HomeMy WebLinkAbout7219_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 7219
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS
APPROVING THE CITY'S PAVEMENT ACCELERATED REPAIR IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGY(-PARIS") PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN FUND TRANSFERS
AND MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO
WHEREAS,traffic associated with the City's solid waste,water and wastewater
enterprise funded vehicles(the"Utility Vehicles")places a significant burden on City streets and
is a significant cause of street damage;and
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that unless certain actions are taken,pavement
damage caused by Utility Vehicles will result in adverse impacts including accelerated
deterioration of pavement conditions on City streets, reduced ride quality, increased vehicle
repairs, increased energy consumption and disruption to traffic flow; and
WTEREAS,requiring the City's enterprise funds to pay on an annual basis the costs of
damage to City streets directly attributable to the Utility Vehicles will prevent these undesirable
consequences,thereby allowing the City to maintain the streets and roads in a good condition
and avoid the deterioration of pavement to the point where extensive rehabilitation or
reconstruction becomes necessary at a higher cost; and
WHEREAS,the City Council also finds that, in the absence of the City's enterprise funds
paying the costs of damage caused to the City streets by the Utility Vehicles,existing and future
sources of general fund revenue will be inadequate to ftind a substantial portion of pavement
repair for the City's streets necessary to avoid unacceptable pavement condition indexes in the
City created by Utility Vehicle impacts; and
WHEREAS,accordingly, it is the intent of the City Council to establish by this resolution
a fair and equitable method of securing a portion of the funds necessary to repair the damage
caused to City streets as a result of Utility Vehicles to preserve acceptable pavement conditions
throughout the City; and
WHEREAS,the City has commissioned two independent studies that determined the
street repair costs attributable to damage caused by Utility Vehicles is approximately$3,739,500
annually; and
WHEREAS,the City has also commissioned an independent study that determined that
the costs for existing street pavement damages attributable to past defective paving patches
performed by the water and wastewater departments is approximately$6,240.000; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered that independent studies analyzing the cost
to repair street damage caused by Utility Vehicles and past defective paving patches;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the costs incurred by the City for
such street repair resulting from Utility Vehicles should be defrayed by the annual transfer of
Beeler"- m1utiom\Rm 7201-7299\7219 PARIS.doc - I -
finds from the City's enterprise funds to the general find to pay for at least a portion of those
costs; and
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands as
follows:
Section 1. This City Council approves the findings and determinations of the
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report,dated September 18,2012, as prepared by TYE
Engineering,Inc.,a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A,"and authorizes staff to
implement the corresponding recommendations of such report.
Section 2. This City Council approves the findings and determinations of the Utility
Repair Pavement Restoration Report,dated September 18,2012,as prepared by TKE
Engineering,Inc.. a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"B,"and authorizes staff to
implement the corresponding recommendations of such report.
Section 3. This City Council approves the findings and determinations of the Rates
Analysis for Road Impacts report dated August 28, 2012, as prepared by R3 Consulting Group,
Inc.,a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"C,"and authorizes staff to implement the
corresponding recommendation of such report.
Section 4. This City Council directs staff to perform a one-time transfer of water and
wastewater funds totaling$6.24 million to the City-wide street pavement program to pay the
costs of repair of all defective paving patches caused by the City's water and wastewater
utility vehicles,as described in the Utility Repair Pavement Restoration Report.
Section 5. This City Council directs staff to transfer and utilize solid waste funds
totaling$3.62 million annually,commencing in FY 2012-2013,to the City-wide street paving
program to pay for the impacts and damages to City streets caused by the City's solid waste
vehicles,as described in the Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report, and the Rates Analysis for
Road Impacts report
Section 6. This City Council authorizes staff to transfer and utilize water funds
totaling$102,770 annually,commencing in FY 2012-2013,to the City-wide street paving
program to pay for the impacts and damages to City streets caused by the City's water
department vehicles,as described in the Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report.
Section 7. This City Council authorizes staff to transfer and utilize wastewater funds
totaling$16,730 annually,commencing in FY 2012-2013,to the City-wide street paving
program to pay for the impacts and damages to City streets caused by the City's wastewater
department vehicles,as described in the Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report.
Section 8. This City Council directs the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the
City Council's consideration to implement the recommended solid waste rate adjustments set
forth in the report necessary to recover the costs associated with damages from solid waste
vehicles and for the City staff to issue the required Proposition 218 notice for a public hearing.
1. cl 7201-T29%7219 PARIS.doc -2 -
Section 9. This City Council directs staff to commence the design of, and to
implement, the City-wide repair pavement program utilizing available funds as described and
outlined in this Resolution and the Attached reports.
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 18th day of September,2012.
Pete Aguilar, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sam Irwin,CYy CYerk
1Acc1erk\Reso1ufionsXRes 7201-7 17219 PARI Am -3 -
1, Sam Irwin,City Clerk of the City of Redlands,hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was
adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18'day of September,
2012,by the following vote:
.AYES: Councilmembers Harrison,Bean, Gardner; Mayor Aguilar
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT; Councilmeer Foster
Sam Irwin, City Cleyk
laccletCResolutionARes 7201-729917219 PARiS.doe - 4 -
EXHIBIT
City of Redlands
Pavement Deterioration
Analysis Report
September 18, 2012
Prepared by:
TKE Engineering, Inc.
2305 Chicago Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................. 1
Introduction ........................................................................3
Background .........................................................................3
Approach ......................................................................... 5
Conclusion ......................................................................... 12
, ge Ii
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
Executive Summary
In an effort to determine the approximate pavement deterioration
percentage caused by refuse and City utility vehicles, TKE is using a vehicle
load factor method developed by the American Association of Stacie Highway
and Transportation Officials. Using this method, TKE has calculated typical
annual vehicle loads imparted on residential, collector and arterial streets.
The vehicle loading factors for refuse vehicles weire averager; between the
empty and full load factors to calculate the pervert impact. As shown in the
tables below, refuse vehicles combine for 56.30/d vehicle impact loading on
residential streets, 15.5% vehicle impact loading on collector streets and
9.1% vehicle impact loading on arterial streets, while City utility vehicles
contribute 1.6% vehicle impact loading on residential streets, 0.9% vehicle
impact loading on collector streets and 0.5% vehicle impact loading on
arterial streets.
As shown by the percentages, refuse vehicles account for the highest vehicle
loading factors regularly operating r-n residential streets and as such, are the
major contributor to residential street deterioration. Due to the higher
volume of heavier vehicles on collector and arterial streets, refuse vehicles
are a much lower contributor to the deterioration of those streets. The
relatively low percentage rates fon City utility vehicles are a direct correlation
to their low relative traffic volumes and vehicle iorcd factors.
