HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019/06/06 - Agenda Packet - Public Works SubcommitteeJune 6, 2019 — 2:30 P.M.
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — CITY HALL,
TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730-3801
A. CALL TO ORDER
A Roll Call: Kennedy Hutchison
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Public Works
Subcommittee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Subcommittee
from addressing any item not previously included on the Agenda. The Subcommittee
may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to
De limited to rive minutes per inaiviaual.
C. ITEM(S) FORDISCUSSION
C1. Approve and File Minutes of: May 1, 2019.
C2 Update on the Bi -annual Franchise Waste Hauler Review, Completed in Accordance with
the City's Franchise Waste Hauler Agreement.
D. ADJOURNMENT
I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director, or my designee, hereby certifies
that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 3, 2019 at least
twenty-four (24) hours priorto the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic
Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and on the City's website.
" 0' ,wµ
00,
Linda A. Troyan, MMC
City Clerk Services Director
City of Rancho Cucamonga
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Clerk's Office at (909) 774-2023. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
IF- A. CALL TO ORDER - TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM
A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Works Subcommittee was held on Wednesday,
May 1, 2019, in the Tapia Conference Room of the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, located at 10500
Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 90730. Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy called the
meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Al. Roll Call:
Present: Mayor Pro Tem Lynn Kennedy and Council Member Ryan Hutchison.
Staff Present: John Gillison, City Manager; Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager; Matt Burris,
Deputy City Manager; Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer; Bill
Wittkopf, Public Works Director; Dean Rodia, Parks and Landscape Superintendent; Caroline
Velarde, Management Analyst III; and Melinda Garcia, Executive Assistant.
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
No public communications were made.
C. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
Cl. Approve and File Minutes of: April 17, 2019
Council Member Hutchison motioned to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 17, 2019.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy.
C2. Discussion of a Proposed Ordinance Establishing a Process for Residents Requesting a Tree
Removal.
Director Wittkopf presented the staff report and provided background information pertaining to
tree removal requests by residents. He explained the intent of establishing the Ordinance is to:
• Ensure the City's urban forest is maintained;
• Facilitate an Arborist that will work with residents on the removal and replacement process;
• Allow staff the opportunity to address any risk or safety concerns;
• Provide good options to residents impacted by overgrown trees;
• Offer flexibility to replace and recycle trees at a cost-effective rate.
A discussion ensued regarding trees on private vs public property and the importance of
addressing resident's concerns. Director Wittkopf reassured the Subcommittee that staff will
work with residents to streamline the process. The Subcommittee agreed with staff's proposed
ordinance and directed staff to proceed.
Without further comments, Council Member Hutchison motioned for staff to present the
Proposed Ordinance to the City Council for consideration and approval. The motion was
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy.
Public Works Subcommittee Special Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2019
Page 2
11 D. ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Hutchison motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mayor
Pro Tem Kennedy. The meeting adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jason Welday
Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
Date:
DATE: June 6, 2019
TO: Public Works Subcommittee
FROM: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
INITIATED BY: Linda Ceballos, Environmental Programs Manager
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE BI -ANNUAL FRANCHISE WASTE HAULER REVIEW,
COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S FRANCHISE WASTE HAULER
AGREEMENT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Public Works Subcommittee receive and file the Bi -annual Franchise Waste Hauler
Review, completed on April 22, 2019 by R3 Consulting Services Group, Inc.
BACKGROUND:
The City performed a review of the Franchise Waste Hauler, Burrtec's, compliance under the Franchise
Waste Hauler Agreement, per the terms of Section 8.2.6. The review period covered July 1, 2016, to
December 31, 2017. The review specifically audited diversion tonnage, waste hauler service billing for
residential, commercial and industrial accounts, and accuracy of franchise fee payments. A consultant that
specializes in solid waste contracts, compliance audits, rate reviews, and zero waste planning methods,
was selected to review these specific categories, and provide a summary of findings and recommendations
to the City. The consultant that was selected is R3 Consulting Group, Inc. (consultant). Per the agreement,
the first audit was scheduled to be performed in 2018, and then bi-annually for the term of the agreement.
The audit started in November 2018 and continued through April 2019.
ANALYSIS:
During the review, the consultant found minor discrepancies in tonnage reporting and billings, which have
a correspondingly minor effect on billing amounts and tonnage reported. The consultant also found that
Burrtec met its diversion requirement during the review period, and that some routes serving Rancho
Cucamonga customers do cross jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, the consultant found minor
discrepancies in franchise fee payments which are in the City's favor.
The consultant's recommendations to the City are:
1. Request that Burrtec formally request permission from the City to cross jurisdictional boundaries in
routing, including a description of and support for the allocation methodology proposed to be used
for each route, and the frequency of adjustment for that methodology. The routes which currently
cross jurisdictional boundaries are Routes 561, 20, 28, and 460.
2. Request that Burrtec stop including in monthly reports to the City some incidental material more
accurately classified as self -haul; specifically, commercial buy-back material, street sweeping tons,
and the commercial floor -sort material. The City may receive information that supports the
classification of this incidental material as credited to the hauling company, but R3 did not.
3. Request that Burrtec completes a route audit according to the provisions of the Agreement Section
4.11.
