HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session - Competitive Services Model Side by Side Stre Su 4ity
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
H" CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Hunfi
ACTS AkN ` =
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Pam Houchen, Chair— Competitive Services Subcommittee
Date: February 12, 2002 '
Subject: Competitive Services Subcommittee Street Sweeping Report
The Competitive Services Subcommittee has completed its evaluation of the city's side-
by-side street sweeping comparison.
Background
In May of 1998, the City Council directed staff to prepare a plan and cost estimates for a
return to twice-a-month street sweeping. The City Council also directed staff to initiate a
side-by-side comparison of the city's street sweeping operation with a private
contractor. The side-by-side comparison called for the city and the contractor to share
street sweeping duties and alternate street sweeping routes.
In October 1999, the City Council awarded a two-year contract (with three one-year
extensions at the city's option) to Nationwide Environmental Services (Nationwide) for
street sweeping services. The contract with Nationwide marked the beginning of the
city's first competitive services comparison, which analyzed the cost and service quality
of the two providers.
Twice-a-month street sweeping began in November 1999. The competitive services
comparison was launched in January 2000 (after an adjustment period to allow the
contractor to learn the street sweeping routes), when staff began to track cost and
performance data related to the side-by-side street sweeping program.
Outcomes of Side-by-Side Comparison
Staff completed a 16-month analysis of the two street sweeping programs and
presented that data to the subcommittee in August of 2001. The 16-month comparison
is included as Attachment 1 and found:
• The Public Work's department cost to provide street sweeping service is between
5.18 percent and 11.1 percent less than the contractor's cost; and
• There is no significant difference in the quality of the street sweeping performed
by the Public Works department and Nationwide.
The committee then requested the Public Works department prepare an estimate of the
cost to perform the entire street sweeping program with city staff (Attachment 2). The
Public Works department informed the subcommittee, in December, that it estimates the
T
0 0
cost to perform the entire street sweeping program in-house is $518,211 for the first
year (FY2002-03) and $568,382 in the second year (FY 2003-04).
The first year in-house cost estimate is approximately $54,000 more than the projected
cost for 2001. The cost increase is almost completely driven by staffs recommendation
that the city begin buying alternative fuel street sweepers to comply with new air quality
standards. The alternative fuel street sweepers cost $52,000 more than diesel street
sweepers.
The Public Works department's report to the subcommittee recommends that city staff
begin performing the entire street sweeping program on October 1, 2002.
Recommendation
The subcommittee makes the following unanimous recommendation to the City Council:
1. Direct staff to provide twice-a-month street sweeping service with city staff
beginning October 1 , 2002
Attachments
1. 16-Month Side-by-Side Street Sweeping Comparison
2. Public Works' Cost Projection to Perform Entire Street Sweeping Program In-
House
2
(6) February 19, 2002 -Cou*Agency Agenda - Page 6
C-1. Council Committee/Council Liaison Reports I (fir
C-1 a. (City Council) Approve City Council Liaison Appointments for Boarder
Commissions, Committees, and Task Forces for the Year 2002 (120.20)
Communication from Mayor Debbie Cook transmitting the revised listing of Council
Liaison and Council Committee Member assignments titled City of Huntington Beach
Citizen Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Task Forces (Citizen Members
Appointed by City Council Action) for the remainder of the year 2002. All changes are
shown in boldface type.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Approve the Council Liaison and Committee assignments as shown in Attachment No. 1
titled City of Huntington Beach Citizen Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Task
Forces (Citizen Members appointed by City Council Action).
Approved 5-0-2 (Green, Houchen absent)
C-1 b. (City Council) Accept the Competitive Services Committee Recommendations—
Direct the Public Works Department Staff to Provide Twice-a-Month Street
Sweeping Service Beginning October 1. 2002 (Based on Results of Side-by-Side
Comparison with Contractor, Nationwide Environmental Services) (800.10)
Communication from Councilmember Pam Houchen, Chair of the Competitive Services
Committee informing Council that the Competitive Services Committee has completed
its evaluation of the city's Side-by-Side Street Sweeping Comparison.
The report from the Committee sets forth the background of the twice-a-month street
sweeping service and the outcome of the 16-month side-by-side comparison. The
Public Works Department's cost projection to perform the entire Street Sweeping
Program in-house is also included as an attachment.
The Committee makes the following unanimous recommendation to the City Council:
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Direct staff to provide twice-a-month street sweeping service with city staff beginning
October 1, 2002.
