HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-2013 c9 street sweepingcounctL
âqenòâ Repopt
Meeting Date
6117113
Iteh Number
C9
FROM:
Prepared By:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Barbara Lynch, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: STREET SV/EEPING
RECOMMENDATIONS
Reject all Street Sweeping proposals and direct staff to resume City sweeping operations.
Authorize the Director of Finance and IT to reallocate the Flood Control budget appropriations in
order to provide the resources needed to continue the street sweeping program in-house and return
542,978 to fund balance in each year of the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
At its February 19, 2013 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to advertise a Request for
Proposal (RFP) to provide ongoing, citywide street sweeping services via contract (Attachment 1).
The service was to replace street sweeping services historically provided by City staff.
Cost proposals were received on March 27, 2013 after which the proposals were reviewed and
references checked. Cost proposals were all above the estimated cost for sweeping services
identilred at the time of authorization to advertise the RFP (Attachment 2). As part of the Council
report authorizing the advertising of the RFP, it was noted that the award would return to the
Council for final consideration if the costs were higher than estimated. If bids received were within
the estimate and available funds, staff would proceed with awarding a street sweeping contract.
However, the bids received were beyond both the estimate and the available funding. Therefore
staff is recommending this service be retained in-house. Based on the bids, a contract will be
approximately $60,000 more per year than in-house services, and when vehicle replacements and
repairs are considered, $20,000 more per year.
F'ISCAL IMPACT
The estimated per mile cost to sweep by contract provided at the time of authorization to advertise,
was $21.50 per curb mile swept. The proposal received by SP Maintenance, the lowest cost
proposer, was $22.85 per curb mile swept ($166,805 annually), resulting in a higher annual cost for
services than estimated.
The difference in cost between that estimated at the time the Council authorized the advertising of
the proposals and that received in the proposals, results in an average additional cost of $17,130 per
year over that originally estimated. This is due to the higher than estimated per mile swept cost and
a lower budgeted salary for the Sweeper Operation position in the 20I3-I5 Financial Plan (due to
the position being funded at the top step of the salary range in the 2012-13 budget, but funded at
mid-range in the 2013-15 budget.)
c9-1
Street Sweeping Page 2
Funding:20rJ-14 20r4-15
Existing Sweeping Contract
Employee Salary & Benefits
Fuel
Hauling
Re gular Ope rating Budget:
2/ 19 I 13 Council Augmentation
Total Funding Available
Proposed Contract Cost:
Additional Funds Needed
Cost Over ln-House Operation:
Future Savings:
s6,500 Downtown Friday morning sweep
, $zt,+oo. $81,600i
$l1,897 Sll,897
$10,000 s10,000
: $106,6971 $109,997;Nomraloperatingcosts
I
: S+Zplt: 542,978 Shown in 2013-15 operating budget
assumed for Year 2
funds for contl'act seruices
$60,108;s60,103,
$40,127'nepair parts & vehicle replacenrent
49,675$
$40,1271
Net Increased Cost:, $19,981. $19,976
It should be noted that if the Council approves in-house sweeping operations, the $42,978
augmentation funding will be available from the operating program budget for other pu{poses, as
these funds were only required if contract services was implemented.
Interim sweeping work is being paid for with salary savings from the vacant sweeper operator
position, which will continue through the remainder of the fiscal year.
ALTERNATIVES
l. Award a contrøct to SP Møintenønce in the amount of 8166,805 for Street Sweeping Contract
Services. A contract can be awarded to SP Maintenance to provide contract sweeping. An
additional $17,130 will be needed each year to augment the operating program budget, in
addition to the funds already added to the operating program in anticipation of contract services.
Staff continues to support the concept of contract sweeping as a way to provide reliable and
consistent service, as highlighted in the Council report requesting authorization to advertise the
RFP. The higher than anticipated cost, of an ongoing nature, was the primary consideration in
recommending City provided sweeping services. Funding for the 2013-15 years could be
obtained from the sale of the sweeper or from the General Fund Reserve; however, these are
onetime funding sources for an ongoing expense.
