RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_09_16_03_Performance_Audits_EDCOCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MICHAEL THRONE, P.E., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS Jib
DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
SUBJECT: RESULTS OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE SERVICES
PERFORMANCE AUDITS OF EDCO DISPOSAL
CORPORATION AND UNIVERSAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.
(Supports 2014 City Council Goal of Government Efficiency, Fiscal
Control and Transparency)
REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE~
Project Manager: Lauren Ramezani, Senior Administrative Analyst '-IJZ--
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Review and file the results of the performance audits of the City's exclusive
residential solid waste haulers EDCO Disposal Corporation (EDCO), and
Universal Waste Systems, Inc. (UWS).
2. Approve the Third Amendment to the Universal Waste Systems, lnc.'s agreement
to clarify the amounts of the required performance bond and letter of credit.
BACKGROUND
The City has exclusive single-family and multi-family residential solid waste and recycling
agreements with EDCO Disposal Corporation (EDCO) for 95% of the City, and Universal
Waste Systems, Inc. (UWS) for the remaining 5% of the City. UWS' service area is
concentrated in the City's coastal and landslide areas. The agreements commenced on
July 1, 2010 and will terminate on June 30, 2017. Each agreement has an extension
option at the City's sole discretion of up to 36-months.
The EDCO and UWS residential agreements include a "performance audit" section where
the haulers agree to reimburse the City for the cost of such an audit up to $60,000 each
for the first audit. Accordingly, the cost of the audits are accounted for in the residential
rates.
3-1
EDCO & UWS Performance Audits
September 16, 2014
Page 2 of 5
On March 18, 2014, the City Council approved the initiation of performance audits as a
matter of prudent fiscal control, accountability and transparency. It authorized SCS
Engineers to conduct the Integrated Residential Solid Waste Services Agreement
Performance Reviews/Audits of EDCO and UWS in the three areas of: Operations,
Customer Service, and Financial.
On July 21, 2014, the City's Solid Waste Subcommittee met and reviewed the results of
the audits and approved staff's recommendations. Subsequently, this staff report
presents the audit reports to the full City Council.
DISCUSSION
A separate audit was performed for each hauler and a separate report was prepared for
each company. Both audits covered identical scope of work, and the same audit review
period, which was for three and a half (3.5) years, from July 1, 2010 through December
31, 2013.
This staff report discusses the results of both audits. The scope of the audits were
exclusively for residential services, which include single-family accounts and multi-family
bin accounts. The scope did not include any commercial roll-off or business bin service.
Those services are covered under separate non-exclusive agreements with eight haulers.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
EDCO-EDCO's audit findings indicated that EDCO's operations, customer service and
financial information (with a few minor exceptions), were per or exceeded the
requirements of the contract and no other corrective action is required.
UWS-UWS' audit findings indicated that UWS' operations, customer service and financial
information (with a few minor exceptions), were per or exceeded the requirements of the
contract. However, one corrective action is needed; hence a contract amendment is
prepared and presented for Council's approval tonight.
DETAILED SCOPE OF AUDITS/TASKS: The scope of work included a review of the
three areas: Operations, Customer Service, and Financial. The detail of the findings are
listed below:
Task "A". Operations-Conducting a route audit by sampling each company's residential
collection services. This included verifying: operation hours, delivery and proper disposal
of material to approved designated facilities, vehicles and routes, EDCO and UWS'
quarterly and annual reports for tonnage report accuracy and completeness, and
conformance with diversion requirements.
• EDCO Findings-The audit verified that EDCO satisfied the above items and no major
concerns were identified with the company's operations. There were a couple of minor
findings:
3-2
Result of EDCO & UWS Service Audits
September 16, 2014
Page 3 of 5
o From the Company's total 18,000 loads of refuse and green waste taken to transfer
stations during the contract period, 12 loads (or approximately 0.1 % of the total)
exceeded by a small amount the vehicles legal weight limit. However, none of
these overweight loads exceeded the legal limit by more than 1 ton. This is a
nominal variance.
o EDCO slightly miscalculated its 2011 diversion rate. Instead of the reported
diversion rate of 55%, the Company's diversion was actually 54.9%. The 0.1 %
diversion difference is relatively insignificant, since EDCO's diversion continues to
be above the State's 50% requirement.
• UWS Findings-The audit verified that UWS satisfied the above items. However, one
minor finding was noted:
o UWS did not report some 2013 diversion tonnages in its annual report to the City
due to late receipt of weight tickets. The inclusion of these tonnages increases the
company's 2013 diversion rate from 57.3% to 58.1 %. UWS has revised and
resubmitted their 2013 annual report to the City.
Task "B". Customer Service-Reviewing customer services operations. This included
reviewing: proper complaint documentation and resolution within the allowable timeframe,
and public outreach and education material.
• EDCO Findings-The audit verified that EDCO satisfied the above items and the
outreach material were informative and visually appealing. Furthermore, over 97% of
EDCO's complaints were resolved within one (1) business day.
• UWS Findings-The audit verified that UWS satisfied the above items. However, the
majority of the complaint records did not include a date or time of complaint resolution.
After informing UWS, UWS stated that it is now recording and will continue to record
the resolution date of each complaint.
Task "C". Financial-Verifying that each company is fulfilling the financial terms of their
agreement. This included verifying: accuracy of customer billing records and rates for
single and multi-family accounts, quarterly payments (Collector Fee, Environmental Fee
and Recycling Rebate) to the City, monthly Recycling Credits/Rebates offered customers
(starting January 2013), FY 11-12, FY 12-13 and FY 13-14 rate adjustments, and
specified insurances, performance bonds, and letters of credit requirements.
• EDCO Findings-The audit verified that EDCO had no major issues regarding the
company's financial operations. All fees were accurately paid to the City, and the rate
adjustments correctly calculated. EDCO had accurately billed their customers and
provided them with their Recycling Credit. However, four minor exceptions were
noted:
o EDCO incorrectly overbilled four (4) of its -11,800 total active customers. These
errors with related to the Recycling Credit to customers; they have since been
corrected and the customers were given credit for the over-billed amounts.
3-3
EDCO & UWS Performance Audits
September 16, 2014
Page 4 of 5
There is a 0.3% variance (or approximately $700) in the total amount paid in
Recycling Credit to customers. With residential service and occupancy migration,
there is a mathematical probability that the annual Recycling Rebate of $280,000
will be either over or underpaid to customers by nominal amounts. Typically
differences of less than 2% are considered within a reasonable margin and are not
adjusted, while amounts over this figure would be reconciled and adjusted
accordingly. Therefore, staff does not recommend any corrected action.
During discussions at the Subcommittee meeting, EDCO representatives stated
that they would perform regular audits of their billing system to catch billings errors
on a timely basis.
• UWS Findings-The audit verified that UWS had no major issues regarding the
comp~ny's financial operations. All fees were accurately paid to the City, and the rate
adjustments were correctly calculated. There was one minor billing issue.
o UWS incorrectly overbilled one (1) of its -544 total active accounts. UWS has
crediting this customer for the over-billed amount.
However, a finding was made regarding UWS' furnishing of the performance bond
and letter of credit (LOG).
o UWS furnished a performance bond in the amount of $60,000 (instead of
$50,000), and did not submit a letter of credit for $50,000.
The agreement requires both a performance bond and a letter of credit each in the amount
of $250,000, for a total of $500,000 of security. However, per conversations during
negotiations in early 2009 among staff, the procurement consultant (HF&H) and UWS,
the amounts were to be reduced to $30,000 for each the performance bond and for the
letter of credit, for a total of $60,000 of security. The total of $60,000 was deemed a more
reasonable amount because it not only matched UWS' performance bond from its
previous agreement with the City, but it also reflected the relatively small size of UWS'
service area (i.e. 5% of the City). In comparison, EDCO which represents 95% of the
City is required to have a performance bond of $1,750,000 and a letter of credit of
$250,000, for a total of $2,000,000 in security.
During the audit it was discovered that the agreed upon reduction in UWS' bond and LOG
amounts were not incorporated in the final agreement that was approved by Council in
2009. This oversight was discussed at the Subcommittee meeting. The revised amounts
of $50,000 for each the performance bond and for the letter of credit, for a total of
$100,000 of security was considered. Those amounts better reflect the size of UWS'
service area. Subsequently, the Subcommittee directed staff to evaluate the bond and
LOG limits and to return to the City Council with a recommendation for the limits, and
present an amendment to the UWS agreement reflecting the revised amounts.
3-4
Result of EDCO & UWS Service Audits
September 16, 2014
Page 5 of 5
Subsequently, staff requested the City Attorney to prepare a contract amendment (see
attached) to correct the oversight and recommends revising the amounts of the bond and
LOC to $50,000 each, for a total of $100,000 of security. This total amount equals 5% of
the total bond and LOC provided by EDCO.
UWS has agreed to provide this level of financial security. Currently UWS has a
performance bond in the amount of $60,000, which will remain in effect and unchanged
for another six months. Furthermore, UWS will provide a letter of credit for $50,000 in the
coming week.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Third Amendment to UWS' agreement to
clarify and revise the required performance bond and letter of credit to $50,000 each, for
a total of.$100,000 of security.
CONCLUSION
· The audit verified that both EDCO and UWS, with minor exceptions noted above, met or
exceeded their contractual obligations. Therefore, Staff recommends the Council review
and file the reports. Additionally, the attached contract amendment will revise UWS'
performance bond and letter of credit amounts. Representatives from EDCO, UWS and
SCS Engineers will be present at the Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact. The cost of EDCO and UWS' audits are not to exceed $61,710.