Approved extend existing contract with contracting firm and
Tul� negotiate with them to provide for a twice a month street
I sweeping service up until October 2003 with an option to go out
Thl�hN to competitive bid after October 2002 when current contract
ends. Councilmember Bauer will bring forward an H-memo to
evaluate whether or not contracting firm will pay prevailing wage
to its crew. 4-1-2 (Dettloff No; Green, Houchen absent)
Attachment 1
i
Fsi7e- y-Side Street Sweep 11 i 11 ng Competitive Services Analysis
omparison January - April 2001
Contract Street Sweeping 2000 2001 TOTALSweeping 2000 2001 TOTAL;
Operating Costs Operating Costs
Contract payments $219,730.68 $73,243.56 $292,974.24 Labor"` $139,605.78 $43,600.79 $183,206.57
Contract increase payments $2,838.91 $5,677.81 $8,516.72 Equipment lease payment $31,170.12 $10,390.04 $41,560.16
Fuel $8,523.21 $2,920.23 $11,443.44
Maintenance/repair $37,852.00 $14,720.51 $52,572.51
Total Operating Costs $222,569.69 $78,921.37 $301,490.96 Total Operating Costs $217,151.11 $71,631.57 $288,782.68
Contract Admin. Costs $17,807.57 $2,954.21 $20,761.78 Supervision Costs' $13,213.45 $4,387.55 $17,601.00
(cost to the city to administer the contract)
Difference(contract-city) $10,012.60 $5,856.47 $15,869.06
Percent Difference 4.35% 7.70% 5.18 0
Average Monthly Cost $20,031.43 $20,468.90 $20,140.80 Average Monthly Cost $19,197.05 $19,004.78 $19,148.98
Difference(contract-city) $834.38 $1,464.12 $991.82
*City operating costs include the cost to provide a replacement street sweeper driver for a driver who was replaced while recuperating from an
industrial accident. The costs has been included because on-the-job injuries, and the cost to replace injured personnel, are real costs to the
city, and properly incorporated in the competitive services analysis. The replacement cost (incurred in 2000) contains has two components: the
injury pay paid to the injured worker ($21,734) and the cost to replace the injured worker($20,059). Absent the cost to replace the injured
street sweeper driver, total cost for city street sweeping operations in 2000 would have been $210,305 (12.5 percent less than the contractor).
Excluding the injury costs from the entire 16 month calculation and city costs are$286,324 (11.1 percent) less than the contractor. THE
REPLACEMENT COST IMPACTS WERE DOUBLE COUNTED IN THE LAST VERSION OF THIS REPORT.
**The costs to supervise the city's operations for 2000 were likely undercounted. Staff has revised the tracking methodology and estimated
2000 costs based on 2001 experience. In 2000 total costs to supervise the city's street sweeping operation was $4,713.45. Using 2001 data,
this cost has been increased by$8,500.
4 215102
0 0 1 1
Side-by-Side Street Sweeping Competitive Services Analysis
Quality Comparison January - April 2001
PUBLIC INQUIRES
Contract Street Sweeping {Inquiries relating to level of service"} City Street Sweeping
41 26
22 Cleanliness 16
8 Missed Street/Area 3
8 Sweeper Speed 3
2 Customer Service 1
3 Property Damage/Safety 2
3 Wrong Dayrrime 1
FIELD INSPECTION SUMMARY
Contract Street Sweeping (Perfect Inspection Score is 2.0) City Street Sweeping
Residentiallindustrial Streets
1.900 Local Streets 1.958
1.300 Cross Gutter 1.167
2.000 Circles 1.958
1.250 Standing Water 1.250
Arterial Streets
2.000 Major Streets 2.000
1.850 Cross Gutter 1.667
1.500 Knuckles 1.667
1.900 Large Debris 2.000
2.000 Mud and Gravel 2.000
Painted & Curbed
2.000 Islands 2.000
2.000 Large Debris 2.000
1.909 Turn Pockets 1.778
2.000 Gravel 2.000
1.772 INSPECTION AVERAGE 1.757
21 inspections 24 inspections
*The majority of the public inquiries received by the Public Works department regarding street sweeping
are unrelated to the level of service the city or contractor delivers. These inquiries are primarily related
to parking citations, general questions about the program, and calls for service that exceed a street
sweeper's capability.
5 2/5/02
r
ice-a-Month Street Sweeping Performance
bris Collection Activity & History
Catch . .