Using the estimated 50 year coirstruction and maintenance costs shown in
the tables below for each street type, the relative annualized refuse and City
Futility vehicle impact cost totals per street mile are $16,500 and $480 for
residential streets, $6,300 and $360 for collector streets and $7,000 and
$400 for arterial streets. The City of Redlands total street lane miles are as
follows, 59% residential (378 lane miles), 20% collector (129 lane miles)
and 21% arterial (133 lane miles). Using this information with the vehicle
load impact percentages and annualized impact totals per lane mile shown
above the annual City wide impact cost is as follows:
Residential streets relative City wide yearly refuse and City utility
vehicle construction cost impact total for 378 lane miles at $8,250 and
$240 per lane mile is $3,118,500 and $90,720.
Page 11
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
Collector streets relative City wide yearly refuse and City utility vehicle
construction cost impact total for 129 lane miles at $2,100 and $120
per lane mile is $270,900 and $15,480.
Arterial streets relative City wide yearly refuse and City utility vehicle
construction cost impact total for 133 lane miles at $1,750 and $100
per lane mile is $232,750 and $13,300.
Therefore, there is an annualized City wide total of $3,622,150 of street
related damage from refuse vehicle impact loads and $119,500 from City
utility vehicle impact loads. In addition to the projected road maintenance
costs, it is fair to assume that a percentage of pothole repair costs equal to
the impact percentages would be attributed to the corresponding vehicle
type.
P _ e� e I2
�$ Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
Introduction
In an effort to determine the approximate pavement deterioration
percentage caused by refuse and City utility vehicles, the City of Redlands
has consulted with TKE Engineering, Inc. to perform a pavement analysis
report. The report will identify the estimated amount of yearly maintenance
cost attributed to refuse and City utility vehicles traveling on Citi streets and
will provide a means of visualizing and understanding how the heavy loads
affect the streets service life.
Background
Over the past 70 years, the design of paved driving surfaces has evolved
through a number of formulas derived from experimental test procedures.
Today, engineers have an extensive kowledcce and understanding on
exactly how pavement surfaces react to the daily stresses they are subjected
to. When designing asphalt pavement streetls two major factors are
considered; (1) the .strength of the underlying soil and (2) the degree of
traffic loading the street will be sultj cted to, also called the ""Traffic Idex"
or "TI".
The strength of the underlying soil` is tested by a Gea echnical
Engineer and will determine the thickness of the overall pavement
section required to support the traffic bads expected for each street.
A pavement section is comprised sed o the asphalt concrete pavement
and agreccate base subgrade that is plcd beneath the asphalt
concrete pavement and attove` he underlying soil. The weaker the
underlying soil is on a specific street, the greater the overall thickness
of aggregate base sdbgracce and asphalt concrete pavement will need
to bE.
Trac loading represents the weight that a vehicle applies to the
pavement surface and how often that weight is applied based on the
number of axes the vehicle contains. Since the configuration and
weight of vehicles traveling on the streets varies so drastically, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
( SHTO) and other research and regulatory agencies have developed
a method to represent all vehicles in a similar manner called the
Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL). The Traffic Index formula utilizes
a design number of ESAL`s a street is expected to handle and converts
ag _ 13
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
it to a usable number for the design of the pavement section. The
higher the TI value, the greater number of ESAL`s the street was
designed to withstand.
ESAL represents the damaging effect of an axle of any mass can b
represented by a number of 18,000 pound equivalent axle loads. For
example, one application of a 12,000 pound single axle was fend to
cause damage equal to approximately 0.23 applications of an 18,000
pound single axle load. Therefore, the 18,000 pound single axle load
causes 4 times the damage as a 12,000 pound single axle load. In
fact, for a load that is twice as large as an initial load, the damage to
the roadway is roughly 16 times greater.
Using the ESAL method, AASKTO has developed a table identifying
typical vehicle load factors (VLF`s) and the nelative damage the vehicle
impart on a roadway. Using the table from Appendix D of the 1993
AASHTO Guide for Design of Prcerne t Structures we find the following
values:
Passenger
Car
Vehicle VLF Equivalent
Passenger Car (Assumed Base Line) 0.0004 1
Pre-Mix 7 yd Concrete Truer 1.84 41600
Pre-Mix 10 yd 3 Concrete True 2.03 5,100
Standard Delivery Truck 0.50 1,250
Residential Refuse Garbage True (Empty) 2.01 5,000
Residential Refuse Garbage Truck (Full) 4.71 11,800
Residential Recycle Garbage Truck (Empty) 1.20 3,000
Residential Recycle Garbe Truck (Full) 2.82 7,000
Residential Green Garbage Truck (Empty) 1.70 4,200
Residential Green Garbage Truck (Full) 3.99 10,000
Utility Vehicle 0.50 11250
City Bus 3.49 8,700
School Bus 2.98 7,500
Fire Truck 0.68 1,700
ag _ 14
RwohaPavement Deterioration Analysis Report
The above table depicts the relative and disproportionate amount of
damage a single heavy vehicle can impart on the roadway in relation
to a passenger vehicle.
Approach
Using the accepted vehicle loading factors developed by AASHTO, TKE has
calculated typical annual vehicle loads imparted on residential, collector and
arterial streets. It is assumed that streets will see similar vehicular traffic on
a weekly basis due routine patterns within society. Therefore, weeny
percentages of vehicle impact loading will also reflect accurate yearly
percentages which can be used to calculate related street cortructln and
maintenances costs. Our calculations are based on the following estimated
traffic volumes.
Residential streets will have volumes of ap ro ;imately 200 passenger
vehicles per day, one refuse, recycle, and greenwaste trash truck each
per week, one City Utility vehicle every other week and 12 standard
delivery trucks per week.
Collector streets will have VOILmes of apprrc irr ately 2,000 passenger
vehicles per day, three refuse, recycle, arrd greenwaste trash truck
each per week, 60 standard delivery trucks per week, 3 City Utility
vehicles per week, 2 fire trucks per week, 14 City buses per week, 10
school Causes per week and 1 commercial trucks per week.
Arterial streets will have volumes of approximately 12,000 passenger
vehicles per day, tern refuse, recycle, and greenwaste trash truck each
per week, 200 standard celivery trucks per week, 10 City Utility
vehicles per week, 20 fire truce per week, 50 City buses per week, 50
school pauses per week and 200 commercial trucks per week.
The relative vehicleloading 'factors for refuse vehicles were averaged
between the empty and furl load factors to calculate the percent impact. As
shown in the tables below, refuse vehicles combine for 56.3% vehicle impact
loading on esid ntial streets, 15.5% vehicle impact loading on collector
streets and 9.1% vehicle impact loading on arterial streets, while City utility
vehicles contribute 1.6% vehicle impact loading on residential streets, 0.9%
1 e 1s
r-_
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
vehicle impact loading on collector streets and 0.5% vehicle impact loading
on arterial streets.
