HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2005 0302 CC REG ITEM 09FCITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of 3-2 - 7- Do,7-
AC11ON: dA& 4:je=e W a4*"A_�x
AO-e de
MOORPARK CITY COUNCI
AGENDA REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works
DATE:
February
17,
2005 (Council Meeting 3 -2 -05)
SUBJECT:
Contract
vs.
In -House Street Sweeping Services
DISCUSSION
A. Backqround and Conclusion
This report was prepared at the request of the City Council.
Based on the findings contained herein, it is recommended by
staff that the City not change to an "In- House" Program.
B. Service Level
A change to the method of delivery of a program or a service
would normally imply that there is a need to improve the
service level. There must be something wrong which needs to be
"fixed ". With respect to the City's current street sweeping
program, it is the view of staff that the level of service
meets the contract specifications. It is also the view of
staff that changing to an In -House program will not produce
any measurable improvement in service level.
One fairly accurate gauge to use to evaluate street sweeping
performance, is the number and frequency of complaint calls.
Other than parking related matters, the City receives very few
street sweeping complaint calls. Based on past experience of
the Public Works Director, the number of complaint calls
received by the City is far less than that typically
encountered. The majority of calls received which are critical
of the street sweeping program are from individuals who have
just been issued a street sweeping related parking citation.
Investigation of those complaints usually finds no street
sweeping problems.
Sweeping_Inhouse - 0503b
OOU218
Street Sweeping: In -House v. Contract
March 2, 2005
Page 2
A separate report being considered by the City Council on this
date deals with suggested changes to the street sweeping and
parking restriction schedules and permit procedures. Staff
believes that the implementation of the changes recommended in
that report will reduce confusion and improve customer
service.
C. Current City Program Costs
The current annual cost of the City's street sweeping contact
service is approximately $95,000. Adding administrative costs
brings the total estimated annual cost of the current program
up to $110,000. These figures do not include the reimbursed
cost of sweeping the State Highways.
D. Total Estimated Annual Cost of an In -House Program
The estimated annual cost of an "In- House" program is
$260,000, broken down as follows:
Description
Notes:
Total ($)
Personnel
1
80,000
O &M
2
120,000
Annual Equip. Replacement Assessment
3
60,000
Total
260,000
Notes: 1
Cost for one full
time sweeper
operator plus labor
costs related to
supervision
administration and
management of the
program.
2 Estimated annual costs for parts (new brushes,
etc.) equipment, materials, fuel and contract
maintenance services. Also included in this amount
are costs related to the handling and disposal of
debris.
3 $150,000 / 5yrs = 30,000 /yr x 2 sweepers =
$60,000. [It should be noted that this equipment
replacement assessment is not applied in order to
recover the initial cost of purchasing new street
sweepers. This assessment is to garner the fund
necessary to purchase replacement equipment at the
end of the life -cycle of the City's sweepers.
Initial program establishment costs are separate
and are discussed below.]
Sweeping_Inhouse_0503b
00029
Street Sweeping: In -House v. Contract
March 2, 2005
Page 3
E. Start -up Costs
It should be noted that initial start -up costs are not
included in the above estimated annual program costs. Those
one -time additional costs are summarized as follows:
Description Notes: Total ($)
Equipment Purchase A 300,000.00
Equipment Rental (contingency) B 10,000.00
Procurement Process Administration C 5,000.00
Secruring Contract Maint. Services D 5,000.00
Personnel Recruitment E 2,000.00
Total 322,000.00
Notes: A Procurement of two (2) street sweepers at a cost
of $150,000 each. [Note: It would be the intent
of staff to purchase only one (1) sweeper
initially, with the second sweeper to be acquired
two (2) years later, so that the age of the fleet
would be staggered. During the first two (2)
years, it may become necessary to rent equipment
when and if the City's street sweeper is
inoperative (see Note B)]
B Sweeper rental costs during the first two (2)
years of the new program, to be used when and if
the City's single sweeper is inoperative.
C Administrative time required to prepare the bid
and specification documents and to administer the
procurement process.