PUBLIC WORKS SUB -COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT — FRANCHISE WASTE HAULER REVIEW
June 6, 2019
Page 2
4. Add additional approved rates in the upcoming rate -setting process for customers wishing to
subscribe to a level of service not included in the approved rates.
Staff has reviewed the recommendations from the consultant and will be discussing the actions outlined
below with Burrtec to determine how to further improve reporting accuracy and compliance with the
franchise agreement.
Cross Jurisdictional Routes
The review found that Burrtec was crossing jurisdictional boundaries for food waste collection services,
which is not allowed per the Agreement. The allocations for the City and neighboring City were confirmed
with the consultant, and no discrepancies where found. This practice makes sense for efficiency purposes
when the food waste collection program only had a few customers in each city. However, at this time staff
believes the City of Rancho Cucamonga has enough customers to support a route without crossing over
into Upland or Fontana. Staff will be following up with Burrtec to determine what the impacts to the City
would be if the current food waste collection cross jurisdictional route is changed.
Monthly Tonnage Reports
Staff has verified that the incidental tonnage included in the report is actually material hauled by Burrtec
and therefore should be credited toward Burrtec's diversion calculations.
Route Audit
The consultant recommended a route audit, to further verify Burrtec's customer account records. This will
be considered during the next bi-annual review period. It should also be noted that Burrtec recently updated
their software billing system in late 2018, and much of the back-up documentation that the consultant
requested was not available, due to the switch in software system, as the review period was under a
different software billing system.
Rates
The consultant also found that 362 accounts were being charged rates that fell outside the approved rate
schedule. In some circumstances, residential accounts requested large bins, however, only commercial
accounts have rates for these bins. It should also be noted that 312 residents are being charged for a
60 gallon recycle barrel, in lieu of a 65 gallon recycle barrel. Burrtec has stated that this was a data entry
error and the billing system has now been corrected to indicate the customers have 65 gallon recycle
barrels. This is a minor discrepancy, and Staff agrees with the consultant that the billing accuracy is high
and no further action is needed.
The consultant also reviewed the franchise fee payments made by Burrtec to the City, to confirm accuracy
of payments. The City receives 15% of all gross receipts each quarter from Burrtec, and 0.75% of gross
receipts to fund the management operations of the Household Hazardous Waste Facility. It was concluded
that the calculations for the franchise fee payments were done correctly.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Per the franchise agreement, Burrtec is to reimburse the City for the cost of the review performed
by the consultant, and thus has no net impact on the General Fund.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This item aligns with both the Public Safety and Enhancing Premier Community Status Goals, providing
services to ensure a healthy and safe environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 — Final Report: Review of Hauler Diversion Reporting and Billing Accuracy.
WOMP"MIMMIN�= �LIIMWI
P,[.'...SOU RCI'._S -RES PECT- RESPONS I BI LJTY
Review of Hauler Diversion Reporting and
Billing Accuracy
City of Rancho Cucamonga
April 22, 2019
Report Submitted Digitally as PDF
[Z3
This page intentionally left blank.
P al CONSULTING GROUP, INC
R[ (eURC I `, fl Ci`+IAC C": 1 CRI ..>P+" NSIRM If Y www.r3cgi.com
Northern California Office San Francisco Bay Area Office
1512 Eureka Road, Suite 220, Roseville, CA 95661 2600 Tenth Street, Suite 424, Berkeley, CA 94710
Tel: 916-782-7821 1 Fax: 916-782-7824 Tel: 510-647-9674
Southern California Office
Tel: 323-491-8868
April 22, 2019
Ms. Linda Ceballos, Environmental Programs Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Subject: Review of Diversion Reporting and Billing Accuracy
Dear Ms. Ceballos:
R3 Consulting Group, Inc. (113) is pleased to submit this final report containing the methodology and
findings for the review of diversion reporting and billing accuracy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's (City)
franchised waste hauler, Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. (Burrtec).
The City and Burrtec entered into an Integrated Solid Waste Management Services Agreement
(Agreement), effective July 1, 2016, for the collection, transportation, recycling, processing, and disposal
of solid waste and other services performed within the boundaries of the City. The City requested an audit
of the Diversion Tonnage reports provided by Burrtec; an audit of billing accuracy; and a review of the
completeness of the hauler's billing accounts associated with shared jurisdictional boundaries with two
nearby cities. The review period for this audit is July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, as stipulated in
Agreement Section 8.2.6.
Over the review period, R3 found minor discrepancies in tonnage reporting and billings, which have a
correspondingly minor effect on billing amounts and tonnage reporting. R3 also found that Burrtec met
its diversion requirement during the review period, and that some routes serving Rancho Cucamonga
customers do cross jurisdictional boundaries. R3 found minor discrepancies in franchise fee payments
which are in the City's favor.
R3 recommends that the City consider taking the following actions:
Request that Burrtec formally request permission from the City to cross jurisdictional boundaries
in routing, including a description of and support for the allocation methodology proposed to be
used for each route, and the frequency of adjustment for that methodology. The routes which
currently cross jurisdictional boundaries are Routes 561, 20, 28, and 460.
