% 418,376 3.25% 431,973 3.25% 446,012 9 7223 & Annual OPEB & Merp $2.50 Contribution 67,841 12,450 3.25% 12,855 3.25% 13,273 3.25% 13,704 3.25% 14,149 7227 10 7290 Life Insurance 2,507 2,520 2.50% 2,583 3.00% 2,660 3.00% 2,740 3.00% 2,822 11 7295 Emp Assistance Program 550 550 2.50% 564 3.00% 581 3.00% 598 3.00% 616 12 7370 Workers'Comp, Misc. 82,113 82,113 2.50% 84,166 3.00% 86,691 3.00% 89,292 3.00% 91,971 13 7373 Compensated Absences 49,241 50,558 2.50% 51,822 3.00% 53,377 3.00% 54,978 3.00% 56,627 14 7425 Medicare Fringes 22,389 20,596 2.50% 21,111 3.00% 21,744 3.00% 22,396 3.00% 23,068 15 7439 PERS Employee Contribution (1) 46,774 35,857 12.00% 40,160 3.00% 41,365 3.00% 42,606 3.00% 43,884 16 7440 PERS Employer Contribution 177,552 1 1 207,188 Input 1 130,999 Input 1 134,929 1 Input 138,977 1 Input 17 L17= L2:L16 Total Salaries & Benefits 2,487,836 2,505,718 2,493,437 2,569,286 2,647,442 2,584,832 18 Operating Explainses 19 8010 Alive, &Pub Relations 1,000 1,000 2.50% 1,025 3.00% 1,056 3.00% 1,088 3.00% 1,121 20 8020 Automotive Service 100,000 100,000 2.50% 102,500 3.00% 105,575 3.00% 108,742 3.00% 112,004 21 8022 Equip Maint ISF 414,538 414,538 2.50% 424,901 3.00% 437,648 3.00% 450,777 3.00% 464,300 22 8024 Vehicle Replace ISE 410,300 410,300 2.50% 420,558 3.00% 433,175 3.00% 446,170 3.011% 459,555 23 8030 Maint &Repair - Equip 10,000 10,000 2.50% 10,250 3.00% 10,558 3.00% 10,875 3.011% 11,201 24 8033 Printer Maint /Supplies 300 300 2.50% 308 3.00% 317 3.00% 327 3.00% 337 25 8080 Services - Prof &Tech NOC 20,000 5,000 2.50% 5,125 3.00% 5,279 3.00% 5,437 3.00% 5,600 26 8085 Services - NPT Coast Refuse 611,385 627,500 2.50% 643,188 3.00% 662,484 3.00% 682,359 3.00% 702,830 27 8088 Services - Contact 20,000 21,000 2.50% 21,525 3.00% 22,171 3.00% 22,836 3.00% 23,521 28 8100 Travel & Meetings NOC 200 200 2.50% 205 3.00% 211 3.00% 217 3.011% 224 29 8105 Training 400 400 2.50% 410 3.00% 422 3.00% 435 3.011% 448 30 8112 Utilities - Telephone 1,000 - 2.50% - 3.00% - 3.00% - 3.00% - 31 8200 Special Dept. Supplies HOC 5,000 5,000 2.50% 5,125 3.00% 5,279 3.00% 5,437 3.00% 5,600 32 8204 Uniform Expense 14,000 14,000 2.50% 14,350 3.00% 14,781 3.00% 15,224 3.00% 15,681 33 8240 Tools, Instruments, Etc. 250 250 2.50% 256 3.00% 264 3.00% 272 3.00% 280 34 8250 Special Dept. Expense NOC 1,500,000 1,500,000 2.50% 1,537,500 3.00% 1,583,625 3.00% 1,631,134 3.00% 1,680,068 35 8298 Other Agency Fees - 15,000 2.50% 15,375 3.00% 15,836 3.00% 16,311 3.00% 16,800 36 8318 IT ISF Operating Charge 26,359 47,058 2.50% 48,234 3.00% 49,681 3.00% 51,171 3.00% 52,706 37 8319 IT ISF Strategic Charge 4,539 - 2.50% - 3.00% - 3.00% - 3.00% - 38 8340 General Insurance 183,041 183,040 2.50% 187,616 3.00% 193,244 3.00% 199,041 3.00% 205,012 39 L40= L13L38 Total Operating Expenses 3,322,312 3,354,586 3,438,451 3,541,606 3,647,853 3,757,288 5,810,148 5,860,304 5,931,888 6,110,892 1 1 6,295,295 6,342,120 40 1 141= L1] +L39 1 1 Total Refuse Operating City of Newport Beach 14 101412012 EXHIBIT 1 Projection of Solid Waste Operation Cost FY 2011/12 Budget and Projections for FY 2012/13, FY 2013/14, FY 2014/15, FY 2015/16 and FY 2016/17 Line Reference or Formula Acct# Description FY 31 -12 Budget Assumption FY 12 -13 (Budget) Assumption FY 13-14 Assumption FY 14-15 Assumption FY 15 -16 Assumption FY 1 &17 Row A B C 0 E F G H I J K Reference or Formula Input Input E =(1 +D) G =(I +F) 1 =(1 +H) K =(1 1J) 41 Interdepartmental Allocation 42 0110 City Council 10,350 2.00% 10,557 2.50% 10,821 3.00% 11,146 3.00% 11,480 3.0096 11,824 43 0320 City Manager - PIO 25,050 2.00% 25,551 2.50% 26,190 3.00% 26,976 3.00% 27,785 3.00% 28,619 44 0410 Personnel 43,411 2.00% 44,279 2.50% 45,386 3.00% 46,748 3.00% 48,150 3.00% 49,595 45 0420 Risk Management 30,244 2.00% 30,849 2.50% 31,620 3.00% 32,569 3.00% 33,546 3.00% 34,552 46 0620 Fiscal Services 5,021 2.00% 5,121 2.50% 5,249 3.00% 5,406 3.00% 5,568 3.00% 5,735 47 0530 Information Technology 