D Administrative time required to prepare the bid
and specification documents for a street sweeper
equipment maintenance and service contract and to
administer the process required to locate and
secure those services. These costs also cover
efforts necessary to secure a rental agreement for
the back -up sweeper during the first two (2) years
of the program.
E Administrative time related to the recruit process
to hire a qualified street sweeper equipment
operator.
Sweeping_Inhouse_0503b 000220
Street Sweeping: In -House v. Contract
March 2, 2005
Page 4
Summary: The cost of changing to an "In- House" program
includes both the projected annual program costs previously
noted and the above listed start -up costs. A summary of the
total estimated first year costs is as follows:
Item Amount ($)
Annual Operating Cost 260,000
First Year Start-up [$322,000 - $150,000 * *] 172,000
** Purchase of second sweeper deferred 432,000
F. In -House Program Requirements
A summary of some of the issues and requirements related to an
in -house program include:
1. Personnel: Some agencies have found it difficult to find,
and retain skilled sweeper operators.
2. Training: The life -cycle of a street sweeper, to a large
extent, depends upon the skill level of the operator.
Maintenance and repair costs go up sharply when equipment
is not operated and maintained properly. A good In -House
program must include a hands -on training and supervision
effort.
3. Back -up Personnel: It is assumed that the City would have
one (1) full time sweeper operator. It will also be
necessary to train other Public Works staff on the proper
use of the sweeper so that the City will have the
capability to provide service when the sweeper operator is
absent (sick, vacations, etc.) and during emergencies.
4. Supervision and Administration: An in -house program
requires much more effort to supervise and manage than
does a contract service. Other than periodic contract
renewal efforts, the management of a contract service
consists of inspection service level and any necessary
direction to correct problems. The supervision and
management of an "In- House" program is much more intense,
as demonstrated by the items in this list.
5. Staffing Requirements: The current service level for
street sweeping does not require a forty -hour per week
effort. Even at full build -out of the City, it is not
anticipated that a full -time effort will be necessary.
Implementation of an In -House program would then have to
address the deployment and utilization of sweeper
personnel in "off" times.
Sweeping_Inhouse_0503b
0 0022.
Street Sweeping: In -House v. Contract
March 2, 2005
Page 5
6. Equipment Operations Costs: The City's sweepers will have
to be managed, monitored and maintained. A sweeper is one
of the most complicated and, therefore, one of the most
expensive public works pieces of equipment to maintain.
Maintenance efforts range from frequent replacement of
brushes to repairs to the sweeper's mechanical systems.
7. Maintenance Service Costs: Larger cities usually have
larger fleets which can justify having one or more full
time mechanics. Moorpark's fleet is not large enough to
support this in -house capability. Accordingly, it will be
necessary for the City to locate and retain the services
of a qualified firm to provide sweeper equipment
maintenance services to the City. At this point staff does
not know where or to what degree these services are
available locally. One option might be to contract with
the County or with a larger City nearby which has that
capability. In such case, such a program would have to
include the cost of transporting the sweeper to the
maintenance facility and /or travel time for "house calls ".
8. Dump Fees: With some cities, dump fees and /or other
related debris handling costs, are built -in to the
contract service. Providing the service "In- House"
requires the City to manage these efforts and sustain
related costs. Such costs are estimated to be
approximately $70,000 per year.
9. Liability: Claims related to street sweeping can range
from a paint splatter on a vehicle to a personal injury
accident. One of the benefits of contract service is
"risk transfer ". The City is normally "held harmless" by
the contractor and the contractor provide liability
insurance for the sweeping activities. With an "In- house"
program, the City retains the risk exposure.
10.Emissions standards and requirements: Compliance with
equipment emission standards and regulations becomes a
City responsibility.
11.Pm10: Recently enacted Pm10 regulations by Air Quality
Agencies have raised concerns in the industry. These
regulations prohibit the generation of particulate matter
of 10 microns or less. Some believe that these regulations
will ultimately require the sole use of vacuum sweepers
instead of broom or brush sweepers. Contract cities are
not burdened with the administrative efforts related to
compliance with these requirements.