2, Reduce sweeping frequencies to match øvailøble funds. This is not a reconìmended altemative
for several reasons. 1) It is contrary to the Council's Neighborhood Wellness Goal and prior
service standards. 2) The original rationale of a contract providing more reliability is lost with a
reduction in sweeping. 3) Reduction of sweeping will result in the City not meeting its
obligations under its approved Stormwater Permit adopted as part of the State regulated General
Stormwater Permit. 4) Reduced sweeping will increase the burden for the stormdrain cleaning
c9-2
Street Sweepinq Page 3
crew who will have higher accumulations of debris in the inlets, increasing the overall cost for
the City of debris removal.
Service reductions to accommodate the contract cost could be achieved with the following
changes, including; a) no sweeping anywhere in the City for a month, b) reducing residential
area sweeping by one month, reducing alI arteúal street sweeping by about half, but leaving
downtown sweeping in place, c) reducing residential area sweeping by 3 months, leaving
arterial and downtown sweeping in place. The reductions may be greater if the vendor unit cost
increases, as a result of the City awarding a smaller contract.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Agenda Report Authorizing Advertising of Request for Proposals
2. Proposal Summary
sweep
c9-3
counctL
âqenòâ Repopt
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1
Veeting Dâte
)-19-1?
tem Nunrber
FROM:
Prepared By:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Daryl Grigsby, Public V/orks Director
Barbara Lynch, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: STREET SWEEPING OPERATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals for Citywide Street Sweeping Services.
Z. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract for Citywide Street Sweeping Services il
proposals are within the estimated cost.
3. Authorize the reduction of staff levels by 1.0 FTE (Heavy Equipment Operator I) in the Flood
Control program, pending acceptance of a contract proposal for Citywide Sweeping Services
and completion of meet and confer requirements.
4. Authorize the surplus designation of the sweeper, Fleet Asset No. 0909, by sale, auction, trade-
in or other method in accordance with the City's policies and procedures as prescribed in the
Financial Management Manual Section 405-C, pending acceptance and implementation of a
contract proposal for Citywide Sweeping Services.
DISCUSSION
City street sweeping has historically been performed by full-time regular City employees who
sweep approximately 7,000 curb-miles per year. In 2010, the City established a small contract with
SP Maintenance to sweep portions of the downtown after Farmer's Market, totaling about 260 curb-
miles per year. On October 2,2012, the City Manager approved an amendment to the agreement to
have SP Maintenance perform City-wide sweeping temporarily after the City's long-time sweeper
operator retired leaving the positionvacant, to allow the City time to evaluate alternative strategies
for sweeping service.
Contract sweeping services aÍe an available altemative to the City's employment of a full time
Heavy Equipment Operator 1 (Sweeper Operator). Some municipal functions, particularly those
which do not vary in complexity or where consistent coverage is problematic, are well performed
by private contract services. A few examples are residential and commercial trash collection
recycling collection, and street sweeping.
With an eye to improving the consistency and reliability of sweeping operations, the option of
converting this work to contract services was analyzed to assist the City in considering this change
in service delivery method. The table below summarizes pros and cons from various sources
regarding City operated sweeping efforts and contract services.
c9-4
Street Sweeping Operations
ATTACHMENT 1 - 2
Page 2
. Challenging to cover absences. ljncovered absences results in missed or
delayed sweeping; impacting both customer
service levels and the City's stormwater
permit-related sweeping frequencies
. Operator develops relationships and
knowledge of community. Good quality. Extra work can be readily accommodated at
no extra cost. Quicker availability for emergencies
Pros:
Cons
. Good Quality. Better absence coverage for consistency
and reliability of service levels. Fleet reduction. Easier to reduce or expand services
Road crew covers ad hoc sweeping needs -
emergency needs
Less cost control (cost is a function of
bidding / not City salary negotiations)
Pros:
Cons:
Fewer public complaints on quality
Pros
t . No need for backup vehicles or personnel. Option for alternative fuel vehicle were
provided. Less expensive (see cons)
' Quality is acceptable (see cons)
. About the same cost (see pros). Quality is 'terrible' (see pros). Any extra work is extra cost. Difficult to track disposal costs - are you
paying for disposal of other's debris?. Difficult to define in the contract what is
"clean," leading to potential conflicts on
contract compliance
Pros:
Cons:
From other Agencies (List Serve - l9 cities responded)
Cit¡' of San Luis Obispo staff (line staff, supervisor, division manager)
C Serryice:Contract Service:
C Service:Contract Service:
Pros & Cons - Table 1
The service comparisons indicate the primary benefits of in-house service are quicker emergency
response and easier extra work accommodation. The primary benef,rts of contract service are
increased reliability and consistency for the operation, and service level flexibility. After careful
consideration of the above factors, it is stafls recommendation that the most important element of a
successful sweeping program is a consistent schedule and flexible responsiveness. Therefore, a
private contract is the recommended and preferred method of service delivery.