20,578 2.00% 20,990 2.50% 21,515 3.00% 22,160 3.00% 22,825 3.00% 23,510 48 0540 Revenue 12,166 2.00% 12,409 2.50% 12,719 3.00% 13,101 3.00% 13,494 3.00% 13,899 49 0650 Accounting 48,300 2.00% 49,266 2.50% 50,498 3.00% 52,013 3.00%1 53,573 3.00% 55,180 50 3140 GS- Operations Support 364,987 2.00% 372,287 2.50% 381,594 3.00% 393,042 3.00%1 404,833 3.00% 416,978 51 5050 PW - Admin 8,753 2.00% 8,928 2.50% 9,151 3.00% 9,426 3.CD%l 9,709 3.00% 10,000 52 L52= L42:L51 Total Interdepartmental Allocation 568,860 1 1 580,237 1 594,743 1 612,587 630,963 649,892 53 154= 146,1_52 Total Solid Waste Operations 6,379,008 6,440,541 6,526,631 6,723,479 6,926,258 6,992,012 1.0% 1.396 3.0% 3.0% 0.996 54 Percent Increasefrom Prior Year 55 Adjustments: 56 L56 =L22 8024 Vehicle Replace ISF (2) (410,300) (410,300) (420,558) (433,175) (446,170) (459,555) 57 Input Depreciation of Refuse Vehicles (2) 336,000 336,000 336,000 336,000 336,000 336,000 58 L58 =L26 8085 Services - NPT Coast Refuse (611,385) (627,500) 2.50% (643,188) 3.00% (662,484) 3.0% (682,359) 3.00% (702,830) Services - Contact (20,000) (21,000) 2.50% (21,525) 3.00% (22,171) 3.00% (22,836) 3.00% (23,521) 59 159 = 156:158 Total Adjustments (705,685) (722,800) (749,271) (781,830) (815,365) (849,906) 60 L60= L53 +L59 Total Adjusted Solid Waste Operations 5,673,323 0 5,717,741 0 5,777,360 0 5,941,649 0 6,110,893 0 6,142,106 61 Percent ncreasefrom Prior Year 0.8% 1.096 2.8% 2.8% 0.596 62 Input Total Residential Units 26,500 26,500 ,500 2618.1] 26,500 26,500 26,500 $ 1].84 $ 1].98 $ IS 18.68 1 $ 19.22 1 19.31 63 L69= L60 +L62 Total Solid Waste Operations /Unit /MO 64 Input Total Residential Tons Collected (3) 33,800 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 65 175= 160=1_64 Total Cost per Ton Collected $ 16].85 $ 168.17 $ 1 1 $ 174.75 $ 1]9.]3 1 $ 180.65 (1) PERS Employee Contribution reflects the portion of the PERS Employee Contribution covered by the City and is projected to change accord! ng to cha rues in the PERS Employer Contribution. (2) The Vehicle Replace ISF charge is replaced with the estimated depreciation for all the complete fleet assuming that the useful life is increased to reflect the actual period used. (3) Projected tonnage for FY 12/13, FY 13/14, FY 14/15, FY 15/16 and FY 16117 is based on the annualized average of the monthly tans for FY 08/09, FY 09/10, FY 10/11 and six months of FY 11/12 (through December 2011) City of Newport Beach 1 -2 101412012 Mai 3A Comparison with Orange County Cities III Receipts delliatetl a.. on 21,531 average unite and 519.95 per month for CY 2011 tonnage dates an calendar year) (2) Indor., CH, Fee,of$140 per homepa,manq -$]89, 466,$ 0.3, 0.3015]5,000 pe, year for cad. eMarcemens plus CPI) antl$0.3,850 east 3/2 of$150,000 No. pe ...... no CPI). (3) RerelPt, talc lath n dared on IR,11R home, at $1].73 per Month ($I6.. to+ 09) (d) Bored ad as F. (5) Appendix 16] Fxhist1 Adjustment For Billlng $ 050 Per Home per MaMh Adjustment for On - uy.m., HHW $ 050 I.r HOmeper MOMh City O /Newpostemm ZA 2141202 Omnge Counp'I.- 1 Tot al Gmss Rendis s/Cast per Year $ S,B,o,000 fat $ 6134$11 (1) $ 10,51694] $ 5,916A59 $ 2,012,4]3 $ 3,Bfi],553 2 Clty antl Nexua Fees ]]$,538 95],Ififi 121 295,823 326,362 202�8fi6 2) 3 Poe[Annual COS[, Excluding O[y Fees $ S,fi]3,000 $ d�383,983 $ 9,559,]81 $ S,fi20,fi 3fi $ l,fi8fi�111 $ 3,fi64,fi85 pesltlenti al 9 Type MServim ppsltlenflal 0.epltlendal& Resltlentlal& 0.epltlpn[lal& 0.esitlen[ial& Only Only Commercial Village Wmmercnl Commercial .,Marc., 5 Yes/NO Adjustment Yeal Adj.as Adjustment Yes/HO Ad], as Adjustment Yes /Na Adj.% Adjustment Yep/N. Adj.% Adjustment Yes /NO Adj. % Adjustment 6 Aandaems iri: ] G)Y Faal Hles at no audit....I made No $ - No Ofi% $ - Yes 0.2% $ )39]10) Yes B.E% $ )31.1431 Yes O.E% $ 13,3721 Yes 03% $ )],329) 8 Read, n oon containers at no adtlltlonal cha Re No - No 5.2% - Ye, IA% 352,95fi1 Yes t.fi% (e'..) Yes I.I. F,.) Yes 1.6% 158,635) 9 Beach cantalners at no additional charge (debris) No - NO 21% - No 0.7% - No B.]