Ms. Linda Ceballos
April 22, 2019
Page 2 of 2
2. Request that Burrtec stop including in monthly reports to the City some incidental material more
accurately classified as self -haul; specifically, commercial buy-back material, street sweeping tons,
and the commercial floor -sort material. The City may receive information that supports the
classification of this incidental material as credited to the hauling company, but R3 did not.
3. Request that Burrtec completes a route audit according to the provisions of the Agreement
Section 4.11.
4. Add additional approved rates in the upcoming rate -setting process for customers wishing to
subscribe to a level of service not included in the approved rates.
We appreciate the opportunity to complete this audit on behalf of the City. Should you have any questions
regarding our methodology or findings, or need any additional information, please contact me by phone
at (510) 647-9674 or by email at rradford@r3c.gi.com.
Sincerely,
R3 CONSULTING GROUP
Rose Radford I Project Manager
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
Tableof Contents..................................................................................................................... i
Review of Waste Generation and Diversion Reporting..........................................................1
Methodologyand Findings.................................................................................................1
Diversion Requirement Was Met........................................................................................6
Some Routes Cross Jurisdictional Boundaries....................................................................7
Recommendations..............................................................................................................
7
Review of Billing Completeness..............................................................................................9
Review of Billing Accuracy....................................................................................................11
Review of Franchise Fees Paid..............................................................................................15
Appendices
1 Parcels Without Service
2 Rates
Page i of ii
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
Page ii of ii
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
Methodology and Findings
Generally, R3 found that Burrtec's accounting systems for tonnage reporting are complex,
detailed, and interconnected among the hauling unit's franchises and the tonnages
consolidated at West Valley Material Recovery Facility (MRF), the transfer station used by
Burrtec. Because of this complexity, a review of the accuracy of Burrtec's tonnage reporting
necessitated a review of the entire hauling operation as well as the transfer station, and
information was not provided by Burrtec for most of the related operations that are not strictly
covered by the Agreement. Burrtec has been responsive and provided data that allows review
of the tonnages collected in Rancho Cucamonga; however, incidental amounts of material are
collected and reported that were not able to be fully verified.
As the reporting methodology is complex, R3 prepared a flow chart to help explain how the
monthly reports are prepared by Burrtec. It is provided as Figure 1, below. The flow chart, the
base data provided by Burrtec, our review methodology, and our findings are explained in
more detail in the narrative below. The numbering in the flow chart corresponds to the
descriptions in the narrative.
Figure 1: Flow Chart Describing Monthly Report and Documentation Provided
2 & a. weGght Tickets.
4a & b. Allot stio,ns by route forseetorjurisdictio,n
4c.Tonnage Reported Iby 4e. Yard AVVoeatuon
Sector, JUrisdiictiionm ("T -W n")
Adjusted by...
4d. Corn mercW floor sort
4f. Street SweepMg 4g. Bia V kemmv
Greemmwaste Data
Totall Toms in MonmtlhIly IRelport
Diislposall in MonmtlhIly
Diversion in MonmtlhIly
Relport
IReport
X
4h. ReMdivaV by
MaterW Stream
Dormnlpllete Iback-Ulp Ipiroviided
Net IDiiversiioirm �onms
lirmcormrlpllete Iback-Ulp provided
J
Totall Tonins in
MoimntlhIly IRelport
Diversion IRate
Page 1 of 16
Page 2 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
R3 reviewed reasonableness and accuracy of tonnage reporting by performing the following
steps, which are also indicated in the diagram above:
1. Analyzed Burrtec's monthly Waste Generation and Diversion Reports and identified
months that contain anomalies (discrepancies and/or unusual fluctuations) in
reporting. August 2017 was selected for the detailed audit as a month with 8% higher
total tonnage reported than the average month in 2017.
2. Requested a detailed weight ticket record from Burrtec for August 2017, as well as
randomly selected months of March and November 2017.
3. Used a sample size calculator and a random number generator to establish a
statistically significant sample size that was pulled and tested on site. Burrtec's weight
ticket tracking system contains around 5,000 weight tickets per month. The weight
ticket record contains a variety of information including route number, the destination
facility (which is usually the West Valley MRF, which is the transfer station used by
Burrtec to transfer most material hauled in Rancho Cucamonga). R3 sampled a
statistically significant sample of one month's worth of weight tickets which emulates
the true population (the full year). Given that the full population size is nearly 60,000,
the average number of weight tickets in one year, we selected a sample size of 96
weight tickets to ensure a 95% confidence level and a +/- 10 tons confidence interval.
R3 randomly selected five different dates to test, with a total sample set of 100 weight
tickets. The dates pulled are as follows:
8/3/2017
8/11/2017
8/16/2017
8/21/2017
8/28/2017
R3 pulled weight tickets for the dates listed and compared the values of the tonnages
in the source documentation to the tonnages on the weight tickets. We found no
anomalies between the physical weight tickets and the weight ticket record during the
weight ticket sampling conducted on-site on February 20, 2019. Na adjustment to
monthly tannage reporting is necessary.
