The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 3.B 07/20/2009CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 3. AGENDA L July 20, 2009 Agenda Title: Discussion and Possible Adoption of Resolution Approving Meeting Date: July 20, 2009 GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. Rate Period 4 Compensation and Rates Meeting Time: 7:00 PM Cateorv: ❑ Presentation ❑ Appointments F] Consent ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Unfinished Business � New Business Department: Direct r: Contact Person: Phone Number: Public Works Vince t are Vincent Marengo 778-4467 Total Cost of Proposal or Proiect: Name of Fund: No rate adjustment is recommended at this time. This is a Account Number (franchise fees paid to City): pass-through expense, which will have no impact on the 1100.16100.41320 General Fund/PW General Fund. 2413.24130.41320 PW/Spec Rev 2413.24130.41320 Vehicle Impact/Spec Rev Amount Budgeted: Current Fund Balance: An increase of 1.7% in vehicle impact fees to the City. N/A Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council take the following action: Adopt resolution approving GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. Rate Period 4 compensation and rates. 1. ❑ First reading of Ordinance approved unanimously, or with unanimous vote to allow posting prior to second reading 2. ❑ First reading of Ordinance approved without unanimous vote: Ordinance has been published/posted prior to second reading; see Attachment 3. ❑ Other action requiring special notice: Notice has been given, see Attachment Summary Statement: Pursuant to Article 12 of the City's franchise agreement with GreenWaste Recovery, Inc., the City is obligated to adjust contractor's compensation annually at the commencement of each Rate Period beginning with.Rate Period 3. In, accordance with Article 13, the City is obligated to set maximum rates at a level sufficient to generate funds to cover the contractor's compensation and to make up for any revenue shortfalls_ Contractor's compensation for Rate Period 4 (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010) was determined to be $10,020,869, which reflects adjustments to Rate Period 3 compensation according to changes in various cost indices and tonnages collected. After consulting with municipal management consultants HF&H Consultants, LLC, staff recommends Option 2 of their report, dated June 23, 2009 (Attachment 2), which proposes no rate adjustment at this time, and employment of the City's option to increase the vehicle impact fee portion of the franchise fee to 1.7%, which is estimated to generate approximately $175,000 in FY 09/10, without increasing customer rates. Customer rates to be in effect for Rate Period 4 are current rates, which were effective as of October 2008. Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1. Resolution 2. GreenWaste Recovery Rate Period 4 Compensation and Rates, Letter Report from HF&H Consultants 3_ GWR Rates Effective October 2008 aed by Finance Director: Rev. # 2 Date Last Revised: 7/6/09 3:00 m {� Reviewed by City Attornev: Approved by -City Manager: Date: Date: % 1----� # 1: 6130/09: 2:50 pm File: -S:Iwastc Management Fold'ej-\Aeeuda Hems' "cenWaste Recover\27009 Rate Review & AntettdmenPtRale RcvieN%1,200 GWR !tale Year 4 Reconimenda€ion Rev, I.doc I 5:11',astc vlana enient 1-oldcr'.1lgcnda 1€e€nk'CGrcenllastc Recovery\2009 Rate Review & Aniendrnent\R[Ite Rcvic\vTJN:%L 2009 G%N R RMe Yeara Recon3snendalion Riv. I.doc CITY OF PETALUIV A, CALIFORNIA July 20, 2009 AGENDA REPORT FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING GREENWASTE RECOVERY, INC. RATE PERIOD 4 COMPENSATION AND RATES 1. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. (GWR) Rate Period 4 compensation and rates. �. BACKGROUND: In accordance with GWR's franchise agreement of September 13, 2005, the contractor's compensation is to be adjusted annually, commencing with Rate Period (RP)3, pursuant to procedures specified in Article 12. In accordance with Sections 8.16.210 and 8.16.220 of the Petaluma Municipal Code, as well as Article 13 of the GWR. franchise agreement, the City is responsible for setting maximum customer rates, and has a responsibility to set rates at a level that will generate sufficient revenues to cover the contractor's compensation and any revenue shortfalls or surpluses from prior rate periods. Periodic rate and revenue reconciliation assures that existing rates are neither excessive to customers, nor insufficient to allow the contractor a reasonable rate of return. For the first two years of the agreement, which commenced on January 1, 2006, the agreed-upon costs for GWR's waste hauling services were fixed. Last year, in response to GWR's application for an adjustment to their compensation for RP3, municipal management consultants, HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H), recommended a rate increase of 9.1%, based on audited financial statements for RPI, and actual and forecasted costs of operations for RP2 and RP3. DISCUSSION: This year, HF&H was retained by the City once again, to review GWR's compensation application for RP4 and to recommend customer rates for collection services over the same period_ According to Section 12.4.1 of the GWR agreement, RP4 (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010) does not call for a comprehensive compensation adjustment (where information provided by GWR is audited, as it was last year), but rather, an indexed compensation adjustment, based on cost indices published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and tonnage data provided by GWR. HF&H's review found that, while costs increased to reflect changes in various cost indices, a significant decrease in the solid waste tonnage and disposal costs offset nearly all cost increases. As a result, the RP4 contractor's compensation is only 0.5% more than RP3 compensation. Contractor's compensation for RP4 was determined to be $10,020,869. Based on the contractor's compensation requirements and projected RN customer revenues, HF&H estimates a potential RP4 revenue surplus of $125,000 indicating that customer revenues are projected to 2 le klanagentent Puldcr! Igendct licnts.Gtccnli`aste Rccovery'C009 Itatc Rede%� &, Amcndmcni'Rntc Revinv!FlN.AL 2009 Cj'WIt Rate Year 4 Rccnrnnren&tiun ltev. l.drw exceed contractor compensation