c9-5
Street Sweeping Operations
ATTACHMENT 1 - 3
Page 3
Cost Com Estimate - Table 2
rOperation Bpenses Currently Budgeted (available to
: Sweeper Operator Compens ation
:fuel for Sweeper and Hauling
iDisposal Fees
I subtotal:
i Btimated Contract S ervice Cos t
17,000 Curb Miles @ $21.5O/mile
r Ànnuali
apply to contract service)
$85,625iIncludes all compensation costs with PERS at the future
' : compensation rate - Employee paid 8% PERS
' $11,897i
Operation Bu@et Increase for Contract Sweeping:$42,978 i(Estinnted cost) - (Available budget)
Additional funding would be needed beyond this if
e>ûra work services are desired.
Operation Expenses Not Currently Budgeted (funds not currently ar,ailable to apply to contract service)
Equipment RepairParts $13,839;Materials budget is currently underfunded
Veh icle Annualized Replacement Cost $26,288 ìVehicle replacement is currently underfunded
Additional Btimated Cost for Contract Sweeping
s40,127:
$2,852,Accounts for both budgeted and unbudgeted items
While the 540,127 total is not in the cuffent budget, those are actual costs which in the past have
been borne by shifting other funds, and are the subject of a future additional budget request. If a
shift is made to contract services, the cost evaluation shows that initially, and under the current
Financial Plan, $43,000 on an annual basis will be needed to augment the operating budget to allow
contract sweeping. The actual bids received could vary from the estimated $150,000 shown above.
In addition, accounting for projected (underfunded) annual vehicle costs, the actual augmentation to
the City's costs is closer to $3,000 annually. These costs are approximate based on known
information of City operations, conversations with a contract sweeping company, and reasonable
estimations. These costs assume no extra work. The additional amount required is dependent upon
the actual bids received from the private sector.
Contract service costs are less within the control of the City than with in-house operations. While
the City periodically advertises its contract service agreements for new proposals, the unit costs will
be dictated by the companies submitting proposals, reflecting their staff and operation costs. The
City received three sweeping proposals in September of 2010 for $23, $25, and $50 per curb mile
for a small contract. The cost analysis shown in Table 2 above, used a per mile cost of $21.50,
based on conversations with the current service provider indicating a unit price reduction could be
anticipated with a larger contract. A moderate adjustment in curb mile costs from $21.50 to $23
changes the needed budget augmentation to $53,000 from $43,000. Conversely a curb mile cost of
$20 reduces the augmentation to $33,000.
Fleet Reduction
The City will be able to reduce its fleet if sweeping shifts permanently to contract, as the company
will be required to provide the equipment. Reducing the size of the fleet reduces ongoing fleet
replacement and equipment repair costs identified in Table 2, and associated maintenance efforts.
btotal:Su
Street Sweepi Cost Evnlr¡ation
c9-6
ATTACHMENT 1 -4
Street Sweeping Operations Page 4
Once the City shifts to contract services, going back to in-house operations will take a capital
investment to restore a sweeper to the fleet. Projected sweeper replacemerf cost is 5272,000,
tentatively scheduled for 2016-17 .