Storm Drain Basins Percent Lbs of Percent Debris Per Percent
Cleaning Cleaned Change Debris Change Catch Basin Change
1999 (July- October) 1,614 NIA 87,115 NIA 53.97 NIA
2000 (July- October) 1,651 2.29% 74,760 -14.18% 45.28 -16.11%
F
1 •'
Contract City
Tons of • . Street Street Estimated
Debris Collected" Sweeping Sweeping Total
January 175.67 NIA 359.93
Febuary 142.10 NIA 284.20
March 168.65 NIA 337.30
April 118.34 N/A 236.68
May 112.47 NIA 224.94
June 116.31 NIA 232.62
July 95.14 NIA 190.28
August 113.17 NIA 226.34
September 111.71 NIA 223.42
October 134.55 NIA 269,10 Percent Comparedto
November 129.35 NIA 258.70 Difference Difference Contractor
December 107.25 NIA 214.50Prior
January 128.44 NIA 256.88Performance
February** 98.60 123.48 222.08 24.88 25.23% (43.50)
March** 144.13 147.92 292.05 3.79 2.63% (24.52)
April** 100.50 107.69 208.19 7.19 7.15% (17.84)
May" 129.92 136.26 266.18 6.34 4.88% 17.45
TOTAL 1,751.75 1 .:
Excluding February 2001 17.32 4.62% (24.91)
Average Month 10.55 9.97510 (17.10)
Average Month Excluding February 2001 5.77 4.89% (8.30)
* Storm Drains are cleaned once a year,just prior to the rainy season. Staff estimates that had Southern
California not experienced a very dry year in 2000, the reduction in the amount of debris collected from the
storm drain catch basins would have been greater than 50 percent.
**The amount of debris collected by city street sweepers was not tracked separately until February 2001. In
February, staff initiated a three month tracking program at the City Council's request. The tracking program
involved (raving city street sweepers dump their debris at Rainbow disposal (which is equiped with a scale)
rather than the city maintenance yard (which is not equiped with a scale). After February 2001's weight tickets
indicated a large discrepancy, staff extended the weight comparison. When the next three month's weight
results proved comparable, city sweepers were instructed to resume dumping at the city maintenance yard.
The debris collection total (when projected from January 2000 through January 2001) includes an adjustment
for the city's slightly higher collection rate.
6 2I5102
Attachment 2
•
J.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
To: Competitive Services Committee
From: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works o
Date: November 26, 2001
Subject: Street Sweeping Program by City Crews
SUMMARY:
In response to a request by the Competitive Services Committee, the Public
Works Department has compiled the associated costs for providing the entire
twice-a-month street sweeping program in-house (using the city's equipment
and employees) over a two-year period. The recommended starting date for
the City crews assuming full operation of the program is October 1 , 2002 so
that all the components necessary to ensure a consistent and uninterrupted
quality program are maintained.
EOUIPMENT:
The City leases two sweepers and owns three sweepers, one of which is
scheduled for salvage. The existing lease on the two units expires in January
2003, at which time the City will own the vehicles outright. The additional
workload associated with sweeping the entire program would require the
acquisition of two new sweepers, bringing the number of daily working units to
a fleet of four. Back-up units in the fleet would remain at two. At the time of
each replacement, a corresponding unit would be moved to back-up and a
back-up unit would be sent to salvage.
The City took delivery on one new, replacement sweeper on November 19,
2001 ; however, even with this important new fleet addition, there are currently
only four operational sweepers in the City fleet. This would not allow staff to
launch a full-service program as there would be no functional backup
equipment for the inevitable downtime that would occur. Based on the
expectations of the community for quality of service and cleanliness, using a'
sweeper in disrepair would only serve to create a negative image on the
0 0
program. Thus, a short-term minimum of five, functioning sweepers is
essential to a viable operation. To function on a normal, low-term level, six
sweepers are needed.
While there is an option for purchasing non--alternate fuel vehicles before July
1 , 2002 when AQMD Rule 1186.1 takes effect, staff recommends that the City
budget for and purchase alternate fuel vehicles in order to be consistent with
the City's emphasis on protecting the environment, and thereby, the quality of
life in Huntington Beach. If lease/purchased, each alternate fuel vehicle
utilizing propane would cost $1 77,477,30. This cost includes the price of the
vehicle and financing over a five-year lease period and, thus, based on the
current budget of $125,000, is approximately $52,000 more expensive per
vehicle over a diesel-powered unit.