EDCO and UWS will reimburse the City for the costs incurred. No City funds will be used
for the audit and there will be no pass-through of costs to customers.
Attachments: Third Amendment to UWS Agreement
Report on EDCO's Performance Audit
Report on UWS' Performance Audit
3-5
THIRD AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND UNIVERSAL
WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. FOR INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES
THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES (this "Amendment") dated as of September_, 2014, is made and
entered into by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a California municipal
corporation ("City"), and UNIVERSAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation
("Contractor").
RECITALS:
A. City and Contractor entered into that certain Agreement Between City of Rancho
Palos Verdes And Universal Waste Systems, Inc. for Integrated Solid Waste Management
Services dated May 5, 2009, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Agreement
Between City of Rancho Palos Verdes And Universal Waste Systems, Inc. for Integrated Solid
Waste Management Services dated November 17, 2009, and that certain Second Amendment to
Agreement Between City of Rancho Palos Verdes And Universal Waste Systems, Inc. for
Integrated Solid Waste Management Services dated February 21, 2012 (as amended, the
"Agreement"). All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the
meanings specified in the Agreement.
B. Pursuant to the Agreement, Contractor was granted the exclusive right and
privilege to provide Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Handling Services at Residential
Premises within Service Area 2.
C. Contractor and City desire to amend the Agreement to clarify the amounts of the
required performance bond and letter of credit.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, City and Contractor do hereby agree as follows:
1. The foregoing Recitals are incorporated herein this reference.
2. Sections 9.5 and 9.6 of the Agreement are hereby amended to read as follows:
3. "9.5 Faithful Performance Bond
Concurrently with execution of this Agreement, Contractor shall deliver to
City a performance bond in the sum of the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000), similar in form to that attached hereto as Exhibit 8, which secures the
faithful performance of this Agreement, including, without limitation, payment of
any penalty and the funding of any work to cure a breach of this Agreement,
unless such requirement is waived by the City Manager. The performance bond
shall be executed by a surety company licensed to do business in the State of
California, having an A: VII or better rating, and approved by the City; and
R6876-0333\1744492vl.doc 1 of3
3-6
included on the list of surety companies approved by the Treasurer of the United
States. The bond shall contain the original notarized signature of an authorized
officer of the surety and affixed thereto shall be a certified and current copy of his
or her power of attorney. The bond shall be unconditional and remain in force
during the entire Term, and during the continuation period after the Term as
provided in Section 9 .9.
9.6 Faithful Performance Letter of Credit
In addition to the performance bond required by Section 9 .5 above,
Contractor shall furnish an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($50,000), from a financial institution acceptable to the City
and in a form acceptable to the City Attorney as security for the performance of
this Agreement (the "LOC''). The LOC shall be the sole responsibility of
Contractor. The LOC shall remain in force during the entire Term, and during the
continuation period after the Term as provided in Section 9.9. The LOC shall be
released within thirty (30) days after both (i) the expiration of the continuation
period provided in Section 9.9, or upon the earlier termination hereof; and
(ii) Contractor's satisfactory performance of all obligations hereunder."
4. No further Changes. Except as expressly modified by this Third Amendment, the
Agreement remains in full force and effect without modification or impairment.
5. Counterparts. This Third Amendment may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall
constitute one and the same document.
W:\LAUREN\Solid Waste\HAULERS\UWS\FY 14-15\RPV-Third Amendment to UWS Agreement.doc
R6876-0333\1744492vl .doc 2 of 3
3-7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the
date and year first above written.
ATTEST:
Carla Morreale, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Richards, Watson & Gershon
Carol Lynch, City Attorney
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
a California municipal corporation
Jerry V. Duhovic, Mayor
UNIVERSAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.,
a California Corporation
Its:
Its: -------------
W:\LAUREN\Solid Waste\HAULERS\UWS\FY 14-15\RPV-Third Amendment to UWS Agreement.doc
R6876-0333\1744492vl .doc 3 of 3
3-8
Final Report
Residential Solid Waste Services
Performance Review/Audit of
EDCO Disposal Corporation
Presented to:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
(31 0) 377-0360
Presented by:
SCS ENGINEERS
438 S. Marengo Ave.
Pasadena, CA 911 01
(626) 792-9593
and
MSW Consultants
27393 Ynez Road, Suite 259
Temecula, California 92591
July 17, 2014
File No. 01201067.12
Offices Nationwide
www .scsengineers.com
3-9
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Residential Solid Waste Services Performance
Review/Audit of
EDCO Disposal Corporation
Presented To:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
(310) 377-0360
Presented by:
SCS ENGINEERS
438 S. Marengo Ave.
Pasadena, CA 911 01
(626) 792-9593
and
MSW Consultants
27393 Ynez Road, Suite 259
Temecula, California 92591
July 17, 2014
File No. 01201067.12
3-10
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1
1 . 1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Audit Results .................................................................................................................................. 2
1 .3 Audit Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2
1 .4 Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Task A -Operations .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Size and Number of Customer Containers and General Operations (Route Audit) ....... 4
2.2 Labor Hours/Hours of Operation ............................................................................................. 5
2.3 Disposal Activities ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Operation of Dedicated Routes in the City ............................................................................ 7
2.5 Vehicle Fleet ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.6 Vehicles Evaluation -Legal Weight Limit ............................................................................... 9
2.7 Vehicles Evaluation -Biennial Inspection of Terminal ........................................................... 9
2.8 Accuracy of Diversion Reports ................................................................................................ 1 0
3.0 Task B -Customer Service .................................................................................................................. 12
3.1 Customer Complaints ................................................................................................................ 1 2
3.2 Public Outreach and Education .............................................................................................. 1 3
4.0 Task C -Financial ................................................................................................................................. 13
4.1 Customer Billing Records ......................................................................................................... 1 3
4.2 Fees and Rebate ....................................................................................................................... 14
4.3 Monthly Recycling Credits ....................................................................................................... 16
4.4 Rate Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 .................................................................... 17
4.5 Insurance, Bond, and Letter of Credit ................................................................................... 18
5.0 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 19
List of Tables
No. Page
Table 1-Review Objectives ............................................................................................ 2
Table 2 -Facilities Utilized by the Company .............................................................................. 6
Table 3 -List of Company Vehicles ............................................................................ 8
Table 4 -Reported Diversion Rates .......................................................................... 10
Table 5 -Summary of EDCO's Fee Payments to the City ............................................................. 15
Table 6 -Recycling Credit to Customers Compared to Recycling Rebate Paid to City .............. 16
Table 7 -Historic Rate Adjustments ................................................................................................... 17
Table 8 -Required Insurance Coverage ...................................................................... 18
ii
3-11
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
1 .O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 .1 BACKGROUND
In November 2009, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) awarded an Integrated Solid Waste
Management Services Agreement (Agreement) to EDCO Disposal Corporation (EDCO or the
Company). On July 1, 2010, EDCO began providing collection services under the Agreement.
The Agreement grants EDCO the exclusive right to collect refuse, recyclables, and green waste
from all single-family and multi-family residential customers in Service Area 1 of the City.
Service Area 1 includes the entire City, except the Portuguese Bend landslide area and beach
areas, which are served by the City's other residential waste hauler, Universal Waste Systems,
Inc.
Under the terms of the Agreement, EDCO is allowed to charge its customers rates that were
initially set forth in the Agreement, and have been annually adjusted based on its disposal costs
and certain economic indices. Under the terms of the Agreement, EDCO is required to meet
certain performance criteria. These performance criteria include:
• Operating exclusive routes in the City within certain daily time limits.
• Properly handling, processing, and disposing of specified waste streams (e.g.,
refuse, recyclables, green waste, etc.).
• Diverting at least 50% of the residential waste it collects in the City from
landfills.
• Providing a high level of quality customer service.
• Conducting public education and outreach activities.
• Accurately billing customers.
• Remitting certain fees to the City.
• Rebating proceeds from California Redemption Value (CRY) containers to
customers.
• Meeting specified insurance, bond, and letter of credit requirements.
The Agreement allows the City to conduct periodic reviews ofEDCO's performance. The scope
of the performance review may include items such as an audit of customer service levels and
billing, a verification of the waste diversion rate, and a review ofEDCO's compliance with the
terms of the Agreement.
In April 2014, the City retained SCS Engineers (SCS) and MSW Consultants to conduct a review
ofEDCO's performance.1 The objectives of the performance review were determined by the
City. The scope of the review encompasses EDCO's performance from July 1, 2010 through
December 31, 2013. This report describes the audit objectives, procedures, and findings.
1 The City also conducted a similar review ofUniversal Waste Systems' performance. The results of that review have been
submitted to the City in a separate report.
3-12
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
1.2 AUDIT RESULTS
Overall, EDCO's performance of its contractual requirements was found to be satisfactory.
However, some exceptions were found in which EDCO did not meet its requirements. These
exceptions are:
• Of the approximately 18,000 loads ofrefuse and green waste delivered to the Falcon
Transfer Station and the Signal Hill Transfer Station between July 2010 and December
2013, 12 loads, or approximately 0.1 %, exceeded the legal weight limit. However, none
of these overweight loads exceeded the legal limit by more than 1 ton. The legal weight
limit is defmed as the vehicle manufacturer's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR).