The Contract Management
Contract oversight is anticipated to be slightly more time intensive for the Street Maintenance
Supervisor, than oversight of a regular employee. This is due to the need to review monthly
reporling and compare it to historical sweeping miles to verify accuracy before payment, and
periodic re-advertising of the contract. However, management of the in-house operation has
become challenging without a backup operator to provide coverage.
Recommendation Summary
Contract services appear to be the right direction for the City to go to provide street sweeping. The
primary benefit of contracting over in-house operation is reliability and consistency of sweeping
operations. Generally, City service standards and Stormwater permit regulations were met with City
operations. The exception was weekend sweeping which was eliminated to reduce operating
progtam costs. On occasion the weekday sweeping schedule lapsed when the Sweeper Operator was
on approved leave and coverage was not available with other staff. The issue is expected to be
resolved under contract services, as a contractor, once provided the service standards and contract
specifications, must staff the operation accordingly to meet those objectives.
Service flexibility will be a benefit of contract services as well. The RFP includes a cost request to
resume weekend sweeping in the downtown core, and pricing for extra services. Weekend sweeping
and special event cleanup will be included in the service agreement if the overall quotation for
services is lower than anticipated. Accident clean-ups, and "emergencies" need a quick response,
and should continue to be provided by staff with the sweeping equipment assigned to the Street
Maintenance program.
Oversight of the contract, relative to staff operations, is currently anticipated to provide little
additional workload to the Street Supervisor. This will be monitored during the initial conversion to
determine if there are unusual circumstances of oversight not foreseen by the analysis. Costs are
anticipated to be very similar to in-house operations. Costs will be confirmed with the opening and
award of a proposal for service, and no changes will be made in staffrng or operating programs until
it is clear the contract service is a reasonable cost alternative.
Sweepin g Effectiveness
Concerns have surfaced periodically regarding the effectiveness of sweeping operations in
neighborhoods with heavy on-street parking. This issue is present regardless of the method of
service delivery. Staff will incorporate review of options to address this as part the 2013-14 work
program and bring a recommendation forward for consideration.
Meet and Confer Requirements
Assignment of duties including the decision to use contract services, is a management right;
however, the City must meet and confer with the affected labor group (SLOCEA) regarding
potential impacts of the change to the labor unit. SLOCEA will be notified of the City's intent to
make this change upon approval of this request by Council. SLOCEA will be provided the
c9-7
ATTACHMENÏ 1 - 5
Street Sweeping Operations Page 5
opportunity to identify potential impacts of eliminating this currently unhlled position and the
parties will meet and confer in good faith over those impacts prior to full implementation.
F'ISCAL IMPACT
Funding of this contract operation will require approximately $43,000 in annual funding
augmentation to the operating program, along with a shift in operating expenses of approximately
$107,500 from other program areas as noted in Table 2. Contract service costs for the remainder of
the current fiscal year will be covered by salary savings at an estimated cost of $8,000 per month.
Costs going forward will be documented for Council airproval as a Significant Operating Program
Change in the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
If upon receiving cost proposals for sweeping services, per-mile costs come in higher than
anticipated, staff will return the item to the City Council for a ftnal determination. The Council
could determine aI that time to continue with City operations and complete the recruitment for a
City Heavy Equipment Operator I position.
The City will have a one-time income from the resale of the sweeper if it shifts to contract services.
The curent value of this unit is estimated at $20,000, which could assist in offsetting the initial year
of contract service. The sale of the sweeper should be delayed until a new contract is awarded.
ALTERNATIVES
City Staff Operation. Sweeping could continue to be provided with a staff person. No changes
would be needed in operation budgets or in sweeping operations to retain the existing service levels
and costs.
Contract Services - Reduced Frequency. Contract services could be used, but frequencies
reduced such that there would be no net increase to the operating budget. To reduce the contract
cost to the current operating budget (reduce costs by $43,000) a30Yo reduction in sweeping would
occur. Reducing sweeping to account for the current operating budget plus unbudgeted capital
investment costs is a2o/o reduction or $3,000.