requirements. As a result, no rate increase is required to cover contractor's compensation for RP4. Pursuant to Section 13.2 of the GWR franchise agreement, a revenue reconciliation process is to be performed after each rate period. In the event rate revenues collected from customers are less than the contractor's compensation, the rates are to be increased in the subsequent rate period to make the contractor whole for the revenue shortfall. If rate revenues exceed the contractor's compensation, the contractor's compensation for the following rate period is to be reduced by the amount of the revenue surplus_ HF&H estimated that RP3 customer revenues will be approximately $354,481 short of the RP3 revenue requirement based on revenues reported by GWR for a partially completed rate period. It appears that revenues are less than forecasted as customers have reduced their service level due to changes in the economy and/or in response to the October 2008 rate increase. Since the City is obligated under the terms of the agreement to make the contractor whole for revenue shortfalls, HF&H estimated that a 3.5% rate increase would be required to make up the RP3 shortfall. The terms of the franchise agreement require that final accounting of the RP 3 shortfall occur in October 2009, and the City make up for the shortfall in RP5 (July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011). Given that a revenue surplus is forecasted for RP4, the City could consider recovering the estimated RP3 revenue shortfall during RP4 (rather than RP5). In such case, a 1.8% rate increase would be sufficient to offset the RP3 shortfall to male the contractor whole rather than a 3.5% rate increase because the RP4 surplus would offset a portion of the RP3 shortfall. Specifically, the RP3 shortfall of $354,481, minus the estimated RP4 surplus of $175,000, would require an additional $180,000 in rate revenues, which is a 1.8% rate increase. However, since recovery of any shortfall is not contractually required until RP5, IIF&H does not recommend a rate increase at this time. After consulting with HF&H, staff recommends Option 2 of HF&H's attached report (Attachment 2), which proposes no rate adjustment at this time, and employment of the City's option to increase the vehicle impact fee portion of the franchise fee to 1.7%, which is estimated to generate approximately $175,000 in FY 09/10, without increasing rates to customers. Although this option will eliminate an opportunity to augment the $354,481 shortfall to be recovered during RP5, HF&H feels that this is the prudent course at this time, particularly because the City is considering assignment of the franchise agreement, which may impact future compensation and rate setting processes. 4. FINANCIAT.IMPACTS. Solid waste, recycling and yard trimming hauling expenses are passed through to rate payers. Since no rate adjustment is recommended at this time, there will be no impact on customers. The franchise fee on the collection services will be increased frorn 14.72% to 16.42% as a result of increasing the vehicle impact fee portion of the franchise fee 1.7%, from 4.72% to 6.42%. The increase in the vehicle impact fee portion of the franchise fee is estimated to generate $175,000 in FY 09/10, which would be directed to the Public Works Vehicle Impact Fund (Account No. 2413.24130.41320). 3 ti:'riVuse 11lamigcment Foldertngenda ltcros'••GreenWaste Rei:ovei� )009 Ra€tc Rcvie\� & :\mendmcn1\Ratc Reviov`JINAL 2009 GWR Rae Year Recon1111 ndWirm Rec. l.&C ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION APPROVING GREENWASTE RECOVERY, INC. RATE PERIOD 44 COMPENSATION AND RATES WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 8.16.2 10 and 8.16.220 of the Petaluma Municipal Code, the City Council shall establish maximum rates for collection and removal of garbage and rubbish from business estab] islunents and places of residence; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 12 of the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. franchise agreement, contractor's compensation shall be adjusted annually, commencing with Rate Period 3; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.2 of the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. franchise agreement, a revenue reconciliation process is to be performed after each rate period; and. WHEREAS, prior to the annual rate adjustment, the contractor is required to submit an application to the City to adjust its compensation for the upcoming rate period,; and WHEREAS, GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. submitted an application for Rate Period 4 contractor's compensation, and a review has been conducted by HF&H Consultants, LLC; and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed HF&H's report and is in concurrence with their recommendation to forego a rate adjustment for Rate Period 4 because customer revenues are estimated to sufficiently cover Rate Period 4 compensation requirements; and WHEREAS, City staff chooses to exercise the City's option to increase the vehicle impact fee portion of the franchise fee up to 1.7%, which can be accomplished for Rate Period 4 without increasing rates, based on HF&H estimates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Petaluma: 1. Approves contractor's compensation for Rate Period 4 of $10,020,869; and 2. Approves maintaining current rates (which were effective as of October 2008) for Rate Period 4 of the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. Franchise Agreement for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Yard Trimmings Services, dated September 13, 2005; and 4 s:'•Waste Nhinagement Folder`•ngenda hVm4•C:rccn\Vaste RecoveW27009 Ruic Rcvie%� Ll,� Amendmenf'RaLc ReviewTINAL 2009 GWR Rate Year 4 Recommendation Rev. l.doc 2] 75 N. California Boulevard, Suite 990 Walnut Creel-, California 94596 Telephone: 925/977-6930 Fam 925/9-77-6935 7MJ V,Vi-car:,9dtaieis.enm June 23, 2009 Mr. Vince Marengo Director of Public Works City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952-2610 1 V ■iTei : l id"'4 2 iI Advisory Services to Municipal Management Robert D. Fulton, CMC John W. Famlmpf, PF Laith B. )raaet, CMC Richard J. Simonson, CMC Marva M. Sheehan, CPA Subject: GreenWaste Recovery Rate Period 4 Compensation and Rates Dear Mr. Marengo: HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) was retained by the City of :Petahama (City) to: (1) review lice contractor compensation application submitted by GreenWaste Recovery (GWR) for Pate Period 4 of the 2005 Franchise Agreement for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Yard Trimming Services (Franchise Agreement); and, (2) determine customer rates for collection services for Rate Period 4. hi this letter, we present our analysis and results, which are orgatuzed in three sections: • Sumanary and recommendation; • Contractor's compensation for Pate Period 4; and, • Rates for bale Period 4. Rate Period 4 is a 12 -month period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. Note that HF&H's scope of services did not include auditing of information provided by GWR such as customer account data, tonnage data, or revenues reported from GWR's general ledger. 