HomeMy WebLinkAboutC27410 and C32860 Burrtec - Negotiate Agmt Xtnsn Option C27410 CITY OF PALM DESERT
SPECIAL PROGRAMS DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO COMMENCE NEGOTIATIONS WITH
BURRTEC FOR THE SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT EXTENSION OPTION
SUBMITTED BY: Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programs
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, Inc.
41-575 Eclectic Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
DATE: December 12, 2013
CONTENTS: 1. Vehicle Impact Nexus Study
2. Recycle Fee Nexus Study
Recommendation
By Minute Motion:
1. Authorize staff to commence negotiations with Burrtec Waste and Recycling
Services, Inc. for the Solid Waste and Recycle Franchise Agreement extension
option; and
2. Receive and file Recycle Fee Nexus Study and Road Maintenance &
Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact Study.
Discussion
According to Section 2.4 of the City's Franchise Agreement with Burrtec Waste and
Recycling Services, Inc. (Burrtec), the current term expires May 31, 2015, and the City may
extend the term for an additional four (4) years to midnight May 31, 2019, provided the
Company has fully complied with the requirements of Section 2.14 of the Contract. Section
2.14 refers to the relocation of the City of La Quinta's refuse and recycle collection vehicles
from being stored overnight and operated from Burrtec's company yard located at 41-575
Eclectic St. in Palm Desert, as well as relocation of the transloading (the off-loading of
materials from route collection vehicles to larger capacity containers and vehicles for
transport to a distant processing facility) operation for source-separated residential and
commercial recyclable materials from all jurisdictions. Burrtec undertook necessary steps to
address Section 2.14 to the City's satisfaction several years ago (late 2009 or 2010).
STAFF REPORT
BURRTEC WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES FRANCHISE AGREEMENT EXTENSION
OPTION NEGOTIATIONS
DECEMBER 12, 2013
PAGE 2
At its June 13, 2013, meeting, City Council approved contracting with HF&H Consulting to
undertake a Recycle Fee Nexus Study to determine the potential costs to implement and
continue to provide recycle/diversion programs to residents and businesses as mandated
by the State of California. The completed study reflects that the City currently expends
approximately $589,000 annually to provide various recycle/diversion activities and
programs to its residents and businesses. The following table reflects the estimated rate
increase to residential and commercial customers to recover recycling related costs:
Pro'ected Customer Rate Im act to Pass Throu h Rec cle Fee
Monthly Rate
Current Monthly Increase for Revised Total
Customer Service Level Rate Recycling/ Monthly Rate
Rec cle Fee
Residential
96- allon Refuse Cart $10.58 $0.65 $11.23
Commercial
3-Yard Refuse Bin Serviced $98.33 $6.00 $104.33
1 Time Per Week
3-Yard Refuse Bin Serviced $175.69 $10.72 $186.41
2 Times Per Week
In late 2011, the City also contracted with Willdan Financial Services to complete a Road
Maintenance & Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact Study to determine the impact to City
streets by various types of vehicles with emphasis on Burrtec's refuse and recycle vehicles.
The study reflects that the City expends approximately $555,930 annually for repair and
maintenance of City streets as a result of Burrtec's refuse and recycle trucks. The report
did not address the impact to residents and businesses; however, based on the revenue
expenditure for recycle related activities, it could be estimated that the rate would be similar
to that of recycling as reflected above.
As Council may recall, with the approval to offset the 2013 solid waste and recycle rate
increase for both residential and commercial customers through the remaining AB939 fee,
the City is not receiving new AB939 funds. Therefore, funding of all current and future
recycle activities and programs will reduce existing/reserve AB939 funds. Additionally, at
this time a portion of the City's street improvement costs are applied to the AB939 fund.
Once these funds have been depleted, funding for these activities, programs, and projects
will have an impact to the City's General Fund. It is estimated that the balance of AB939
funds will be exhausted in approximately four to six years.
In effort to alleviate future, significant impact to the City's General Fund once the
existing/reserve AB939 funds have been depleted, staff will negotiate with Burrtec to include
the option to implement a Recycle Fee and Vehicle Impact Fee at such time as the City
determines necessary within the Franchise Agreement.
STAFF REPORT
BURRTEC WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES FRANCHISE AGREEMENT EXTENSION
OPTION NEGOTIATIONS
DECEMBER 12, 2013
PAG E 3
Fiscal Analysis
There is no fiscal impact to the City relative to negotiation for solid waste and recycle
services with Burrtec.
Submitted By: C�TYCOUNCILA ION
A Y PItO V ED DI;NiTD
RCCEIV�D OTHER
��.ETI G DATE — �
Frankie Rid e, Director of Special Programs AYES:� �'/�
NOI�:S:
AI3SENT:
Approval: AI3STAIN:
� VERIFI�D BY:
COriginal on File with Ci erk's Office
n M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Recycle Fee Nexus Study
* * *
October 22,2013
Prepared by:
HF&H Consultants, LLC
19200 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 360
Irvine,CA 92612
Phone:949/251-8628
Facsimile:949/251-9741
3 //�i,'-�/- �,, . ..
�LL� Managing Tomorrow's Resources Today
19200 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 360 Robert D.Hilton,CMC
Irvine,CA 92612 John W.Farnkopf,PE
Telephone:949/251-8628 Laith B.Ezzet,CMC
Fax:949/251-9741 Richard J.Simonson,CMC
www.hfh-consultants.com Marva M.Sheehan,CPA
October 22, 2013
Frankie Riddle
Director of Special Programs
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Subject: Recycle Fee Nexus Study
Dear Ms. Riddle:
We have compieted our recycle fee nexus study for the City of Palm Desert (City). Our findings are
documented in the enclosed report.An executive summary of the findings is provided in Section I.
+ * * * *
We are pleased to have had the opportunity to assist the City of Palm Desert with this study, and would
like to thank you and Lisa Ream for your support during the project.
If you have any questions, piease call Laith at 949/251-8902.
Very truly yours,
.,.' � �"�
Laith B. Ezzet, CMC
Senior Vice President
Attachments:
- Final Report
City of Palm Desert
Recycle Fee Nexus Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE
I Executive Summary 1
II Study Background, Objectives and Scope of Work 2
III Findings 5
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Five-Year History of Annual Revenues, Expenditures, and Recycling Fund Balance
Attachment B: Five-Year Projected Annual Expenditures
Attachment C: Three-Year Historical Breakdown of Annual Expenditures
Attachment D: Three-Year Historical Expenditure Detail
Attachment E: Five-Year History of Recycling Revenue Requirement
Attachment F: Estimated Commercial and Multi-Family Bin Recycling Rate Revenue Based on
Burrtec's Proposed Recycling Rates
Attachment G: Summary of Burrtec Quarterly Report Data
Cih�of Pnlrn Desert October 22, 2013
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palm Desert (City) retained HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) to conduct a recycle fee nexus
study. The objective of the study is to calculate a new City Recycle Fee that would be similar to the
existing recycling fee that is being phased out, in order to fund the City's cost of managing and
monitoring its solid waste and recycling programs. The existing solid waste agreement expires in May
2015, and the City would like to know the amount of a proposed Recycle Fee prior to establishment of
new solid waste agreement. The study determined the following:
Finding#1: The City's projected annual revenue requirement for recycling program expenditures is
$589,000.
Finding#2: The existing Recycle Fund Balance will be exhausted in approximately eight years based
on current revenues and expenditures.
Finding#3: In order to fund the City's annual program cost of$589,000,the City could assess a new
Recycle Fee based on either gross receipts or tons disposed. A fee based on gross
receipts may be more stable.
Finding#4: A new Recycle Fee based on tons disposed could initially be implemented at $11.81 per
ton collected.
Finding#5: A new Recycle Fee based on gross receipts is estimated at 6.1%.
Finding#6: The customer rate impact from a new Recycle Fee would be approximately $0.65 per
home per month for a typical residential customer. The customer rate impact for
common residential and commercial services is shown in the table below. The rate
impact is based on implementing a new Recycle Fee to generate $589,000 annually (at
existing service levels).
. • . . .. . .
Monthly Rate
Customer Service Level Current �ncrease for Revised Total
Monthly Rate Recycle Fee Monthly Rate
Residential
96-gallon Refuse Cart $ 10.58 $ 0.65 $ 11.23
Commercial
3-Yard Refuse Bin 1x perweek $ 98.33 $ 6.00 $ 104.33
3-Yard Refuse Bin 2x perweek $ 175.69 $ 10.72 $ 186.41
Citi�of Pnb�i Desert 1 October 22, 2013
SECTION II
STUDY BACKGROUND.OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK
STUDY BACKGROUND
The City of Palm Desert contracts with Burrtec Waste & Recycling Services (Burrtec) for solid waste
collection services to residential and commercial customers. The solid waste agreement (Agreement)
started on lune 1, 2009 and ends on May 31, 2015. Burrtec may request an annual rate adjustment in
accordance with Section 6.4 of the Agreement. Rate adjustments are typically effective July 1.