Sweeping_Inhouse_0503b
000222
Street Sweeping: In -House v. Contract
March 2, 2005
Page 6
G. Research / Findings
1. Questionnaire: Staff emailed a question to all California
Public Works Directors, asking their opinion or experience
with the question of "In- House" vs. Contract street
sweeping. The twenty -three (23) responses are summarized
in Exhibit 1. In reviewing those responses, staff has come
to the following conclusions:
a. It is difficult to impossible to gather comparable cost
information. Everyone includes or excludes different
components in developing and distilling their costs.
The cost information provided is useful only to a
point.
b. Most of the agencies which have an In -House program are
larger cities. It may be easier to manage a large In-
House program than it is to manage a large contract
service or, worse yet, a number of separate street
sweeping contracts.
2. Rate Comparisons: A separate survey was conducted to
obtain curb mile costs for both In -House and contract
services (see Exhibit 2) . The average rate for Contract
Service was slightly less. But again, it is not really
known to what degree these costs are comparable, since we
do not know if all the relevant costs have been included.
H. Conclusions
Based on the research performed, as generally summarized in
this report, staff has reached the following conclusions:
• Annual cost for an In -House program will be substantially
higher than the cost of contract services, plus the program
`start -up" costs will be significant.
• Like most small cities, Moorpark does not have in -house
capability to provide for the proper maintenance and repair
of street sweeping equipment. The City would have to
contract for that service. It is not known to what degree a
competitive market for such contract services is available
in this area. And, if such services can be located, staff
anticipates that the cost of those contract services would
be substantial.
STAFF RECON ONDATION
Staff recommends that the City continue with contract street
sweeping services.
Attachment:
Exhibit 1: Questionnaire results
Exhibit 2: Rate Comparison
Sweeping_Inhouse_0503b
000223
Exhibit 1
Page 1
Summary of Responses
To Questionnaire
The following are responses
received to
an e -mail sent to all of
the Public Works Directors in the
State, inquiring as to
experience with the
question of in -house vs. contract street
sweeping services.
............................
.................... .................... ............................. .... ............................ ... :. .........
Service Option
................................. ............ .................. .................... .. ............ .................. .............
Responder
In -House Contract
Responder's Comments
Azuza
X
Changed to contract service in 2001:
"Contract costs are '/2 of that of the
prior cost of the In House program.
Management of an In- House
program is a real "hands -on ",
requiring allot of skills, allot of time
and allot of costs. The equipment
life -cycle is poor. Maintenance
costs are high. Skilled
management and maintenance
efforts are required."
.................................................................................................... ......................_......_. .......
Bakersfield
............................... ............ ............ ...............................
X
...................
............... ....................................... .. ..... ............................... .....
.............................
They prefer In -House service because
they can be more responsive to
citizen complaints, with re- sweeps,
etc. Seven years ago they compared
their cost to contract costs and
determined that in -house was less
costly.
{No information was provided
regarding the cost factors used in
comparing costs. Unable to
determine whether or not their
findings reflected all actual cost
factors.}
Burlingame .......... ....... .............................,. .........:.....................................................:...........,.............................................
..............
X
..........., ................... . .....
Costs - ...$12.90.. per curb mile....
{Factors used to calculate these
costs unknown.}
.....................................................................................................................................__..................................................................................,.......................................................................;........
Ceres
X
............................... ........... ....................... ............. ...................._..........
Changed to contract service:
"The best thing I did was to change
to contract service. We had only
one (1) sweeper and were lucky to
have it on the road 60% of the
time."
Sweeping_Inhouse_0503b
000224
Exhibit 1
Page 2
Summary of Responses
To Questionnaire
........... .................................. ............................................... .._.._.....,........ ................................... .................. ........_..._............................. ..................... ...,._............._..._.._..............................
Service Option
.................. .................... ........................ ............... .... ............... ................. ... ...._.._....................