4. Requested additional information that was needed to tie the weight ticket record to
the monthly reporting. Burrtec applies several adjustments to the weight ticket
tonnages in their reports to each jurisdiction served by the hauling division (which also
includes the franchises of Upland and Fontana, as well as some non -franchised
customers, mainly on-call debris boxes). These adjustments include the following:
4a. Allocation of weight ticket tonnages by sector and by franchise where
applicable. An allocation by franchise was only needed for a few routes,
including, Route 561, which is a commercial food waste route that is shared
between Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, and Fontana. Please see a more detailed
discussion of this matter in the dedicated section below.
i. The hauler represented that the tonnages for each weight ticket
were allocated according to two different methodologies,
depending upon whether the route was residential or commercial.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
For single-family residential routes, which sometimes are shared
with multi -family residential, the routes are allocated by number of
customers (ex. Route 492, which serves 3% multi -family residential
customers, and 97% single-family residential customers). For
commercial/multi-family customers, the route is allocated by
volume served (ex. Route 43, which is a route shared among multi-
family and commercial customers, and some schools).
R3 finds that this allocation methodology is sound and reasonable.
iii. Although we were not able to analyze the subscription data for the
route allocations provided by Burrtec for November 2017 (as
subscription data for November 2017 was not available; see "Review
of Billing Accuracy", below) we compared the route allocations
provided for January — March 2019 to the subscription data
provided for January 2019 in order to assess accuracy of the
allocation methodology. While we were able to re-create allocations
that were generally similar to the allocations provided by Burrtec,
none of the allocations we calculated matched Burrtec's provided
allocations exactly.
iv. R3 recommends that the City require that Burrtec formally request
City approval for the allocation methodology used, including o
written description of the methodology used to allocate tonnages
collected by routes that collect material from more than one
sector, or franchise.
4b. Examined weight ticket record in "dump" system. After allocation of the weight
ticket tonnages by sector and franchise, the weight ticket tonnage is "split" into
two or more line items in Burrtec's "dump" system. R3 was only provided the
parts of the "dump" system that relate to reported tonnages for Rancho
Cucamonga. The allocations provided by Burrtec were reflected in the tonnage
reporting.
4c. Tied the itemized weight ticket record, which was provided by Burrtec post -
allocation by franchise and material type, to the monthly report for August
2017 with two exceptions.
■ A weight ticket was reported as mixed waste processing in the hauler's
weight ticket record, but was re -coded as recycling based upon
information provided by the MRF. Burrtec provided digital record of
the re -coding for that load, which supports the monthly report's
tonnages. No adjustment is necessary.
■ No roll -off tickets were coded as "transformation"; Burrtec provided
an itemized list of the roll -off loads that were sent to transformation.
No adjustment is necessary.
4d. Assessed "commercial floor -sort" material reporting. This material is added as
diverted material to the diversion reporting. "Commercial floor -sort" material
is recyclables that are sorted from garbage on the floor of the MRF and
Page 3 of 16
Page 4 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
allocated to each of Burrtec's jurisdictions according to their relative
contribution of the material sorted. Generally, the City receives credit for 2/3
of the material recovered via floor -sorting at the MRF and coded to Ontario or
Burrtec-Chino. The City receives 100% credit for the material sorted on the
floor and coded to Rancho or Yukon (an old hauling division name). Finally, in
October 2016, March 2017, and April 2017, the MRF floor sort material was not
reported on Burrtec's monthly reports; Burrtec has added these diversion tons
into their monthly reports in equal amounts over a six-month period to correct
for the missed material. The entire amount of the commercial -floor sort
material (calculated as described above) is deducted from the disposal tons,
and added into diversion tons. While Burrtec provided a monthly summary of
the MRF's report showing total tons diverted by material type from the floor -
sort, R3 did not examine any back-up information that supports that summary
report. The commercial floor -sort material comprises of 2% of total reported
tonnage during calendar year 2017. No adjustment is necessary.
4e. Assessed "yard bin" material. Some material is disposed from the equipment
yard and allocated to the jurisdictions served by the hauling division. This
material is alternatively referred to as "yard bin" and "T -bin." R3 received a
summary table that showed the total tonnages collected per material category
reported in the monthly report, and the % allocation for the City and the other
jurisdictions allocated diversion credit for this material. In August 2017, the City
received 38.55% of the total yard bin tons; of the 73.39 tons reported, 54.69
tons were reported as disposal and credited against Burrtec's diversion. The
total tons are minor, at 0.34% of tons in August 2017. No adjustment is
necessary.
4f. Assessed street sweeping tons. Street sweeping tons are added as diverted
green waste to the monthly report; Burrtec tracks this material in a separate
system, but receives diversion credit for this material in the monthly report.
Burrtec provided back-up for the tons collected in August 2017. No adjustment
is necessary.
4g. Assessed Bulky Item collection tons. Bulky item collection tons are added into
the monthly report, and Burrtec was able to provide a detailed accounting of
bulky item collection amounts including dispatch notes to support the tonnages
reported in the monthly reports. The majority of this material is disposal,
although Burrtec does receive credit for small amounts of e -waste, tires, white
goods, and scrap metal that's recovered from bulky item collection services. No
adjustment is necessary.