As shown by the percentages, refuse vehicles account for the highest vehicle
loading factors regularly operating on residential streets and as such are the
major contributor to residential street deterioration. Due to the higher
volume of heavier vehicles on collector and arterial streets, refuse vehicles
are a much lower contributor to the deterioration of those streets. The
relatively low percentage rates for City utility vehicles are a direct correlation
to their low relative traffic volumes and vehicle load factors.
P= age 16
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
Residential Streets
Vehicle Weekly Total Weekly Percent
Vehicle Type Load Factor Vehicle Total Impact Impact Total
Passenger Vehicle 0.0004 1400 0.56 3.6% -
Refuse 3.36 1 3.36 21.6 /0
Recycle 2.42 1 2.42 15.5% 56.3%
Greenwaste 3.00 1 3.00 19.2%
Delivery Truck 0.50 12 6.00 38.50IR -
City Utility Vehicle 0.50 0.5 0.25 1.0t%
City Bus 2.98 0 0.00 0.0C'(-, -
School Bus 3.49 0 0.00 0.0 n/,) -
Fire Truck 0.68 0 0.00 0.00/0 -
Commercial Truck 2.03 0 0.00 0.00.0 -
15.59 106.0% -
Collector Streets
Vehicle Load Weekly Total Weekly Percent
Vehicle Type Factor Vehicle Total Imp -Impact _ Total
Passenger Vehicle 0.0004 1&000 5.60 3.3% -
Refuse 3.36 3 10.08 5.9%
Recycle 2A2 3 7.25 4.3% 15.5%
Greenwaste 3.00 3 9.00 5.3%
Delivery Truck 0.50 60 30.00 17.7% -
City Utility Vehicle 0.50 3 1.50 0.9% -
City Bus 2.98 14 41..72 24.6% -
School Bus 3.49 10 34.90 20.6% -
Fire Truck 0.68 2 1.36 0.8% -
Commercial Truck 2.03 14 28.4_2 16.7% -
169.83 100.00/0 -
Art*rial Streets
Vehicle Load Weekly Total Weekly Percent
Vehicle Type_ Factor Vehicle Total Impact Impact Total
Passenger Vehicle 0,0004 84000 33.60 3.5% -
Refuse 3.36 10 33.60 3.5%
Recycle 2.42 10 24.15 2.5% 9.1%
Gmeenwaste 3.00 10 30.00 3.1%
Delivery Truck 0.50 200 100.00 10.3% -
City Utility Vehicle 0.50 10 5.00 0.50/0 -
City Bus 2.98 50 149.00 15.4% -
School Bus 3.49 50 174.50 18.0% -
Fire Truck 0.68 20 13.60 1.4% -
Camniernal Truck 2.03 200 406.00 41.9% -
969.45 100.0%
Page 17
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
Construction and maintenance costs for each street type have considerable
differences. In general, residential streets are not as wide and are designed
with smaller pavement sections resulting in lower cost per paved mile of
roadway, while collector and especially arterial streets result in much Higher
cost per paved mile. To estimate construction and maintenance costs we
have assumed the following design standards for each street type.
Residential streets are 36-feet wide with a pavement section of 3-
inches of asphalt concrete pavement over 4-inches of crushed
aggregate base.
Collector streets are 40-feet wide with a pavement section of 4-inches
of asphalt concrete pavement over 5-inches of crushed aggregate
base.
Arterial streets are 64-feet wide with a pavement section of 5-inches
of asphalt concrete pavement over 6-inches of crushed aggregate
base.
In the tahles below, we have shown typical construction and maintenance
pavement costs for each street type over a typical replacement life
expectancy peritd of 50 years. The tables include construction costs
breakdowns with item descriptions, units, quantities, unit costs and totals for
each street type, including street construction (year 1), street slurry
aTaintenance (year 15), street overlay reconstruction (year 30), street slurry
inaintenance (year 40) and full street reconstruction (year 50). The costs
are calculated using a 2012 cost baseline with no assumed inflation and are
ehown per linear mile of full street width.
FFor streets that are not properly maintained, additional street maintenance
will be required in the form of pothole repair. Pothole repair costs would
also be attributed at percentage rates equal to those described in the impact
tables above. Therefore, 56.3% of the City's annual pothole repair costs on
nesidential streets would be attributed to refuse vehicles.
Page 18
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
Residential Streets 36-Foot Width
Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
Construction Year 1
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10, 0.0(
Asphalt Pavement Tans 3369 $ 85.00 $ 28 , 34. 0
Aggregate Base CY 2295 $ 55.00 $ 126,198.52
Striping LS 1 10 0_40:00 $ 10,000.00
Subtotal: $ 432,532.92
Maintenance Year 15
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 10,000,00 $ 10,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Slurry SF 168M $ 0;40 $ 67,584.00
Striping LS 1 1((,000.00 10 000.00
Subtotal: $ 87,684.00
Maintenance Year 30
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 1((,000;00 $ 10,0 1.00
Asphalt Pavement Crind SF 168960 $ 0.50 $ 84,480.00
Asphalt Pavement Overlay Toric 1684 $ 85.00 $ 143,1,67.20
Striping LS 1 10 000,00 0 000.00
Subtotal: $ 247,647.20
Maintenance Year 40) _
Traffic Control S 1 � 10,040.00 $ 10,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Slurry SF 168960 $ 0.40 $ 67,584.00
Stri € LS 1 $ 1(( non nn 10 000.00
Subtotal: $ 87,584.00
Maintenance (Year 50)_____
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Grind SF 168960 $ 1.00 $ 168,960.00
Asphalt Pavement Tors 3369 $ 85.00 $ 286,334.40
Aggregate Base CY 2295 $ 55.00 $ 126,198.52
String LS 1 10,000m 10 000.00
Subtotal: $ 601,492.92
Total: $ 1,460,000.00
Refuse Impact Total (56.3%): $ 823,000.00
Annualized Refuse Impact Total: $ 16,500.00
City Utility Vehicle Impact Total (1.6%): $ 24,000.00
Annualized City Utility Vehicle Impact Total: $ 480.00
Page 19
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
Collector Streets 40-Foot Width
Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
Construction Year 1
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Tons 5053 $ 85.00 $ 429,50L60
Aggregate Base CY 3227 $ 55.011 $ 177,466.67
Striping LS 1 20 000.00 20 00f .00
Sabtot l: 646,9 8.27
Maintenance Year 15
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000M
Asphalt Pavement Slurry SF 190080 $ 0,40 $ 76,032.00
Striping LS 120,000.00 20 000.00
Subtotal: $ 116,032.00
Maintenance Year 30
Traffic Control LS 1 20,000,00 $ 20,0010.00
Asphalt Pavement Grind SF 19080 0.50 $ 95,040.00
Asphalt Pavement Overlay Tans 1695 $ 85.00 $ 161,063.10
Striping L 1 $ 20 000.00 20 00.00
Subtotal: $ 296,1:03.10
Maintenance Year 40
Traffic Control LS 1 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Slurry SF 190080 $ 0.40 $ 76,032.00
Stri In I S1 S 20 00000 20 000.00
Sib total: $ 116,032.00
Maintenance Yea 50'