Responder In -House Contract
Responder's Comments
Chico X
They believe that their costs are only
slightly (3 %) higher than contract
service, and they believe the quality of
service is better with In- House.
{In reviewing their cost figures, it
appeared to me that their equipment
maintenance cost estimate was too
low.}
Claremont X
The o erate two full -time sweepers.
Y p p
Their equipment maintenance costs
for sweepers, is higher than
maintenance costs for other pieces of
i
equipment.
.................. ............ . ............ .................................. . ......... .................. ...:............. ......................... ....... ............. . ....... .....:.................. ...... .... ...................... ..... ...
Corning X
............ ................................................ ......... _....
Contract sweeping is provided by the
Refuse Franchisee as a requirement
of their franchise. Contract sweeper
must meet City requirements.
Franchise hauler's sweeping costs
are unknown.
.......... .................. ..... ............................. ..................... ........... ...................... .................................. ...;........... ........................ ............................... ....:.........:
Costa Mesa X
... ......................................... ...............................
Four sweepers plus a back -up. One
full time mechanic just for the
sweepers. Equipment replacement
assessment is $50,000 per year per
machine (including maintenance and
fuel costs). They sweep 34,600 curb
miles per year at a cost of $14.18 per
curb mile [$490,600 / yr.].
{As expected, In -House service
appears to be more cost effective
in larger cities.}
El Cajon X
Maintaining four sweepers to keep
three running. They are switching to
regenerative air sweepers. Found that
maintenance costs vary due to
training, breakage age of equipment,
etc. Sweepers are maintained by City
mechanics. At times, overtime is
required to get a sweeper back into
operation. They enjoy the flexibility of
in -house capability. Costs and cost
......................................`................................................_...............................
..................................... ............................... ....................... ...............................
com arisons unknown.
P................................................................................................................................ ...............................
Sweeping Inhouse 0503b
000225
Exhibit 1
Page 3
Summary of Responses
To Questionnaire
....................................................... .
Service Option
. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Responder In- House ` Contract
.............:
Responder's Comments
El Cerrito X
They had an In -house program years
ago. The sweeper they had required a
full time mechanic to keep in
operation. Experienced a lot of "down
time ". Operations and maintenance is
very hands -on, requiring a high level
of technical knowledge, skills,
experience and ability.
.................................................................................... ............................... ................................ ............................._ .
X
. .
....................................
They claim their costs are $17 19 per
e a bit high }. Cost of a new
cur mile { s
sweeper is $126,000. Dump fees are
considerable.
.................... ............................... ............. ............................... ............................................ ............................... ....................... ....:.........
Fillmore X
. ........................................................................................................................... ...............................
Switched to contract service in 1998.
Experienced much equipment down
time. Estimated cost savings is about
15 %.
..... _ ......................................................................... ............................... _ ........................... ............................... ............................................ ._.._.........__..........._...
Fontana X
..... _ ................
Switched to contract seven years ago.
Curb mile costs went from $25 down
to $11. No more missed days due to
equipment failure. No more missed
days due to sick time and vacation
time. No more high maintenance and
replacement costs. No way to resolve
complaints calls when capabilities
were impaired. Re- sweeps required
overtime pay. No more hassle over
meeting new AQMD equipment
emissions and dust generation
regulations.
. . . . ......... . .. . .............. . ........ . . . . ........... . .............. . .. . ................ . ......................... ................................................. ...;................................ ...............................
Foster City X
..... . ........ ............................... ...... ........................
Costs have remained stable.
............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . ........... _ . ............................... ...............................
Freemont X
. ............................... ........... ..................... ............................................ . d ..
No useful cost figures were provide .
Glendora X
...
ich
Performed rformed an analysis in 1996 which
cost sav ings would f oun d that n o
come from switching to contract.
{Not sure if all in -house costs were
factored into that analysis.}
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................
Sweeping_Inhouse_0503b
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
000226
Exhibit I
Page 4
Summary of Responses
To Questionnaire
: . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ................. . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ . . . ........... . . . ............................................... . ..........................................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
Service Option
. . . . .... . , ..............................