The GVWR for most ofEDCO's trucks is 30 tons. Twelve ofEDCO's loads exceeded 30
tons, but none exceeded 31 tons in gross weight.
• EDCO slightly miscalculated its 2011 diversion rate. Instead of a reported diversion rate
of 55.0%, the Company's diversion rate was actually 54.9%.
• EDCO incorrectly over-billed four (4) of its 11,812 total active customers by not
correctly accounting for the recycling rebate. Over an 18-month period, one customer
was over-billed $58.88, another customer was over-billed $575.12, and two other
customers were each over-billed $28.44. These errors have been corrected, and the
customers have been given credit for the over-billed amounts.
Other than these exceptions, nothing indicated EDCO had not satisfactorily fulfilled its
contractual requirements.
1.3 AUDIT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the performance review and their corresponding tasks in the City's Request for
Proposals (RFP) and sections in this report are included in Table 1.
Table 1 -Review Objectives
!UP l ask I op1c Report
Section
A&C.l 1. Confirm that EDCO has accurately maintained billing and service 2.1 records for single-family and multi-family accounts.
A.I 2. Confirm that EDCO has operated its vehicles in the City within the 2.2 daily start and stop times specified in the Agreement.
3. Confirm that EDCO has delivered and properly handled each of the 2.3 A.2 waste streams (refuse, green waste, recyclables, etc.) it collects in the
City.
A.3 4. Confirm that EDCO operates dedicated routes in the City. 2.4
A.4 5. Confirm that EDCO's fleet meets the requirements in the Agreement. 2.5
2
3-13
.
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
RIT Task ·1 opic
A.4 6. Confirm that EDCO has operated its vehicles in the City within the 2.6 legal load weight limit.
7. Confirm that EDCO has received a rating of 'Satisfactory' on its most 2.7 A.4 recent Biennial Inspection of Terminal (BIT) inspection from the
California Highway Patrol (CHP).
8. Confirm that EDCO has accurately reported to the City the type and 2.8 quantity of materials it has collected in the City, including diverted
A.5 &A.6 recyclable materials from City facilities and special events, diverted
green waste for ADC or other beneficial use, diverted commingled
recyclables, and diverted green waste and mixed recyclables to
diversion facilities to obtain the maximum diversion credit.
B.l 9. Confirm that EDCO has properly documented and resolved customer 3.1 complaints.
B.2 1 0. Confirm that EDCO has provided public outreach and education to its
customers pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Agreement.
3.2
C.l 11. Confirm that EDCO has accurately billed its customers in the City. 4.1
C.2 12. Confirm that EDCO has accurately paid to the City its Collector Fee, 4.2 Environmental Programs Fee, and Recycling Rebate.
C.3 13. Confirm that, after January 1, 2013, EDCO has accurately credited 4.3 customers for the Recyclin12; Rebate.
C.4 14. Confirm that EDCO's most recent rate adjustment was correctly 4.4 calculated.
1 5. Confirm that EDCO has obtained and maintained the insurance 4.5 C.5 coverage, performance bond, and letter of credit as required in the
Agreement.
1.4 PROCEDURES
Throughout this report, descriptions are included of each of the review objectives, as well as the
procedures performed to achieve those objectives. These procedures were agreed to by the City,
and the City is responsible for their sufficiency. This report is intended solely for the use of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes and should not be used by those who have not agreed to the
procedures and taken responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes.
3
3-14
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
2.0 TASK A -OPERATIONS
2.1 SIZE AND NUMBER OF CUSTOMER CONTAINERS AND
GENERAL OPERATIONS (ROUTE AUDIT)
Background
The Company provides services to 11,812 currently active customers (11,766 currently active
single-family customers and 46 currently active multi-family customers).2 Customers are
charged a rate based on container size and, in the case of multi-family units, frequency of
collection. We compared the Company's billing and service records to actual observations in the
field to ensure customers are receiving the appropriate level of service. A review of customer
billing records is included in section 4.1.
Objective #1
Verify the Company's services for single-family and multi-family accounts, and observe general
. route operations.
Procedures
SCS personnel physically observed single-family and multi-family carts and bins set out for
collection on May 16, 2014. We also observed front and side-loader drivers' general operations,
including safety, cleanliness, noise, and returning carts upright with lids closed.
We selected a random number of accounts to obtain a representative sample size of 230 single-
family and 20 multi-family accounts. Properties with locked bin enclosures or otherwise
restricted access to containers were replaced with other randomly and/or judgmentally selected
accounts.
Findings
SCS observed the containers (quantity and size) in place for the sample accounts and compared
our observations to the customer account information provided by the Company. Based on our
observations in the field, there were zero incorrectly billed accounts. Single-family accounts
were homogeneous (i.e., had very similar service levels; one cart each for refuse, recyclables,
and green waste, with varying sizes), while multi-family accounts were much more varied (i.e., a
combination of carts and bins). SCS personnel did not observe any negative operational issues;
the Company's drivers performed collections in a very safe, efficient, and mindful manner.
2 The 46 active multi-family customers represent approximately 2,942 multi-family dwelling units.
4
3-15
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
2.2 LABOR HOURS/HOURS OF OPERATION
Background
The Agreement stipulates the hours of operation for residential collection in the City as 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with special hours
for the day following a holiday. The hours are established so as to provide minimal disruption
and disturbance in residential neighborhoods.
Objective #2
Verify that start and end times of collection operations in the City are consistent with the
Agreement's specifications.
Procedures
For this task, we physically observed a representative sample of the start and end times of the
Company's collection routes on May 16, 2014. In conjunction with the Complaints and
Resolutions Documentation (refer to Section 3.1), we also reviewed the complaint logs to
identify any complaints related to hours of operation (e.g. complaints of collections too early or
too late in the day).
Findings
No collection operations were observed prior to 7:00 a.m., and collection operations were
completed by approximately 4:00 p.m. The Company takes the majority of collected material to
its transfer station in Signal Hill, which closes at 4:30 p.m. The Company's complaint log did not
include any complaints regarding collection operations occurring too early or too late in the day.
2.3 DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
Background
The Company is required to dispose of refuse collected in the City at permitted disposal or
transfer facilities, as well as ensure that materials targeted for diversion (recyclables and green
waste) are taken to permitted, licensed facilities for proper processing. The Company reports the
disposal, transfer, processing, and waste-to-energy facilities utilized in its quarterly and annual
reports submitted to the City. Table 2 on the following page shows each facility utilized by the
Company by material type since the start of Agreement services on July 1, 2010.
5
3-16
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit
Table 2 -Facilities Utilized by the Company
Facilit~ Name
EDCO Recycling and Transfer ........................... .
Falcon Transfer Station .................................... .
Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF) ...... .
Refuse Olinda Alpha Landfill ...................................... ..
Frank R. Bowerman Landfill ............................. .
Prima Deshecha Landfill .................................. ..
Puente Hills Landfill closed 10-31-13) ................. ..
SCS ENGINEERS
Faeilit~ T~ pe
Transfer/Processing
Transfer/Processing
Waste-to-Energy
Disposal
Disposal
Disposal
Dis osal
Recyclables Potential Industries........................................... Transfer/Processing
Green
Waste
Objective #3
EDCO Recycling and Transfer ......................... ..
Falcon Transfer Station .................................... .
Transfer/Processing
Transfer/Processing
Review Company data on disposal, recycling, diversion and processing, and compare it to
independent disposal reports obtained from the designated facilities, and to the Los Angeles
County Solid Waste Information Management System (SWIMS) for accuracy and consistency.
In addition, the objective ofthis task was to verify delivery and proper processing of each
specified waste stream at the facilities designated by the Company, including:
• Solid waste (refuse) transport and disposal at permitted landfills in Los Angeles and
Orange Counties.
• Green waste transport and use as alternative daily cover (ADC) at permitted landfills in
Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
• Mixed recyclables collection and processing at regional permitted Materials Recovery
Facilities (MRFs).
• Used oil and filters collection and processing at certified processing centers.
• Electronic waste collection and processing at certified processing centers.
• Bulky waste collection and recycling or disposal at permitted facilities.
Procedures
We obtained detailed tonnage transaction schedules and documentation from the Company and
compared that data to tonnage reports provided by the disposal and processing facilities utilized
by the Company.
We obtained a sample of 47 weight tickets and tied that information to the Company's tonnage
transaction records. 3 In addition, we obtained 23 samples of supporting documentation for items
3 Five physical copies of requested 2010 weight tickets were not available due to construction activities at the Company's
offices.
6
3-17
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
that were not included in the tonnage transaction reports (i.e., bulky items, e-waste, used oil/oil
filters, and materials collected at City events).
Findings
We found that the Company has accurately reported disposal and processing of refuse,
recyclables, green waste, and other collected materials, and the Company has delivered those
materials to permitted, licensed facilities.
2.4 OPERATION OF DEDICATED ROUTES IN THE CITY
Background
Section 4: 10 of the Agreement requires the Company to operate dedicated routes within the City
to prevent the commingling of City material with materials from other jurisdictions.
Objective #4
Ensure the Company operates dedicated routes within the City.
Procedures
We obtained and reviewed driver route sheets to ensure that each route includes only City of
Rancho Palos Verdes addresses. In addition, we observed routes that were close to the borders of
the City during the route audit (Section A.1) to ensure drivers did not collect material outside of
City limits.
Findings
We found that the Company operated dedicated routes within the boundaries of the City, and that
it did not commingle materials collected in the City with those collected in any adjacent city.