Traffic Control; LS _ $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Grind SF 190080 $ 1.00 $ 190,080.00
Asphalt Pavement Tons 5053 $ 85.00 $ 429,501.60
Aggregate Base CY 3227 $ 55.00 $ 177,466.67
Striin LS 1 20 000.00 20 000.00
Subtotal: $ 837,048.27
Total: $ 2,020,000.00
Refuse Impact Total (15.5%): $ 314,000.00
Annualized Refuse Impact Total: $ 6,300.00
City Utility Vehicle Impact Total (0.910): $ 18,000.00
Annualized City Utility Vehicle Impact Total: $ 360.00
Page g e 1 10
Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
Arterial Streets 64-Foot Width
Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
Construction Year 1
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000,00
Asphalt Pavement Tons 10527 $ 85.00 $ 894,795.00
Aggregate Base CY 6453 $ 55.00 $ 354,933.33
Striping LS 1 40 OQ0:00 40 000.00
StLbtotl: $ 1,314,728.33
Maintenance Year 15
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 25,000. 0 $ 25,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Slurry SF 316800 $ 0.40 $ 126,720.00
Striping LS 1 w $ 40 OJI)O 40000.00
SoLbtotal:^ $ 191,720.00
Maintenance Year 30
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 25,000, 0 $ 25,100.00
Asphalt Pavement Grind SF 316 0 3 $ MO $ 158,400.00
Asphalt Pavement Overlay Tons 3158 $ 85M $ 268,438.50
Striping LS 1 $ 40 000M 40 000.00
Subtotal: $ 491,838.50
airtenance (Year�
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 25,000,00 $ 25,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Slurry SF 316800 $ O;40 $ 126,720.00
Striping LS 1 $ 40,Q0f 00 40 000.00
Stcbtotal: $ 191,720.00
Maintenance Yeas 50
Traffic Contra LS 1 $ 25,000M $ 25,000.00
Asphalt Pavement Cried SF 316800 $ 1.00 $ 316,800.00
Asphalt Pavement Tons 10527 $ 85.00 $ 894,795.00
Aggregate Base CY 6453 $ 55.00 $ 354,933.33
a tripina LS 1 40,000.00 40,000M
Subtotal: $ 1,631,528.33
Total: $ 3,830,000.00
Refuse Impact Total (9.1%): $ 347,000.00
Annualized Refuse Impact Total: $ 7,000.00
City Utility Vehicle Impact Total (0.5%): $ 20,000.00
Annualized City Utility Vehicle Impact Total: $ 400.00
Page ill
I Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report
Conclusion
Using the estimated 50 year construction and maintenance costs shown in
the tables below for each street type, the relative annualized refuse and City
utility vehicle impact cost totals per street mile are $16,500 and $480 for
residential streets, $6,300 and $360 for collector streets and $7,000 and
$400 for arterial streets. The City of Redlands total street lane miles- are as
follows, 59% residential (378 lane miles), 20% collector (129 lane miles)
and 21% arterial (133 lane miles). Using this information with the 'vehicle
load impact percentages and annualized impact totals per lane mile shown
above the annual City wide impact cost is as follows:
Annual City Wide Refuse Impact
Refuse Refuse
Number Lane Impact Impact per Annual City
Lane Type of Lanes Miles Annualized Lane We Wide I fact
Residential 21 378 $16,500 $8,250 $3,118,500
Collector 32 129 $6,300 $2,100 $270, 00
Arterial 43 133 $7,000 $1.,750 $23 , 0
Total: $3,622,150
Anru l City Wide City Utility Vehicle Impact
City utility City Utility
Number Lane Impact Impact per Annual City
Lane Type ofLanes Miles Annualized Lane Mile Wide Impact
Residential 21 378 $480 $240 $90,720
Collector 32 129 $360 $120 $15,480
Arterial 43 133 $41(0 $100 $13,300
Total: $119,500
Notes:
1; Per City staff, residential streets typically have two-lanes per mile with an average width of
36-feet.
Per City staff, collector streets typically have two-lanes or four-lanes per mile with an average
width of4 i-feet. An average of three-lanes per mile was used.
3. Per City staff, arterial streets typically have four-lanes or six-lanes per mile with an average
width 0164-feet. An average of four-lanes per mile was used.
Therefore, there is an annualized City wide total of $3,622,150 of street
r(Elated damage kom refuse vehicle impact loads and $119,500 from City
utility vehicle impact loads. In addition to the projected road maintenance
costs, it is fair to assume that a percentage of pothole repair costs equal to
the impact percentages would be attributed to the corresponding vehicle
type.
Page 112
i
EXHIBIT
"B„
City of Redlands
rfl �`-� 1 �I •�5 l� �
,dl
i
Utility Repair Pavement
Restoration Report
September 18, 2012
Prepared by:
TKE Engineering, Inc.
2305 Chicago Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
Utility Repair Pavement Restoration Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................. 1
Introduction ........................................................................ 3
Background ......................................................................... 3
Approach .........................................................................4
Conclusion ......................................................................... 6
Utility Repair Pavement Restoration Report
Executive Summary
In an effort to determine the approximate pavement restoration required
from street damage due to utility vehicles and pothole repairs, the City of
Redlands has consulted with TKE Engineering, Inc. (TKE) to perform a
pavement restoration report. The report assumes the City will properly
repair all asphalt pavement associated with utility repair work and therefore
no annual costs will be associated with future repair work.
The City's water and sewer utility operations divisions are responsible for
repairing existing damaged or faulty utility infrastructure. Over the past 15
years, the City utility crews have been providing temporary asphalt
pavement repairs only. With the City utility crews making hundreds of
estimated utility repairs annually, extremely large areas of temporary
pavement patches require permanent repair throughout the City.
Also, as part of the City's efforts to keep city streets in good operating
condition, City crews from the Quality of Life (QOL) department are
dispatched to repair and maintain potholes. The QOL street repair work is
currently funded through the City's general fund.
Based on the eRoad data and field verified inspections, 593,880 square feet
of temporary patches are associated with the City water and sewer utility
departments. The eRoad data also identified that the average patch size is
59 square feet. Given these figures it is estimated that approximately
10,066 temporary pavement patches associated to City water and sewer
utility repairs exist.