'Therefore, we have relied on the data provided by GWR in our analysis. A. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION While the majority of contractor's costs increased to reflect changes in various cost indices, Rate Period 4 contractor's compensation (570,020,869) increased only 03% aver Rate Period 3 contractor's compensation beCattSe there was a significant decrease in disposal tonnage and costs. The disposal cast decrease offset nearly all the cost increases. The estimated rate revenues for Rate Period 4 will cover the Rate Period 4 contractor's compensation and may generate a surplus of $175,000 or more. This provides an opportunity for the City to (1) reduce rates by 1.7%, (2) maintain current rates, or (3) maintain current rates yet increase the City's vehicle impact fee to generate more funds for street maintenance costs related to collection vehicle wear and tear. b .":'AVastc Maiwg neem Fo[deC%Agcnda heins'kGreenWaste Rccover '%2009 Ralc Revicuv & Amendment'Rate Review\171NAL 2009 Gi N -`R ii.tte fear d Recornmt;ndalion.duc WNW Advisory Services to Municipal Management Mr. Vince Marengo June 23, 2009 Page 2 of 10 Rate Period 3 customer rate revenues are considerably less than anticipated and are not sufficient to cover the Rate Period 3 revenue requirements. Ibe estimated revenue shortfall is $355,000. The City is contractually obligated to make the contractor whole for this shortfall, but is not obligated to start recovering the shortfall until Rate Period 5. Recovery of this revenue shortfall will necessitate a rate increase of approximately 3.5%. If the City chooses to plan for recovery of the Rate Period 3 revenue shortfall during Rate Period 4, the anticipated Rate Period 4 revenue surplus will offset some of the shortfall, necessitating a rate increase of 1.8%. Based on our analysis, HF&H identified four rate setting options for the City to consider for Rate Period 4. Each option is described below. HF&H recommends Options 1 or 2, which keep rates at the current level. 1. No rate adjustment, thus providing contingency for Rate Period 4 revenues and delaying Rale Period 3 shortfall recovery. 71 -is option has the benefit of providing a contingency for Rate Period 4 revenues and delaying the adjustment of the recovery of the revenue shortfall for Rate Period 3 uritil Rate Period 5. This delay may be prudent given that the City is considering assignment of the Agreement and such assignment may impact future compensation and revenue reconciliation procedures. 2. No rate adjustment, yet increase to Vehicle Impact Fees, thus delaying Rate Period 3 shortfall recovery. In this option, the City can increase the vehicle impact fee portion of the franchise fee up to 1.7% without increasing rates (e.g. vehicle impact fees would increase from 4.72% of rate revenues to 6.42% resulting in a total franchise fee of 16.42%). In this case, the contingency for Rate Period 4 revenues would be reduced or eliminated depending on the amount of the vehicle impact fee adjustment. Like Option 1, the City will handle Rate Period 3 shortfall recovery during rate Period 5, which may be prudent. 3. Reduce rates 1.Ti/o thus anticipaiing Rate Period 4 surplus and delaying Rate Period 3 shortfall recovery. In this option, the City would reduce rates in anticipation of a Rate Period 4 revenue surplus. This option does not provide a contingency for uncertainties of the economy and the potential changes related to assignment of the Franchise Agreement. In this case, the City would delay the rate increase for recovery of the Rate Period 3 revenue shortfall, which may be prudent. 4. Increase rates 1.8% thus anticipating Rate Period 4 surplus and recovery of Rate Period 3 shortfall. Under this option, the City would increase rates to recovery Rate Period 3 revenue shortfall, while anticipating that Rate Period 4 revenue surplus will offset a portion of the Rate Period 3 shortfall. This option has the benefit of recovering Rate Period 3 shortfalls earlier than required with minimal impact to rates; but does not offer the benefit of delaying the recovery of the Rate Period 3 revenue shortfall 7 S:'•Wasti Adanagemeni FolcicrlAgenda lteins\U-cenWastc Reco ery\2009 Rate Re�,iex%7 & AniendinentlRatc Revie%NA INAL 2009 GWR Rate fear,l ]tecorrimendalion.doc 13 Advisory Services to Municipal Management Mr. Vince Marengo June 23, 2009 Page 3 of 10 tmtil the Franchise Agreement assignment is finalized. It does not provide a contingency for Rate Period 4 revenues. B. CONTRACTOR'S COMPENSATION FOR RATE PERIOD 4 GWR compensation calculations for Rate Period 4 were submitted on April 2, 2009 by Don Dean via email to HF&H. In accordance with the City's request, we have reviewed the GWR calculations for Rate Period 4 compensation. We performed the following procedures as part of our review: • We compared GWR's compensation adjustment application to the procedures listed in Section 12-41 of the Franchise Agreement. • We verified that all cost indices used and application of such indices conformed to lie Franchise Agreement. • We verified the accuracy of the calculaHons on GWR's compensation adjustment application and supporting schedules. Below we provide a summary and a description of our analysis. B.1 Summary GWR's calculated contractor's compensation was $9,932,676. In accordance with the City's request, HF&H reviewed GWWs calculations. We revised the compensation calculations to. (1) conform adjustment procedures specified by the Franchise Agreement, (2) include City fees for rate review efforts, and, (3) adjust franchise fees from 13.22% to 14.72%. The final Rate Period 4 contractor's compensation is $10,020,869, as presented in Attachment 1. Note that while costs increased to reflect changes in various cost indices, a significant decrease in tie solid waste tonnage and disposal costs offset nearly all cost increases. As a result, the Rate Period 4 contractor's compensation is only 0.5% more than Rate Period 3 compensation ($9,971,784). 