2.5 VEHICLE FLEET
Background
The Agreement requires all ofEDCO's route collection vehicles used in the City to be powered
by alternative fuels (i.e., compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquid natural gas (LNG)). Spare
trucks, pup trucks, and trucks used to provide scout service are not required to be powered by
alternative fuels. The Agreement further requires EDCO to maintain its vehicles in good
working condition.
Objective #5
Review the quantity, type, fuel type, year, and condition of the vehicles that EDCO operates in
the City to verify that its fleet meets the requirements designated in the Agreement.
7
3-18
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Procedures
We obtained a list of the vehicles that EDCO uses in the City, including the vehicle number,
year, manufacturer, type, and fuel type. We observed the condition of the vehicles in the field.
Findings
We found the vehicles that EDCO uses in the City meet the requirements designated in the
Agreement. A list of the vehicles that EDCO uses in the City is shown below in Table 3.
Table 3 -List of Company Vehicles
l'nit # Year !\lake T~pc Fuel T~ pc
788 2010 Autocar Frontloader CNG
795 2010 Auto car Frontloader CNG
804 2010 Autocar Automated Sideloader CNG
805 2010 Autocar Automated Sideloader CNG
806 2010 Autocar Automated Sideloader CNG
807 2010 Auto car Automated Sideloader CNG
808 2010 Autocar Automated Sideloader CNG
809 2010 Auto car Automated Sideloader CNG
810 2010 Auto car Automated Sideloader CNG
811 2010 Autocar Automated Sideloader CNG
812 2010 Auto car Roll-Off CNG
813 2010 Autocar Roll-Off CNG
819* 2010 GMC Semi Auto GAS
825 2011 Autocar Frontloader CNG
861 2012 Isuzu Pup Rear-loader Diesel
862 2012 Isuzu Pup Rear-loader Diesel
*Spare
8
3-19
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
2.6 VEHICLES EVALUATION -LEGAL WEIGHT LIMIT
Background
Section 4.6.3.E of the Agreement prohibits the Company from loading its vehicles in excess of
the manufacturer's recommended weight limit, or in excess of limitations imposed locally or by
the State. The California Vehicle Code prohibits commercial vehicles from being loaded such
that the gross vehicle weight exceeds the manufacturer's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR).
The 'gross vehicle weight' is the total weight of a vehicle, including the weight of the vehicle
itself and its payload. The GVWR for most of EDCO's trucks is 30 tons.
Objective #6
Confirm ~DCO has operated its vehicles in the City within the legal weight limit.
Procedures
We obtained a download of the Company's disposal facility transactions, and reviewed them for
loads that exceeded the manufacturer's GVWR.
Findings
From July 2010 through December 2013, EDCO collected 17,866 loads of refuse and green
waste in the City, and delivered those loads to either the Falcon Transfer Station or the Signal
Hill Transfer Station. Of these, we found that 12 loads, or approximately 0.1 % of the total loads,
exceeded the vehicle manufacturer's GVWR. We also found that all of the 12 overweight loads
were less than 1 ton over the legal limit. That is, we found that 12 ofEDCO's loads exceeded 30
tons, but none exceeded 31 tons in gross weight.
2.7 VEHICLES EVALUATION -BIENNIAL INSPECTION OF
TERMINAL
Background
All operators of vehicle fleets in the State are required to have their fleet terminals inspected
every two years by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). These are referred to as 'BIT'
inspections (Biennial Inspection of Terminal). Section 4.6.2.H of the Agreement requires the
Company, upon request, to provide the City with a copy of the Safety Compliance Report
prepared by the CHP resulting from these BIT inspections. If the Company receives a rating
below 'Satisfactory,' it is in violation of the Agreement and is required to notify the City.
Objective #7
Confirm that EDCO has received a rating of Satisfactory on its most recent BIT inspection from
theCHP.
9
3-20
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Procedures
We obtained a copy of the Company's Safety Compliance Reports (BIT inspection report) for
inspections completed by the CHP in April 2012.
Findings
We found the Company's maintenance facility (terminal) and fleet had received a rating of
'Satisfactory' on its BIT conducted by the CHP for its most recent BIT inspection.
2.8 ACCURACY OF DIVERSION REPORTS
Background
The Company is required to submit to the City quarterly and annual reports on the quantities of
materials collected in the City, including refuse, recyclables, green waste, electronic waste, oil,
oil filters, and bulky items. The reports must indicate the final destination of the disposed waste
stream, and include a breakdown of the types and quantities of recyclables collected. City
facility collection is also included, as well as recycling from special events. The report also
includes a breakdown of the residential disposal rate, transformation, and green waste tonnage,
and calculates an overall residential diversion rate (with and without transformation).
Section 4.3.6 of the Agreement requires the Company to divert at least 50% of the solid waste it
collects in the City. In addition, if diversion requirements are not met, the City may instruct the
Company to implement new diversion programs at the Company's sole expense. The Company's
reported diversion rates for 2010(July1 to December 31), 2011, 2012, and 2013 are shown
below in Table 4.
Table 4 -Reported Diversion Rates
Calendar\ car Reported
Di\crsion Hate
2010(July1 to December 31) 54.4%
2011 55.0%*
2012 55.7%
2013 54.9%
*2011 diversion rate changed from 55.0% to
54.9% based on Audit findings (discussed below).
1 0
3-21
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
AB 939 requires that all cities in the State divert at least 50% of the waste they generate from
being landfilled, measured on a pounds per person per day basis. The pounds per person per day
measurement accounts for all the waste reduction and recycling that occurs in the City, including
the recycling of material that is not handled by the Company.
Objective #8
Review the Company's quarterly and annual reports for 2010 (July 1 to December 31), 2011,
2012, and 2013 to verify accuracy and completeness. Ensure that the Company has diverted a
minimum of 50% of solid waste collected from landfilling each calendar year since the start of
services on July 1, 2010, and verify the following:
• Diversion of green waste for ADC or other beneficial use.
• Diversion of commingled recyclables, and the quantity of residuals, in order to evaluate if
the hauler is attaining the maximum diversion credit.
• Diversion of green waste and mixed recyclables to diversion facilities in order to obtain
the maximum diversion credit.
• Diversion of items from City facilities and special events.
Procedures
We interviewed the Company's administrative and operations staff to gain an understanding of
its tonnage tracking and reporting system. We obtained detailed tonnage transaction schedules
and documentation that supported (with minor variance) the tonnages included in the quarterly
and annual reports submitted to the City.4
We obtained a sample of 47 weight tickets and tied that information to the Company's tonnage
transaction records. 5 We assessed the mathematical accuracy and completeness of the calendar
year diversion rates reported in the quarterly and annual reports. In addition, we obtained 23
samples of supporting documentation from the Company that included bulky items, e-waste,
used oil/oil filters, and materials collected at City events.
Findings
We found two minor miscalculations on the Company's submitted quarterly and annual reports.
During January and February of201 l, the Company under-reported disposal tonnage by 10.52
tons and 12.76 tons, respectively. Correcting these miscalculations would change EDCO's 2011
reported diversion rate from 55.0 percent to 54.9 percent. The Company stated that these.
miscalculations were due to formula errors that have since been fixed.
4 The variance between the tonnage transaction records and the Company's reports submitted to the City ranged between
0.0% and 0.5%. According to the Company, this variance is due to materials such as used oil/oil filters, e-waste, and/or
materials collected at City events that the tonnage transaction records do not include. The Company provided select samples
of supporting documentation for those items not included in the tonnage transaction reports.
5 Five physical copies of requested 2010 weight tickets were not available due to construction activities at the Company's
offices.
1 1
3-22
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
With the exception of the above-noted miscalculations, we found the Company's reported
disposal figures and diversion rates for 2010 (July 1 to December 31), 2011, 2012, and 2013 to
be correct. The Company's submitted quarterly and annual reports were reasonable and accurate.
In addition, we found the supporting documentation provided by the Company with regards to
materials collected at City events was reasonable.
3.0 TASK B -CUSTOMER SERVICE
3.1 CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS
Background
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' objective is to provide the highest quality of service to its
residents. Over the years, the City has implemented a variety of policies and contractual
requirements in their service agreements with the residential haulers in order to meet this
objective.
Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 of the Agreement require the Company to properly document and
address all service complaints placed by customers. The Company is required to maintain daily
logs of complaints for a minimum of three years.
Objective #9
Ensure the Company has properly documented and addressed customer complaints throughout
the term of the Agreement.
Procedures
We interviewed Company staff to gain an understanding of the customer complaints procedures,
including the initial call by the customer, opening and closing of each work order, internal
controls to ensure each complaint is addressed, and the Company's record-keeping system. We
reviewed the Company's complaint log to determine whether the Company properly addressed
customer complaints. We obtained an explanation for any complaints in which the resolution
took more than two business days.
Findings
We found the Company has properly maintained a customer complaint log since the start of
services, and has resolved 97% of complaints within one business day. Moreover, 83% of
complaints have been resolved the same day the complaint was issued. It should be noted the
Company has recorded a total of 2,453 customer complaints from the start of services through
December 31, 2013, all of which are classified as "missed collection". Approximately 51 % of
the total customer complaints occurred in the first six months of the Agreement. Since that time,
the number of customer complaints has decreased substantially.
1 2
3-23
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
3.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
Background
Section 5 .3 of the Agreement requires the Company to provide public outreach and education to
its customers regarding, but not limited to: services; changes to service (holidays, new programs,
etc.); City special events; and other communications and instructional materials.