Using recent bids costs received for a patch of this size, the cost per patch is
estimated at $620, resulting in a cost per square foot of $10.50. At a cost of
$10.50 per square foot for 593,880 square feet of temporary patch, a total
cost of $6.24 million dollars would be required to repair the existing, City
responsible, temporary pavement patches.
As the utility department has not fulfilled its obligation of making permanent
asphalt pavement repairs over the past years, it is acceptable for the utility
department to fund the pavement program to an equivalent level of the
pavement repair costs. One approach to funding this obligation could be to
allocate funds allually over a set term until the obligation is fulfilled.
Page 11
AWOJM
Utility Repair Pavement Restoration Report
Based on a 10 year repayment period scenario and the assumption that the
City utility crews begin permanent asphalt pavement repairs on all future
utility repairs, the water utilities should fund $508,000 and sewer utilities
should fund $116,000, each year for the next 10 years, totaling $624,000
annually.
In order to appropriately allocate the cost of the pothole work done by QOL,
a link must be formed with departmental vehicle use and overall street
damage. By utilizing the figures derived in TKE`s "Pavement Deterioration
Analysis Report" we obtain the weighted average for all damage throughout
the City attributable to solid waste and utilities is 38.3 percent and 1.2
percent, respectively.
In City fiscal year 2012, QOL is budgeted to spend approximately $195,000
to repair potholes throughout the City. Given these expenses, the general
fund should be reimbursed in the amount of $74,700 (38.3%) from the solid
waste department, $1,950 (1.0%) from the water utility department, and
$390 (0.2%) from the sewer utility department. To ensure the appropriate
funds are collected and the general fund is properly reimbursed for pothole
repair work, it is recommended that a budget be established each year and
reconciled at the year end.
Pa e 12
Utility Repair Pavement Restoration Report
Introduction
In an effort to determine the approximate pavement restoration required
from street damage due to utility vehicles and pothole repairs, the City of
Redlands has consulted with TKE Engineering, Inc. (TKE) to perform a
pavement restoration report. All data for the report was researched and
collected by City staff. The report will identify the estimated amount of
pavement that was improperly repaired and the pavement repair cost
attributed to utility repair work. The report assumes the City will properly
repair all asphalt pavement associated with utility repair work and therefore
no annual costs will be associated with future repair work.
The report will identify overall City costs spent on pothole repair and will link
overall street damage to determine each department's attributable
percentage.
Background
The City's water and sewer utility operations divisions are responsible for
repairing existing damaged or faulty utility infrastructure. The infrastructure
repairs require the City crews to sawcut and remove the existing asphalt
concrete pavement in order to perform the utility repairs. Upon completion
of a utility repair, there are two types of typical pavement repair. The first is
the utility crew can provide a permanent repair by creating a clean sawcut
removal area, compacting the subgrade to 95% relative compaction and
placing hot mix asphalt concrete pavement to a section 1" thicker than the
existing pavement section. The second method would be the utility crew
provides a temporary asphalt concrete pavement patch (typically cold mix)
then hires a paving contractor to provide the same permanent repairs once
enough temporary patches exist to be cost effective.
Over the past 15 years, the City utility crews have been providing temporary
asphalt pavement repairs only. With the City utility crews making hundreds
of estimated utility repairs annually, extremely large areas of temporary
pavement patches require permanent repair throughout the City. With the
assistance of City staff, TKE has investigated various methods to estimate
the required area of permanent pavement repair and an associated cost.
Also as part of the City's efforts to keep city streets in good operating
condition, City crews from the Quality of Life (QOL) department are
P age 13
Utility Repair Pavement Restoration Report
dispatched to repair and maintain potholes. The QOL street repair work is
currently funded through the City's general fund.
Approach
To determine the existing area of temporary patches still requiring
permanent repair, City staff made several attempts to identify an accurate
method of estimating the existing temporary patch areas. First, data was
collected from past utility repairs made by City crews. Unfortunately this
approach did not yield tangible results as all available sources of data were
severely incomplete.
City staff also researched the Underground Service Alerts (USA) tickets.
When a utility repair is required on any underground facility, USA must be
called to allow all utility companies the opportunity to delineate their
facilities. USA requires an exact area be defined for each call to ensure
other utility companies mark their facilities in the area to be excavated.
Unfortunately, USA does not retain records as far back as required for the
purposes of this report.
Finally, the pavement condition assessment performed by eRoad was
examined. The eRoad database maintained by the City's GIS department
contains information related to patches of all street segments throughout the
City. The eRoad database lists streets that contain patches and the
percentage of each street segment that is a patched section. However, the
data does not detail which agency is responsible for each patch. To
determine ownership of each patch in the eRoad database, field inspections
were conducted. City staff inspected 24 streets at random and
determinations were made as to the ownership of each patch. These
inspections revealed 30.3 percent of the existing patches in the City are a
result of the City's water and sewer operations. Of those, 81.4 percent are
attributable to water utility repairs and 18.6 percent are attributable to
sewer utility repairs.
Based on the eRoad data there are 1.96 million square feet of existing
temporary pavement patches in the City. Using the percentages above,
593,880 square feet of temporary patches are associated with the City water
and sewer utility departments. The eRoad data also identified that the
average patch size is 59 square feet. Given these figures it is estimated that
approximately 10,066 temporary pavement patches associated to City water
P age 14
Utility Repair Pavement Restoration Report
and sewer utility repairs exist. These results appear to be reasonable given
the City utility crews makes approximately 700 repairs annually.
Using recent bids costs received for a patch of this size, the cost per patch is
estimated at $620, resulting in a cost per square foot of $10.50. At a cost of
$10.50 per square foot for 593,880 square feet of temporary patch, a total
cost of $6.24 million dollars would be required to repair the existing, City
responsible, temporary pavement patches.
In order to appropriately allocate the cost of the pothole work done by QOL,
a link must be formed with departmental vehicle use and overall street
damage. To accomplish this, we reviewed the findings in an analysis
performed by TKE titled "Pavement Deterioration Analysis Report" (Report).
The Report consists of allocating the damage to City streets by City vehicles.
In particular, solid waste and utility vehicles were identified as their impact
has a detrimental and cumulative effect, specifically due to their weight.
The Report identifies the following damage allocations caused by City
vehicles to the three different types of streets.