Responder
In -House Contract
Responder's Comments
Hermosa Beach
X
Switched to contract service. The cost
. of In -House equipment maintenance
is prohibitive.
Millbrae
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . .
X
... .
:............................................................................................................. ...............................
They prefer the control afforded by
their in-house capability. N o cost .
figures provided.
Modesto �
X
.......................................... .............................. ...............................
Equipment maintenance/replacement
assess $60,000 per year per
assessment is
machine (including maintenance and
fuel costs). Maintenance costs are
high.
{No mention of labor cost, curb mile `.
cost, down time, etc.}
Palm Springs
...................X_....... >......
.............
Because of maintenance costs and
ouble finding qu ified
trouble qualified
they are looking at going to contract
service.
........... . ... .......
CA
. ............. . . ............ ... ............................................. ..................
X
....................
They ar
city n their e the onyPittsburg,
immediate ar e a providing se rvic e
In- House. They believe they are price
competitive with surrounding cities,
but have no cost analysis to confirm
this. They use part -time employees .
with no benefits.
....................... ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .......... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... . ........ ............
San Juan Capistrano
............... . ........... . . . . . . . . . .......... ............................ .................................;...............
X
...............................
The cost of In -House equipment
t Hance i prohibitive.
main a is
San Pablo
..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................
X
. . .. . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . ............ . ............. ....................... ............................. ..........._............ .....
. Contract is less costly. When the .!
City went out to bid, PW prepared
a bid package in the amount of
$216,000 / year. The selected
contractor's bid was $68,000 / yr.
• Contractor usually has a number of
both broom and vacuum sweepers,
providing for both versatility and
back -up in case of equipment
failure.
......................_................................................. ............._.................
Santa Rosa
............................................... ................:..............
X
. .........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........
Maintaining four sweepers. Use three
on a daily basis. No useable cost
..................................................................................................................................................
.................:............. ...........................................................
fi ures were provided.
g............................ ...................P........... .............. ............................... ................. .
Sweeping Inhouse_0503b
00022'
Sweeping_Inhouse_0503b
000228
Page 5
Exhibit 1
Summary of Responses
To Questionnaire
...................................................... ............................... ,....
Service Op
Se
...............................
............`
Responder ...........
r In -House Contract
Responder's Comments
Stockton
X
They operate five sweepers. No
useable cost figures were provided.
........ ............................... ........... _......,.
Vacaville
..................................... ............................._. ........... :..........;................................................................
X
............................... ..............
They recommend using contract i
lability
They suggest void liability issues
ey su a we a
(accidents, workers compensation,
etc.) associated with an In -House
operation. They contract with the
refuse franchise. The sweeping costs
are added to the trash bill.
...........;.....
................................ ................. .....,.
X
fi were e p ovi r d d .
No useful cost figures e
Victorville
............................. ............................... ................... ...............................
Total:
............... ..................................................................................................................................................
16 ...............................
............. .................
Sweeping_Inhouse_0503b
000228
,,xhibit 2 Survey
Street SweepinCOSts
per Curb mile
$ In House $
24.88
9.62
Bakersfield 12.90
Brentwood
Burlingame
Campbell
Chico
Concord
Corona
Dublin
El Cerrito
Emoryville
Encinitas
F airfiled
Fountain Valley
Hanford
Huntington Beach
Kingsburg
La Canada- Flintridge
Manhaten Beach
Montclair
Moorpark
Orange
Palm Desert
Palmdale
Pittsburg
Pleasanton
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Jose
Santa Rosa
Sabastapol
Sunnyvale
Thousand Oaks
Victorville
Vista
18.36
17.74
13.06
20.22
21.91
25.50
41.72
11.45
16.58
20.00
14.30
18.46 50 -50
18.46
14.15
12.00
15.08
21.38
15.11
14.91
21.81
15.00
16.42
19.14
24.53
18.00
32.50
20.00
19.12
24.39
30.36
14.86
12.62
000
Sweeping_Inhouse_0503b