4h. Assessed diversion rate reported in monthly reports. Per the Agreement's
requirements, Burrtec calculates its diversion rate in monthly reports after
deducting residuals. Burrtec provided a description of their process for
conducting these waste characterizations as follows:
"Random loads are set aside through the course of a week to be processed
(residential and commercial are processed separately on different days);
"The loads are set aside from the balance of the material for processing;
"The sort line/bunkers are cleared and emptied of any material; and
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
"The material is run across the line and each commodity is weighed.
"This establishes the characterization that will be in place until the next
characterization is done."
It should also be noted that Burrtec does complete a separate waste
characterization for each item on the list of diverted tonnages in the monthly
report, and the waste characterization results were provided in a separate
document to R3 for August 2017. R3 confirmed that each residual amount
reported in the detailed waste characterization report tied the monthly report
residual amounts.
No odjustmentis necessary, because for each residual amount reported in the
monthly report, R3 confirmed that one of the following applied:
■ Burrtec provided back-up waste characterizations for nearly all of the
residuals included in the report.
■ No waste characterization was provided, but no tonnages were
reported (waste characterization would not be possible with no
material collected).
■ For a few, residual amounts in the report is based on a verbal
statement from the operator of the facility (green waste and street
sweeping based on statement by West Valley MRF's Compost Facility;
transformation and C&D processing based on operator statements;
etc.).
■ In several of the routes, there is a percentage allocation for Area Code
57, Schools — Chaffey HS District. However, this area code and
jurisdiction are not included in the detailed dump tickets, because
Chaffey is not part of the Rancho Cucamonga franchise; tons collected
at Chaffey HS District are not reported in the monthly reports to the
City. According to the District's website,' "The Chaffey Joint Union
High School District serves the communities of Ontario, Montclair,
Rancho Cucamonga, and portions of Fontana, Upland, Chino, and
Mount Baldy." It is common practice for some large school district to
hold separate franchise agreements with haulers. Tons collected at all
other schools in Rancho Cucamonga are reported in the monthly
reports. Therefore, R3 finds that not reporting Chaffey High School
District tonnages in the City's monthly reports is appropriate; no
adjustment is necessary.
■ Burrtec provided an itemized report supporting the reported street
sweeping tons for the selected audit month of August 2017. No
adjustment is necessary.
' Full text available at the following web address: https:llciuhsd-ca.schoolloop.com/aboutthedistrict
Page 5 of 16
Page 6 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
During the course of our review of the selected month, August 2017, R3 was able to positively
affirm that Burrtec is following the basic requirements of the Agreement regarding calculation
of their diversion rate, including:
■ No self -haul tonnages were included in the report, which is in alignment with
Agreement Section 4.14.1. However, Burrtec did account for small incidental tonnages
that could be considered hauled by another hauler or a member of the public; most
significantly, the commercial buy-back material, the street sweeping tons, and
(potentially) the commercial floor -sort material. The amounts are incidental; City
option to request that these tons are removed.
■ Diversion by percentage is correctly calculated by taking the total diverted tons over
the total hauled tons in each of the review months. No adjustment is necessary.
R3 did not examine and is not able to make findings about the accuracy of the following:
■ The tonnage reported by AB 939/CalRecycle reporting program codes.
■ The accuracy of the diverted tonnage and revenue reported in the recyclable materials
marketing reports; while Burrtec did provide detailed waste characterizations for
residential, multi -family, and commercial customers by month for August 2017, the
data did not include sufficient information to tie out the monthly report. This
verification could be included in a future audit, if desired by the City.
■ The accuracy of the recording system for incidental, small -quantity materials reported
in monthly reports, such as Christmas Light Collection data.
Diversion Requirement Was Met
R3 reviewed Burrtec's monthly reports to the City for the review period and identified a few
months where the diversion requirement was not met. Section 4.14 of the Agreement requires
that the diversion requirement be achieved over the entire review period of July 1, 2016 to
December 30, 2016. Burrtec did achieve the required 30% diversion. Table 1 on the next page
shows the net diversion as reported by Burrtec in each month of the review period. It should
be noted that while the diversion achieved by Burrtec has shown a steady rate of increase since
the contract's renewal in June 2016, and is generally in line with diversion rates for similar
communities in the City's area, diversion still shows significant potential for improvement. In
other words, better diversion performance is possible.
Table 1: Diversion by Month During Review Period
2016
July
29.44%
August
31.17%
September
29.90%
October
29.64%
November
29.86%
December
27.01%
2017
January
27.39%
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
February
29.12%
March
34.17%
April
30.91%
May
30.94%
June
31.64%
July
33.48%
August
32.95%
September
33.31%
October
33.06%
November
34.07%
December
36.82%
Total for Period
Total 1
31.41%
Some Routes Cross Jurisdictional Boundaries
Route 561 is a dedicated food waste route that serves Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, and
Fontana. According to Agreement Section 4.10, sharing routes among jurisdictions is not
allowed unless the City approves the allocation methodology beforehand; R3 recommends
that the City inform Burrtec that they wish to review the allocation methodology in use if
Burrtec has not already requested permission from the City. It should be noted that it is
common for dedicated routes to be shared among franchises to make collection more cost-
effective, especially for a new program like food waste. If the route is not shared among
franchises, the truck would likely be required to deliver collected material to the transfer
station before the truck is full, which would result in additional traffic and emission impacts.