FUEL:
Propane sweepers would be readily adaptable to the City Yard facilities where
there is the largest propane tank available on a lease basis. Leasing a larger
tank is not an option; so, Suburban Propane, the City's supplier, has agreed
that it would increase the number of deliveries required to maintain sufficient
reserve for the propane sweeper fleet.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), while an option for alternate fuel, is not a
viable choice due to the lack of extremely costly infrastructure at the City Yard
to fuel the vehicles. There are two CNG public stations within a five-mile radius
of the Yard. The Pickens Station located at the Post Office on Warner Avenue in
Huntington Beach is in close proximity, but access is too restricted for the large
sweepers. The Pickens Station at the Orange County Sanitation District on Ellis
Avenue in fountain Valley has sufficient room for the sweepers to maneuver
easily to accomplish filling; however, it is an excessively long distance for
routine use. The cost matrix on page four assumes propane fuel and does not
include CNG.
MAINTENANCE:
Specialized alternate fuel engine repair/maintenance training for mechanics
would be needed due to the impact AQMD rules will have on the City's fleet.
Because training will be undertaken with or without the purchase of alternate
9
0 0 1
fuel street sweepers, the cost will be absorbed by the fleet maintenance
program, and not borne by this program; therefore, it is not included in this
summary.
Sweeper maintenance costs increase with the age of the vehicle, ranging from
approximately $6,000 in the first year of service to $16,000 in the fifth year.
While warranties on new equipment cover replacement of major components
such as engine drive train and hydraulic components, routine maintenance
costs, including replacement of normal wear items such as brooms, drag shoes,
and curtains, have been factored in.
LABOR:
The current street sweeping crew would be increased by two Equipment
Operator/Street; however, the existing supervisory staff would not need to be
increased. A Lead Worker currently oversees both the city and contract
sweeping programs and it is anticipated that his time would be equal to what is
currently expended.
The number of vehicle maintenance staff would not increase with the addition
of two street sweepers as the anticipated labor needs would be absorbed within
current staffing levels. Nonetheless, the additional vehicle maintenance labor
and materials costs are accounted for in the maintenance section of this report.
The Equipment Operator/Street position salary is currently under review in a
compensation and classification study. There is also an anticipated cost-of--
living increase that would take effect in December 2001 , and again in
December 2002, depending on the outcome of negotiations. The cost of labor,
therefore, has been inflated by an assumed 10% in 2002 and an additional
assumed 3% in 2003.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Miscellaneous costs, such as the purchase of one radio and a Tach--o-Graph to
supplement the existing inventory, will be necessary to outfit the expanded
fleet. Additional items, such as annual uniform and safety clothing/equipment
are also factored in this line item.
1�
First Year Secon-dY-ear
Addition of Addition of
Lease" Purchases > 2 Propane I Propane
Equipment $ 86,591 $ 106,486
Fuel $ 33,000 $ 42,500
Maintenance $ 50,000 $ 53,000
Labor $ 341 ,907 1 $ 363,133
Misc. Operating Costs $ 6,713 $ 3,263
Debris Disposal: This proposal does not include costs for solid waste
management of debris and water from the sweeping program since the same
financial impact results whether the City or a contractor does the sweeping. So,
for the purposes of cost comparison between service providers this amount,
while very substantial, has been excluded.
1I
Chuck Scheid
8062 Ebbtide Circle
HuntBch, CA 92646
19 February 2002
Honorable Mayor Debbie Cook >
and Members of the City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648 >
Subject-. 19 February 2002 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item C-1 B — Competitive Services Committee Recommendations
Dear Mayor Cook,
Agenda Item C-1 b recommends that all street sweeping effort be brought in-house,
because, according to the staff study, the side-by-side competition with the private sector
demonstrated that the city staff can do it at a lesser cost. On 2 January 2002 1 provided a
letter to the city in which I concluded otherwise.
I hope that you will take my 2 January 2002 letter into consideration when you are
discussing this agenda item this evening. Inasmuch as I have received no response
whatsoever to that letter it is possible that all copies of the letter somehow got lost in the
system. Accordingly, for your convenience, I have attached a copy of that 2 January 2002
letter.
Sincerely yours,
C_zo.il
Chuck Sch id
Attachment
CC-' City Administrator
Chuck Scheid
8062 Ebbtide Circle
HuntBch, CA 92646
2 January 2002
Honorable Mayor Debbie Cook
and Members of the City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Subject: Street Sweeping Managed Competition
Dear Mayor Cook,
Several years ago the Huntington Beach City Council increased the frequency of street
sweeping from once a month to twice a month. The council could have authorized an
increase in City Staff and equipment to handle the increased work load, but did not.