Objective #10
Ensure the Company has provided its customers with the required public outreach and education
materials in a timely manner, and ensure that the information is complete, aesthetically pleasing,
and easy to understand.
Procedures
We obtained all of the public outreach and education materials the Company has sent to City
customers throughout the term of the Agreement. We evaluated the material for timeliness,
completeness of information, aesthetics, and ease of understanding by visually reviewing each
item and date of publication, where possible.
Findings
The Company has met the requirements of the Agreement. Each piece of public outreach and
education is visually appealing and informative. The Company has sent flyers and/or
informational packets to customers for each major holiday, including those holidays in which
services were not affected (e.g., to let customers know that regular services would occur).
4.0 TASK C -FINANCIAL
4.1 CUSTOMER BILLING RECORDS
Background
EDCO is required to bill its customers at rates that were initially set forth in the Agreement, and
that are currently approved by the City. These rates are based on the level and type of service,
and in some cases, the location of the residence.
Objective #11
Confirm that EDCO has accurately billed its customers in the City.
Procedures
In addition to physically observing a representative sample of service levels (Task 2.1 Route
Audit), we obtained electronic downloads of all of EDCO's single-family, multi-family, senior
1 3
3-24
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
discount, and annual pay-in-advance customers. These lists included each customer's name,
service address, number and sizes of containers, and type of service (e.g., backyard service, extra
carts, etc.). We reviewed the entire population ofEDCO's customers in the City. We sorted and
analyzed this information, and compared it to the City's currently approved rate schedule. We
sought to identify any inconsistencies in the data, and obtained explanations from EDCO
regarding any variances from the approved rate schedule.
Findings
We found that:
• EDCO had credited one 3-unit multi-family customer with only one unit of the monthly
recycling rebate. As a result, from January 2013 through June 2014, EDCO had over-
billed this multi-family customer by $58.88.
• Instead of crediting one 14 unit multi-family customer with the monthly recycling credit
beginning in January 2013, EDCO mistakenly charged the customer for the credit for
eight months. As a result, from January 2013 through June 2014, EDCO had over-billed
this multi-family customer by $575.12.
• EDCO had credited two 2-unit single-family customers with only one unit of the monthly
recycling rebate. As a result, from January 2013 through June 2014, EDCO had over-
billed each of these two single-family customers by $28.44.
These errors have been corrected, and the customers have been given credit for the over-billed
amounts. Out ofEDCO's 11,812 customers, other than the exceptions described above, we found
nothing to indicate EDCO had not accurately billed its customers.
4.2 FEES AND REBATE
Background
The Agreement requires EDCO to pay the following fees:
• A Collector Fee, which is paid to the City in consideration for the exclusive right to
collect waste in Service Area 1. The Collector Fee was initially set at $113,750.00 per
quarter ($455,000.00 per year). This amount has been annually increased based on the
same percent that customer rates have been adjusted. As of July 1, 2013, the Collector
Fee was adjusted to $122,119.75 per quarter, or $488,479.00. per year)
• An Environmental Programs Fee, which is paid to the City and used to support the City's
environmental programs. The Environmental Programs Fee was initially set at
$28,750.00 per quarter ($115,000 per year), and has been annually increased based on the
same percent that customer rates have been adjusted. As of July 1, 2013, the Collector
Fee was adjusted to $30,865.50 per quarter, or $123,462.00 per year.
1 4
3-25
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
• A Recycling Rebate, which is intended to recognize the revenue that EDCO receives in
CRV from the recyclable containers it collects in the City. The Recycling Rebate was
initially set at $70,000.00 per quarter. The Recycling Rebate remains fixed unless and
until the Statewide CRV rate for beverage containers less than 24 ounces (oz.) is
adjusted. The CRV rate for beverage containers less than 24 oz. has not changed since
the inception of the Agreement. As a result, the Recycling Rebate continues to be
$70,000.00 per quarter, or $280,000.00 per year.
The agreement initially required EDCO to pay the Recycling Rebate to the City.
However, effective January 1, 2013, the City and EDCO agreed to return the Recycling
Rebate directly to customers through a monthly recycling credit on customers' invoices.
An analysis of the monthly recycling credit is included in the following section.
Objective #12
Confirm that EDCO has accurately paid to the City the Collector Fee, Environmental Programs
Fee, and Recycling Rebate.
Procedures
We obtained from the City a list of payments received by the City from EDCO. We compared
the amounts the City received from EDCO with the payments required in the Agreement.
Findings
We found that EDCO had correctly paid its fees pursuant to the terms in the Agreement. A
summary ofEDCO's payments to the City are shown below in Table 5.
Table 5 -Summary of EDCO's Fee Payments to the City
July 2010 -June 2011 $455,000 NA $115,000 NA $280,000
July 2011 -June 2012 $471,836 3.7% $119,256 3.7% $280,000
July 2012 -June 2013* $482,685 2.3% $122,000 2.3% $140,000
July 2013 -December 2013 $244,240 1.2% $61,731 1.2% NA
*Recycling Rebate transitioned to Monthly Recycling Credit effective January 1, 2013.
1 5
NA
0.0%
0.0%
NA
3-26
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
4.3 MONTHLY RECYCLING CREDITS
Background
As discussed above, in January 2013, EDCO began adding a monthly recycling credit to
customers in lieu of paying the Recycling Rebate directly to the City. The amount of the
Recycling Rebate is $1.5 8 per unit per month (or $4. 7 4 per quarter).
Objective #13
Confirm that EDCO has accurately accounted for the customers' recycling credit.
Procedures
We reviewed the billing download we obtained from EDCO, tabulated the number of customers
that had received the monthly recycling credit, and calculated the annual reduction in EDCO's
revenue due to the monthly recycling credit. We compared this annual amount to the annual
amount that EDCO had previously paid directly to the City.
Findings
We found that EDCO had under-credited its customers by approximately $ 731, or approximately
0.3% of the previous annual Recycling Rebate paid to the City. The total amount ofrecycling
credits to ratepayers of$279,269 was made up of$278,864 in credits added to regular customer
invoices, and $405 in one-time credits issued to customers related to the billing corrections
described above in Section 4.1. A comparison of the annual recycling rebate credited to
customers with the annual Recycling Rebate paid to the City is shown below in Table 6.
Table 6 -Recycling Credit Paid to Customers
Compared to Recycling Rebate Paid to City
Description
Amount of Recycling Credit to Ratepayers
Recycling Credits Through Billing Corrections
Total Recycling Credit and Reimbursement to Ratepayers
Amount of Previous Annual Recycling Rebate Paid to City
Amount Under-credited to Ratepayers
Under-credit as% of Total
1 6
Annual ,\mount
($278,864)
~
($279,269)
$280,000
($731)
-0.3%
3-27
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGlNEERS
This amount under-credited to ratepayers is primarily due to the actual number of active units
being less than the projected number of total units that were used when the monthly credit
amount was originally calculated. The number of units used to calculate the monthly recycling
rebate was 14,814, and the actual number of active units to which the rebate was applied was
14,708 6 • This difference in the amount of projected and actual number of units is due to normal
fluctuations in the occupancy rate of the City's residential dwelling units.
4.4 RATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-2014
Background
The Agreement sets forth a rate adjustment method by which EDCO may annually adjust the
maximum rates that it charges its customers. This method is based on changes in certain
economic. indices, and changes in the cost of disposal tipping fees. Rates are adjusted each year
effective July 1st. Since the inception of the Agreement, EDCO's rates have been adjusted three
times. The historic percent increases in EDCO's rates since the beginning of the Agreement are
shown below in Table 7.
Table 7 -Historic Rate Adjustments
Percent Increase Effccthc:
July 1, 2011 July 1, 2012 July 1, 2013
3.7% 2.3% 1.2%
Objective #14
Confirm that EDCO' s annual rate adjustments have been correctly calculated.
Procedures
MSW Consultants reviewed the accuracy of the calculations supporting the three adjustments to
EDCO's rates. This review consisted of: examining the formulas used in calculating the rate
adjustment percentages to ensure they were consistent with the method outlined in the
Agreement; reviewing the tonnages, tipping fees, and economic indicators used in the
calculations; verifying the mathematical accuracy of the calculations, and reviewing the resulting
adjusted customer rates.
6 The 14, 708 active units represent 11,766 active single-family units plus 2,942 active multi-family units.
1 7
3-28
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Findings
Based on its review, MSW Consultants found the adjustments to EDCO's rates since the
inception of the Agreement were accurate and calculated in accordance with the method set forth
in the Agreement.
4.5 INSURANCE, BOND, AND LETTER OF CREDIT
Background
EDCO is required to obtain and maintain insurance, bonds, and letters of credit in relation to the
services they provide to the City. Section 9.4 of the Agreement requires EDCO to obtain the
insurance coverage shown below in Table 8.
Table 8 • Required Insurance Coverage
$10 million
Per Occurrence $5 million
Auto Liability Aggre ate $10 million
Per Occurrence $5 million
Workers Comp
Per Occurrence
Section 9.5 of the Agreement requires EDCO to furnish and maintain during the contract term a
performance bond in the amount of $1,750,000.00. The purpose of the performance bond is to
guarantee EDCO's performance of its obligations under the Agreement.