According to Section 3.1.2 of the Agreement, Burrtec remits a "Recycling Fee"to the City for each ton of
refuse collected from within the City and disposed. The Recycling Fee is accounted for in the City's
Recycling Fund.
The Recycling Fee was established in the 1990s, initially at$8.50 per ton. For many years, Recycling Fee
revenues exceeded program expenses, and the Recycling Fund balance increased. As a result, the City
decided in recent years to use a portion of the Recycling Fee to offset customer rate increases.
In fiscal year(FY) 2012/13,the Recycling Fee was $1.87 per ton and generated approximately$93,000 in
City revenues. However, the City spent significantly more to cover various recycle programs currently in
place for Palm Desert residents and businesses, as well as some street improvements. As shown in
Figure 1, revenues in the past three years have been below expenses. Please refer to Attachment A for
City revenue and expenditure details and Attachment E for Burrtec Recycle Fee revenue detail.
Figure 1:
Recycling Fund 236 Revenue& Expenditures
Si,000,000
S9oo,o00 -
Ssoo,000
S�oo,000
PWam m,._
$600,000 '�"�""""
.,, ,�:..
IilI3fEdfiiilefi?3?:feit3ZiepeneE::'e.:iE:i��'�::g
'���'-'Ri3diPlo�:t:,�sieP�Fe:o��.
$500,000 — — ------ ---
$400,000 h
°sR;;�,;:..
$300,000 , ;�;�,,,::..
$200,000
;",.;;:s::.::�.
$100,000 —
$-
zoo8/o9 Zoo9/io Zoio/ii Zois/i2 zoiz/i3
�����r,:�M�Revenues* tExpenditures ��Net Loss
*Revenues include the Recycling Fee and grant revenues, such as the oil
payment program and beverage program.
The City has used a portion of the R�cycling Fund balance to cover the difference between revenues and
expenditures. As shown in Figure 2 below,the Recycling Fund balance has declined from $6.1 million on
July 1, 2008 to$4.9 million on June 30, 2013. Please refer to Attachment A for details.
Cit�of Pnlm Desert 2 Octob�r 22, 2013
Figure 2:
Recycling Fund 236 Balance
$�,000,000
56,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$-
zoos/o9 zoo9/Zo zoio/ii zoss/i2 zoiz/13
In 2013, the Recycling Fee went to zero when the Palm Desert City Council covered the July 1, 2013
contractual rate increase due to Burrtec for both residential and commercial customers with the
remaining Recycling fee of$1.87 per ton.
The City anticipates that there will be new recycling initiatives and related programs in the years ahead,
and will eventually require new funding sources when the existing fund balance is depleted.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the recycle fee nexus study is to calculate a new City Recycle Fee that would be similar
to the existing recycling fee that is being phased out, in order to fund the City's cost of managing and
monitoring its solid waste and recycling programs. The existing solid waste agreement expires in May
2015, and the City would like to know the amount of a proposed Recycle Fee prior to establishment of
new solid waste agreement.
Cit�of Pnlm Desert 3 Octo2�er 22, 2013
SCOPE OF WORK
In order to achieve the study objective, HF&H performed the following tasks:
1. Gathered historical information from City staff and other sources regarding the City's Recycling Fund
balance, revenues,and expenditures for the past three years.
2. Gathered from City staff projected costs of new recycling initiatives and programs to be funded in
the next five years.
3. Gathered information from the City regarding the Recycling Fund balance as of June 30, 2013, and
projected Recycling Fee revenue for the next five years (or until the Recycling Fee is completely
phased out,whichever is sooner).
4. Developed a multi-year financial plan by calculating the annual revenue requirement for a new
Recycle Fee based on revenue and expenditure projections for the next five years.
5. Calculated the amount of a new Recycle Fee.
6. Estimated the rate impact of the Recycle Fee on common residential and commercial customer
rates.
7. Developed this report.
Cih�of Palryi Desert 4 October 22, 2013
SECTION III
FINDINGS
Finding #1: The City's projected annual revenue requirement for recycling program expenditures is
$589,000.
As shown in Figure 3, the City anticipates spending approximately $589,000 in FY 2013/14 on program-
related expenses. Please refer to Attachment B for details on the City's projection of FY 2013/14
expenses, and Attachments C and D for details on the previous three years expenses. We note this is
slightly below the five-year average of actual net expenditures reported by the City of $614,000 in
Attachment E.
__ _ __ _ __ _ _
Figure 3: '
Projected FY 2013-14 Recycling Program '
Burrtec '
7ib RecyclingConsultant
I I 9%
Commercials '
9%
Payroll
42%
� Used Oil Events
' ,r �%. i;:,'� q%
MAI�w� '
Containers '
6% '
�v�.. � "S�' '��
a�',y " ,� '..
�� `.� ( S,�;� .
a�%"� �' Traffic Safety ',
13% '
All Other Park '
6% 4� '
Total FY 2013/14 Expenditures:$589,000 '
Note: The proposed Recycle Fee is separate from the existing Franchise Fee that the City receives from
Burrtec.The City receives an 8%franchise fee based on Burrtec's net service receipts (gross receipts less
disposal and recycle fees). In FY 2012/13, the City received approximately $527,000 in franchise fee
revenues. Please refer to Attachment G for details on Burrtec's franchise fee revenues.
Cih�of Palr�i Descrt 5 Octotier 22, 2013
Finding#2:The existing Recycle Fund ealance will be exhausted in approximately eight years based on
current revenues and expenditures.
In recent years, the City has used a portion of the Recycling Fund balance to cover the difference
between revenues and expenditures. The City Council has recently approved Burrtec's FY 2013/14
annual rate adjustment. In order to offset the increase in customer rates due to Burrtec's cost increase,
the City agreed to reduce the Recycling Fee to zero and pay Burrtec$0.03 per ton disposed. As shown in
Table 1 below, the $0.03 per ton payment to Burrtec equates to $1,497 annually. Combined with the
City's projected recycling program expenditures of$589,062, a total amount of$590,559 would be paid
from the Recycling Fund balance.
..
. - . � � . . . - . . .
FY 2012/13 Annua)Tons Disposed 49,899
FY 2013/14 Disposal Fee per Ton to Burrtec $ (0.03)
FY 2013/14 Estimated Disposal Fee Payment to Burrtec $ (1,497)
FY 2013/14 Projected Annual Recycling Program Expenditures $ (589,062)
Net Annual Cost to be Paid From Recycling Fund Balance $ (590,559)
As of June 30, 2013,the Recycling Fund balance is$4,862,126. As shown in Table 2 below, if the City
were to utilize the Recycling Fund balance to pay the same net annual cost each year,then the fund
would last approximately eight years before it would be fully exhausted. Please refer to Attachment A
for details on the current fund balance.
. �
� �
Recycling Fund Balance as of June 30, 2013 $ 4,862,126
NetAnnual Costto be Paid From Recycling Fund Balance $ (590,559)
Number of Years Before Recycling Fund Balance is Depleted (1) 8
(1) Excludes interest earnings on Recycling Fund balance.Based on estimated FY 2013/14 revenues and expenditures.
Finding#3: In order to fund the City's annual program cost of$589,000, the City cou/d assess a new
Recycle Fee based on either gross receipts or tons disposed.A fee based on gross receipts may be more
stable.
The City's current Recycle Fee is based on tons disposed.This approach provides a financial incentive for
the hauler to divert as much as possible to avoid paying the fee. However, as diversion increases and
disposal decreases,the City's Recycle Fee revenue may decline.
Implementing a Recycle Fee per ton based on gross receipts tends to be more stable compared to a
recycle fee per ton. Gross receipts tend to grow over time based on customer rate adjustments and
City of Prrl�a Desert 6 October 22, 2013
growth in the number of customers. While gross receipts may fluctuate with changes in economic
conditions,the amount of variation is typically less than the variation in tonnage.
Finding#4:A new Recycle Fee based on tons disposed could initially be implemented at$11.81 per ton
collected.
As shown in Table 3, based on Burrtec's FY 2012/13 disposal tons and projected FY 2013/14 revenue
requirement, the calculated Recycle Fee per ton is $11.81 to generate $589,000 at current disposal
quantities. This fee would need to be adjusted for inflation in future years, and may need to be further
increased if disposal quantities decrease which would reduce Recycle Fee revenues. Please refer to
Attachment E for details on Burrtec's annual tons disposed.
. .
. . • � . � � . .
FY 2013/14 Projected Annual Recycling Program Expenditures $ 589,062
FY 2012/13 Tons Disposed 49,899
Recycle Fee Per Ton $ 11.81
Finding#5:A new Recycle Fee based on gross receipts is estimated at 6.1%.