Solid Waste Vehicles
• 56.3% of the damage to residential streets (378 lane miles)
• 15.5% of the damage to collector streets (129 lane miles)
• 9.1% of the damage to arterial streets (133 lane miles)
Utility Vehicles
• 1.6% of the damage to residential streets (378 lane miles)
• 0.9% of the damage to collector streets (129 lane miles)
• 0.5% of the damage to arterial streets (133 lane miles)
Based on the number of lane miles of each street type, the weighted
average for all damage throughout the City attributable to solid waste and
utilities is 38.3 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively. Furthermore, the
individual water and wastewater utilities damage can be determined based
on the assumption that there is at any one time 7 utility vehicles in
operation, 6 of them are in the water utility and one in the sewer utility.
Therefore, the water utility is responsible for 1 percent of street damage and
the sewer utility is responsible for 0.2 percent. Although this report's focus
is on street damage, the Report recognizes and states "In addition to the
projected road maintenance costs, it is fare to assume that a percentage of
P a, g e 15
Utility Repair Pavement Restoration Report
ka
pothole repairs costs equal to the impact percentage would be attributed to
the corresponding vehicle type."
Conclusion
There are two options for making the necessary street repairs. The first is to
have the City utility crews make the repairs to each patch. The second
option is to fund the paving program at an equivalent amount of the current
unrepaired temporary patches. This option allows funding to be utilized in a
systematic and the most effective way using the city's Pavement
Management Program.
In order for the City utility departments to contribute funds to the paving
program a nexus between utility activities and the payment being made to
the pavement program must exist. This is required as utility funds can only
be used to support utility work and the utility department can only charge
for the cost of the services provided to its customers. As the utility
department has not fulfilled its obligation of making permanent asphalt
pavement repairs over the past years, it is acceptable for the utility
department to fund the pavement program to an equivalent level of the
pavement repair costs.
Since the City's utilities may not have the resources to completely fund its
obligation in a single year. It is recommended funds be allocated annually in
multiple years consistent with the avaliablility of funds.
Annualized Allocation from
Utility Departments to Pavement Program
(Assuming costs are amortized over a 10 year term)
Utility Responsible Pavement Repair Cost* Total Repair Annual
Department Percentage Repair Area Cost Allocation—
(SF) (per SF) (10 Yr)
Water 81.4% 483418 $ 10.50 $ 5,075,892 $ 507,589
Sewer 18.6% 110462 _I _1,159 847 $ 115 984
Total: 1000/0 593880 $ 10.50 $ 6,235,740 $ 623,574
Includes soft costs
As shown in the above table, based on a 10 year repayment period and the
assumption that the City utility crews begin permanent asphalt pavement
repairs on all future utility repairs, the water utilities should fund $508,000
P ag e 16
0
Utility Repair Pavement Restoration Report
and sewer utilities should fund $116,000, each year for the next 10 years,
totaling $624,000 annually.
In City fiscal year 2012, QOM is budgeted to spend approximately $195,000
to repair potholes throughout the City. Given these expenses, the general
fund should be reimbursed in the amount of $74,700 (38.3%) from the solid
waste department, $1,950 (1.0%) from the water utility department, and
$390 (0.2%) from the sewer utility department. To ensure the appropriate
funds are collected and the general fund is properly reimbursed for pothole
repair work, it is recommended that a budget be established each year and
reconciled at the year end.
Page 17
EXHIBIT"C"
R3 Consulting Group. Inc,
ConsulLing Group, Inc, 1512 Eureka Road, Suite 220
Lloor Roseville, CA 95661
Resources Respect Responsibility Tel: 916-782-7821
Fax: 916-782-7824
MK�.rcoi.uc�rt�
August 28, 2012
Mr. Chris Diggs
Assistant Utilities Director
35 Cajon Street, Suite 15A
Redlands, CA 92373
Subject: Rates Analysis for Road Impacts
Dear Mr. Diggs:
R3 Consulting Group, Inc. (R3) was engaged by the City of Redlands (City) to conduct a high-
level analysis to determine the solid waste rate adjustment necessary to cover the cost of the
increased annual interfund transfer for road impact being assessed on the City's Solid Waste
Department (Department). As part of this engagement, R3 also conducted a targeted rate
survey to compare the City's current and potential rates to the current solid waste rates of
neighboring jurisdictions.
Summary Findings
Using documents provided by the City, R3 calculated the rate adjustment required to generate
revenue to cover the cost for increasing the annual interfund transfer for road impact to
$4,511,1501 from its current amount of $105,000 (i.e., increase of $4,406,150). Both of the rate
adjustment options summarized below provide sufficient additional revenues to allow the City to
borrow $21.5 million and meet a minimum of 1.5 level of debt service coverage.
Option 1: Implement one rate adjustment to cover the cost of the increased interfund
transfer for road impact in one year (i.e., increase the Road Impact Fee by
$4,406,150 starting in FY 2012/13).
• Required Rate Increase: 38.11% for FY 2012/13.
• Rate Impact- The City's residential rates would be greater than the
average of surveyed jurisdictions, and the City's commercial rates would
be higher in most cases than the average of surveyed jurisdictions.
Option 2.- Implement phased rate adjustments over the next three years to cover the
increased interfund transfer for road impacts (i.e., increase the interfund transfer
by$4,406,150 over the next three fiscal years).
• Required Rate Increases: 11.01% for FY 2012/13, 11.49% for FY
2013/14, and 11.59% for FY 2014/15.
• Rate Impact: With the first year's rate adjustment (11.01% for FY
2012/13), the City's residential rates would remain comparable to those of
This amount represents the Solid Waste Department's annual contribution to pavement related costs
as reported in the City's Road Impact Nexus Report ($3,611,150). Additionally, $900,000 is added to
this amount to account for costs associated with engineering, inspection, and administrative costs.
Mr. Chris Diggs
August 28, 2012
Page 2 of 7
surveyed jurisdictions, and the City's commercial rates would remain
lower in most cases than the average of surveyed jurisdictions. However,
after both years of phased rate increases, the City's residential and
commercial rates would be equal to the rates as increased by Option 1
(i.e., rates would be greater in most cases than the average of surveyed
jurisdictions).
Methodologil
Y
To determine the solid waste rate increase required to compensate for the City's proposed
increased annual interfund transfer for road impact, R3 reviewed the following documents
provided by the City:
• The "City of Redlands City Manager's FY 2012-13 Proposed Budget," dated June 7,
2012; and
• The City's current solid waste rate sheet.
In calculating the required rate adjustments, R3 made the following assumptions:
• Projected Department revenues for FY 2012/13, as shown by the Budget's 2012-13 City
Manager Recommendations, are equal to:
* $9,800,000 in rate revenues; and
* $525,000 in other(i.e., non-rate) revenues;
• Projected Department expenses for FY 2012/13, as shown by the Budget's 2012-13 City
Manager Recommendations, are equal to $9,654,198; and
• The proposed change to the interfund transfer for road impact will increase the fee to
$4,511,150 from its current value of $105,000. This is equal to an effective net interfund
transfer increase of$4,406,150;
For purposes of this analysis, R3 did not account for any changes to Department revenues and
expenses over the next two fiscal years, with the exception of any increases to Department rate
revenues incurred by the calculated rate increases.