Section 9.6 of the Agreement requires EDCO to furnish and maintain during the contract term an
irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $250,000.00. The purpose of the letter of credit is to
provide the City with a more liquid form of surety to guarantee EDCO' s performance of its
contractual obligations.
Objective #15
Confirm that EDCO has obtained and maintained the insurance coverage, and the performance
bond, or letter of credit as required in the Agreement.
Procedures
We obtained and reviewed copies of the insurance certificates, performance bond, and letter of
credit that EDCO had provided to the City.
1 8
3-29
Final Report-EDCO Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Findings
We found that EDCO had satisfied the insurance, bond, and letter of credit requirements under
the Agreement.
5.0 CONCLUSION
In summary, other than a small percentage of overweight loads, a minor miscalculation in its
2011 diversion rate, and four billing errors, we found nothing to indicate that EDCO had not
satisfactorily fulfilled its contractual requirements.
1 9
3-30
Final Report
Residential Solid Waste Services
Performance Review/Audit of
Universal Waste Systems, Inc.
Presented to:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
(31 0) 377-0360
Presented by:
SCS ENGINEERS
438 S. Marengo Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91 l 0 l
(626) 792-9593
and
MSW Consultants
27393 Ynez Road, Suite 259
Temecula, California 92591
July 17, 2014
File No. 01201067.12
Offices Nationwide
www.scsengineers.com
3-31
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Residential Solid Waste Services Performance
Review/Audit of
Universal Waste Systems, Inc.
Presented To:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
(310) 377-0360
Presented by:
SCS ENGINEERS
438 S. Marengo Ave.
Pasadena, CA 911 01
(626) 792-9593
and
MSW Consultants
27393 Ynez Road, Suite 259
Temecula, California 92591
July 17, 2014
File No. 01201067.12
3-32
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1
1 . 1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Audit Results .................................................................................................................................. 2
1 .3 Audit Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Task A -Operations .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Size and Number of Customer Containers and General Operations (Route Audit) ....... 3
2.2 Labor Hours/Hours of Operation ............................................................................................. 4
2.3 Disposal Activities ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Operation of Dedicated Routes in the City ............................................................................ 6
2.5 Vehicle Fleet ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.6 Vehicles Evaluation -Legal Weight Limit ............................................................................... 8
2.7 Vehicles Evaluation -Biennial Inspection of Terminal ........................................................... 9
2.8 Accuracy of Diversion Reports ................................................................................................... 9
3.0 Task B -Customer Service .................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Customer Complaints ................................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Public Outreach and Education .............................................................................................. 1 2
4.0 Task C -Financial ................................................................................................................................. 13
4.1 Customer Billing Records ......................................................................................................... 1 3
4.2 Fees and Rebate ....................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Monthly Recycling Credits ....................................................................................................... 1 5
4.4 Rate Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 .................................................................... 16
4.5 Insurance, Bond, and Letter of Credit ................................................................................... 17
5.0 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 19
List of Tables
No. Page
Table 1-Review Objectives ............................................................................................ 2
Table 2 -Facilities Utilized by the Company .............................................................................. 5
Table 3 -List of Company Vehicles ............................................................................ 8
Table 4 -Reported Diversion Rates .......................................................................... 10
Table 5 -Summary of UWS' Fee Payments to the City ................................................................ 15
Table 6 -Recycling Credit to Customers Compared to Recycling Rebate Paid to City .............. 16
Table 7 -Historic Rate Adjustments ................................................................................................... 16
Table 8 -Required Insurance Coverage ...................................................................... 17
ii
3-33
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
1 .O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 .1 BACKGROUND
In May 2009, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) negotiated and entered into an Integrated
Solid Waste Management Services Agreement (Agreement) with Universal Waste Systems, Inc.
(UWS or the Company). This new Agreement enabled UWS to continue providing exclusive
solid waste collection service to the Portuguese Bend landslide and southern coastal areas of the
City. These areas are known as Service Area 2. In November 2009, after a competitive
procurement, the City awarded an exclusive collection contract for the remainder of the City
(Service Area 1) to EDCO Disposal Corporation (EDCO). EDCO began service in the City
effective July 1, 2010.
Under the terms of the Agreement, UWS was required to match EDCO's rates for automated
curbside service effective July 1, 2010. Thereafter, UWS' rates have been adjusted in concert
with EDCO's rates, which are adjusted annually based on disposal costs and certain economic
indices. Under the terms of its Agreement with the City, UWS is required to meet certain
· performance criteria. These performance criteria include items such as:
• Operating exclusive routes in the City within certain daily time limits.
• Properly handling, processing, and disposing of specified waste streams (e.g.,
refuse, recyclables, green waste, etc.).
• Diverting at least 50% of the residential waste it collects in the City from being
landfilled.
• Providing a high level of quality customer service.
• Conducting public education and outreach activities.
• Accurately billing customers.
• Remitting certain fees to the City.
• Rebating proceeds from California Redemption Value (CRY) of containers to
customers.
• Meeting specified insuranc~, bond, and letter of credit requirements.
The Agreement allows the City to conduct periodic reviews ofUWS' performance. The scope of
the performance review may include items such as an audit of customer service levels and
billing, a verification of the waste diversion rate, and a review of UWS' compliance with the
terms of the Agreement.
In April 2014, the City retained SCS Engineers to conduct a review of UWS' performance.1 The
objectives of the performance review were determined by the City. The scope of the review
encompasses UWS' performance from July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2013. This report
describes the audit objectives, procedures, and findings.
1 The City also conducted a similar review ofEDCO's performance. The results of that review have been submitted to the
City in a separate report.
3-34
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
1.2 AUDIT RESULTS
Overall, we found UWS' performance of its contractual requirements to be satisfactory.
However, in our audit, we found two exceptions in which UWS did not meet its requirements.
These exceptions are:
• During the route audit (section 2.1 ), SCS field inspection personnel found that UWS
incorrectly over-billed one (1) of its 544 total active customers by charging a rate for 96-
gallon service when 65-gallon service was actually received. After bringing this to the
Company's attention, the Company has agreed to correct its billing records and will issue
a credit to the customer for over-billed amounts.
• UWS did not report 28.14 tons of2013 diversion tonnages in its annual report to the City
d~e to late receipt of weight tickets. Inclusion of these tonnages increased UWS' reported
2013 diversion rate from 57.3% to 58.l %. The Company has revised and resubmitted its
2013 annual report to the City.
Other than these exceptions, we found nothing to indicate that UWS had not satisfactorily
fulfilled its contractual requirements.
1.3 AUDIT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the performance review and their corresponding sections in this report are
included below in Table 1.
Table 1 -Review Objectives
RFP Task Topic Report
Section
A&C.l 1. Confirm that UWS has accurately maintained billing and service 2.1 records for single-family and multi-family accounts.
Al 2. Confirm that UWS has operated its vehicles in the City within the 2.2 daily start and stop times specified in the Agreement.
3. Confirm that UWS has delivered and properly handled each of the 2.3 A.2 waste streams (refuse, green waste, recyclables, etc.) it collects in the
City.
A.3 4. Confirm that UWS operates dedicated routes in Service Area 2. 2.4
A.4 5. Confirm that UWS' fleet meets the requirements in the Agreement. 2.5
A.4 6. Confirm that UWS has operated its vehicles in the City within the 2.6 legal load weight limit.
7. Confirm that UWS has received a rating of 'Satisfactory' on its most 2.7 A.4 recent Biennial Inspection of Terminal (BIT) inspection from the
California Highway Patrol (CHP).
2
3-35
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
RFP Task Topic Report
Section
8. Confirm that UWS has accurately reported to the City the type and 2.8 quantity of materials it has collected in the City, including diverted
A.5 &A.6 recyclable materials from City facilities and special events, diverted
green waste for ADC or other beneficial use, diverted commingled
recyclables, and diverted green waste and mixed recyclables to
diversion facilities to obtain the maximum diversion credit.
B.1 9. Confirm that UWS has properly documented and resolved customer 3.1 complaints.
B.2 1 0. Confirm that UWS has provided public outreach and education to its 3.2
customers pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Agreement.
C.l 11. Confirm that UWS has accurately billed its customers in the City. 4.1
C.2 12. Confirm that UWS has accurately paid to the City its Collector Fee, 4.2 Environmental Programs Fee, and Recycling Rebate.
C.3 13. Confirm that, after January 1, 2013, UWS has accurately credited 4.3 customers for the Recycling Rebate.
C.4 14. Confirm that UWS' most recent rate adjustment was correctly 4.4
calculated.
15. Confirm that UWS has obtained and maintained the insurance 4.5 C.5 coverage, performance bond, and letter of credit as required in the
Agreement.
1 .4 PROCEDURES
Throughout this report, we have included descriptions of each of the review objectives, as well
. as the procedures we performed to achieve those objectives. These procedures were agreed to by
the City, and the City is responsible for their sufficiency. This report is intended solely for the
use of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and should not be used by those who have not agreed to
the procedures and taken responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes.
2.0 TASK A -OPERATIONS
2.1 SIZE AND NUMBER OF CUSTOMER CONTAINERS AND
GENERAL OPERATIONS (ROUTE AUDIT)
Background
The Company provides services to 544 currently active customers (542 currently active single-
family accounts and two currently active multi-family accounts).2 Customers are charged a rate
based on container size and, in the case of multi-family accounts, frequency of collection and
number of bins. We compared the Company's billing and service records to actual observations
2 The two active multi-family customers represent approximately 455 multi-family dwelling units.
3
3-36
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
in the field to ensure customers are accurately charged based on the level of service being
received. A review of customer billing records is included in section 4.1.