As shown in Table 4, based on Burrtec's projected FY 2013/14 gross receipts and projected annual
recycling program expenditures, the calculated Recycle Fee percentage is 6.1% to generate
approximately $589,000 at current subscription levels and current rates. Please refer to Attachment E
for details on Burrtec's gross receipts.
The commercial recycling rates were approved by City Council effective November 1, 2013. The
commercial recycling rates are estimated to generate $815,376 in annual revenues. Please refer to
Attachment F for more details.
. . �
. . -. . .
FY 2013/14 Projected Annual Recycling Program Expenditures (1) $ 589,062
Burrtec Gross Receipts
FY 2012/13 Actual Receipts $ 8,699,802
July 1, 2013 Rate Increase Percentage (2) 1.3%
FY 2013/14 Estimated Receipts Excluding Commercial Recycling $ 8,812,899
Estimate of New Commercial Recycling Receipts (3) $ 815,376
Total Projected Receipts $ 9,628,275
Recycle Fee Percentage 6.1%
(1) Excludes the$0.03 per ton paid to Burrtec for the existing Recycle Fee.
(2) Rate increase for residential customers who are directly billed by Burrtec will be in effect on October 1, 2013,and
the commercial and residential master billed rates will be in effect on September 1,2013.
(3) Estimated Commercial Recycling Receipts are on an annualized basis. Commercial recycling rates will be effective
November 1,2013.
Cit�of Palm Desert 7 October 22, 2013
Finding#6:The residential rate impact would be approximately$0.65 per home per month from a new
Recycle Fee.
In order to generate the$589,000 annual revenue requirement for the Recycle Fee,customer rates
would be impacted as shown in Table 5 below.
. . -
. • � . �.
Monthly Rate Increase Revised
Current Monthly Rate
Customer Service Level Monthly Rate Recycle Fee Recycle Fee with Recycle
Percentage Amount Fee
Residential
96-gallon Refuse Cart $ 10.58 6.1% $ 0.65 $ 11.23
Commercial
3-Yard Refuse Bin 1x perweek $ 98.33 6.1% $ 6.00 $ 104.33
3-Yard Refuse Bin 2x perweek $ 175.69 6.1% $ 10.72 $ 186.41
Cit�of Palrii Desert 8 Octotier 22, 2013
CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTACHMENT A
RECYCLE FEE NEXUS STUDY
FIVE-YEAR HISTORY OF ANNUAL REVENUES,EXPENDITURES,AND RECYCLING FUND BALANCE
. ��• i• ��• � i
1 AEVENUES
2 IntergovernmentalRevenues-OilGrants&BeverageGrants $ 52,106 8% $ 60,713 10% $ 228,501 39% $ 155,892 41% $ 32,076 23%
__._ __.._. _-_-_ ___. .
3 InvestmentEarnings $ 145,899 22% $ 110p28 19% 5 40,960 7% 5 22,197 6% $ 14,808 10%
4 Misrellaneous-BurrtecRecydeFee&AlianzaRecyding 5 466,508 70% $ 411,706 71% 5 310,035 54% $ 2�0,614 53% $ 94,264 67%
5 TOTAL REVENUE $ 664,513 100% $ 582,847 100% S 579,499 100% S 378,703 100% S 141,148 100%
6 E%PENDITURES
_ .. .. . _____..__..__
7 Current:
8 General6ovemment $ 7ll,lll 108% 5 586,67fi 101% S 611,844 106% $ 690,302 182% S 378,995 269%
9 Pubiic Works $ 0% $ - 0% 5 D8,639 48% 5 248,961 66% $ 68,361 48%
10 CapitalOuHay $ 0% 5 0% S 17,604 3% $ 0% $ 0%
..____._..__ ._ - . _...- _ _ _
11 70TALEXPENDITURES � S 717,1ll SOS% 5 586,676 101% S 908,087 157% $ 939,263 248% 5 447,356 � � 317%
12 NETLOSS $ (52,604) -8% $ (3,829) -1% $ (328,588) -57% $ (560,560) -148% $ (306,208) -217%
13 RECYCLING FUNO BAtANCE•BEGINNING OF YEAR 5 6,113,915 $ 6,061,311 $ 6,057,482 $ 5,728,89A S 5,168,334
14 RECYCLINGFUNOBALANCE-ENDOFYEAR $ 6,061,311 $ 6,057,482 $ 5,728,894 $ 5,168,334 $4,862,126
October 22,2013 A-1 HF&H Consul[ants
CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTACHMENT B
RECYCLE FEE NEXUS STUDY
FIVE-YEAR PROJECTED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
�n ��"h� � �Sb `���'�,�i" �� �,�rtt �s�tJAGTL1A�,r �.`; � i c . . E$TlMA7fiS -; ,� , � ..{
tb �
!�'w^,��xk , a�; »��s,�.'r�� •�2dS0 3S���.,,�20`�� 13 ,i^2 ]3p:� �'�CC���r :,2613Ii4. ,=4 ZOlA/35 . 'Z935-S6 � 2Q38 17. 2017 t8
Payroll
Full-Time 127,797.92 161,304.26 166,]58.05 1]0,610.16 1]4,551.25 1]8,563.38 182,]08.66 186,929.23
Overtime 585.69 1,568.38 886.52 1,013.53 1,036.94 1,060.69 1,085.40 1,130.47 1,136.12
Re[irement 36,161.85 41,37020 40,942.58 41,888.35 42,855.97 43,845.94 04,858.]8 45,895.02
MediCare 1,418.96 1,820.57 1,906.91 1,950.96 1,996.03 2,042.14 2,089.31 2,13].5]
Benefits 23,366.99 30,12631 10,936.03 11,188.65 11,44].il 11,]I1.54 11,982.08 12,258.87
Worker'sComp 198.80 292.66 1,428.36 639.94 654.72 669.84 685.31 701.14 717.34
Phone 140.00 120.00 534.00 534.00 (1� 54634 558.96 571.8] 585.08
Sta(fTimeonRecycling(Sustaina6ilitY� 13,214.05 21,851.29 17,532.67 17,937.67 18,352.03 18,775.96 19,209.68 19,653.42
____. _ __.__._-__- _ -____-_ - ____._ _ -- -. - _ --_ ..-..____ .._._. __...
SU9TOTAL Vayroll 202�884.26 216�40238 245�243.7A 245�801.65 251�479.46 257,2BB.63 263,231.99 269,312.fi5
Burrtec Was[e&Recycling
HHW Program 67,297.29 (A) 42,344.88 39,073.28 41,688.94 (2) 42,651.95 43,fi37.21 44,645.23 45,676.53 46,731.66
SUBTOTAL-Burrtec 87,297•29 42,346•88 39,07318 42,651.95 63,637.21 41,645.23 45,676.53 66,731.66
Rerycling Consul[ant
Evergreen 50,938.80 32,a35.60 - - - - - -
D&BVisions - - 8,640.00 53,040.00 �5:���. 54,26522 55,518.75 56,601.23 58,113.34 59455.]6
MF&H 24,991.]0
SUBTOTAL-RecyclingConsWWnt 75,930.50 32,435.60 8,840.00 54,265.22 55,518.75 56,801.23 58,113.36 59,455.76
1N5 Ndvertising
AirtimeBinneyCommercals 42,130.00 68,766.00 11,06].00 ��i��� SG,205.78 . 55,457.93 56,739.01 58,049.68 59,390.63 60,]62.55
�awre��eco aeano� zs,zao.00 vi,om.00
_.. ._.. _ _ - ._.-_. _____ -_. __ -�-----
SUBTOTAL-Commerdals � � 67,370.00 239,786.00 11,067.00 �55,457.93 � 56,739.01 �� 58,049.68 59,390.63 60,762.55
Used 011 Even[
Postcard 54,133.28 t�)���. 1],59920 (D)��� 12,864.46 13,161.63 13,465.66 13,7]6.72 14,094.96 14,420.55
Radio 12,000.00 6,000.00 3,960.00 4,051.48 4,145.07 4,240.82 4,338.]8 4,439.01
Oisposal 12,000.00 6,000.00 4,050.00 4,143.56 4,239.28 4,337.21 4,43].40 4,539.90
Filters 336.63 206.17 220.82 225.92 231.14 236.48 241.94 247.53
Burrtec(labor) � 975.00
SUBTOTAL�Used OII Events 78�469.91 30,780.37 21�095.28 21�582.59 22,081.15 22,591.23 23,113.08 23,fi46.99
October 22,2013 B-1 HF&H Consultants
CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTACHMENT 8
RECYCLE FEE NEXUS STUDY
FIVE-YEAR PROJECTED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
�-- ACTIJAL : : . :: ; _. .ESTIMAiES -� "-Q, _a �._ .-" �
: , . : . ,,,: �.,
. .'^. �oio/tf :ow� Zo�i� A�� �o�r�� t�t =°:�zoin/is: � ��au/Y� ��afc/1rt��z�iT/;a_ _.