% - NO oma - Yes B.]% 115,653) 10 Street sweeping tlehdc at no additional Charlie No - No I4% - Yee O4% 130,239) No O4% - No 04% - Yee 04% )14,659) 11 Billing.. -on-it by Haukr No - (4) No $050 /mo. - (4) Yee $050 /m0. 2a1,952) Yee So . /mo. 263,]4a) Yee $050 /m0. )62,M61 Yee $050 /mo. (109,068) 3E Free Eom-[o umr HHW Pickup No No $O50/ma, No $0.50 /mo. No $0.50 /m o. Yes $0.50 /m o. 162,.6) Yes $050 /ma, (3091068) 13 Total Adjustments $ $ $ (492 257) $ 1364,9]9) $ 1350441) $ 1324,433) 14 Net Annual Cost, Includes Adjustments $ C, ,taW $ 43a1983 it 9,067,514 5 5,255,]1] $ 1,531,669 $ 3,340,213 IS Tone C011eded 33.8. 40381 Not Anil. SI,6B$ 1],44] 33437 16 Number of Homes 26,500 21,531 46,992 43,958 10,341 ill". 1] a Tone C011ardid per Home Per Month 118 LAA Not Arall. 118 169 1.84 3B Net Cost, Including Adjustments 39 Pec TOn COIIeRN $ Had $ 1. Not Aran $ 301 $ BB $ 100 20 I . Per Home Per Month $ 1].84 I I $ 3696 $ 1608 $ 9.% $ 12'. $ 3531 III Receipts delliatetl a.. on 21,531 average unite and 519.95 per month for CY 2011 tonnage dates an calendar year) (2) Indor., CH, Fee,of$140 per homepa,manq -$]89, 466,$ 0.3, 0.3015]5,000 pe, year for cad. eMarcemens plus CPI) antl$0.3,850 east 3/2 of$150,000 No. pe ...... no CPI). (3) RerelPt, talc lath n dared on IR,11R home, at $1].73 per Month ($I6.. to+ 09) (d) Bored ad as F. (5) Appendix 16] Fxhist1 Adjustment For Billlng $ 050 Per Home per MaMh Adjustment for On - uy.m., HHW $ 050 I.r HOmeper MOMh City O /Newpostemm ZA 2141202 EXHIBIT28 Comparison with China with Municipal Residential Servlte 1 2 3 Total Gross accentual per-Year Ciry and Nexs Fees Net Annual Cory Excluding Ciry Fees $ 5,61 (6) $ 3,324,414 (1) $ kfi50,555 250000 Cities with t e Municipal Service $ 9,561,476 clause 5 B,fi86656 (2) $ 9,099,2%6 $ 5,Ei -0 $ 3,324,414 $ 6408,555 $ 9,311,426 $ 6,guyban $ 9,099,286 4 Type of Service Residential Residental Residential Rezidenrial Only Proctorial and Residential and Onlv only Onty(111 7(2) Commercial Commercial 5 Yea/No Adjustment Yes /NO Adj IS Adjustment Yedi Am is Adjustment wove. Adj.% Adjustment Ad(.$ Adjustment Yee /NO Adj.% Adjustment 6 Adjustments l° t2 City [ankles at no additional charge No $ 06% $ - Yes $. (12,812) No 06% $ - 0.2% $ - No R Street later... Circle at no additonal charge No - 52% - vez (102,532) No 5.2% - 16% - No 9 Al containers at no additional charge debnzl No - 2 2% No - No 2 Z% 0.2% - No Street sweeping door's.1 no adandrel charge No - 14% - No Budges arl No (546,000) 0.4% No - 11 BIIIIng Performed by Thai orot oa tax roll) No - $0.50/mo. (I1] 6921 Yes $0.50/mo. (421 Yes Budget (294,000) (10) Yes $050 /moo (159,244) Yea Bu " (38,212) (6) 12 Free OOor- to-OOOr HHW pick-up No $0.50 /moo No $0.50/mo. No $0.50/m0. NE $050 /m o. Yes WE. /moo (18],324) 13 Tmal Adjustments $ $ (112,6921 $ (222,924) $ (1,340,000) $ 1159 2441 $ (226,086) 14 Net Annual Coal, nudes Adjustments $ "fuld'000 Si 3,211,222 $ 6,1.5,6.1 $ 2,921,426 $ 6S26,912 $ 8,R231W 15 Tom Collected 33,.00 31632 29,060 19,060 52,851 34,153 16 Number of Iran. 26.500 10,282 2,920 ]920 26,624 31,229 12 • Tear Collected per H.me Per Month L2. 168 any 362 2.12 109 f. Net Cost, Including Adjustments'. 19 a Perkin Coloued $ 168 $ 102 $ 213 $ 224 $ 142 $ 260 20 a Per Home Per MOniF $ 12.84 $ 14.25 $ 65.09 $ Ill $ 26.69 $ 23.60 (1) Bared on the number of units 110,202)tlmez 5122 pen year. (2) Based on the budgeted reachandal now revenue for FV 2018/11. (3) The City of Newport Beam reflects the whose nice,, disposes of beach hman from mechanical beach cleaner and disposes the street zweeping debris, all disposed at the Frank Bowerman Goodall. (4) Milan on the Cx roll. (5) The City of Beverly Hills manzfers$ful annually to the Storm Water Fund to cover m—cat of street sweeping debris. (6) Based on the N 2r1.111 cudialSil651 war budgeted for lltl101ea BIIIIng 5ervlces for the ...me Recovery 9 Recycling Fund, Residential Cte revenue accounted for 4A sE mine rate CVenuefor FY2010 /11. The amount dedurted(or bill, 1540 %of the budget for ONltty BIIIIng Services. VI Miamorx (e) lancet (9) AmerdlrgCCry craft, ztteeuvicaungmztz are mtluced In the 6ea minMtoo ofsan waste rates. Street sweeping coats were allocated between residential and commercial based on the awarded how 'new revenue. (10) Based on 06 %ol me FV 2010/11 Budget for.tiling sprvlre. Residential rate revenues account for approximately 06 %.f the maldentoll and commercial rate revenues. (11) Although Beverly Hllla provldes only munitlpal residential Parsce, the Cry 61115 for both residential and commensal Seri. Adjustment For Bllling $ 0.50 Per HOmeper Month Adjustment for 0oorvt. -0oor HHW $ C.I. Per HO me per MOMh Onx.fNewporfeeocd 2B 10/4/2022 EXHIBIT 2C City Services Cost Adjustment Factors Fiscal Year 2010/11 MPPN lruino (Z) Disposal only at Bowerman Landfill (2,597 tons at $30.30 per ton) City of Newport Beach 2C 101412012 EXHIBIT 3 Calculation of Projected Savings (Costid Waste Collection Vehicle Drivers Line Description Costs FY 2011/12 Budget 1 Total Salaries, excluding overtime and special pay (FY 2011/12 Budget) $ 1,661,877 2 Route supervisor (85,238) 3 Refuse superintendent (113,902) 4 Salaries not budgeted by position (255,000) $ 1,207,737 5 Total route salary (w /o overtime, special pay and benefits) 22 6 Number of Route Personnel 7 Straight Annual Hours 2,080 8 Total Route Hours 45,760 9 Average Hourly Rate before Benefits $ 26.39 10 Benefits (FY 2011/12 Position worksheet) 12.25 11 Average Hourly Rate with Benefits $ 38.64 Union 12 Private Sector (Recent Competitive Proposal) Nan -Union $ 32.55 $ 23.58 13 Private Sector Hauler 14 Private Sector Hauler 28.00 25.00 15 Private Sector Hauler 26.46 23.43 16 Private Sector Hauler 33.10 17 Private Sector Hauler 30.07 18 Private Sector Average $ 30.04 $ 24.00 19 Calculation of Savings per Hour 20 Newport Beach Average Hourly Rate $ 38.64 $ 38.64 21 Private Sector Average Hourly Rate 30.04 24.00 22 Difference Between Newport Beach and Private Sector $ 8.60 $ 14.64 23 Potential Savings Based on Direct Labor Cost $i $ _6701M $ 5,673,000 $ 5,673,000 24 Newport Beach Solid Waste Operations Cost 25 Interdepartmental Allocations (569,000) (569,000) 26 Total Newport Beach Cost $ 5,104,000 $ 5,104,000 27 Less Potential Savings Based on Direct Labor Cost (394,000) (670,000) 28 Newport Beach Cost Less Labor Cost Savings 4,710,000 4,434,000 29 Private Sector Profit (Range 5% to 12 ° %) 5% 12% 5% 12% 30 Private Sector Profit Amount 236,000 565,000 222,000 532,000 31 Estimated Net Annual Savings (Cost) $ 158,000 $ (171,000) $ 448,000 $ 138,000 $ 5,673,000 $ 5,673,000 $ 5,673,000 $ 5,673,000 32 Newport Beach Solid Waste Operations Cost 33 Estimated Net Annual Savings (Cost) Percentage 3% -3% 8% 2% City of Newport Beach 3 -1 101412012 EXHIBIT 4 Estimate of Annual Depreciation Cost for Solid Waste Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle # Fuel Year Purchased Acquisition Cost Expected Life (1) Estimated Annual Cost Rear Loader Diesel 2008 $ 81,226 14 $ 6,000 Replacement - 5020 CNG 2015 $ 225,000 12 19,000 Replacement - 5021 CNG 2013 $ 225,000 12 19,000 Replacement - 5023 CNG 2013 $ 225,000 12 19,000 5026 CNG 2010 $ 203,691 12 17,000 5027 CNG 2010 $ 203,691 12 17,000 5030 Diesel 2003 $ 93,414 14 7,000 5031 Diesel 2003 $ 112,049 14 8,000 Front Loader Replacement - 5007 CNG 2013 $ 275,000 12 23,000 Replacement - 5010 CNG 2014 $ 275,000 12 23,000 Replacement - 5011 CNG 2013 $ 275,000 12 23,000 Replacement - 5014 CNG 2013 $ 275,000 12 23,000 Replacement - 5019 CNG 2014 $ 275,000 12 23,000 5032 Diesel 2003 $ 112,049 14 8,000 Replacement - 5033 CNG 2015 $ 275,000 12 23,000 5034 CNG 2010 $ 244,461 12 20,000 5035 CNG 2010 $ 244,461 12 20,000 Replacement - 5036 Diesel 2015 $ 275,000 12 23,000 Additional Equipment 5005 -Yard Mule Diesel 1995 $ 76,366 