13.2 Analysis 1. Verification of Base Data: We found that GWR used the expenses for Rate Period 3 as a starting point for Date Period 4 and those expenses were correctly reported on the application for Date Period 4 compensation. 2. Labor -Related Costs: We foumd that GWR incorrectly calculated the Labor Index adjustment of 1.169'x. It was calculated as the percentage change based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers, rather than the CPl for Urban Wage Earners, as specified by the Franchise Agreement. HFAH revised the calculation of the labor- 8 5:`:�i rite 1laira�emenl Folder,'Agenda ltcins'CGreenWaste RecovenA?009 Rete Rcvjc�� & Amendment", ite Revien'TJNAL 2009 GWP. Riue i'een- 4 ltecasmmendation.doc =t- Advisory Services to Municipal Management Mr. Vince Marengo June 23, 2009 Page 4 of 10 related costs to reflect the correct Labor Index of 0.88%, which was calculated as the percentage change between the February 2009 CPI and February 2008 CPI for Urban Wage Earners. 3. Vehicle -Related Costs: We found that GWR applied the correct Motor Vehicle Related Index adjustment of 5.67%. 4. Recyclable Materials Processing Costs: We found that GWR's calculated index adjustment of 0.66% was incorrect. It was calculated as 75% of the percentage change based on the CPI for All Urban Consumers, rather than 100'10' of the percentage change in the CPI for Urban Wage Earners, as specified by the Franchise Agreement. HF&H calculated the correct index of 0.88%, which is 100% of the percentage change between the February 2009 CPI and February 2008 CPT for Urban Wage Earners. HF&H revised the recyclable materials processing costs to reflect the correct index. The processing cost calculations also used the total tons collected for the most -recently reported 12 -month period multiplied by the per -ton processing cost to determine annual processing costs. We determined the reasonableness of the most -recently reported 12 months of tonnage by comparing them to the tons reported for the most -recently reported 12 -month period used for Rate Period 3 calculations. Based on our tonnage comparison, the reported tonnage used for Rate Period 4 appears reasonable. Note that HF&H did not confirm the accuracy of the reported tonnage as we did not perform an audit of the information provided by GWR. 5. Other Costs: We found that GWR did not calculate the correct index for adjusting other costs. HF&H revised other costs to reflect the correct index of 0.87%, which was calculated as 757% of the percentage change between the February 2009 CPI and February 2008 CPl for All I]rban Consumers. 6. Direct Depreciation: HF&H found that GWR's calculated depreciation expense of $937,891 agreed to the depreciation expense for Rate Period 3, and therefore, was the correct amount for Rate Period 4. 7. Allocated Costs - Labor, Vehicle & Other Costs: We note that the Franchise Agreement does not stipulate the methodology for adjustment of General and Administrative, Vehicle Maintenance, and Container Maintenance Allocated Costs for Rate Period 4. When detern7.ining Rate Period 3 compensation GWR agreed to procedures and those procedures will be documented in the First Amendment to the Franchise Agreement (which is scheduled to be presented to Council for approval in July 2009). HF&H found that GWR used a different methodology for adjustment in its Rate Period 4 calculations (compared to Rate Period 3). HF&H adjusted the allocated 9 S:\Waste Management Foltler,Agenda hemslGrceii ante Rec mer\ i2009 Rau Rct,icit & Anmidme€it'Rate ReviL aw', 1NAL 2009 (A 'R 1Zate Year 4 Reconmiendation.duc 7: Advisory Services to Municipal Management Mr. Vince Marengo June 23, 2009 Page 5 of 10 cost calculations to match the Rate Period 3 methodology to provide consistency in the calculations. The following table presents the recommended Rate Period 4 indices. Allocated General & Administrative Allocated Vehicle Maintenance ffiffimogm _ d I't r..,,... All Urban _ 1.16% 75% All Urban 0.87% Consumers Index Consumers Index Motor Vehicle Related Index Allocated Container Motor Vehicle Maintenance Related index 5.67% Motor Vehicle 5.67% Related Index 5.67% Motor Vehicle 5.67% Rela led Index 8. Allocated Costs - Depreciation: We verified GWR calculated allocated depreciation costs for Eate Period 4 in accordance with the procedures used during Rate Period 3. 9. Profit: We found that GWR calculated the profit amount in accordance with procedures described in the Franchise Agreement. 10. Pass -Through Disposal and Organics Processing Costs: We found that GWR did not calculate the per -ton disposal and processing costs adjustments using the correct index as described by the Francluse Agreement. HF&H calculated the correct index of 0.88%, which is 75% of the percentage change between the February 2009 CPI and February 2008 CPI for Urban Wage Earners. HF&H revised the disposal and processing costs to reflect the correct index. Disposal tonnage for the most -recently completed 12-manths is also used to determine disposal costs for Rate Period 4. The disposal tonnages are at least 8.31'D' less than the tormage used in Rate Period 3 calculations. 'n -lis tonnage decrease, which is lit ely attributable to the downturn in the economy, results in a $285,425 decrease in Rale Period 4 disposal costs. 11. Other Pass -Through Costs clue to Contractor. Pass-through costs due to contractor include: regulatory fees, CPCFA fees and expenses, interest expense, direct lease costs, and allocated lease and procurement costs. HF&H found that GWR correctly calculated these costs, which are fixed annually and match those included in Rate Period 3. 