As subscribership to this program increases, a dedicated route for each city may eventually be
more efficient due to increased volume of collected material.
Table 2, below, shows the subscribership to the shared food waste route.
Table 2: ROUTE 561 Subscribership
JURISDICTION
Count
CY/week
% ALLOCATION
Upland
51
116
27%
Rancho Cucamonga
101
246
57%
Fontana
76
73
17%
TOTAL
228
436
100%
In addition to Route 561, there are three routes that serve mainly neighboring cities, but also
serve a few schools that are reported as Rancho Cucamonga schools. This includes Route 20
(at 3% allocation and 14.56 tons collected in August 2017 for the City), 28 (at 4% allocation and
20.6 tons in August 2017 for the City), and 460 (at 1% allocation and 1.49 tons in August 2017
for the City). The amounts and allocations are minor. Burrtec has explained that these routes
serve Rancho Cucamonga schools for the purpose of routing efficiency.
Recommendations
R3 recommends that the City consider the following (next page):
Page 7 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
Request that Burrtec formally request permission to cross jurisdictional boundaries,
including a formal description of the allocation methodology proposed to be used for
each route and the frequency of adjustment for that methodology. The routes in
question are Route 561, 20, 28, and 460.
Consider informing Burrtec that they should cease including some incidental material
currently reported in monthly reports submitted to the City which is more accurately
classified as self -haul; specifically, commercial buy-back material, the street sweeping
tons, and the commercial floor -sort material. The City may receive information that
supports the classification of this incidental material as credited to the hauling
company, but R3 did not.
Page 8 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
Review
Methodology and Findings
R3 requested information from the City, as well as Burrtec, to confirm that the boundaries of
the City's jurisdiction are accurately reported in Burrtec's subscription system. This review was
warranted specifically because the same hauler unit serves two cities on either side of Rancho
Cucamonga — Fontana and Upland. The review was complicated by Burrtec's reluctance to
disclose any information that would relate to billing information for customers that are not
covered under the Agreement. R3 was able to review the items described in the list below:
■ Account data for the only route (Route 561) that was reported by Burrtec to be
shared among jurisdictional boundaries. Our findings are described in more detail
in the prior section of this report.
■ Route maps for routes serving Rancho Cucamonga. These route maps only
encompassed the boundaries of Rancho Cucamonga (even the maps for Route 561
did not show the route leaving the boundaries of the City, although Burrtec had
already identified that route as doing so). The maps were determined not to be
relevant to the question of determining whether routes cross jurisdictional
boundaries.
■ Account data for all accounts identified by Burrtec as being related to the City's
franchise. The account data did not include any accounts with a service address in
a city other than Rancho Cucamonga. It also included some parcel information, but
parcel information was not included for most of the accounts. The parcel
information therefore was not useful in comparing Burrtec's account data to the
parcel listing by the City.
■ The parcel listing by the City contains a number of parcels that may share garbage
service, may be currently vacant, or may have a slightly different address than the
address used by the customer to set up service with Burrtec. It was determined
that a review that compared the parcel data provided by the City and the account
data provided by Burrtec would result in a very high number of "false positives"
that are not actually accounts that were mis-coded to another franchise, and for
which the verification process by the hauler would be excessively burdensome. R3
has provided a full list of the parcels that do not have garbage service as Exhibit 1
to this report.
■ Route allocations that are generated by Burrtec on a monthly basis using GIS
mapping software. R3 was not able to completely affirm the exact methodology
used, but Burrtec represented for single-family residential routes, the routes are
allocated by number of customers; and for commercial/multi-family customers,
the route is allocated by volume served. Burrtec did provide a full listing of all
routes that serve Rancho Cucamonga as well as its neighbors. R3 has determined
that this route allocation data should be sufficient for the purpose of affirming that
routes are appropriately allocated among the various franchises. Our findings are
described in the prior section of this report, "Some Routes Cross Jurisdictional
Boundaries." [Z3
Page 9 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
It should also be noted that Burrtec staff represented that when a new customer sets up an
account, the customer service representative does check to be sure that the account is coded
to the correct franchise as a part of the normal process of setting up an account.
Recommendation
R3 has noted that per Agreement Section 4.11, the City has the right to request that Burrtec
conduct a route audit at least every three years. During this review, R3 requested the results
of a route audit that may have been conducted by Burrtec, but Burrtec represented that the
City has not requested for them to complete a route audit. If Burrtec completes a route audit
according to the provisions of the Agreement Section 4.11, the results of such an audit will
help further assure the City of the accuracy of Burrtec's customer account records.
Page 10 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
�
Methodology and Findings
R3 reviewed Burrtec's billing to it customers served under the Agreement to determine if
ratepayers were charged correctly for services provided by Burrtec during the review period,
July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017. In September 2018, Burrtec switched from its
previous billing system to its current system. Burrtec was not able to provide customer
subscription data or charges in Excel format for the period prior to the billing system change.
As an alternative, R3 reviewed the subscription records exported from the new billing system
for January 2019, which was the most recent month available. The rates charged in January
2019 were compared to the rates for service approved by the City effective July 1, 2017.