Objective #1
Verify the Company's billing and service records for single-family and multi-family accounts,
and observe general route operations.
Procedures
SCS field inspection personnel physically observed single-family and multi-family carts and bins
set out for collection on July 3, 2014. We also observed automated and manual cart service
operations, as well as front and rear-loader drivers' general operations, including safety,
cleanlin~ss, noise, and returning carts upright with lids closed.
We selected a random sample of accounts to obtain a representative sample size of 78 single-
family and 2 multi-family accounts. Properties with locked bin enclosures or otherwise restricted
access to containers were replaced with other randomly and/or judgmentally selected accounts.
Findings
SCS observed the containers (quantity and size) in place for the sample accounts and compared
our observations to the customer account information provided by the Company. Based on our
observations in the field, there was one incorrectly billed account that was listed in the
Company's records as receiving 96-gallon service; however, SCS field inspection personnel
observed a 65-gallon container. After bringing this to the Company's attention, the Company has
agreed to correct its billing records and will issue a credit to the customer for over-billed
amounts. In addition, the Company stated that it will inform the City of the exact over-billed
amount and notify the City when the customer has been credited appropriately.
The majority of single-family accounts receive automated curbside or manual backyard
collection service with one cart each for trash, recycling, and green waste. The combination of
carts and bins varies between multi-family accounts based on the needs of each complex (e.g.,
number of residents, available space, etc.). SCS field inspection personnel did not observe any
negative operational issues; the Company's drivers performed collections in a very safe,
efficient, and mindful manner.
2.2 LABOR HOURS/HOURS OF OPERATION
Background
The Agreement stipulates the hours of operation for residential collection in the City as 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with special hours
for the day after a holiday. The hours are established so as to provide minimal disruption and
disturbance in residential neighborhoods.
4
3-37
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Objective #2
Verify that start and end times of collection operations in the City are consistent with the
Agreement's specifications.
Procedures
For this task, we physically observed a representative sample of the start and end times of the
Company's collection routes on July 3, 2014. In conjunction with the customer complaint review
(discussed below), we also reviewed the Company's complaint logs to identify any complaints
related to hours of operation (e.g. complaints of collections too early or too late in the day).
Findings
No collection operations were observed prior to 7:00 a.m., and collection operations were
completed by approximately 4:00 p.m. The Company's complaint log did not include any
complaints regarding collection operations occurring too early or too late in the day.
2.3 DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
Background
The Company is required to dispose of waste collected in the City at permitted disposal or
transfer facilities, as well as ensure that materials targeted for diversion (recyclables and green
waste) are taken to permitted, licensed facilities for proper processing. The Company reports
disposal, transfer, processing, and waste-to-energy facilities utilized in its quarterly and annual
reports submitted to the City. The following table shows each facility utilized by the Company
by material type since the start of Agreement services on July 1, 2010.
Table 2 -Facilities Utilized by the Company
Facilit~ T~ pc
Allied Waste Transfer Station (Falcon) .................. Transfer/Processing
American Waste ............................................. Transfer/Processing
Central LA Recycling & Transfer Station ............... Transfer/Processing
Trash EDCO Recycling and Transfer Station ................... Transfer/Processing
Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Station .......... Transfer/Processing
Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF) ........ Waste-to-Energy
Sunshine Canyon Landfill .................................. Disposal
City Fibers, Inc .............................................. Transfer/Processing
Recyclables Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Station .......... Transfer/Processing
Jefferson Smurfit Corp ...................................... Transfer/Processing
Potential Industries .......................................... Transfer/Processing
Green Waste GWS, Inc ..................................................... Transfer/Processing
Puente Hills Transfer Station ............................... Transfer/Processing
5
3-38
Final Report-UWS P~rformance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Objective #3
Review Company data on disposal, recycling, diversion and processing, and compare it to
independent disposal reports obtained from the designated facilities, and to the Los Angeles
County Solid Waste Information System (SWIMS) for accuracy and consistency. In addition,
the objective of this task was to verify delivery and proper processing of each specified waste
stream at the facilities designated by the Company, including:
• Solid waste (refuse) transport and disposal at permitted landfills in Los Angeles County.
• Green waste transport and use as alternative daily cover (ADC) at permitted landfills in
Los Angeles County.
• Mixed recyclables collection and processing at regional permitted Materials Recovery
Facilities (MRFs).
• Used oil and filters collection and processing at certified processing centers.
• E-waste collection and processing at certified processing centers.
• Bulky waste collection and recycling or disposal at permitted facilities.
Procedures
We compared the Company's tonnage documentation to detailed tonnage reports provided by the
disposal and transfer/processing facilities utilized by the Company.
We obtained a sample of 231 weight tickets and tied that information to the Company's tonnage
transaction records. In addition, we requested samples of supporting documentation for collection
of bulky items, e-waste, used oil/oil filters, and tonnage collected at City events.
Findings
With one exception, we found that that the Company has accurately reported disposal,
recyclables, green waste, and other collected materials, and that the Company has delivered those
materials to permitted, licensed facilities. UWS did not report 28.14 tons of 2013 diversion
tonnages in its annual report to the City due to late receipt of weight tickets. The Company has
revised and resubmitted its 2013 annual report to the City. In addition, the Company stated that it
has not collected used oil/oil filters or participated in City events; therefore, no supporting
documentation was provided for those items.
2.4 OPERATION OF DEDICATED ROUTES IN THE CITY
Background
The Company is required to operate dedicated residential routes that are exclusive to Service
Area 2 to prevent commingling of Service Area 2 materials with materials from other
jurisdictions.
6
3-39
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Objective #4
Ensure the Company operates dedicated routes within Service Area 2.
Procedures
We obtained and reviewed driver route sheets to ensure that each route includes only Service
Area 2 addresses. In addition, we observed routes that were close to the borders of Service Area
2 during the route audit (Section A.1) to ensure drivers did not collect material outside of Service
Area 2 limits.
Findings
We founq that the Company operated dedicated routes within Service Area 2, and that it did not
commingle tons collected in Service Area 2 with those collected in any other jurisdiction.
2.5 VEHICLE FLEET
Background
The Agreement requires that all of UWS' route collection vehicles used in the City be powered
by alternative fuels (i.e., compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquid natural gas (LNG)). Spare
trucks and trucks used to provide Scout service are not required to be powered by alternative
fuel. The Agreement further requires UWS to maintain its vehicles in good condition.
Objective #5
Review the quantity, type, fuel type, year, and condition of the vehicles that UWS operates in the
City to verify that its fleet meets the requirements designated in the Agreement.
Procedures
We obtained a list of the vehicles that UWS uses in the City, including the vehicle number, year,
manufacturer, type, and fuel type. We observed the condition of vehicles in the field.
Findings
We found that the vehicles that UWS uses in the City meet the requirements designated in the
Agreement. A list of the vehicles that UWS uses in the City is shown on the following page in
Table 3.
7
3-40
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Table 3 -List of Company Vehicles
l nit# Year l\lal,c T~pc Fuel
I T~pc
I
306 2009 Autocar Automated Sideloader CNG
152 2009 Autocar Frontloader CNG
77 2009* Volvo Split Body Rear-loader CNG
79 2009* Volvo Split Body Rear-loader CNG
*'Constructed from manufacturer prototypes.
2.6 VEHICLES EVALUATION -LEGAL WEIGHT LIMIT
Background
Section 4.6.3.E of the Agreement prohibits the Company from loading its vehicles in excess of
the manufacturer's recommended weight limit, or in excess of limitations imposed locally or by
the State. The California Vehicle Code prohibits commercial vehicles from being loaded such
that the gross vehicle weight exceeds the manufacturer's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR).
The 'gross vehicle weight' is the total weight of a vehicle, including the weight of the vehicle
itself and its payload. The GVWR for all ofUWS' trucks is 27.5 tons.
Objective #6
Confirm UWS has operated its vehicles in the City within the legal weight limit.
Procedures
We obtained a sample of 199 of the Company's disposal facility transactions and reviewed them
for loads that exceeded the manufacturer's GVWR.
Findings
We found that none of the loads exceeded the vehicle manufacturer's GVWR. Moreover, we
found that, for all of the loads we reviewed, the actual gross weight was significantly less than
the manufacturer's GVWR.
8
3-41
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
2.7 VEHICLES EVALUATION -BIENNIAL INSPECTION OF
TERMINAL
Background
All operators of vehicle fleets in the State are required to have their fleet terminals inspected
every two years by the CHP. These are referred to as 'BIT' inspections (Biennial Inspection of
Terminal). Section 4.6.2.H of the Agreement requires the Company, upon request, to provide
the City with a copy of the Safety Compliance Report prepared by the CHP resulting from these
BIT inspections. If the Company receives a rating below 'Satisfactory,' is in violation of the
Agreement and is required to notify the City.
Objective #7
Confirm that UWS has received a rating of 'Satisfactory' on its most recent BIT inspection from
theCHP.
_Procedures
We obtained a copy of the Company's Safety Compliance Reports {BIT inspection report) for
inspections completed by the CHP in May 2012.
Finding
We found that the Company's maintenance facility (terminal) and fleet had received a rating of
'Satisfactory' on its BIT conducted by the CHP for its most recent BIT inspection.