12. Verification of City Fees: We recalculated the Franchise Fees as 11.72% of gross revenues to reflect the City's September 2008 resolution to increase the fees from 13.22% 10 :`.14`astc \I<tts;rgemutt Folder%'Agend.r Recovcn` 7009 Rate Rcvjcni & AmendtnentlRate Revic v'TINAL 2009 (iWR Ititte Year 4 ftecoinniendaiion.doc Advisory Services to Municipal t49cinagemenL Mr. Vince Marengo June 23, 2009 Page 6 of 10 to include an additional 1.5% .for vehicle impact fees. GWR included some City fees, but not all. HF&H revised the fees included in the Rate Period 4 contractor compensation as pass-through costs. Fees are as follows: HF&H presented its proposed adjustments to GWR's calculated contractor's compensation in mid-June. GWR was in agreement with the changes and procedures presented by HF&H Attachment 1 presents the contractor's compensation for Rate Period 4 identifying costs by numerous cost categories. C. Rates for Rate Period 4 The process of determining rates for Rate Period 4 involved three steps: • Estimating potential Pate Period 3 revenue surplus or shortfall (e.g., the difference between annual contractor's compensation and estimated customer revenues), wlticlt the City may want to recover through the Rate Period 4 rates; • Estimating Rate Period 4 customer revenues; and, • Calculating potential Rate Period 4 revenue surplus or shortfall (difference between annual contractor's compensation and estimated customer revenues). Below we provide a summary and a description of our analysis. C.1 Summary We found that Rate Period 3 customer revenues will be approximately $354,481 short of the Rate Period 3 revenue requirement. This shortfall is primarily resulting from customers reducing their service level due to changes in the economy and/or in response to the October 11 S:'.11'aste A-lanegcmcia Folder\AgeW;i 11cin.slGrGenWaste Rccover%X2009 Rate Rcvje%v & niendn nt`,,Rale RevicwTINAL 2009 GWR Rate 1 -ear 4 Rccori5nienclation.doc .... ... ... .. ...: .. ... Vehicle impact fee study (to be included through $3,333 City Rate Period 5) HHW and AB 939 programs fees $167,900 City Rate Period 3 rate application review costs (to be $24,746 GWR included through Rate Period 5) Rate Period 4 rate application review costs (to be $9,017 City included only in RY 4) Annual revenue reconciliation costs (due to City) $8,855 City Franchise fees (14.72%) $1,475,072 Citv HF&H presented its proposed adjustments to GWR's calculated contractor's compensation in mid-June. GWR was in agreement with the changes and procedures presented by HF&H Attachment 1 presents the contractor's compensation for Rate Period 4 identifying costs by numerous cost categories. C. Rates for Rate Period 4 The process of determining rates for Rate Period 4 involved three steps: • Estimating potential Pate Period 3 revenue surplus or shortfall (e.g., the difference between annual contractor's compensation and estimated customer revenues), wlticlt the City may want to recover through the Rate Period 4 rates; • Estimating Rate Period 4 customer revenues; and, • Calculating potential Rate Period 4 revenue surplus or shortfall (difference between annual contractor's compensation and estimated customer revenues). Below we provide a summary and a description of our analysis. C.1 Summary We found that Rate Period 3 customer revenues will be approximately $354,481 short of the Rate Period 3 revenue requirement. This shortfall is primarily resulting from customers reducing their service level due to changes in the economy and/or in response to the October 11 S:'.11'aste A-lanegcmcia Folder\AgeW;i 11cin.slGrGenWaste Rccover%X2009 Rate Rcvje%v & niendn nt`,,Rale RevicwTINAL 2009 GWR Rate 1 -ear 4 Rccori5nienclation.doc Advisory Services to Municipal Management Mr. Vince Marengo Jame 23, 2009 Page 7 of 10 2008 rate increase. The City is obligated under the terms of the Franchise Agreement to make the contractor whole for revenue shortfalls. A rate increase of approximately 3.5% would be needed to recovery the Pate Period 3 shortfall. HF&H estimated customer revenues for Rate Period 4 using two methods. One method, which resulted in an estimate of $10,312,6$2 in Rate Period 4 revenues, relies on forecasting Rate Period 4 revenues using six months of the most -recently reported revenues from GWR general ledger reports. The second method relies on GWR's May 2009 customer account data to estimate Rate Period 4 residential and commercial revenues and six months of the most -recently reported revenues from GWR general ledger reports. It resulted in estimated Late Period 4 revenues of $10,195,941. '11ie second method, which estimated lower Rale Period 4 revenues, may provide a more reasonable estimate because it relies on the current customer subscription levels that reflect today's economic conditions. It may also provide some contingency against uncertainties related to the accuracy of the historical drop box customer data and related rate revenues; econon-dc conditions (which may result is lower service levels and lower customer revenues); and, transition to a new collector if the Franchise Agreement is assigned. For these reasons, we present estimated revenue shortfalls and surpluses and rate adjustments in this report based on the second method. HF&H estimated a potential Rate Period 4 revenue surplus of $175,000, which could allow for a rate reduction of 1.79. However, given the uncertainties of economic conditions and potential transition to a new contractor, we do not recommend reducing rates. If the City wants to recover the Rate Period 3 revenue shortfall during Rate Period 4, we estimate a revenue shortfall of $180,000 for Rate Period 4 at current rates. To offset this shortfall, a 1.8% rate increase would be needed. C.2 Analysis 1. Rate Period 3 Revenue Surplus or Shortfall. Pursuant to Section 13.2 of the Franchise Agreement, a revenue reconciliation process is to be performed after each Rate Period. hi the event, rate revenues collected from customers are less than the contractor's compensation, the rates are to be increased in the subsequent rate period to make the contractor whole for the revenue shortfall. If rate revenues exceed the contractor's compensation, the contractor's compensation for the following Rate Period is to be reduced by the amount of the revenue surplus. This revenue reconciliation is not required until October 2009 (after Rate Period 3 is completed) with recovery of any shortfall to occur during Rate Period 5. However, it seems prudent to estimate the potential revenue shortfall or surplus to determine if a significant rate increase will be needed to recover any shortfalls. 