For this review, R3 compared the rates for service charged by Burrtec to the approved rates by
undertaking the following steps for the review month of January 2019:
■ Compared subscription data to approved rates.
■ Compared billings to subscription data.
■ Compared payments recorded by Burrtec to billings.
■ Compared gross revenues recorded by Burrtec to historical gross billings reported
to verify accuracy.
In summary, R3 found:
■ Burrtec's subscription record matched approved rates, with a few exceptions
(detailed below):
o Burrtec is charging some customers rates that are not City -approved but are
based on other approved rates. For instance, residential bin rates (likely for
multi -family customers) do not exist for 1.5 CY, 2 CY, or 4 CY containers.
Burrtec used commercial bin rates for these customers.
o Burrtec is charging a small number of rates that are not currently City -
approved. For instance, there is one commercial customer with 4 CY trash
service seven times a week. This does not have a code in the City -approved
rate sheet.
■ Burrtec is correctly billing customers according to the rates reflected in the
subscription data.
■ Burrtec is recording payments that reflect Burrtec's billing record.
■ Itemized statement of payments is similar in magnitude to gross revenues
reported during the review period, at $2,790,869 in January 2019 and $1,857,756
in February 2019.
In the vast majority of cases, Burrtec is correctly charging its customers City -approved rates.
R3 provided the findings of this audit to Burrtec and asked for the company's response
regarding the customers charged rates that were not approved or using another approved rate
code. Burrtec responded to these questions promptly and resolved the more unusual rates
Page 11 of 16
Page 12 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
reported through site visits. Table 3, below, presents Burrtec's responses and 113's suggested
action for each of the non -approved rates. For detailed information regardingthe rates Burrtec
charged compared to the current rates in effect, please see Exhibit 2 to this report.
Table 3: Summary of Non -Approved Rates Charged to Customers by Burrtec
and Burrtec's Responses
Service Burrtec Suggested
Error Reason Burrtec's Response
Description Rate Action
Not an approved rate, but
City rates are for a 3yd bin only for residential
Resi-Trash-1.5y-
using similar approved
customers. Customer requested other sizes and
Create new
Bin -1x
$117.14
rate
commercial rates were used.
rate
Not an approved rate, but
City rates are for a 3yd bin only for residential
Resi-Trash-2y-
using similar approved
customers. Customer requested other sizes and
Create new
Bin -1x
$132.53
rate
commercial rates were used.
rate
Not an approved rate, but
City rates are for a 3yd bin only for residential
Resi-Trash-2y-
using similar approved
customers. Customer requested other sizes and
Create new
Bin -2x
$205.66
rate
commercial rates were used.
rate
Not an approved rate, but
City rates are for a 3yd bin only for residential
Resi-Trash-2y-
using similar approved
customers. Customer requested other sizes and
Create new
Bin -3x
$279.10
rate
commercial rates were used.
rate
Not an approved rate, but
City rates are for a 3yd bin only for residential
Resi-Trash-4y-
using similar approved
customers. Customer requested other sizes and
Create new
Bin -1x
$191.75
rate
commercial rates were used.
rate
Not an approved rate, but
City rates are for a 3yd bin only for residential
Resi-Trash-4y-
using similar approved
customers. Customer requested other sizes and
Create new
Bin -2x
$311.15
rate
commercial rates were used.
rate
Not an approved rate, but
City rates are for a 3yd bin only for residential
Resi-Trash-4y-
using similar approved
customers. Customer requested other sizes and
Create new
Bin -3x
$430.28
rate
commercial rates were used.
rate
Not an approved rate, but
City rates are for a 3yd bin only for residential
Resi-Trash-4y-
using similar approved
customers. Customer requested other sizes and
Create new
Bin -4x
$549.34
rate
commercial rates were used.
rate
Not an approved rate, but
City rates are for a 3yd bin only for residential
Resi-Trash-4y-
using similar approved
customers. Customer requested other sizes and
Create new
Bin -6x
$787.71
rate
commercial rates were used.
rate
N/A;
Com -Trash -6y-
It is a 4yd compactor for trash (confirmed by site
charged
BinComp-6x
$1,365.58
Not charged correctly
visit). Rate charged is correct for a 4yd 6x.
correctly
Confirmed by site visit, grandfathered food waste
Com-Rec-3y-Bin-
account, sending sales team out to review and modify
Burrtec
1x -Food Waste
$193.05
Not an approved rate
the bin size.
corrected
Com-Rec-95g-
Not an approved rate, but
Barrel -lx-
using similar approved
Create new
GreenWaste
$3.79
rate
Confirm by Site Visit that it is Green Waste.
rate
Not an approved rate, but
Com-Rec-3y-Bin-
using similar approved
Create new
1x-GreenWaste
$151.13
rate
Confirm by Site Visit that it is Green Waste.
rate
Not an approved rate, but
Com-Rec-3y-Bin-
using similar approved
Create new
3x-GreenWaste
$317.24
rate
Confirm by Site Visit that it is Green Waste.
rate
Com -Trash -4y-
Reviewed list provided for 01/19 the 4yd trash 7x is
Create new
Bin -7x
$119.32
Not an approved rate
being charged $119.32 (for the 7th day).
rate
Resi-Rec-60g-
60gal and 65gal are interchangeable terms. There is no
Barrel -lx-
physical difference between the two. We will fix the
Burrtec
Commingle
$ -
Not an approved rate
description to reflect 65 -gal to avoid future confusion.
corrected
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
In addition to residential and commercial accounts, billed bimonthly and monthly respectively,
Burrtec bills customers for debris boxes and compactors on an on-call basis. For this review,
R3 chose one random customer identification number pulled from the January 2019 customer
transaction list for each of the debris box and compactor rate codes and asked Burrtec to
provide an invoice confirming the amount billed to the customer. Burrtec provided invoices for
the chosen customers and R3 confirmed that the debris box and compactor rates were charged
to customers correctly.