E-Waste Event
Radio 1,560.00
SU9TOTAL-E-WasteEvent 0.00 1,560.00 o.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Curiosity Quest
PSApromo 4,300.00 4,100.00 4,194.71 4,291.61 4,390]5 4,492.18 4,595.95
....__. . __.-- . -_-_ _____... .. . .. ___ . _ .___...__ _. _..__ __.__._ ____._ _
SUBTOTAL [ iosityquest 0.00 4,100.00 6,100.00 A,199.71 4,291.61 4,390.75 4,492.78 4,595.95
Containers/Liners ]4035.55 7,942.95 18,236.08 33,404.66 34,1]6.51 34,965.99 35,]]3.]0 36,600.0] 3],445.53
CanFab�splitbins) � 6],]1].Ol - - - - - -
Container Install 9,380.00
SUBTOTAL�Contalners ]9,035.55 85,039.96 18,236.08 3G,176.51 34,965.99 35,�]3.70 36,600.07 37,645.53
Miscellaneous
PD CC Abatement 731.56 - - - - - - -
PD Road Maint Fee - 20,000.00 - - - - - -
Wirelesscard 418.11 456.12 456.12 466.66 4]7.44 488.47 499.]5 511.29
Conferences 425.00 3,519.77 2,105.82 2,812.80 2,87].]6 2,944.26 3,012.27 3,081.85 3,153.04
Memberships 20000 - 200.00 204.62 209.35 214.19 219.14 724.20
Give-A-Ways 13,003.34 6,486.35 1,805.00 ],098.23 ],261.2� ],029.96 ],601.59 7,]77.19 7,956.84
Re�y�ie e�o�ey ioa.ao zoo.oa zoo.00 zoo.00 �s� zoo.00 �s) zoo.00 �sj zoo.00 (s):_ ioo.00 (s)
Supplies 1,723.76 645.53 567.92 979.07 1,OOl.fi9 1,024.83 1,048.50 1,072.72 1,097.50
SUBTOTAL-Miu¢Ilaneou5 16,601.77 31,307.77 5,334.86 12,OII.95 12,285.80 12,565.02 12,850.65 13�162.87
Desert Willow
Furniture 5,776.15
SUBtOTAI-Desert WllloW Fumlture 0.00 5,776.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CommunityGardens 30,515.08 30,757.98 11,006.49 11,760.]4 11,520.86 11,]86.99
_ . _ -. .-_- ._.__ ._.. _ _ ._. _ .____ - _ _
SUBTOTAL-[ommuniryGardens 0.00 0.00 30,515.08 30,757.98 11,006.49 11,260.74 11,520.8fi 11,]fl6.99
OtherPrinting/Advertising 769.82 15,489.11 8,12947 8,317.26 8,509.39 8,705.96 8,907.07 9,112.82
SUBTOTAL-O[herVnnting/Advertising 0.00 ]69.82 15,989.11 8,31).26 8,509.39 B,]05.96 8,90].0] 9,112.82
R/M Stteets 160,000.00 160,797.43
SUBTOTAL-R/MStreets 160�000.00 160,797.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supplles-TrafficSafery 304,402.11 ]2,338.05 42,146.75 72,962.30 74,647.]3 76,372.09 78,136.29 79,941.24 81,787.88
.__.___.._ -__. ____ _- __.._. - _._ _- __.. _..__- ___. .. _ ..____ ._ ..._ . ._.. _..__-__-_- _.- __ ..
SUBTOTAL T affc5afety 104,402.11 72,338.05 42,146.75 7A,647.73 76,372.09 78,13619 79,96114 91,787.88
October 22,2013 B-2 HF&H Consultants
CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTACHMENT B
RECYCLE FEE NEXUS STUDY
FIVE-YEAR PROIECTED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
��j �r ��j' +1"����r,� �"�r ` `v 11CTLtkL = �+�� �� f �'^i e � F571M117�5 I '
' � :
�, ;��"��.�`fi ,.�� k�,��w�.xdYol�.�. ;.Raa�Xu� ���_�zo�/ �� ; .. _���. ..2m�iia t�i •znia/zs �zats/,as �o��is3 , .: miz/i
a
Supplies-Park 31,840.95 15,824.79 26,214.62 2a,626.62 25,195.49 25,777.51 26,372.9] 26,982.19 27,605.48
SUBTOTAL-Park 31,8G0.65 15,824.79 26,21G.62 25,195.49 25,777.51 26,372.97 26,9ffi.19 27,605A8
Brigh[Side 9,255.18
SUBTOTAL-BrIghlSlde 9,255,18 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GRANDTOTAfS 908,087.02 939,2fi3.20 CA],355.80 589,Ofi1.7] 602,66G.50 616,SB1A3 630,819.83 6E5,387.13
PercentageChange N/A 3.4% -52.4% 31.]% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3%
City No[es
(A) FV ZO10/11:Was higher than subsequent years dce to grant funds.Since there were no grant funds available in FY 10/11,eurrtec splits the(acility msts with the City.The average was cal<ulated
using 50%of amount.
FY 2012/13:Amount is for 2 months only.
FY 2012/13:Amount is far 3 months of service.
'�l4)'��+���.FY 2010/11&2011/12:More than 2 events per year,estimates are calculated using FY 12/13 amount,since the Ciry only hosts 2 events per year.
FY 2010/11:Did not a[tend CRRA conference;therefore average calculated using FY 2011/12&2012/13.
;, E�i, _..FY 2013/144 Estimates calculated using FV 2012/13 amounts or averages(where listed�.
All estimates calculated using a 2.31%increase.
- MfBH Nates
'�1��� ..'.;-Phone for FV 2013/l4 is estimated to he the FY 2012/13 amount.
(2� � Average is calculated as:((587,297.29/2�+542,344.88�539,07328�/3.
';��=�3':'��.��1+�'�Average is calculated as:(58,840.00/2�'12.
,(1�;_�..�s'.qverage is calculated as:(542,130.00.568,766.00r511,067.00�/(27 months)"(12 months�.
5)�'���Recyde Binney costz for FY 2013/14 through FV 2017/18 is estimated to be the fY 2012/13 amount.
October22,2013 B-3 HF&H Consultants
CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTACHMENT C
RECYCLE fEE NEXUS STUDY
THREE-YEAR HISTORICAL BREAKDOWN OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
- --
', 2010/11 Expenditures I� 2011/12 Expenditures ' 2012/13 Expenditures ',
� Total All I'I Total All ��.
Other I� Other �� �
5% 2%
'', ��I . ,li'� '�.
�' '
tY '
Total Expenditures:$908,087 Total Expenditures:$939,263 Total Expenditures:$447,356
October 22,2013 C-1 HF&H Consulfants
CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTACHMENT D
RECYCLE FEE NEXUS STUDY
THREE-YEAR HISTORICAL EXPENDITURE DETAIL
� � � �
�-
1 Payroll
2 Full-Time $ 127,797.92 $ 161,104.26 $ 166,758.05
3 Overtime $ 585.69 $ 1,568.38 $ 886.52
4 Retirement $ 36,161.85 $ 41,370.20 $ 40,942.58
5 Medicare $ 1,418.96 $ 1,820.57 $ 1,906.91
6 Insurance $ 1,263.51 $ 1,369.18 $ 1,430.04
7 Health Insurance $ 21,612.26 $ 8,307.47 $ 9,032.71
8 Life Insurance $ 491.22 $ 449.66 $ 473.28
9 Workers Compensation $ 198.80 $ 292.66 $ 1,428.36
_- _ __ —
----
10 Staff Time on Recycling $ 13,214.05 $ - $ 21,851.29
11 Total Payroll $ 202,744.26 22% $ 216,282.38 23% $ 244,709.74 55%
12 Professional Services $ 399,705.02 44%
$ 473,900.55 50% $ 133,750.69 30%
13 Supplies-TrafficSafety $ 104,402.11 11% $ 72,338.05 8% $ 42,146.75 9%
14 Repair and Maintenance $ 160,000.00 18%
$ 160,797.43 17% $ - 0%
15 AllOther
16 Other Services&Charges $ 140.00 $ 120.00 $ 534.00
17 Professional/Technical $ 9,255.18 $ - $ -
18 Supplies-Other $ 14,236.57 S - $ 25,705.48
19 Capital Outlay-Cap Budget $ 17,603.88 $ 15,824.79 $ 509.14
20 Total All Other $ 41,235.63 5% $ 15,944.79 2% $ 26,748.62 6%
21 Total $ 908,087.02 100°� $ 939,263.20 100°� $ 447,355.80 100%
October 22,2013 D-1 HF&H Consultants
CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTACHMENT E
RECYCLE FEE NEXUS STUDY
FIVE-YEAR HISTORY OF RECYCLING REVENUE REQUIREMENT
�
r
1 2012/13 $ 1.87 49,899 $ 93,311 $ 447,356 $ 32,076 $ 415,280 $ 8,699,802
2 2011/12 $ 4.19 47,684 $ 199,796 5 939,263 $ 155,892 $ 783,371 $ 8,468,877
__ _ --— —._—_
3 2010/11 $ 6.02 51,459 $ 309,783 $ 908,087 $ 228,501 $ 679,586 $ 8,353,769
4 2009/10 $ 8.25 49,870 $ 411,428 $ 586,676 $ 60,713 $ 525,963 $ 8,222,867
5 2008/09 $ 8.25 56,512 $ 466,224 $ 717,117 $ 52,106 $ 665,011 5 8,667,462
6 Total $ 3,069,211
7 Averege $ 613,842
8 Average-Rounded to nearest thousand $ 614,000
(i)See supporting quarterly data on Attachment G-1.