14 5,000 5038- Tractor Diesel 1997 $ 70,930 14 5,000 5025 Rear Load Diesel 2003 $ 65,882 14 1 5,000 1 $ 336,000 Total Annualized Cost 1 (1) Based on the historical period that vehicles are operated in the City. City of Newport Beach 4 -1 101412012 EXHIBITS REFUSE VEHICLE ORIGINAL COST, NET BOOK VALUE, AND VALUATION Descrip0on /Vehicle Number In Service Date Year Fuel Body Style Original Cost NOV 6 /30/11 Estimates) Value Estimated Truck Values ( www.trashrucksonline.cam) (21131 Law High Au Low High Two-Man Trucks 5003 11/21/2007 2008 Diesel Rear Load $ 61,225 $ 40,613 $ 40,613 $ 891 $ 95,000 $ 92,450 2007 Freightliner /McNeilus 20 Yd, RL 2009 International /Heil 16 Yd. RL 5020 1011/1997 1997 Diesel Rear Load $ 69,695 $ - $ 25,000 $ 23,900 $ 60,000 $ 41,950 1998 Mack 16 Yd. RL 1998 GMC /McNellus 17 Yd. RL 5021 1011/1997 1997 Diesel Rear Load $ 89,895 $ - $ 25,000 $ 23,900 $ 60,000 $ 41,950 1998 Mack 16 Yd. RL 1998 GMC /McNellus 17 Yd. RL 5023 1011/1997 1997 Diesel Rear Load $ 89,895 $ - $ 25,000 $ 23,900 $ 60,000 $ 41,950 1998 Mack 16 Yd. RL 1998 GMC /McNeilus 17 Yd. RL 5026 3122/2010 2010 CNG Rear Lead $ 203,691 $ 152,768 $ 152,768 $ 153,000 $ 153,000 $ 153,000 5027 3/22/2010 2010 CNG Rear LOad $ 203,691 $ 152,768 $ 152,768 5 153,000 $ 153,000 $ 153,000 5030 11/18/2002 2003 Diesel Rear LOad $ 93;414 $ - $ 25,000 $ 391 $ 55,000 $ 47,450 2003 Freightliner/Leach 16 Yd. RL 2003 Freightliner /Hell RL 15 Yd, 5031 11/18/2002 2003 Diesel Rear Lead $ 112.49 $ - $ 25,000 $ 39,900 $ 55,000 $ 47,450 2003 Freightllner /Leach 16 Yd. RL 2003 FreightOner/Heil RL 16 Yd. One -Man Trucks 5007 Aug -94 1994 Diesel Front Wad $ 112,486 $ - $ 25,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1994 Peterbuilt /Heil 40 Yd. FL 1994 Peterbullt/He1I 40 Yd. FL 5010 11/20/1997 1997 Diesel Front Lead $ 133,443 $ - $ 25,000 $ 15,000 $ 38,000 $ 26,500 1998 Petebuilt /Heil 40 Yd, FL 1998.AUtocar /He1140 Y8. FL 5011 Aug 94 1994 Diesel Front Load $ 112486 $ - Si 25,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1994 Peterbuilt/Hed 40 Yd. FL 1994 Peterbuilt /Hell 40 Yd. FL 5014 11/20/1997 1997 Diesel Front Load $ 133;443 $ - $ 25,000 $ 15,000 $ 38,000 $ 26,500 1998 Peterbuilt/Heil 40 Yd. FL 1998 AUtocar /Heil 40 Yd. FL 5019 3/16/1999 1999 Diesel Front Load $ 133,442 $ - $ 25,000 $ 29,500 $ 33,500 $ 31,500 1999 Mack /Heil 40 Yd. FL 1999 Mack/Heil 40 Yd. FL 5032 2/11/2003 2003 Diesel Front Load $ 112,049 $ - $ 25,000 $ 59,900 $ 1051 $ 82,450 2003 Mack/Heil 40 Yd. FL 2003 Autocar/Wittke 40 Yd. FL 5033 1/30/2001 2000 Diesel Front Wad $ 129,873 $ - $ 25,000 $ 24,900 $ 33,500 $ 29,200 2000 Mack /Heil 40 Yd. FL 2000 V.1v. /McNeilus 40 Yd, FL 5034 3/25/2010 2010 CNG Front Wad $ 244,461 $ 183,346 $ 183,346 $ 183,000 $ 183,000 $ 183,000 5035 3/25/2010 2010 CNG Front Lead $ 244,461 $ 183,346 $ 183,346 $ 183,000 $ 181 $ 183,000 5035 3/28/2000 2000 Diesel Front Load $ 129,873 $ Si 25,000 $ 24,900 $ 33,500 $ 29,200 2000 Mack /Heil 40 Yd. FL 2000 VBlvo /McNeilus 40 Yd. FL $ 2.449,773 $ 712,841 1 $ 1,037,041 $ L142,600 1 $ 1,398500 1 $ 1,270,550 Total Refuse Vehicles Addhi0nal Equipment 5005 1112112007 1995 Diesel $ 76,366 $ - $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 251 $ 25,000 5038 7/9/1997 1997 Diesel $ 70,930 $ - $ 25,000 $ 251 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 5-0-60 1 8/19/2003 1 2003 1 Diesel $ 65,882 $ 13,176 $ 13,135 $ 13,135 $ 13,135 $ 13,135 Total 5 2,662,951 $ 725,017 $ 1,100,976 $ 1,205,735 1 $ 1,461,635 1 $ 1,333,685 131 The estimated value was based on the Net Book Value (NBV) at 6/30/11 or $25,000 for vehicles that were fully depreciated. III Vehicle valuations were based on advertised prices in wwwtvashtrucksonline.com. When the exact vehicle ) manufacturer, body style, packer size and mileage)wa, not available, the closest match far the year, body style and packer size was used. If a vehicle year was not available, the closest earlier year available was used. For front