The Agreement allows the City to expand the audit further if the results of this audit show
Burrtec has incorrectly billed 2% or more of its customers. Upon completion of this audit, R3
found Burrtec to be incorrectly billing about 0.29% of customers for the January 2019 billing
period.
In summary, R3 has found that Burrtec's billing accuracy is high, with errors occurring in about
0.29% of transactions.
Recommendation
In some cases (as given in Table 3, above), Burrtec is charging a rate that is not
City -approved. City may consider adding some additional approved rates in the
upcoming rate -setting process for customers that wish to subscribe to a level of
service not included in the approved rates.
Page 13 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
Page 14 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
isr *r, ate. ■■. ,■■i1a91 94M ��•
Methodology and Findings
R3 reviewed the franchise fees paid to the City by Burrtec for the review period from July 2016
to December 2017. Burrtec pays the City a franchise fee and a household hazardous waste (HHW)
fee on a quarterly basis (on April 30, July 31, October 31, and January 31 of each year). If fees are
not paid within 30 days of the due dates, then Burrtec is required to pay a penalty of 10% of the
amount owed for the quarter.
Franchise fees and the HHW fee are calculated on a basis of gross receipts that Burrtec receives
each quarter. Gross receipts are defined in the Agreement as:
"Any and all monies received from Billings, and compensation in any form, of Contractor
or subsidiaries, parent companies or other Affiliates of Contractor, for the Collection and
transportation of Solid Waste pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to,
Customer fees for Collection of Solid Waste, without subtracting Disposal fees, City fees
or other fees or any other cost of doing business."
Franchise fees are paid on 15% of all gross receipts each quarter. The HHW fee is assessed on
0.75% of gross receipts during the quarter. In addition to normal fee calculation and payment,
Burrtec may be subject to an increase in franchise fee amounts from 15% of gross receipts to
17% of gross receipts in the event the hauler is not able to meet the diversion requirements
stated in the Agreement.
R3 reviewed the detailed documentation and summaries of gross receipts provided by Burrtec
and was able to tie gross receipts to the amount reported to the City with minor variances as
given in Table 4, next page.
In summary, R3 has concluded that Burrtec:
■ Paid franchise fees based on reported gross receipts using the correct calculations
■ Reported gross receipts correctly in the fourth quarter of 2017
■ Paid Household Hazardous Waste fee based on gross receipts using the correct
calculations
■ Paid fees to the City on time for each of the payment quarters
■ Met the diversion requirements for the audit period and is not subject to the franchise
fee increase described in Section 4.14 of the Agreement
Page 15 of 16
The City of Rancho Cucamonga I Diversion and Billing Review I FINAL
Table 4: Variance Between Gross Receipts Detail and Amounts Reported to City
Div
Code
Service Type
Q4 2017 Reported
by Burrtec
Q4 2017 Customer
Detail Data
Variance
B2
Commercial
$9,080.57
$9,825.86
-$745.29
B6
Commercial
$66,167.65
$65,422.36
$745.29
CC
Commercial
$162.35
$162.35
$0.00
CF
Commercial
$419,273.89
$419,273.89
$0.00
CR
Commercial
$1,423,652.26
$1,424,002.26
-$350.00
K5
Commercial
$7,183.46
$0.00
$7,183.46
K8
Commercial
$10,528.29
$11,782.80
-$1,254.51
KF
Commercial
$415,288.43
$414,614.19
$674.24
7C
Residential
$323.76
$323.76
$0.00
K2
Residential
$656,139.32
$662,134.31
-$5,994.99
K4
Residential
$1,351,798.17
$1,351,860.73
-$62.56
RR
Residential
$814,848.13
$814,685.57
$162.56
K3
Roll -off
$178,120.38
$178,120.38
$0.00
RO
Roll -off
$747,609.38
$763,506.00
-$15,896.62
RT
Roll -off
$164,583.16
$144,726.01
$19,857.15
YT
Roll -off
$26,467.73
$26,467.73
$0.00
Grand Total
$6,291,226.93
$6,286,908.20
$4,318.73
Percent Variance
-0.07%
Recommendation
The City's franchise agreement stipulates if fees are underpaid by 2% or more, the scope of
the audit may be expanded. The variance between Burrtec's actual gross receipts and what
was remitted to the City for the calculation of franchise fees and HHW fees was approximately
0.07% in the City's favor. R3 recommends that the City take no further action on franchise fee
accuracy for this review period.
Page 16 of 16