October 22,2013 E-1 HF&H Consultants
CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTACHMENT F
RECYCLE FEE NEXUS STUDY
ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY BIN RECYCLING RATE REVENUE
BASED ON BURRTEC'S PROPOSED RECYCIING RATES
Proposed Monthly Rates
Numberof Collections per Week
Row Container 7ype/Size 1 Z 3 4 5 6
1 Recycling Containers
2 64-gallon or 96-gallon Cart $ 4.11 $ 8.22 $ 12.33 $ 16.44 $ 20.55 $ 24.66
3 2 Cubic Yard $ 26.13 $ 45.82 $ 65.66 $ 85.29 $ 105.06 $ 137.54
4 3 Cubic Yard $ 34.42 $ 61.49 $ 80.21 $ 113.02 $ 140.24 $ 167.37
5 4 Cubic Yard $ 47.31 $ 79.40 $ 112.56 $ 145.84 $ 186.77 $ 209.55
6 6 Cubic Yard $ 71.70 $ 120.54 $ 171.11 $ 221.65 $ 267.83 $ 318.91
7 Additional Charges
8 2 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty $ 12.23 $ 12.23 $ 12.23 $ 12.23 $ 12.23 $ 12.23
9 3 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty $ 16.76 $ 16.76 $ 16.76 $ 16.76 $ 16.76 $ 16.76
10 4 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty $ 22.65 $ 22.65 $ 22.65 $ 22.65 $ 22.65 $ 22.65
11 6 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty $ 33.97 $ 33.97 $ 33.97 $ 33.97 $ 33.97 $ 33.97
Current Bin Service Levels�1��2�
Number of Collections per Week
Row ContainerType/Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
12 Recycling Containers
13 64-gallon or 96-gallon Cart 18 0 0 0 0 0
_ _-_ __ _ _-- - _ __
14 2 Cubic Yard 44 20 14 11 2 0 91
13 3 Cubic Yard 189 113 108 14 64 12 500
14 4 Cubic Yard 32 33 107 13 42 2 229
15 6 Cubic Yard 4 3 3 1 5 0 16
16 Additional Charges
17 2 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty _
18 3 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty _
19 4 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty _
20 6 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty _
Estimated Revenue�Z�
Row ContainerType/Size �
Number of Collections per Week
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
21 Recycling Containers
22 64-gallon or 96-gallon Cart $ 74 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _ S 7q
23 2 Cubic Yard $ 1,150 $ 916 $ 919 $ 938 $ 210 $ - $ 4,133
24 3 Cubic Yard $ 6,505 $ 6,948 $ 8,663 $ 1,582 $ 8,975 $ 2,008 $ 34,681
25 4CubicYard $ 1,514 $ 2,620 $ 12,044 $ 1,896 $ 7,844 $ 419 $ 26,337
26 6 Cubic Yard $ 287 $ 362 $ 513 $ 222 $ 1,339 $ - $ 2,723
___ _
__ __ _ _-_ __
27 Additional Charges
28 2 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _
29 3 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ _
30 4 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
31 6 Cubic Yard-Extra Empty $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _
32 Projected Monthly Collection'Revenue $ 67 gqg
33 Months lz
34 Projetted Annual Collection Revenue $ 815,376
35 Projected Annual Collection Revenue-Rounded to nearest thousand $ 815,000
�1�Current service levels assumes no City accounts were included in file.
�2�Estimated revenue was based on current subscription levels.Actual subscription levels may vary due to customers adapting to new recycling rates
that were previously free.
October 22,2013 F-1 HF&H Consultants
CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTACHMENT G
RECYCLE FEE NEXUS STUDY
SUMMARY OF BURRTEC QUARTERLY REPORT DATA
• • • •
1 �• 1
1 Tons Disposed
2 2012-13 11,119.76 12,306.64 12,903.02 13,569.35 49,898.77
3 2011-12 10,907.19 11,981.18 12,621.90 12,173.72 47,683.99
_ _ _ _ _ _ __
4 2010-11 11,237.10 14,162.70 12,973.10 13,086.50 51,459.40
5 2009-10 11,633.84 12,966.94 12,916.51 12,353.13 49,870.42
6 2008-09 13,642.43 14,982.58 14,164.12 13,722.96 56,512.09
7 Gross Receipts
_ _----_ — -- _--.
8 2012-13 $ 2,113,863.47 $ 2 236,732.80 $ 2,196,134.45 $ 2,153,070.90 $ 8,699,801.62
___ _ __ _
9 2011-12 $ 2,038,318.72 $ 2,224,753.75 $ 2,141,322.87 $ 2,064,481.65 $ 8,468,876.99
10 2010-11 $ 2,032,924.38 $ 2,093,813.52 $ 2,123,569.74 $ 2,103,460.88 $ 8,353,768.52
11 2009-10 $ 2,005,868.31 $ 2,046,027.70 $ 2,117,296.98 $ 2,053,674.18 $ 8,222,867.17
__ ____ _ —
12 2008-09 $ 2,255,169.68 $ 2,193,850.71 $ 2,207,415.31 $ 2,011,026.21 $ 8,667,461.91
13 Franchise Fees _
14 2012-13 $ 131,381.89 $ 137,184.62 $ 131,913.29 $ 126,207.61 $ 526,687.41
October22,2013 G-1 HF&H Consultants
?:r:%':%::"":X':±4:](,.,:%{:J(.:](,:](,:](�:](.:J(,:J(�:](�:x.:]�,:](,:l(.�: ":.+�,':%':1[::]�,':Y':%":"..�C.'. J(� ](,]�,.l(.1(.' '%':](.'.](.": ':]�.':](.': ':JC�':]�,':%':](�':](.":]�': ':]�,':]�.': ': ": ":x,,': ': ': :: ': ':Y": ':�(,': ':%;:":i"'::::::::i::
'F.::%�:x::�:?F:%::Jf..K..X:.]f..]C:.1C:.]C:.JC:.X:.1L:.�.]C:.]C:.1C:.�:%::h'�:X::]C::]�:]F:�:iC.:}�:X::1C�:X::]C::X::1C::�:]C�:1C::1C::'4::]C:;X::4x.X:;]C::]C�:1C::]C:;]C::`�:X:;]C::�:'�:�:%�:�:�:�:�:�:'�:�:X�:k::K::h::�:x':>'::;':
':;:`i::x•:: ':�4: ':�:?4: �: ': ': ':•': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': �: �:r'�.:'�.�'�.:'�.:fx'�.:'�.:'�.:'�.:'�.:'�.:'�.:�',�.:'�.:�::'�.:'�.:'�.:'�.2�.:'�.:`�.:'�.:'�.:'�.:'�.:'�.:'�F.:'k�:�:'�.:'��.:.'+�.:�::i2�:'�.:'�.:i�:'�.:'�.�:�::it::ix:i2�:'if:v':i:':
�..v..x..'�..t..'�..x..,c..�`..'.+c�..'�..'�..�.'�..'�..'�..�.'�F..'�..'�..�.'�..'�..�.�.'�..'�.
�:��:�:.<::�:: �:�:�: .: .: .:x.: .: .:..: .: .: .:x.: .: .: .: .: .:..: .: .: .: .: .:..:�:•�: �:�:�: •: •: •: �: �: �:�:�: •:�:: •: �: �: �: •: �s •:X�: �:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�€�::�:�:�:�:�:Y::}>::>>:
,::�::x::'�::x':�:�::x::'�`::'�`•:�`::x`::''�..:''�..:'�`::'�`::'�`::'�`::'�`::'�`::''�'..:x'�.`�.:'�`::.'�`::�`::.'�`::.'�`::''�..:''�..:'�`::'�`::x::�`::''�'..:h::h::'�`::'�`::�`::�`::�:�:�::h::'�`::'`::'�`::�:�:'�`::'�`::�::'�`::?�:�:x:: .