load vehicles no similar packer size was available, a 40 cubic yard packer was used. If a vehicle had only one advertised price, the one advertised price was used for both the low and the high value. Im The net book value was used for vehicles acquired in 2010. City of Newport Beach 5 -1 10/4/2012 APPENDICES This page intentionally left blank APPENDIX A Assumptions Financial Assumptions for 5 -Year Projection FY 2012/13, Far 2013/14, FY 2014 /15, FY 2015/16 and FY 2016/17 (Financial Assumptions Provided by and Discussed with City Staff) Une 'pec4rip¢ FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/5 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 1 Protection of Expenses 2 Input Salaries and Benefits Budget 2.50% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3 Input PERS(perce at of base salary) 7.248% 8.248% 8.248% 8.248% 8.248% 4 PERS(Cost) Budget $ 130,999. $ 134,929 $ 138,977 $ 143,146 5 Input Health /Dental/Vision Budget 125% 3.25% 3.25% 125% 6 Input Health Budget 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 7 Input Operating Expenses Budget 2.50% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 8 Input Interdepartmental Allocations 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 9 10 Replacement of Refuse Vehicles wpl 11 Rear Load Units to be Replaced 12 Input #5021 #5020 N/A N/A 13 Input #5023 N/A N/A 14 Front Load Units to be Replaced 15 Input #5007 #5010 #5033 N/A N/A 16 Input #5011 #5014 #5036 N/A N/A 17 Input #5019 N/A N/A 18 19 Number of Vehicles Replaced: 20 Count Rear Load 2 1 - - 21 Count Front Load (Units 5007 & 5011) 2 3. 2 - - 22 23 Projected Unit Cost: 24 Input Rear Load $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ - $ - 25 Input Front Load $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ - $ - 26 27 Projected Purchase Cost: 28 1.28= 120.124 Rear Load $ 450,000 $ 225,000 29 129= L21'125 Front Load 550,000 825,000 550,000 30 1.30 =128 +129 Total Projected Purchase Cost $ 1,000,000 1 $ 825,000 $ 775,000 1 $ $ a All refuse collection vehicles to be replaced were fully depreciated as of lune 30, 2011. Ill No vehicles are projected to be replaced in FY 15/16 and FY 16/17. (3) The useful life of the refuse vehicles is based 96 months (8 years) on the useful life used for the most recent vehicle acquisitions. Also assumed 112 year depreciation in first year of acquisition. City o /Newport Beach A -1 101412011 APPENDIX B Comparison of Orange County Municipalities Summary of Key Services Population Newport Beach 86,000 110,000 193,000 224,000 23,000 64,000 lA Residential Collector City of Newport Beach CR &R (1) Rainbow Waste Management (2) Waste Management CR &R 1B Commercial Collector Multiple Haulers Multiple Haulers Rainbow Waste Management Waste Management CR &R 2 Residential Collection Method Manual /MWP(3) Automated /MWP Automated Automated Automated Automated 3 Refuse Cart Size N/A 35, 69, 90 35, 65, 95 35, 64, 96 35, 64, 96 35,67 4 Recycling Can Size N/A N/A 35, 65, 95 35, 64, 96 35, 64, 96 35,67 5 Green Waste Cart Size N/A N/A 35, 65, 95 35, 64, 96 35, 64, 96 35,67 6 Residential Rate Structure No Billing (Gen Fund) Based on the number of carts Flat Monthly Rate Based on number of carts Based on number of carts Based on number and size of carts 7 Residential Billing Performed By No Billing (Gen Fund) Tax Roll Billing City Utility Billing Hauler Hauler Hauler 8 City Facility/Park Collection Services at no No -Ware Contract- $31,950(4) No No- $870,000 for various city Yes - All public buildings, parks Yes - All buildings, parks, Yes - All public buildings, parks additional charge? facilities (max 2006- adjusted and bus stops playgrounds, etc. at no cost and bus stops at no charge by contractor rate increase) 9 City Street Litter Container Collection at no No -City collects - $300,000 No No (Included in $870,000 for Yes- All public bus stops No Yes -AII beaches at no charge additional charg0 city facilities) 