R3 also assumed that the projected Department surplus of $671,002 (as projected by the City
Manager's Recommended Budget) would be available to partially offset any increases to the
interfund transfer. If, however, this projected surplus is used to fund the Department's reserve
account, and is not used to help offset the increased interfund transfer, R3s projected rate
adjustment options for FY 2012/13 would increase by approximately 6.85%.
Additionally, R3 assumed that the City would not begin debt service payments until one year
after the time of the first rate adjustment. This would allow the additional rate revenues received
in the first year of the rate increase to be set aside to help fund the 1.5 debt service coverage
requirement in following years.2
2 R3 assumed annual debt service payments of $2,659,664, per email correspondence with Chris
Diggs, 8127/2012. This would require additional available revenue of$3,989,496 to meet the 1.5 debt
service coverage requirement.
Mr. Chris Diggs
August 28, 2012
Page 3 of 7
Rate Adjustments
Given the assumptions noted above, Table 1 (below) shows the options for potential rate
adjustments. The two options are based on our understanding that the City may choose to
phase in the interfund transfer increase over more than one year.
As shown in Table 1, before any increases to the interfund transfer for road impact, the
Department is projected to collect total revenues of $10,325,200 and incur total expenses of
$9,654,198 for FY 2012/13. This is equal to a revenue surplus of$671,002.
Option I increases the interfund transfer from $105,000 to $4,511,150 in one year, requiring a
rate increase of 38.11% for FY 2012/11
Option 2 increases the interfund transfer from $105,000 to $4,511,150 over three years,
requiring rate increases as follows:
• A rate increase of 11.01% to increase the interfund transfer by$1,750,000 to $1,855,000
in FY 2012/13;
• A rate increase of 11.49% to further increase the interfund transfer to $3,105,000 in FY
2013/14; and
• A rate increase of 11.59% to further increase the interfund transfer to $4,511,150 in FY
2014/15.
It should be noted that the solid waste collection rates resulting from the Option 1 rate
adjustment would be equal to the collection rates resulting from two years of phased rate
adjustments as outlined by Option 2.
TABLE I
Rate Adjustment Options
-77---------
OPTION I
REVENUE Year Year Year Year 3
Temp/Roll-off Debris Box Rate Revenue $ 1.000,000 $ 1.000,000 $ 1,110,102 $ 1,237,653
Residential Rate Revenue"' $ 4,500,000. $ 4,500,000 $ 4,995,458 $ 5,569,438
Commercial Rate Revenue 0) $ 4,300,000. S 4,300,000 $ 4.773,438 $ 5.321,907
Other Solid Waste Department Revenue $ 525.200 $ 525,200 $ 525.200 $ 525,200
REVENUE TOTAL $ 10,325,200 $ 10,325,200 $ 11,404,198 $ 12,654,198
EXPENSES Year Year I Year 3
- -
Solid Waste Department Expenses f" $ 9,654,198 $ 9654_198 $ 9,654,198. $ 9,654,198
Interfund Transfer for Road Impacts Increase for Debt Service Pmt. 4t406z150 $ 1,750,000. $ 1000,000 $ 4,406,1501
EXPENSE TOTAL $ 14,060,348 $ 11,404,499-- 06
14
, 0
348
Revenue Surplus(Shortfall)before Interfund Transfer Increase $ 671,002 $ 671,002 $ 1,7501000 $ 3,000,000
Revenue Surplus(Shortfall)after Interfund Transfer Increase $ (3,735,148) S (1.078,998) $ (1250,0001 $ (1.406,150)
Current Rate Revenue S 9,800,000 $ 9,800=0 $ 10.878.998 $ 12,128,998
Rate Revenue Requirement $ 13,535,148 $ 10,878,998 $ 12,128,998 $ 13,535,148
Required Rate Adjustment I 11.144% 41.59%
For 2012/13 For 2012/13 For 2013114 For 2014/15
Initial revenue values are taken from the City of Redlands City Manager's FY 2012-13 Proposed Budget, pq..17.
Initial expense values are taken from the City of Redlands City Manager's FY 2012-13 Proposed Budget,pc1.140-143.
Interfund transfer increased values assume that the City's current interfund transfer of$105,000 is included in the Solid Waste
Department's projected expenses,
Mr. Chris Diggs
August 28, 2012
Page 4 of 7
Table 2 (below) demonstrates how both of the rate adjustment options outlined above will allow
the City to meet its 1.5 debt coverage requirement in the years following the initial rate
adjustment year. For purposes of illustration, the first five years of debt coverage requirements
are shown. Any remaining revenue that is not being used to satisfy the 1.5 debt coverage
requirement in future years may be used to fund future solid waste capital projects, including
rate stabilization funding, vehicle and container replacement, landfill cell expansion, etc.
TABLE 2
Debt Coverage Requirements
Yaar 1 Year Z Yaar 3Year Year 5
Additional Revenue Generated $ 4,406,150 $ 4,406,150 $ 4,406,150 $ 4,406,150 $ 4,406,150
Cumulative Revenue Generated(') $ 4,406,150 $ 8,812,300 $ 10,558,786 $ 12,305,272 $ 14,051,758
1.5 Debt Coverage Requirement(2) WA r r r If
Debt Service Payment NIA $ 2,659,664 $ 2,659,664 $ 2,659,664 $ 2,659,664
Remaining Revenue $ 4,406,150 $ 6,152,636 $ 7,899,122 $ 9,645,608 $ 11,392,095
Additional Revenue Generated $ 1,750,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 4,406,150 $ 4,406,150 $ 4,406,150
Cumulative Revenue Generated $ 1,750,000 $ 4,750,000 $ 6,496,486 $ 8,242,972 $ 9,989,458
1.5 Debt Coverage Requirement(2) NIA r r r r
Debt Service Payment NIA $ 2,659,6641 $ 2,659,664 $ 2,659,664 $ 2,659,664
Remaining Revenue $ 1,750,000 $ 2,090,336 1 $ 3,836,822 $ 5,583,308 $ 7,329,795
' Cumulative Revenue Generated is equal to Additional Revenue Generated plus the prior year's Remaining Revenue.
(2)The 1.5 Debt Coverage Requirement is considered to be met ifthe Cumulative Revenue Generated is greater than or
equal to$3,989,496(i.e., 1.5 times the annual Debt Service Payment of$2,659,664).