A30% reduction in sweeping volume is not recommended because 1) a service reduction would be
contrary to the City's Neighborhood Wellness goal and prior service standards; 2) the City's current
obligation under its Stormwater Management Plan would not be met; and 3) increased effort will
result for the stormdrain cleaning staff to remove higher accumulations of debris in the inlets. A
$3,000 reduction is reasonable, but such a minor savings does not warrant the high level of effort
that would be necessary to revise the routes. Additionally, Stormwater obligations would not be
met.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Request for Proposals to provide contract sweeping services
2. Financial Management Manual Section 405-C
c9-8
ATTACHMENT 1 - b
Street Sweeping Operations Page 6
t:\æunc¡l agenda reports\2o13\20'13-02-1g\street sweeping (grigsbylynch)Veport
"r""ping ops. dOCX
c9-9
20
1
3
St
r
e
e
t
Sw
e
e
p
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
:
50
3
2
0
-
2
0
1
3
S
S
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
Op
e
n
i
n
g
:
Ma
r
c
h
27
,2
0
L
3
PR
O
P
O
S
A
L
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
DBI Item Price Total Price s81.oo s8L.oo Ssr.ooss91,300.00 s2,430.00 S40s.oo ss94.135.00
Cl
e
a
n
St
r
e
e
t
It
e
m
Pr
i
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
i
c
e
s2
9
.
3
0
s2
9
.
3
0
s2
9
.
3
0
s2
1
3
,
8
9
0
.
0
0
s8
7
9
.
o
o
S1
4
6
.
s
o
s2
1
4
.
9
1
5
.
s
0
VE
N
C
O
It
e
m
Pr
i
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
i
c
e
s2
2
.
e
s
s2
2
.
9
s
52
2
.
9
s
S1
6
7
,
s
3
s
.
o
o
s6
8
8
.
s
0
51
,
1
,
4
.
7
s
s1
6
8
,
3
3
8
.
2
s
SP
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
It
e
m
Pr
i
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
i
c
e
5z
z
Sz
z
52
2
.8
5
.8
5
.8
5
S1
6
5
,
8
o
s
.
o
o
s6
8
s
.
s
0
St
1
,
4
.
z
s
s1
6
7
,
6
0
4
J
5
It
e
m
:
Un
i
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
Sw
e
e
p
Mi
s
c
Ex
t
r
a
Sw
e
e
p
DT
Co
r
e
Wk
e
n
d
Sw
e
e
p
Cu
r
b
Mi
l
e
Cu
r
b
Mi
l
e
Cu
r
b
Mi
l
e
73
0
0
30 5
To
t
a
l
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
s
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
lt
e
m
s
:
7
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
:
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
is
ba
s
e
d
on
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
re
v
i
e
w
an
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
co
n
t
e
n
t
,
st
a
f
f
i
n
g
,
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
&
re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
IF
AW
A
R
D
E
D
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Bu
d
g
e
t
Fu
n
d
s
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
fo
r
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Sw
e
e
p
i
n
g
:
Pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Au
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ad
d
i
t
¡
o
n
a
l
Au
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ne
e
d
e
d
t
S1
0
6
,
6
9
7
.
0
0
54
2
,
9
7
8
.
0
0
S1
7
,
1
3
0
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
u
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
:
56
0
,
1
0
8
.
0
0
xlsx -of1
SP
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
It
e
m
Pr
i
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
i
c
e
s2
2
.
8
s
5z
z
.
a
s
s2
2
.
8
s
S1
6
6
,
s
o
s
.
o
o
$o
.
o
o
5o
.
o
o
Si
-
6
6
,
8
0
s
.
0
0
It
e
m
:
Un
i
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
v
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
Sw
e
e
p
Mi
s
c
Ex
t
r
a
Sw
e
e
p
DT
Co
r
e
Wk
e
n
d
Sw
e
e
p
Cu
r
b
Mi
l
e
Cu
r
b
Mi
l
e
Cu
r
b
Mi
l
e
73
0
0
0 0
To
t
a
l
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
lt
e
m
s
6/
3
/
2
0
1
-
2
PM
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
(2
)
:
20
1
3
Sweep Propos"ð9.