10 Beach Container Collection at no additional No - Rainbow Contract- No No No No Yes -AII beaches at no charge charge? $127,441 11 Street Sweeping Service at no additional No - Athens& Sunset Properties No Debris Only (included in No No Debris Only charge? Street Sweeping Services - $870,000 for city facilities) $503,817 12 Bulky Item Pickup at no additional charge? On -call, no limit Yes - Twelve free pickups of Yes - On- call - up to 4 per year Yes - Maximum of 2 per year at Yes - Commercial &Residential Yes - Curbside - Up to per extra boxes and furniture. at no charge no charge On Call - Up to 2 per year at no year at no charge Annual summer collection of charge large items plus one call -in per year at no charge 13 Collection of Abandoned Items at no additional City collects when it occurs, no No No No No Yes - 20 Calls per month at no cost? cost estimate charge 14 Household Hazardous Waste - Door -to - Door at No No No No Yes - Onefree door -to -door Yes - On -call up to 4 per year no additional cost pickup per year (1) CR &R is contracted through the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Through the CMSD CR &R also provides residential collection to the Santa Ana Heights area that is included in the incorporated city boundaries of Newport Beach. (2) Waste Management provides the Irvine residential and Village commercial collection services, the remainder ofthe commercial collection service is non - exclusive. (3) MWP - Mixed waste processing (refuse material is collected and delivered to a MRF for processing and diversion). (4) Contracted to Ware Disposal at $31,950 per year, $15,550 per year- Refuse Division ( including $500 per year - Corporate Yard, $13,750 per year - Washington Street bin area and $1,300 per year - City Hall) City of Newport Beach B -1 101412012 APPENDIX C Ccomparison of Cities with Municipal Residential Collection Summary of Key Services Population Newport Beach 86,000 Westminster 91,000 Beverly Hills 34,000 Burbank 104,000 Pasadena 139,000 Santa Monica 90,000 IA Residential Collector City MVSD City City City City 30 Commercial Collector Multiple Haulers Rainbow Crown Disposal Multiple Haulers Multiple Haulers City 2 Residential Collection Method Manual /MWP(2) Automated Automated /MWP Automated Automated Automated 3 Refuse Can Size N/A 35, 64, 96 35, 64, 95 35, 64, 101 32, 60, 100 68,95 4 Recycling Cart Size N/A 35, 64, 96 N/A 35, 64, 101 60 95 5 Green Waste Cart Size N/A N/A 95 35, 64, 101 100 95 6 Residential Rate Structure No Billing (Gen Fund) Flat Rate/Tax Roll Varies based on lot size Varies by size Varies by size Varies by size and quantity 7 Residential Billing Performed By No Billing (Gen Fund) MVSD City City City City 8 City Facility/Park Collection Services at no additional charge? No -Ware Contract- $31,950(4) Commercial contractor -full charge Yes City $277,540 -Not included in rates City 9 City Street Litter Container Collection at no additional charge? No -City collects- $300,000 Yes City N/A City 10 Beach Container Collection at no additional charge? No- Rainbow Contract- $127,441 N/A N/A N/A N/A City 11 Street Sweeping Service at no additional charge? No - Athens& Sunset Properties - Street Sweeping Services- $503,817 No No Fully Included in Residential Rate $973,757 (Rate Model- - Nat included in rates City 12 Bulky Item Pickup at no additional charge? On -call, no limit Yes - City -2 Time each Month - No Charge Two free per year City $31,458 (Rate Model) City 13 Collection of Abandoned. Items at no additional cost? City collects when it occurs, no cast estimate Commercial contractor- no charge' Not Available City 14 Household Hazardous Waste- Door -to -Door at no additional cost? No No No No No HHW Collection Center and Pilot Program for Door -to -Door (1) Waste Management provides the Irvine residential and Village commercial collection services, the remainder of the commercial collection service is non - exclusive. (2) MWP - Mixed waste processing (refuse material is collected and delivered to a MRF for processing and diversion). (3) Contracted to Ware Disposal at $31,950 per year, $15,555 per year -Refuse Division ( including $500 per year - Corporate Yard, $13,750 per year - Washington Street bin area and $1,300 per year - City Hall) (4) Solid Waste Rate Model (10/12/11) -Budget FYE 2011 -This is reflected in the rate model as "Commercial -Bins (Municipal). This is interpreted as "City Facilities," it is unknown as of 4/5/12 if it also includes street litter containers. See Pasadena Zero Waste Strategic Plan binder. City of Newport Beach C -1 101412012 APPENDIX D City of Newport Beach Summary of Solid Waste Collection Costs /Revenue Fiscal Year 2011/12 FY 2011/12 Total Department Costs /Receipts $ 6,379,000 Less Newport Coast and Other Contract Costs (632,000) Less Overhead Allocated from Other City Departments (568,860) Less City Facilities Paid by the Refuse Department (1,300) Newport Beach Base Cost 5,176,840 Newport Coast and Other Contract Costs 632,000 Total Residential Refuse Cost 5,808,840 Commercial Gross Receipts (1) 12,941,000 Total Newport Beach Residential and Commercial Service Costs $ 18,749,840 Adjustment Factors to Decrease Other Cities Costs if they have any of the following in their costs /revenues: Residential Only Residential & Commercial Total Cost for FY %of Total Residential Total Newport Beach 2011/12 Cost Refuse Revenue 5,808,840 $ 18,749,840 City Facilities $ 31,950 0.6% 0.2% Street Containers $ 300,000 5.2% 1.6% Beach Containers $ 127,441 2.2% 0.7% Street Sweeping Service - Debris Only (2) $ 78,694 1.4% 0.4% Billing $0.50 per month per household Door -to -Door HHW Collection $0.50 per month per household (1) Gross receipts is estimated based on $1,359,000 in franchise fees at 10.5% of gross receipts for fiscal year 2011. (2) Street sweeping debris is dumped at the Corporate Yard and hauled to the Bowerman landfill by the Field Maintenance Division. The cost is not charged to the Refuse Division. City of Newport Beach D -1 101412012 APPENDIX E Competitive Proposal Results Jurisdiction EI Centro Year 2007 # of Proposers 4 Contract 8 years • . $34,209,000 $39,134,000 $0 0% Inglewood (2) 2012 3 10 years $99,510,000 $103,534,000 $0 0% Manhattan Beach 2011 4 7 years $24,187,000 $27,088,000 $0 0% Manhattan Beach 2002 7 7 years $22,400,000 $21,800,000 $600,000 3% Imperial Beach 1999 4 7 years $13,692,000 $13,153,000 $539,000 4% Rancho Palos Verdes 1999 7 7 years $22,034,000 $20,647,000 $1,387,000 6% Redondo Beach 2011 5 8 years $48,112,000 $45,064,000 $3,048,000 6% Lawndale - Residential 1997 5 1 5years $6,127,000 $5,476,000 $651,000 11% Mission Viejo 2000 5 8 years $54,784,000 $48,395,000 $6,389,000 12% Palm Desert 2000 6 7 years $46,252,000 $40,553,000 $5,699,000 12% Santa Clarita - Commercial 2003 6 9 years $39,256,000 $34,099,000 $5,157,000 13% Lawndale - Residential 2002 5 7 years $7,546,0001 $6,349,0001 $1,197,000 16% Median 17% Riverside — Residential 2001 7 7 years $20,272,000 $16,793,000 $3,479,000 17% Pico Rivera 2012 8 7 years $48,489,000 $38,451,000 $10,038,000 21% West Hollywood 2003 9 8 years $42,376,000 $33,512,000 $8,864,000 21% Lawndale 2010 7 7years $23,849,000 $18,841,000 $5,008,000 21% Rancho Palos Verdes 2009 7 7 years $36,466,000 $28,357,000 $8,109,000 22% Lake Forest 1996 5 1 7 years $29,500,000 $22,800,000 $6,700,000 23% Bellflower 2004 5 8 years $49,688,000 $38,400,000 $11,288,000 23% Rancho Santa Margarita 2004 5 8 years $28,704,000 $20,864,000 $7,840,000 27% Santa Clarita — Residential 2003 6 7 years $100,204,000 $70,409,000 $29,795,000 30% Riverside — Commercial 2001 6 7years $97,506,000 $64,354,000 $33,152,000 34% Orange 2009 4 8years $139,768,000 $82,752,000 $57,016,000 41% Tustin 2000 8 7years 1 $42,392,0001 $25,011,0001 $17,381,000 41% (1) Over term of contract (2) Net of one -time up -front fees. City of Newport Beach E -1 101412012