12 5:\Wasle Management FoWer`;Agmda item lGreciffasic Rccovcn•\-)()01 Raw Revim & AjiiendtncrntlRatc Rcvie%NlT-INAL 2009 61t'R Rate 1'4-ar 4 Recommunclaticm.doc Advisory Services to NItir eipal Management Mr. Vince Marengo June 23, 2009 Page 8of10 GWR reported customer rate revenues for 17 of the 18 months in Rate Period 3 (i.e., from January 2008 through May 2009). HF&H reviewed rate revenues and estimated revenues for the 18 -month Rate Period. The estima€ed revenues for Rate Period 3 were determined to be $14,670,260, which are $6105,061 Iess than the Rate Year 3 revenue requirement. The revenue shortfall is attributable to a significant migration of customers to lower service levels. For example, the number of cubic yards serviced per week for commercial accounts decreased 12.4% since Rate Period 3 resulting in a 12% commercial rate revenue decrease. Htmdreds of residents shifted to smaller container sizes resulting in a 7% residential rate revenue decrease. GWR identified, that they had underreported drop box revenues by $244,568 from September 2005 through March 2009. HF&H estimated additional underreported drop box revenues of 56,013 for April. through June 2009 (based on average monthly revenues for prior six months). Accounting for these additional revenues reduces the estimated revenue shortfall from $605,061 to $354,481. The revenue shortfall amocutt will be finalized daring the formal revenue reconciliation process in October 2009 and the City is required to make adjustments in Rate Period 5 for the Pate Period 3 shortfall. However, the City may choose to make an adjustment as part of the Rate Period 4 rates to generate monies to cover the estimated $354,481 revenue shortfall. Attachment 2 presents the Rate Period 3 revenue requirement and calculation of the estimated Rate Period 3 shortfall. 2. Rate Period 4 Customer Revenues. The City is responsible for setting maximum customer rates and has a responsibility to set rates at a level that will generate sufficient revenues to cover the contractor's compensation and any revenue shortfalls or surpluses from prior rate period(s) pursuant to Section 13.1 of the Francltise Agreement. To estimate the rate adjustment needed (if any), HF&H estimated Rate Period 4 customer rate revenues and compared it to the Rate Period 4 contractor's compensation and Rate Period 3 revenue shortfall. We used two methods to estimate Rate Period 4 customer revenues. The first method relied on revenues reported by GWR from its general ledger. Specifically, we annualized the most -recently reported six -months of customer revenues (i.e., December 2008 through May 2009). The estimated Rate Period 4 revenues are $10,312,682. We relied on the most recent six months of reported revenues as this revenue reflects the October 2008 rate increase, yet does not include the months of October and November 2008, when it appears many customers' reduced their service levels in reaction to the rate increase. The revenues show a downward trend, which may or may not continue in Pate Period 4. 13 Nhwagement FoldeflAucrid r hcinsl(.;recnl4'aste Recoven'0009 Ratc Review �K, Arnencinient%Rate RevietvlFiTNrAL 2009 GWR Rate Year 4 Recommundatiorl.drrc used to estimate drop box revenues because GWR disclosed that it was having difficulties separately reporting franchise and nom -franchise service and Petaluma and County service. For this reason, revenue reported from the general ledger as described in the first method was used to estimate the drop box revenues. Using this method, the estimated Rate Period 4 revenues were $10,195,941, which is $116,741 less than that determined in Method 1. 3. Potential hate Period 4 Revenue Shortfall or Surplus and Rate Adjustment. The next step in the rate setting process involved estimating potential revenue shortfall or surplus for Rate Period 4 at current rates. This calculation was performed in two steps. The first step was to calculate if estimated Rate Period 4 revenues will cover Rate Period 4 contractor compensation ($10,020,$69). In this case, calculations indicate that customer revenues will be sufficient to cover contractor compensation, with an estimated revenue surplus of 5291,813 for Method I and $175,072 for Method ? These shortfalls could allow for a rate reduction of 1.7% (Method 2) to 2.8% (Method 1). The second step involved calculating if the revenues will cover both the Rate Period 4 contractor's compensation ($10,020,869) and the Rate Period 3 estimated revenue shortfall ($354,4$1). This calculation indicated that revenues would fall short by $62,666 for Method I and $179,409 for Method ? Rate adjustment calculations performed by HF&H indicate that a 1.8% rate increase would cover the projected Rate Period 4 shortfall for Method ? This rate increase includes recovery of the estimated Rate Period 3 revenue shortfall during Rate Period 4. Attachment 3 presents the calculations described in this section. Very truly yours, I -IF& -H CONSULTANTS, LLC Robert D. Hilton, CMC President 14 ti:'•Waste Nhuiagtmcnt bolder Agend4i Items+.Grrenit`aste Recow n ?009 Rate Re%,ieNv & AinendmcnilRatc Revien•'•FINAI. 2009 GWR Rale Year 4 Reconwien&liori,doc Advisory Services to Municipal Management Mr. Vince Marengo June 23, 2009 Page 10 of 10 Attachments 1. Contractor's Compensation for Rate Period 4; 2 Rate Period 3 Estimated revenue and Revenue Shortfall Calculations 3. Rate Period 4 Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) and Rate Adjustment Calculations cc: Tracy Adams, GWR Don Dean, GWR Sherry Pimsler, City of Petaliuna Tracy Swanbom, HF&H Franl: Weigel, GWR 15 ,:'N' ;astc ;\•lanagcnient Folder\Agenda ItcroslGrcciffaste Recovcrv\2009 Rate Review & AiiiendnienllR:tte Review\FJNr11. 