�:r:::n::�:':�:''�:�:�:>�:�:�:x:�:�:;�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�s�::�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:���':�€�€�:�'�:�x's>X':�:�€k:x:k°:,.:
,...�:�:.�(::J(.. .v ...........,�:• .](.](. x
.'::h.:%..1C::X:'�:}::X`.:\.:n.:hn:1�::ti.:]C:k .::X::]C::�'%
i�:i2'.:ix:i.�:z':i�::i::�:�:x'�Yx:'h`'c.:'�'.:"� .::�:�:nx:�:x
x;: x�:x.,..,.,,:�e::u x� •�:
::f::�:'�F.:x:x;:i�' �x;:, �: s.'::
.<�:x.:�„:�.](�.;: i:: :�:
::x4:5:::. �:Jf�:YY:' h . `::�..
}... y,:y� 'v,:� }:: :
}::.: {'}:.
:�:�: �C:�:.y�c�:.
�:�x':�,'.�c:�:x<:• �. x:. :�: r:: ;�:
::};::;Y. t{.�:Xf hr.. �; :> '�'}:: ':
.SL: :�%:hC�.�C�L:�?..�:� . %�}:: : :�C: :
.
::;f::;x:�c:,�:Kc:,.,.�::;f::wc:�:?�:���:�ry..
�K '?C: :Y': :
K :
X : : : :
% : : : :
{ : : ': : : •
{ : : : :X: : •�
. �. �{ : : ': ��� : : : :
�L '�h" •�yy�,]C.�• �:
.x}]�f:�C� :%�h: . :
K Jc: �y, : :
� . e�c.... ..'�c'�,+�e�i}x:,;;. i
. ..'K.,,::�: :;i�:.s.., Jc:�,�c:
� � � � �
� � 1 , 1 1 �
� � � �
J�1(�x�/.. � > :
X'K''%�� \ xY... Y":J .
K 4{�C'�(��v+��� n�� ..
..^�.�..X::...1. K}���
::'.,�.':'�::%� ��'���q{�
..y. :. �(
...... .. k .
:' �: :�:..':k: .
:.�.`�:��y: :• :�:i:��x�
:i:{: '�: '..x. �
::�ic:�:r�: s�.:�F. x.
::�:s���:�'..� ���
::�<::��;�:;�� �'� >
:.�;�:�:�; ��. < �
,�S K..\.�JC.�f: '�' �C'� � � .
':l}:::%;' �SC: �SC:.. . . . . x
::'Y.:: . }' � Sf'i:�:}y:1Cl:�'i:J(::1`':]C�`:Yy':
�������' :�'� :���cs.x. ,�;:� �:
::.��.'�>s::�:�:��: �:�'x: �: �:
:^�:��::;x:.��.:�: :�: �::�:: �: �'.
::;�:;s�::,:• x: •�:�' �:�
::x::k�:�:'x•�:�:�:�:�: :�: �:�:
::�:�Y���:���}�:>X���: :�:�: ��� �:y�.<':�:�: :
: %Y':�:h.X::}{.•^( ''��.'h�C y. �C: {� . .
::�.'�i:: }%: �::"::�: }'{:• �f:'%:' :
�. ,...•.. s�, �:� ;y��: '�'
x.c�Si:*K:;�::��� '4:�•'. .': ` >�'�:'+c: ��x<i
::��'k:\:�<:.t• x' ':'�:�:�c:
.x.:... �� .':��>.: > � ������ �: :
.k: � �� ����:
::��: ���:.,���.��:''`:���� :�'. ' ;,�: :
::��: �:�� ���: ;�.� :�:��
. }�� �:�>.:�� � :��:�:�
::�<:s ::�: .:`.:�: �: :�'s.
��Y�}:':}.^'�C' '�C'�' :�: :�:
::�C:�C. {•.�{: .{::'r'
::x: �'4:s ;��:
:•}K•�C:�::'Sc�'4:�:�:�c:�c:•<: :• :�: ' :�: :
::.',>c:'``'�::k�::'��
,cc• �:•,: �: •:
!S�:'�'�h E r�:�E'���2
..x.:.''l�.::�: :�:�:�;r',�:• :
::x.�: �5:� .yx�`x:'x:�:i�: :x:�s�:
:::x•�'�`�� k:�k;� ::�'.:�� :'Sii
�i�i�,}..�
..:��:>�.x�. �: �C
k.:..:.�C}.:
� ^C: �: .� : :'X:. : � � �
::�::�;:�s>.<;�:�::.'•�i�::X. .`: :�; . .�: :
::;A:it::' ��x;;s�, �::ici: E .y:: ',�� � : E
�i: �:'4�� . . . <: . i .
::?G�;<:' +�x;. . '4:%x:�xi x`�'4: : : :
::ic�};�x:"::'�:?�::',�`�y x.�:Y�:�:' :.�: : . .
::;:c:V:ti:..+.:+'�:�:i:ti:>?�;�,'x`:�c:�';?Sc:'Sc:x•:?� .��i:: '}x:
r . 'Sc:' hc:�'�c..c: ,
�`'�::k:'4:�::;x:>..:�,.:: �C:: �; �2::�:
�'�' �:� 'x�:
�:z::>,::x;:.,...k�f:c::k::K.Y,v`,:x:.s,z::{�:r'.:x,V.,,..: r.�
..J..h.: .`.. :\r..J...{:} K":%:}:'%::' ��Y"
::.>C:.::.�f:.... ....{.v%.�/.�,�:%{']�':�:::�:h�:�C��%":
:::t.�v.,L:"i:;ri:"{:"{ '`C C�..�:y ./ �f:
..li.:}:,::: �h/. x Yh.Y�.::i,-:i::::K.. /�:''�y.:'.�y.:�,'C:��L
......�:;ri::.�k:.' %:���:�� � X:'�C'
::4{:i::'� �:�:�::`:��1 X{:' S: �:�� �SC:
: <_.•.'�::'�SEx: :�::k:;�:�:�. .E',�C:k:: � ,�;`r.
::;�::�::.'x:?x::k: x:.x::�c.�,i:. fx.: ,�c���:
x: c .c r.��:�
:?i::;�`:�]�: rt:�:�`:��(,i:� �^(C,:�: :
::]�:'`.:Y::: :�: �t�X..]�:�:]C:JC�: ��: :X:)C' : :
::�:..:h.�.•�. :
.x.�. 5:: c :'�C'�''�: ''�: 'S::
:�C:ht; �C:'C:'�: �; :�: �C:
:�;: �.�:�?�; .�: :
::�:��,.:�:�: �� : � . . . . � � :
::�: ,x: ,�: .�� �: � :�s <:�: :
:.�.�:� :�:� �; ;
::�:�:�:..:�:�: : ������. . , . . .
::�:�:� :�::�`:���:�:�:��: �. :�:� :�: :
x.: �:
.��. <:
:�:�: ��:•�:;s<:� :�: :
:�,.>...�:�:�:� �� ':�: :
;•y,��X`.:k
::SX:�:'<5.�:�:�:�::t•�y.'..:�: .: :
::�f.:: ��(.:�' .f::�: �CC � :}�S:
'+,�C�:./�'. K•�:' � �: : ; :
::Y"?�'X::}�:h�'�::'Sy': Y�C:••�]�f:.�C:• .1�:hy�]C'�: :�; .:
.��[ L:.....X:%+::r..�{:]�t�.� '1C: : :'Y:. :
.+v:}:.. ..�f..rv..Y.'. � . .
::%:4:�'}�' 1 ,�j� `r �
...:... � �:'.: :
... �.. . ,�':.�!:.,-::'�'.. ix. ..^5�. . . .. .
.:>'f'NK'�.:�.: ::�Y:;.K:�.:}�:: �:. : :Yx:'..�: :. : "l. f �
::4:x.:•<: :�• s,, ?� �` �` . . .
..?i:�. 'ic��i:;.;?C:�4:: j�c �c :'�:'�: . .. .
k..k�ki�A��y���l�'l.�k�J.:!7t..5l..ri�.2:'.k'..kr'u.^.5l..SG.�'.S2..S!