Instead, council decided to have a side-by-side competition between city crews and a
private sector subcontractor to determine which would be the more cost-effective — an
approach the city has called "managed competition." As I understand it, each of the crews
swept identical routes to gain maximum assurance of a fair competition.
This effort was initiated and continued for over a year with a council sub-committee
monitoring the effort_ The program culminated with a meeting on 19 December 2001 to
evaluate results and develop a recommendation to be made to the full City Council.
The staff conclusion was that the City performed the street sweeping task at a cost of
about $1000 less per month than the subcontractor. Consequently, staff concluded that all
effort should be performed in house, and additional personnel and equipment brought on
board to handle the increased work load. Staff presented a cost estimate for the total task
for the next two years. It was also proposed that the current subcontractor continue on
until 1 October 2002, to facilitate the changeover.
All three council subcommittee members voted to accept the staff recommendations,
which presumably will be made to the full Council in the near future_
Unfortunately, the conclusion reached by staff that the city can do the job at a lesser cost
than the private sector is fatally flawed. The city required all bidders to use a labor rate far
higher than the rate the bidders typically paid their employees. Specifically, the bidders
typically pay their street sweepers $16.00 to $18.00 per hour, but were required by the city
to use a bid rate of $39.00 per hour. Both rates include various fringe benefits such as
vacation, retirement, etc.
i
Chuck Scheid
8062 Ebbtide Circle
HuntBch, CA 92646
It has been argued that state law requires this bid rate for this type of work_ This is just
simply not true for charter cities like Huntington Beach. A memo provided by city staff at
the 19 December 2001 meeting makes this very clear.
It seems self-evident that forcing the subcontractor to bid using a labor rate more than
twice as high as he otherwise would on a contract whose principal content is labor will
produce erroneous comparisons.
I suspect that use of a correct labor rate would result in the subcontractor cost being
substantially less than the city cost. I believe the subcontractor should be given the
opportunity to bid the same two year program that the city presented at the 19 December
2001 meeting, without placing any restriction on him as to labor rates. Then let the chips
fall where they may.
I do not believe that the City Council should go forward and implement the Managed
Competition Committee recommendations as developed at the 19 December 2001
meeting. There are just too many questions. The playing field simply was not level for this
competition.
Sincerely yours,
CV4Vx G
Chuck Sch id
cc: City Administrator
800- IV
f
V Competitive Services
Model
0.
f.:..:
E
0
Benchma rki ng
Initial Service Remew
Define Service Level
Benchmark
Evaluation&Reoommendations
f Further Review
ves Service continues
Benchmarks
connect to and
Performance
Process I \ Measurement
Mapping ;
E-3.11
CD N cTbN
3
IGonned from
11HerKhmarkirg
��.RecpmmeMaoorB
Process
oehne lmlxov<men<S Improvement
—ApprovA for Impmvemema_7
Pllot Impmvemeras
Benchmark
Evalualfon&Fiecommandadons
Fv�her FW;aw r»--1
Y.
lmpnwements,
Canned m\ Benchmarks,
I Cantraot am
opth� r `PersonrarMce 1 E-3.12
MeasurcanerH //
Contract Options 4
��m \ Oeiine Option
Proce ss ml'1 _
��PIn9
-- �� Ap{aoval far Optio�
Review CGrrtract Ophorrs
Pilot Dptlon
Cortrml
vrarl � I
Peeltla.