2009 GWIZ kite Year 4 Itecrntsmentlalit ti,doc Attachment 1 City of Petaluma Contractor's Ccmpenso5on for Rate Period 4 (July 1, 2009 through June 30, 20101 Rate period 4 - Projection Worksheet -HFH Version_€ pdaled Franch FeexfsGVUR Summary RY4 Attachment i Pagel of 2 16 S:''%Waslc Management l=oldcMgcnda Ilcros`•.GrecnWaste Rccoven',2009 Rats' RcvieSi & Amendment'Rate ReN'ic5N,1rINAL 009 GWR Ripe Year 4 Recorrinll:mkition.doc HFH GWR RY4 Corrected RY4 City HFH Final Final RY3 April 2, 2909 HFH Index (Before City Required RY4 Calculation calculation Adjustment Adjustments) Adjustments Calculation Labor Costs Regular Wages 981,095 992,475 (2,7B0) 989,695 - 989,695 Overtone Wages 311,62n 315,234 (183) 31,051 - 314,351 Holiday Wages 23,{]37 23,3M (65) 2.3,239 - 23.239 Vacation Wages 28,357 28,686 (60) 28,606 - 213,606 SickLeave Wages 24,252 24,533 (10) 24;164 - 24,161 Workers Compensation Insurance &Claims 180,656 162,751 (512) 182„39 - 182,239 ErnplGyers Liability Insurance - - _ - Heallh & Welfare 201,891 207,2.68 (5HI) 206,687 - 206,667 Pension/ Rchrernmll 13 -fits 44,447 44,963 (12(i) 44,837 - 44,837 Payroll Taxes 122,617 124,879 (347) 123,692 - 123,692 Contract Labor _ _ _ _ - TutalLaborCosts 1,T_0,971 1,9.13,25.1 (5,143) 1,937,811 - 1,937,11I1 Vehicle Related Costs Fuel 492,793 .920,735 520,735 - 52D,i35 Tires &Tubes 30,865 41,466 41,1166 41,066 Parts 24,657 26,055 26,055 26,055 Supplies (fluid, oil, etc.) 1-'S56 2,489 2,489 2,189 Taxes & Licenses 15-111 16,963 16,063 16,063 Fines & Penal - - - Other(PlcaseUst) Towing - - - - Radio Air Tir m S$Ma 6,171 6,171 6,171 Outside Repair: 19,0411 20,119 20,119 20,119 WItivAn Insmrmrr 96,081 Iul'.57J7 1D1,52H 101,528 To tal Vehicle Relaled Costs 694,8:31) 731,E - 734227 - 734227 Net R -c ,Oing PmcegMng Costa Drop Box & Annual Dmp-olf Processing Costs 209,9-16 376,372 11,905) 374,1167 374,467 Materia] Processing Revenue {242,537) (314,137} (525) M-1,601 (211,663) Total Ne l Rwyrling Processing Costs (331581) 132,235 12,431) 129,004 - 129,801 OOrer casts Liability& Property Damage lmanre - - - Damage Claims - - - - Rent 216,616 218,015 460 214505 218,503 Utilities - _ Non-vehirle related Supplies 12,9.4 13,029 27 13,057 13057 Norrvehicle Relaled Taxes &Licenses - - Training& Safety Programs - - - - InitialPubik- Ed cation&0.4r arh - - - - - Continuing Public Education &Oulrearlr 44,11211 45,116 95 45,211 45-111 Uniforms 15,224 15,324 32 15,156 15,356 Carl TZepl-ruenls _ _ _ Other(Pleasc List) 31,205 MA 91- 66 31,558 31,558 Talal 011ur Casts 321,889 323,006 6171 32.3,687 - 323,587 Dire t Depreciation Facility Depreciation Container Depreciation 411,113 411,113 434,]]3 134,113 Route Vehicle Depreciation 503,778 503,778 5Y3,778 5113,78 Other Depreciation - - TotalDirectDeprecialion 9371891 937,891 - 937,891 - 937,691 Allocated Corti - Labor, Vel&le & Ofher Costs ftoruGenenil& Administrative (6K) 590,46] 597,310 (1,699) 595611 595,611 From Vehicle Main tename(61.) 304,7na 321,976 - 321,976 321,976 From C a n I a inor Mainlevamc (6hi) I73,D6.1 1l3'',tr77 - 182,877 182,877 Total Allocated Costs 1,068,15 1,102,164 (1,699) 11160,415 - 1,100,465 Rate period 4 - Projection Worksheet -HFH Version_€ pdaled Franch FeexfsGVUR Summary RY4 Attachment i Pagel of 2 16 S:''%Waslc Management l=oldcMgcnda Ilcros`•.GrecnWaste Rccoven',2009 Rats' RcvieSi & Amendment'Rate ReN'ic5N,1rINAL 009 GWR Ripe Year 4 Recorrinll:mkition.doc Attachment 1 City of Petaluma Contractors Compensation for Rate Period 4 {Ju[y 1, 20€]91hrough June 30, 2010) Cost Indices Us rel to Calculations GWR RY4 }t17] HFH April 2,2009 Correcled GWR RY4 Calculation Corrected RY4 city HFH Final 1.16% Fina( RY7 April 2, 2009 HFH Index (Before City Required RY4 249% Calculation Calculation Adjustment Adjustments) Adjustments Calculation Allocated Casts - Depreciation From General and AdudnMralire(6K) 11,197 11,171 11,197 - 31,197 From Velrtcle Mlainlenance (6L) 903 903 WL; - 9W From Container Maintenance (W) 1,300 1,300 1,300 - 1,300 Total Allocaled Costs - Depredation 13,400 13,410 - 13;100 - 13;100 Allacaled to Non-17mmluse Debris Sox (4,405) (1,4051 (38) (4;143) (4,443) To lal AnnualCosl of Operalions 4,919,0_01 5,181,773 (8,931) 5111"442 - 5,172,842 Profit(Ehler% Opera ling Rafio;i %3 . 655,358 706,605.39 (1,217.6x) 705,388 - 705,388 Pass-Tlumagh Casts Disposal Cost (due to eantmdur) 1,813;120 1,511,927 (13,832) 1,527,995 - 1,5 ,995 Organic Materials Trp Fee( due to contractor) 313,304 291,250 11,59 302,509 - 301,509 Vehicle Impact Fee Study (to be rendtied to City) 3,333 - - - 3333 3,333 (include only fhraughRYS) Re 6ulalury-Fees(due to contractor) 90 90 - 90 - 90 CPCEA Fees Er Expenses (dug to contractor) 73,322 73,32 - 73,32_0 - 73,322 Interest Expense (due to contractor) 479,979 479,979 - 479,979 - 479,979 1-0-3W vrd Ata 939 Pmb,mrrr Fees (due to City) 167,900 167,990 - 167,900 - 167,900 Vehicle Impact Fee (to be rendlled to City) 124-365 124,365 - 121365 (124,365) 0 RY 3 Rale Application Review Costs (clue to GWR) 33,601 - - - 24,746 34,796 (include only tluaugh RYS) RY 4 Rale Application Review Costs (due to City) - - - - 9p17 9,017 (include only in RY4) Anrmal Revenue Reconciliation Review Casts (due to City) - - - - 8855 8,855 Direct Leas# Costs (due to City) - - - - - Route Vehicles - - - - - - Otluar(please List) - - - - - TotalDirmt Lease Costs 3,009,115 2,678,533 (2,573) 2,676,160 (76,414) 2-597,746 Allocated Len se and Procurenucrd Casts Fru'General and Adminstraiive(6K) 69,621 69,821 - 69,123 - 69a'Lt From VeluuL• Maintenance (6L) - - - - - - FromC6nMalnCrMainlenance(6M) - - - - - - Total Allocated Lease and Procuresaen( Costs 69,821 69,EM - OEM - 69,621 To tal Pass Through Costs 3,076,935 2.748,551 (2,573) 2,745,981 (78,114) 2667.567 Tota] ContrwforCompematinn before Franchise Fees 6,653,514 6,636,932 (12,711) 8,624;511 (78314) 6,535,797 Franchise Fees' 14.72% 1,318o 1,315,744 (1,938) 1,313,806 (161,266) 1,47 ,071 To [a] Canlraclor Conrpeization 9,99/1,7&1 9,952,676 (14,6591 9,938,017 ('3' 9,680) 1010;01869 Fr jeebd revenue at current rales 9,487,435 Cnmpariwit In Ra le Year 3To[a] Contractor Cumpenw lion -0,19%, Caleolaled Frawhise Fee 13.021% 13.22% 13.2% 13.2% 67.28% 14.721% ' Franchise fee amount was increased to 14.72% in Sep tmber 2008, Oulyl3.229%isrvIImledin RY3. Cost Indices Us rel to Calculations Attachment t Rale pennd 4 - Projection Wwkshaet_HFH Version_tlpdaied French Fae.AsGWR Summary RY4 Page 2 of 2 17 5:",Weste-Mallap'rwni: Fclldd%,Agcndd ficin5'lGi-e1.11Waste Recoveci'\21009 Rale Review e� lEmendmenilR ite Rcvic '1i'1NA1, 2009 C WIZ Rate Year 4 RCCOTlllllcndali(m.dOC GWR RY4 }t17] April 2,2009 Correcled Rale Per€od3 Calculation RY4 Labor 100% of5an Francisca-Oakland-Sanjose,CM- Urban Wage Earners 3.07% 1.16% [LB13% Mater 100 % Motor Veldcle Related Index, All Urban Consumers 3.30% 5.67% 5.67% Other 75% of San Frandwo- Oakland - San lase, CPI All- UrbanConsumem 249% 6.66% 0-87% Attachment t Rale pennd 4 - Projection