>:�:�::x:�E%'�i�:'�.�.:ii:�:z5:�:�E�I'��.E'��.Er`'.:'�.�.:z:�Ex
X..:'
i2�:.'�.:.'+�.:;�1(.:�:x](,:x'::zx:�k�.:'�.:.'+�.:'�Y..�.:x�:z](.:x�('..:k::'�.:'�.:x%.:x ■
%::�:�:Jf::%{:X:'�:]�:k�:'f.{:nx:X::X{:]C::X:'k::�:'n�:JC::%
■
� : • •
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
STREET/ROAD CLASSIFICATIONS & ESTIMATED SURFACE AREA ...................2
TRAFFIC POINT SURVEYS........................................................................................4
VEHICLE TYPE CLASSIFICATIONS..........................................................................6
EQUIVALENT SINGLE AXLE LOAD ("ESAL") & ESAL LOADING..........................6
ESTIMATED ANNUAL STREET MAINTENANCE COSTS ........................................7
MAINTENANCE/RESURFACING BUDGET ALLOCATION BY STREET TYPE.........................7
MAINTENANCE/RESURFACING ALLOCATION BY VEHICLE TYPE ......................8
ARTERIAL/THOROUGHFARES/SECONDARY STREET BUDGET ALLOCATIONS..................8
COLLECTOR/EL PASEO STREET BUDGET ALLOCATIONS................................................8
LOCAL/RURAL STREET BUDGET ALLOCATION.................................................................9
TOTAL STREET BUDGET ALLOCATIONS BY VEHICLE TYPE .............................................9
MAINTENANCE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REFUSE VS. RECYCLING ............10
ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS......................................................................................12
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact
- • � •
While most paved streets, particularly modern streets, are designed to exist over a lifespan
of twenty (20) to fifty (50) years and handle traffic generated by different volumes of mixed
traffic, ranging from passenger cars to large transportation trucks, annual street maintenance
programs are still important to ensure the pavement's integrity during the existence of the
streeUroad, and mitigate future large repair costs. Due to the multiple variables affecting the
conditions of a street/road, it is a difficult task to identify and quantify the impact of any
specific factor. However, various studies conducted to determine what factors most impact
street/road conditions have identified some key factors. For instance, a study conducted by
the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute in 1992, identified axle load,
tandem suspensions, axles spacing, tire inflation pressure, tire configuration, pavement
characteristics (for example, road surface roughness), and environmental conditions
(elevated temperatures) as key influences on street/road fatigue and permanent deformation.
With respect to vehicle-related factors (axle load, tandem suspension), overwhelmingly axle
load has been identified as the principal influence on street/road wear. A vehicle's axle load
is defined as the weight load of a vehicle applied on each axle.
The City of Palm Desert (the "City") presently incurs on average approximately$3.6 million in
annual costs related to street maintenance of public streets within the City. While slightly
more than half (approximately 53%) of the total miles of public streets within the City are
identified as Local/Rural streets that primarily support passenger vehicles and 2-axle
vehicles/trucks, a significant portion of the remaining streets are identified as
Arterial/Thoroughfares streets (34% of total mileage and 41% of surface area), which have a
broad range of vehicular traffic.
The purpose of this study and report ("Report") was to determine the impact on City's streets
caused by the various types of vehicles. Specifically, the study focused on identifying the
impact of refuse/recycle vehicles on the City streets/roads. At the time of this study,
properties within the City receive refuse/recycle services exclusively from Burrtec Waste
Industries, Inc. Based on route and schedule information received from Burrtec; residential
properties receive refuse/recycle service weekly, while non-residential properties may
receive service up to (6) six times per week. Service is provided for residential properties
Monday through Friday (Saturday service is provided only if the regular pick-up day falls on a
holiday), and non-residential service is provided from Monday through Saturday. To
appropriately determine the impact of refuse/recycle trucks, and in turn assign a "fair share"
of the annual maintenance costs, traffic survey data in conjunction with axle loading
estimates were utilized.
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact
� • ♦ , 1 • 1 , 1 1 � 1
Utilizing Based on current Geographic Information System ("GIS") data provided by the City
of Palm Desert, there is approximately one hundred sixty-seven (167) miles of publicly
maintained street/road mileage within the City of Palm Desert, which the City has identified
by one of eight (8) specific street-type categories including: Arterial, Collector, Local, Private,
Rural, Secondary, Thoroughfares, and EI Paseo. For purposes of this evaluation and based
on discussions with City staff, these eight (8) specific street-type categories have been
consolidated into four (4) general street-type classifications:
1. Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary
2. Collector/EI Paseo
3. Local/Rural
4. Private Streets *
"`Because the City is not responsible for the maintenance of private streets, these streets have been
excluded from this study.
Utilizing the three (3) public street classifications above, the overall mileage and estimated
square footage of pavement surface area of the City maintained streets and the resulting
percentages of total street surFace area associated with each are summarized in the
following table.
: , - � �
- . _ . ._ . . . :
Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary 56 17,022,720�'� 41.08%
Collector/EI Paseo 23 5,829,120 14.07%
Local/Rural 88 18,585,600 44.85%
TOTAL 167 41,437,440 100.00%
(1) Per discussions with the City,maintenance of approximately nine(9)miles of arterial street mileage is shared with nearby
jurisdiction(s). Estimated maintenance percentage between City and nearby jurisdiction(s) is 50%/50%. AS such the
Estimated Square Feet of Pavement related to Arterial Streets related to the nine (9) miles of arterial streets has been
adjusted to reflect the shared maintenance of these streets.
A map (visual representation) of the various street-type classifications within the City used in
this analysis is provided on the following page. This map provides a visual overview of the
location and extent of the three public street types maintained by the City as well as the
private streets within the City that are not maintained by the City and thus not part of the
City's street maintenance/resurfacing budget.
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact
��
City of Palm Desert: Street Types
, �
�����
. � �
; ,y,� '
. .
� ':
� �� � �
�.
� . � . Legend
..�
.. . . Fu.uoE::��r"7l-'e:,".71�r�9aar
� STREETS WiTNIN CRY OF PALM�ESERT(MAIN CATEGORIES)
� STREETTYPE
���'x,..m,o._ �r r:,G iri a-i;�iF�i .. . �. .�..F� -.r t_�>
� �� ..:. ' µ-�^� ! E'Li H St .�.'$
�w..ws�.i..��ws.ow�a� l I..? C"T
� 4 I �I_�Ik '7�
N
���� �WILLDAN I
Financiai Services
S
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact
•
In order to estimate the impact of refuse/recycle vehicles on the streets relative to other
vehicles, an important component of this study included compiling traffic survey information
across different points and different street types within the City. Utilizing the overall extent
and location of the various public street types shown on the previous street map and
information obtained from Burrtec regarding both the residential and non-residential routes of
the Burrtec trucks (including general route path and route day(s)), various cross sections
across the City representing different types of streets and routes were selected as
representative Traffic Survey points to quantify and evaluate overall traffic patterns and
counts. The nine (9) different Traffic Survey checkpoints listed below identffy the various
intersection points and corresponding street types where traffic data and evaluations were
conducted.
. . . . . -
1 Corporate Way& Hovley Lane Collector/EI Paseo
2 Country Club Dr& Cook Street Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary
3 California Ave &Warner Trail Local/Rural
4 Frank Sinatra Drive &Cook Street Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary
5 Highway 111 & Highway 74, Monterey Ave Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary
6 EI Paso& �upine Lane Collector/EI Paseo
7 Gateway Drive&35th Avenue Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary
8 Portola Ave & Gerald Ford Drive Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary
9 Calico Cactus Lane& Desert Rose Drive Local/Rural
The following page provides a map of the nine (9) intersection points identified above.
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact �
1�
City of Palm Desert: Traffic Survey Checkpoints Map
�. ;
� !g j �
.
4 •,
_.:
, . . ,2::�: .. .
'„.
'3 :
� ,
�� ±
�.6 ;
Legend
9 PALM DESERT CITY BOUNDARY
TRAFFIC CHECKPOINTS
� ��WILLDAN I
W �
Financial Services
S
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact
. . �
In conjunction with selecting different intersection points for the Traffic Survey, five (5)
vehicular type categories were identified and tabulated to evaluate and estimate vehicular
impacts associated with the various types of City streets:
� - � • . .
Passenger Vehicle Regular passenger automobiles
2 Axle Vehicles/Trucks Commercial type vehicles/trucks, such as Fed-Ex/UPS delivery trucks
3 Axie Trucks Trucks including 3 Axles
4 Axles Trucks Trucks including 4 Axles
Burrtec Trucks Refuse/Recycle Vehicles
� � � � � � � � � �
The Equivalent Single Axle Load is a concept which allows for the conversion of wheel loads
of various magnitudes and repetitions ("mixed traffic") to an equivalent number of "standard"
or "equivalenY' loads. The concept was developed by the American Association of State
Highway Officials (AASHO) Road Test to help establish a comparison measure for different
axle loads. The most commonly used equivalent load in the U.S. is the 80 kN (18,000 Ibs)
equivalent single axle load ("ESAL"). Converting the different vehicle types standardizes the
different vehicle types under the same measure ("ESAL") and thus provides better
comparison of the relative impact of each vehicle type.
Generally, all streets/roads are engineered and constructed under calculated expected traffic
volume. This expected lifetime traffic volume can be expressed in terms of ESAL, "Design
ESAL". Similarly, the trip information of the various vehicle types can be converted into total
ESALs over the expected twenty(20)year lifetime of the street/road.
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact
� � � •
Based on the budgeted and actual expenses relating to the maintenance of streets as provided
by the City, specifically street resurfacing, within the City, annual costs can be estimated at
$3,585,800. This amount was calculated based on the actual and budget expenses relating to
street resurfacing from Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012. The estimated budget of $3,585,800
reflects the total estimated costs related to Street Resurfacing and Maintenance costs as
identified per the City of Palm Desert.