Rate Survey
In addition to rate adjustment calculations, R3 conducted a rate survey to compare the City's
collection rates to those of other neighboring jurisdictions. For purposes of illustration, R3 also
included the City's rates as adjusted by Option T and Option 2 rate increases in the rate
comparisons.
List of Cities Surveyed
San Bernardino County jurisdictions surveyed:
■ Chino Hills ■ Loma Linda
• Colton ■ Ontario
■ Fontana • San Bernardino
• Hesperia
Mr. Chris Diggs
August 28, 2012
Page 5 of 7
Residential Rate Comparison
R3 found the City's current residential solid waste collection rates to be lower on average than the
rates of surveyed jurisdictions.3 Specifically:
• The current 60-gallon container rate is 17% lower than the current average of surveyed
jurisdictions; and
■ The current 90-gallon container rate is 7% lower than the current average of surveyed
jurisdictions.
After an Option 1 rate increase of 38.11% for FY 2012/13 (or three years of phased adjustments
as outlined by Option 2), the City's residential rates would be slightly higher than the current
average of rates in surveyed jurisdictions. Specifically:
• The 60-gallon container rate would be 15% higher than the current average of surveyed
jurisdictions; and
• The 90-gallon container rate would be 29% higher than the current average of surveyed
jurisdictions.
Table 2, below, provides a comparison of the City's current residential rates, as well as Option 1
and Option 2 increased rates, to the current rates in surveyed neighboring jurisdictions.
TABLE 2
Residential Rate Comparison
Jurisdiction fictive Cart Size (gallons)
Bats 60-80 90-110
Chino Hills 7/1/2012 WA $ 18.93
Colton 7/1/2008 $ 22.63 MIA
Fontana 7/1/2011 MIA $ 24.14
Hesperia 2/21/2012 MIA $ 23.65
Loma Linda 7/1/2012 !WA $ 17.33
Ontario 1/6/2012 $ 25.63 $ 29.48
San Bernardino 1/1/2009 NIA $ 22.84
Redlands(Current) 1/1/2011 $ 20.03 $ 20.69
lRedlands.(Option 1: FY 2012213 Increase at 38.11X�� 2012 $ �27�5 28.58
Redlands(Opgon Z: FY 2012113 Increase of 11.01% 2012 $ 22.24 $ 22.97
Redlands(Opgan k FY 2013114 increase of 11.4 2013 $ 24.79 $ 26.61
Redlands(Opdan 2: FY 2814110 Increase at 11.5M 2014 3 27.66 g 28.58
Average (without Redlands) 3 24.13 S22.19
3 R3 found that the surveyed jurisdictions generally include the cost of residential green waste collection
in their standard residential rates. As such, R3 used the City's residential collection rates for 60- and
90-gallon containers which include 60-gallon green waste collection in all residential rate comparisons.
Mr. Chris Diggs
August 28, 2012
Page 6 of 7
Commercial Rate Comparison
R3 found the City's current commercial solid waste collection rates to be lower on average than
the rates of surveyed jurisdictions. For example:
■ The City's current monthly 1-cubic yard bin rate (one pickup per week) is 40% lower than
the current average of surveyed jurisdictions;
■ The City's current monthly 2-cubic yard bin rate (one pickup per week) is 18% lower than
the current average of surveyed jurisdictions; and
• The City's current monthly 3-cubic yard bin rate (one pickup per week) is 4% lower than
the current average of surveyed jurisdictions.
After an Option 1 rate adjustment of 38.11% for FY 2012/13 (or three years of phased
adjustments as outlined by Option 2), the City's commercial rates would be higher, in most
cases, than the current average of rates in surveyed jurisdictions. For example:
■ The City's current monthly 1-cubic yard bin rate (one pickup per week) would be 18%
lower than the current average of surveyed jurisdictions;
■ The City's current monthly 2-cubic yard bin rate (one pickup per week) would be 13%
higher than the current average of surveyed jurisdictions; and
■ The City's current monthly 3-cubic yard bin rate (one pickup per week) would be 33%
higher than the current average of surveyed jurisdictions.
Table 3, below, provides a comparison of the City's current commercial rates, as well as Option 1
and Option 2 increased rates, to the current rates in surveyed neighboring jurisdictions.
TABLE 3
Commercial Rate Comparison
51n Sin and eoHaction frmrg�uen[a►
Jurhactlon 1-Cubic Yard Bin r- 2-Cubic Yard Sin 3-Cubic Yard Bin
ixtweek 2x/week 3x/week lxlweek 2x/week 3x/week lx/week 2x/week 3x/week
Chino Hills - WA WA WA $ 65.07 $ 113.22 $ 161.36 S 94.76 $ 149.50 $204.33
Colton $ 86.40 WA WA $114.26 $160.11 $236.63 $ 128.14 $201.82 $289.46
Fontana $ 76.37 $119.94 $155.49 $110.49 $191.51 $263.03 $ 135.76 $248.08 $346.51
Hesperia WA I WA WA $101.95 $199.45 $294.23 S 150.09 $290.26 $421.80
Loma Linda WA WA WA WA WA WA S 100.03 $184.73 $269.43
Ontario WA WA WA WA WA WA S 119.00 $224.00 $329.00
San Bernardino WA WA WA $112.10 $205.32 $304.44 S 119.18 $225.56 $335.12
Redlands(Current) $ 48.59 $ 82.65 $116.71 $ 82.65 $150.83 $219.01 S 116.71 $219.011 $321.32
dinnde(Optlorl 1.FY 20121131ncnssf of 35.117) $ 57-11 $114-15 $181.19 $114-15 S 2DB.32 FS3Uf�4��S 181.i9 S 302.45 443.79-1
ndr tOparr F►r y1a irla�aar or 11.M7
IS S3A4 5 91.73 5129.55 5 91.75 5167.44 S 243.12 5129.55 $243.12 $355.70
taiedlands;gp6m 2:FY MMM i xnm of 11.4o7y I S E0.14S 102 $144,451 S 1OZ291 S 105.101 S 271.05 I 5144.+5 $271.06 5 3x7.05
Reftnsa(Op2:FY 291U15 of 11�!!U 5 67.1119 1114.1151161.1918 114.151 S 206.32 S 36245 1 5 161.19 1 530240 5 443.70
Average(without Redlands) S 61-38 IS 119,94 5 156.40 S 100.77 3 173.92 S 243.94 S 120.96 5 217,711 S 313.05
Mr. Chris Diggs
August 28, 2012
Page 7 of 7
We appreciate the opportunity to assist to the City. Please feel free to contact me by phone at
(916) 782-7821, or by e-mail at rterwin a@r3cgi.com, if you have any questions or comments
regarding this submittal.
Sincerely,
R3 CONSULTING GROUP
�5
Richard Tagore-Erwin
Principal