o�racr as
o "a Evale9tion d ReCommumMonG
_ Geop'epYic
Fiw
`_ Further Review
1 �J
r. �Servlea corronues\
Option, 1
Cairo Benchmaks,
Managed I and I
\Competition Pertortnanca
Nreasuremerst
E-3.13 \
2
Managed Competition 5
City Service
/ Appoint Evaluation Team Preps Fxtemal Provitlers
j Connect t'rum} l Pml>osal Pro M Proposals
0ptinioras 1
�T
Pm eels Received
IntemaVExtemal Notification of intent % � P°
to Implement ManMad Competitlon "} Communlcatipn 1
Plan
Develop Transition Plan
Develop Draft Request for Proposal (details or transttlon costs)
(RFP)
Deveop Cost Elimmnatton Plan
Fina4w Request for Pmposal (tlelaiIs of avoidable Coats)
(RFP)
Develop Implementation Plan x I�ed In\1
(timeline of RFP process) 1tlanaged
Competdi�
Implement Request for Proposal —`
Process
E-3.14
Mar9getl
I\mpetllun
Evalualron 8 Recommendations
Managed
Competition
C Approval pF Service Provi
ContraG Begins
t3encnmad
d
Evaluation 8 Rewmmendatbns
Further Re �no�
Y. S��,A� .contin .`
` r Contract, 1
(.bid or 6egiri� +l Benctvnadcs,
aing ,� +l Performance
ard
E-3.15
3
7
Competitive Service
Model
• Competitive Service Committee Adopted the
the Model in July 2000
• Item E-3 recommends that the City Council
adopt the Competitive Services Model
8
Side-by-Side
Street Sweeping
4
9
History
• 1996 -- budget constraints force the city to stop its
twice-a-month street sweeping program
• May 1998 — the City Council directs a return to twice-
a-month street sweeping and a side-by-side
comparison with the private sector
• October 1999 —the city awards two year contract to
Nationwide Environmental Services
• November 1999 — side-by-side street sweeping
program begins
io
Competitive Service
Comparison
• 10-month Report - analysis began Jan 2000
Contract Costs $205,849.99
City Costs $199,235.75
Difference (contract— city) $6,614.24
Percent difference 3.32%
Staff projects a larger difference in year two, because
the contractor requested an 11 percent increase and
city costs are elevated due to the cost to provide a
replacement for an injured street sweeper driver.
E-13.6
5
11
Competitive Service
Comparison
Contractor's Average Score W071.75
City's Average Score
Regarding Contractor's Performance 41
Regarding City's Performance 24
EA3.7
12
Competitive Service
Comparison
MEN=
Tons of debris collected by street 2,576.22
sweepers
M EM
Change in the amount of debris -19.20%
collected per storm drain catch basin
E-13.13
6
13
Competitive Service
Comparison
• Modifications for Year Two:
1. In order to confirm that the city and contract
street sweepers are collecting equal amounts of
debris, city street sweepers will dump debris at
Rainbow Disposal for three months beginning
2101/01
2. Staff will report the dumping volumes to the
Competitive Services Committee and will
conduct a meeting if the results indicate a
disparity between city and contract street
sweepers
14
Twice-a-Month
Street Sweeping
Parking Enforcement
z.
7
15
Purpose of Parking
Enforcement
1 . Clear streets of vehicles so that street
sweepers may operate most effectively
2. Foster voluntary compliance with the
parking restrictions for street sweeping
3. Citation revenues anticipated to fund
the return to twice-a-month street
sweeping
16
Parking Citation Activity
January — October 2000
Street sweeping parking citations
issued 47,952
All other parking citations issued 20,851
Total citations issued 68,803
Street sweeping parking citations account for
69.7% of all citations issued
E-14.10
8
17
Vehicles in the Path of Street
Sweepers
35,000
3,100
30,000 ------._._. --
25,000 — - --- __......
20,000
15,000 _.__._._
10,000
6,074 4,795 Low Month 2,975
5,000 Sept-Oct Avg
2,176
----------------------
__..._...............,..,....,..,.-..,......_...
E-14.11
18
Street Sweeping Parking
Citation Activity
January - October 2000
7,000
6,074
6,000
5,29
5,374 5,510
5 000,
5,073 903
4,751
3,000
2,000 2,176
7reMfne
1,000 predicted through A pri 2001(+6 nonMs)
0
TreMWre predlaWd through
b¢" Apri 20g1 +6 s1
E-14.12
9
19
Revenues & Expenditures
----fMonths 12 Months 2nd Year
evenues- tua -- ro ee a 'roj'eC e
P-ark ing ci a ions ,
10 Months 12 Monthi! n ear
Expenditures c ua ro ec a Projected
a -up—
-costs97
City program 361 $239,083 ,
Contract program E ,
ns isposa ,
a ing en rcemen-CiT
a ion processing T --- -- 5
0 , e r
'IflFrence $92-,394
E-14.14
20
Potential Modifications to
Twice-a-Month Program
1. Install Larger Tract 4. Reduce Enforcement
Entrance Signs
5. Alter Parking
2. Install Signs Every Enforcement
150' Citywide Schedule
3. Institute Alternate Side 6. Earmark Street
Street Sweeping Sweeping Parking
Citywide Citation Revenue
E-14.5-5
10
21
Conclusions
• The side-by-side comparison should continue
through year two with the proposed modification
• The twice-a-month street sweeping program is
extremely effective
• The parking enforcement program is working
and should continue with the proposed
modifications
• Citation activity shows a strong downward trend
• Staff is recommending that the City Council
approve items E-13 and E-14
11