MAINTENANCE/RESURFACING BUDGET ALLOCATION BY STREET TYPE
Based on a total budget of$3,585,800:
. .
- . . . . - . . � : . .
Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary 17,022,720 41.08% $1,473,065
Collector/EI Paseo 5,829,120 14.07% $504,423
Local/Rural 18,585,600 44.85% $1,608,3312
TOTAL 41,437,440 100.00% $3,585,800
For purposes of this study, it is assumed the annual expenditures related to street
maintenance/resurfacing can be directly correlated to the surface area of the streets. While the
volume of traffic associated with Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary and Collector/EI Paseo
streets are obviously greater than traffic on Local/Rural streets, it is also reasonable to conclude
that Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary streets and Collector/EI Paseo streets are designed and
constructed for these higher volumes of traffic, and therefore better withstand the impact of
vehicular traffic, particularly of heavier vehicles which are much less frequently traveled on
Local/Rural streets. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis the total estimated annual budget of
$3,585,000 has been proportionally allocated amongst the three (3) public street type
classifications established, based on each street type's calculated total pavement surface area
(square footage).
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact
� . . � � �
Based on the Traffic Survey results from the nine (9) different Traffic Survey checkpoints
selected and estimated ESAL calculations for the five (5) vehicle categories established,
estimated weekly trips were calculated. Using the estimated weekly trip calculations, 20 year
total "ESAL Loadings" were calculated for each of the vehicle types. With respect to Burrtec
refuse/recycle vehicles, the estimated weekly trips were adjusted to account for the fact the
refuse/recycle vehicles do not typically operate the entire week. For example, within
Residential/Rural streets, refuse/recycle service is provided only on a weekly basis, while non-
residential properties may receive service up to six times a week. Each vehicle category's total
ESAL was used to determine that category's percent impact on the three (3) public street type
categories established. The following tables summarize the estimated percentage impact by
vehicle type and budget allocated for each of the public street type categories.
ARTERIAL/THOROUGHFARES/SECONDARY STREET BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
. . -
- . . . . . :
. • � i � . . .
Passenger Vehicle 165,282.60 137,515.00 8.05% $118,651
2 Axle Vehicles/Trucks 3,945.20 775,469.00 45.42% $669,092
3 Axle Trucks 323.40 43,825.00 2.57% $37,813
4 Axles Trucks 41720 488,731.00 28.63% $421,688
Burrtec Refuse/Recycle Trucks 246.00 261,724.00 15.33% $225,821
Total 170,214.40 1,707,264.00 100.00% $1,475,065
COLLECTOR/EL PASEO STREET BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
. . -
- . . . . � -
• - • � � . . .
Passenger Vehicle 76,615.00 63,744.00 10.11% $51,014
2 Axle Vehicles/Trucks 1,477.00 290,319.00 46.06% $232,342
3 Axle Trucks 87.50 11,857.00 1.88% $9,849
4 Axles Trucks 84.00 98,402.00 15.61% $78,751
Burrtec Refuse/Recycle Trucks 156.00 165,972.00 26.33% $132,827
Total 78,419.50 630,294.00 100.00% $504,423
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact
LOCAL/RURAL STREET BUDGET ALLOCATION
. . -
- . . . � . -
. - . i . . . .
Passenger Vehicle 23,359.00 19,435.00 15.45% $248,535
2 Axle Vehicles/Trucks 448.00 88,059.00 70.02% $1,126,100
3 Axle Trucks 21.00 2,846.00 226% $36,395
4 Axles Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00% $0
Burrtec Refuse/Recycle Trucks 14.50 15,427.00 12.27% $197,282
Total 23,842.50 125,767.00 100.00% $1,608,312
TOTAL STREET BUDGET ALLOCATIONS BY VEHICLE TYPE
. . .
. . . . . . :
. . . - . . . - . . . . -
� - � � . � . . . . . - .
PassengerVehicie $118,651 $51,014 $248,535 $418,200 11.66%
2 Axle Vehicies/Trucks $669,092 $223,342 $1,126,100 $2,027,534 56.54%
3 Axle Trucks $37,813 $9,489 $36,395 $83,697 2.33%
4 Axles Trucks $421,688 $78,751 $0 $500,439 13.96%
Burrtec Refuse/Recycle Trucks $225,821 $132,827 $197,282 $555,930 15.50%
Total $1,475,065 $504,423 $1,608,312 $3,585,800 100.00%
Overall the estimated impact of the Burrtec refuse/recycle vehicles represents approximately
15.50% of the total annual street maintenance/resurfacing budget, or $555,930 per year.
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact
. . � . � . �
Utilizing specific refuse and recycle route and service information provided by Burrtec, the
proportional impact and associated maintenance costs attributable to refuse services versus
recycling services can be estimated. Based on discussions with Burrtec, it has been confirmed
that the types of trucks used for refuse collection and recycle collection are analogous and
therefore estimating the impacts of refuse trucks versus recycle trucks is directly related to the
total trip generation related to each service and does not require any type of ESAL factor. Based
on specific route information, route frequency and estimated trips required to complete each
route, it has been calculated that on average, 72.0% of the total trip generation applicable to
non-residential service is attributable to refuse collection and 28.0% is associated with recycle
collections. However for residential services, the percentages of total trip generation for refuse
collection versus recycle collection are similar, with 53.75% being attributable to refuse
collections and 46.25%for recycle collections.
Clearly for Local/Rural streets, the impact of Burrtec trucks is limited to residential service and
thus the proportional maintenance cost allocation between refuse collection versus recycle
collection is a direct calculation of the total Local/Rural Street Budget Allocation for the Burrtec
Refuse/Recycle Trucks identified in the previous section ($197,282), proportionately allocated
on the total trip generation percentages for refuse (53.75%) and recycling (46.25%).
Unlike Local/Rural streets, for Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary streets and Collector/EI Paseo
streets, the total trip generation applicable to Burrtec trucks for refuse/recycle collection is not
limited to residential service or to non-residential service, but rather the collective total trip
generation applicable to both residential and non-residential refuse/recycle services. While the
refuse/recycle routes, frequency, and the estimated number of trips to complete each route for
non-residential service is limited to these street types, these same streets are also utilized and
part of the overall residential service routes. Therefore, the Burrtec traffic generated by refuse
and recycle trucks must be based on the total (residential and non-residential) refuse and
recycle routes, frequency, and estimated number of trips required to complete each route.
Based on the data and information provided by Burrtec, the combined estimated percentage of
the total trip generation applicable to these street types has been calculated to be 69.25% for
refuse services and 30.75% for recycle services. Utilizing these percentages and the total Street
Budget Allocation for the Burrtec Refuse/Recycle Trucks identified in the previous section
($225,821 for Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary Streets; and $132,827 for Collector/EI Paseo
streets), the proportional maintenanoe cost allocation between refuse collections versus recycle
collections can be estimated.
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recyde Vehicle Impact �
The following table summarizes the total estimated impact and budget allocations for refuse and
recycling collections:
. .
- . . . . • . . .
Arterial/Thoroughfares/Secondary $156,381 $69,440 $225,821
Collector/ElPaseo $91,983 $40,844 $132,827
Local/Rural $106,039 $91,243 $197,282
TOTAL $354,403 $201,527 $555,930
The estimated impact of the Burrtec refuse vehicles represents overall approximately 9.88% of
the total annual street maintenance/resurfacing budget, or$354,403 per year.
The estimated impact of the Burrtec recycle vehicles represents overall approximately 5.62% of
the total annual street maintenance/resurfacing budget, or$201,527 per year.
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact
1 1 1 •
It is important to note some key assumptions were made in deriving the overall percentage
impact and fiscal impact, including:
• The analysis did not focus on identifying any significant environmental factors which
could significantly impact street/road wear. Extreme environmental conditions, such as
extreme weather (flooding, etc) or temperature could potentially contribute to a
street/road's deterioration, and as such if existing would require a more in depth
analysis.
• All efforts were made to calculate average daily traffic, and in turn weekly traffic for the
three (3) main types of public street/road categories identified, significant changes in
traffic volumes would affect the ESAL Loading and in turn percentage impact
calculations.
• Similarly, key assumptions had to be made with respect to the average weight and
weight load per axle of the Vehicle Category Types identified; changes in weights
estimates could potentially affect the impact percentages calculated.
• Streets were assumed to have an estimated life of twenty (20) years. Significant
changes in the estimated lifetime of the street would impact the Total ESAL calculated.
• Estimated impact of refuse versus recycle trucks was based on route and collection
information received from Burrtec, including number of refuse routes, route frequency,
and estimated number of trips required to complete each route. Significant changes in
number of routes, types of collection (refuse/recycle) would affect estimated impact of
refuse and and/or recycle trucks.
City of Palm Desert Refuse/Recycle Vehicle Impact