Wwkshaet_HFH Version_tlpdaied French Fae.AsGWR Summary RY4 Page 2 of 2 17 5:",Weste-Mallap'rwni: Fclldd%,Agcndd ficin5'lGi-e1.11Waste Recoveci'\21009 Rale Review e� lEmendmenilR ite Rcvic '1i'1NA1, 2009 C WIZ Rate Year 4 RCCOTlllllcndali(m.dOC Attachment 2 Rate Period 3 Estimated Revenue and Revenue Shortfall Calculations Rate Period 3 - January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 Rate Period 4 - July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 Rate Period 3 Revenue Requirement Contractor's Compensation for Rate Period 3 (12 -month) $ 9,705,312 Vehicle Impact Fee (12 -month) 5 143,311 Adjusted Contractors Compensation for Rate Period 3 (12 -months) $ 9,848,623 18 -month Contractor's Compensation for Rate Period 3 $ 14,772,935 CPI Adjustmentfor Contractor's Compensation $ 123,161 Rate Periods 1 and 2 Revenue Short€all 5 379,226 Total Revenue Requirement for Rate Period 3 $ 15,275,3222 Rate Period 3 Estimated Revenues Revenues reported by GWR per General Ledger records January 2008 through December 20D8 $ 9,505,624 January 2009 $ 875,160 February 2009 $ 869,190 March 20D9 $ 858,890 April 2009 $ 859,17B May 2009 $ 842,827 Estimated Revenues June 2009" $ 859,390 Rate Period 3 Estimated Revenues (18 -months) $ 14,670,260 " June 2009 revenue estimate is based on the average monthly revenue for the prior 6 -months. Rate Period 3 Estimated Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) Estimated Revenues (18 -months) $ 14,670,260 Revenue Requirement (18 -months) $ 15,275,322 Estimated Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) I $ (605,061)1 Shortfall Underreported Drop -Box Revenue (Past Year through March 2009) $ 244,568 Estimated underreported Drop -Box Revenue Por April through June 2009 $ 6,013 Adjusted Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) 1 $ (354,481) Shortfall Attachment 2 Rev Recon 0609.xis Page 1 of 1 18 ti:l'isle Management Fokicr`,Agenda Iteins',GreenWastc Rcca+'e€7'l?(I{)I Rriic AniendinentlRate Re•icwl "INAL, 2009 GWIZ Rite Year -4 Reconimendalion,dou Attachment 3 Rate Period 4 Revenue Surplus (Shortfall) and Rate Adjustment Calculations Rate Period 3 - January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 Rate Period 4 - July 1, 2049 through June 30, 2010 Rev Recon 0609,xis Attachment 3 Page 1 of 1 19 S:II� a�tr 11-{anargerttent Folder\Agenda ltcros;C;re4n14'asle Recovery\2009 Rale Review & Amendrnent'Rate Review;; INAL 2009 GWR Rate Year 4 Recornntendution.duc Method 1 Method 2 Estimated Revenues Estimated using Customer Acct Revenues using Data and General Genera[ Ledger Ledger Estimated Rate Period 4 Revenues' S 10,312,682 $10,195,941 Rate Period 4 Contractors Compensation S 10,020,869 $ 10,020,869 Estimated Rate Period 4 Revenue Surplus {Shortfall) I $ 291,613 I $ 1-15,072 t 1 Surplus Estimated Rate Adjustment -2.83% -1.72° Decrease Estimated Rate Period 3 Revenue Shortfall (See Attachment 2) S (354,481) $ (354,481) Shortfall Estimated Ram Adjustment 3.44,1 3.48%' Increase Combined Rate Period 4 Revenue Surplus and Rate Period 3 Shortial $ (62,668)1 $ (179,409) Shortfall EstimabLd Rate Adjustment 0.61°%) 1.76%1 Increase ` Estimated Rate Period 4 Revenues do not include estimate of revenues from underreported drop -box service. Rev Recon 0609,xis Attachment 3 Page 1 of 1 19 S:II� a�tr 11-{anargerttent Folder\Agenda ltcros;C;re4n14'asle Recovery\2009 Rale Review & Amendrnent'Rate Review;; INAL 2009 GWR Rate Year 4 Recornntendution.duc ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF PETALUMA RATE SHEET FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLES AND YARD TRIMMINGS COLLECTION SERVICE Effective October 1, 2006 Residential Cart Service (Monthlvl` $10.91 Commercial Solid Waste Bin Service (Monthlvl"" $18.00 120 Gallon Carl (ea.) $ 8.26 Lock Installation (perinstall) . 1.5 YDS 2YDS 3 YDS 4 YDS 6 YDS 120 Gallon Carl (ea.)- Lifeline $ 6.19 I 1 pick-up/week $ 217.43 $ 255A3 $ 341.77 S 375.51 S 513.89 135 Gallon Carl (ea.) $ 14.65 1 2 pick-up/week $ 358.58 $ 433.48 $ 587.46 S 723.02 S 873.92 135 Gallon Cart (ea.) -Lifeline $ 10.98 I 3pick-uplweek $ 511,14 $ 604.57 $ 966.32 S 1,088,07 S 1,358.01 I 165 Gallon Carl (ea.) S 27.75 4 pick-uplvreek $ 620.59 $ 880.20 $ 1.303.62 S 1,476.69 S 1,843.01 I 165 Gallon Cart (ea.)- Lifeline $ 20.82 5 Dick-up/week $ 859,92 $ 1,122.38 S 1,655.02 S 1,883.63 S 2,351.30 1 195 Gallon Cart (ea.) 5 45.80 1 6 pick-uplweek $ 1,047.22 $ 1,201.32 $ 2,030.62 5 2,308.25 5 3,018.56 1 'Includes Recyclable Materials and Yard "Includes Recyclable Malesials Collection services Trimming Collection Services Commercial & Multi -Family Solid Waste Cart Service fMonthlyi" Commercial Yard Trimmina Bin Service (Monthly) 1.5YDS'-, 2YDS 3YDS 4YDS 6YDS Gallon Cart (ea.) $ 25.68 I 1 pick-up/week $ 163.07 $ 191.57 $ 256,32 S 281.63 S 385.42 1135 465 Gallon Cart (ea.) $ 44.66 I 2 pick-up/week $ 268.94 $ 325.11 $ 440.59 S 542.26 S 655.44 195 Gallon Cart (es,) $ 63.65 4 3 pick-uplweek $ 383.35 $ 453.43 S 724.74 S 816.06 $ 1,018.51 •"Indudes Recyclable Materials Collection I 4 pick-up/week S 465.44 S 660.15 $ 977.71 S 1,107.52 S 1,382.26 services 1 5 pick-up/w.ek S 644.94 $ 841.78 $ 1,241.26 S 1,412.72 S 1,763.47 6 pick-up/week S 785.42 $ 900.99 $ 1,522.96 S 1,731.19 S 2,263.92 I Commercial & Multi -Family $10.91 Pushout Charge (25ft,/month) $18.00 Lock & Push (per month.) Yard Trimmina Cart Service (Monthly) Lock Installation (perinstall) Mall Off Solid Waste Service Container Cleaning (each) $54.54 Weight Surcharge io YDS 15 YDS 20 YDS 25 Y DS 30 YDS 40 YDS 1 135 Gallon Cart ica.) $ 19.26 IPerpull NIA N/A $ 221.40 NIA S 265.64 S 265,64 I 165 Gallon Can lea,) $ 33.49 ICompactor $ 182.43 $ 265.67 5 354,22 $ 442.78 S 531.35 S 708.46 I 195 Gallon Cart (ea.) S 47.74 IPerTon $ 59.09 $ 59.09 $ 59.09 $ 59.09 S 59.09 S 59.09 INote: 15- and 25 -yard service is only available as compactor service. Extra Servicas Lock Service (per lock/month) $10.91 Pushout Charge (25ft,/month) $18.00 Lock & Push (per month.) $18.00 Lock Installation (perinstall) $160.36 Container Cleaning (each) $54.54 Weight Surcharge $0.00 Cart Replacement (each) $10.91 (In addilion to one per year at no additional cost) Extra Pick-up (per service) Monthly Rate divided by 4 20 `;1Vaste Ahmagetnem Fold&Agenda hclns\G)-cenl,Vastc Recover%A2009 Rate Revim & AmendnicniTate ReviewTINAL 2009 G)A"R Rale Year Recnrmnendulinn.doc