2.8 ACCURACY OF DIVERSION REPORTS
Background
Each hauler is required to submit to the City quarterly and annual reports on the quantities of
materials collected in the City, including refuse, recycling, green waste, e-waste, used oil, oil
filters, and bulky items, as applicable. The reports must indicate the destination of each waste
stream, and include a breakdown of the types and quantities of recyclables collected.
Section 4.3.6 of the Agreement requires the Company to divert at least 50% of the solid waste it
collects in the City. In addition, if diversion requirements are not met, the City may instruct the
Company to implement new diversion programs at the Company's sole expense. The Company's
reported diversion rates for 2010(July1 to December 31), 2011, 2012, and 2013 are shown on
the following page in Table 4.
9
3-42
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit
Table 4 -Reported Diversion Rates
Calendar Year
2010 (July 1 to December 31) 53.9%
2011 54.8%
2012 58.0%
2013 57.3%*
*2013 diversion rate changed from 57.3% to 58.1 % based
on Audit findings (discussed below).
SCS ENGINEERS
AB 939 requires that all cities in the State divert at least 50% of the waste they generate from
being landfilled on a pounds per person per day basis. The pounds per person per day
measurement accounts for all the waste reduction and recycling that occurs in the City, including
the recycling of material that is not handled by the Company.
Objective #8
Review the Company's quarterly and annual reports for 2010 (July 1 to December 31 ), 2011,
2012, and 2013 to verify accuracy and completeness. Ensure that the Company has diverted a
minimum of 50% of solid waste collected from landfilling each calendar year since the start of
services on July 1, 2010, and verify the following:
• Diversion of items from City facilities and special events.
• Diversion of green waste for ADC or other beneficial use.
• Diversion of commingled recyclables, and the quantity of residuals, in order to evaluate if
the hauler is attaining the maximum diversion credit.
• Diversion of green waste and mixed recyclables to diversion facilities in order to obtain
the maximum diversion credit.
Procedures
We interviewed the Company's administrative and operations staff to gain an understanding of
its tonnage tracking and reporting system. We obtained detailed tonnage transaction schedules
and documentation that supported (with minor variance) the tonnages included in the quarterly
and annual reports submitted to the City.3
3 The variance between the tonnage transaction records and the Company's reports submitted to the City ranged between
0.1 % and 2.1 %. This variance is due to weight tickets that the Company was not able to locate but that were included in the
reports submitted to the City.
1 0
3-43
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
We obtained a sample of231 weight tickets and tied that information to the Company's tonnage
transaction records. In addition, we requested samples of supporting documentation for
collection of bulky items, e-waste, used oil/oil filters, and tonnage collected at City events.
Findings
We found the Company's reported disposal figures and diversion rates for 2010 (July 1 to
December 31), 2011, 2012, and 2013 to be correct with one exception. UWS did not report 28.14
tons of 2013 diversion tonnages in its annual report to the City due to late receipt of weight
tickets. Inclusion of these tonnages increased UWS' reported 2013 diversion rate from 57.3% to
58.1 %. Other than this tonnage omission, the Company's submitted quarterly and annual reports
were reasonable and accurate. The Company has revised and resubmitted its 2013 annual report
to the City. In addition, the Company stated that it has not collected used oil/oil filters or
participat~d in City events; therefore, no supporting documentation was provided for those items.
3.0 TASK B -CUSTOMER SERVICE
3.1 CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS
Background
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' objective is to provide the highest quality of service to its
residents. Over the years, the City has implemented a variety of policies and contractual
requirements in their service agreements with the residential haulers in order to meet this
objective.
Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 of the Agreement require the Company.to properly document and
address all service complaints placed by customers. The Company is required to maintain daily
logs of complaints for a minimum of three years.
Objective #9
Ensure that the Company has properly documented and addressed customer complaints
throughout the term of the Agreement.
Procedures
We interviewed Company staff regarding the process of customer complaints, including the
initial call by the customer, opening and closing of each work order, internal controls to ensure
each complaint is addressed, and the Company's record-keeping system. We reviewed a
representative sample of 22 (2%) of the Company's complaint log to determine whether the
Company properly addressed customer complaints.
1 1
3-44
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Findings
We found the Company has properly maintained a customer complaint log since the start of
services, with the exception of proper complaint resolution documentation. The Company's
complaint log includes, among other things, the date and nature of the complaint and whether or
not the complaint was resolved; however, the majority of complaint records do not include a date
or time of complaint resolution. Therefore, it was not possible to verify the timeframe of
complaint resolution. While the Company assures that all complaints are addressed either the
same day or one day after the complaint is issued, we were not able to verify such claims. The
Company stated that it is now recording and will continue to record the resolution date of each
complaint.
Of the complaints analyzed, approximately 82% were classified as a missed collection, 9%
represeD;ted customers requesting removal of extra carts, and 9% represented customers
requesting cart maintenance.
3.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
Background
Section 5.3 of the Agreement requires the Company to provide public outreach and education to
its customers regarding, but not limited to: services; changes to service (holidays, new programs,
etc.); and other communications and instructional materials.
Objective #10
Ensure the Company has provided its customers with the required public outreach and education
materials in a timely manner, and ensure that the information is complete, aesthetically pleasing,
and easy to understand.
Procedures
We obtained all of the public outreach and education materials the Company has sent to City
customers throughout the term of the Agreement. We evaluated the material for timeliness,
completeness of information, aesthetics, and ease of understanding by visually reviewing each
item and date of publication, where possible.
Findings
The Company has met the requirements of the Agreement. Each piece of public outreach and
education is visually appealing and informative. The Company sent the required initial mailing to
customers, instructional "how-to" packets to new customers, and has provided customers with
annual brochures/mailings at least once per year. In addition, the Company notifies customers of
each major holiday, including those holidays in which services were not affected (e.g., to let
customers know that regular services would occur).
1 2
3-45
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
4.0 TASK C -FINANCIAL
4.1 CUSTOMER BILLING RECORDS
Background
UWS is required to bill its customers at rates that were initially set forth in the Agreement, and
that are currently approved by the City. These rates are based on the level and type of services,
and in some cases the location of the residence.
Objective #11
Confirm that UWS has accurately billed its customers in the City.
Procedures
In addition to physically observing a representative sample of service levels (Task 2.1 Route
Audit), we obtained electronic downloads of lists of all ofUWS' single-family, multi-family,
senior discount, and annual pay-in-advance customers. These lists included each customer's
name, service address, number and sizes of containers, and type of service (e.g., backyard
service, extra carts, etc.). We reviewed the entire population ofUWS' customers in the City.
We sorted and analyzed this information, and compared it to the City's currently approved rate
schedule. We sought to identify any inconsistencies in the data, and obtained explanations from
UWS regarding any variances from the approved rate schedule.
Findings
Other than the one over-billed customer observed as part of Task 2.1, we found nothing to
indicate that UWS had not accurately billed its customers. As discussed previously, the
Company has agreed to correct its billing records and will issue a credit to the customer for over-
billed amounts. In addition, the Company stated that it will inform the City of the exact over-
billed amount and notify the City when the customer has been credited appropriately.
4.2 FEES AND REBATE
Background
The Agreement requires UWS to pay the following fees:
• A Collector Fee, which is paid to the City in consideration for the exclusive right to
collect waste in Service Area 2. The Collector Fee is based on 12% of UWS' gross
receipts collected from its customers in the City.
• An Environmental Programs Fee, which is paid to the City and used to support the City's
environmental programs. The Environmental Fee is based on 3% ofUWS' gross receipts
collected in the City.
1 3
3-46
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
• A Recycling Rebate, which is intended to recognize the revenue that UWS receives in
CRV from the recycled containers it collects in the City. The Recycling Rebate was
initially set at $4,000.00 per quarter. The Recycling Rebate remains fixed unless and
until the Statewide CRV rate for beverage containers less than 24 ounces (oz.) is
adjusted. The CRV rate for beverage containers less than 24 oz. has not changed since
the inception of the Agreement. As a result, the Recycling Rebate continues to be equal
to $4,000.00 per quarter, or $16,000.00 per year.
The agreement initially required UWS to pay the Recycling Rebate to the City.
However, effective January 1, 2013, the City and UWS agreed to return the Recycling
Rebate directly to customers through a monthly recycling credit on customers' invoices.
An analysis of the monthly recycling credit is included in the following section.
Objective #12
Confirm that UWS has accurately paid to the City the Collector Fee, Environmental Fee, and
. Recycling Rebate.
Procedures
We obtained from the City a list of fee payments received from UWS. We obtained schedules
from UWS that supported the amount of Collector and Environmental Program Fees it paid to
the City. We agreed the fee payments on UWS' supporting schedules with the fee amounts
received by the City, and verified the mathematical accuracy of UWS' fee calculations.
We obtained detailed schedules that showed all the individual customer cash receipts that
supported the gross receipt amounts on which the Company's fee payments were based. We
vouched the Company's gross receipts amounts to the detail schedules of customer payments.
Finally, we performed a false exclusion test4 to verify that the detailed customer payment
schedules included all the payments from the Company's customers in the City.
Findings
Based on the above procedures, we found that UWS has correctly paid its fees pursuant to the
terms in the Agreement. A summary ofUWS' fee payments to the City are shown on the
following page in Table 5.
4 Our false exclusion test entailed reviewing all of the City addresses in the Company's billing system to ensure that they
were coded correctly to segregate customer payments in the City, and tracing a sample of the individual payments from
those accounts to the schedules that supported the gross receipts on which the Company's fee payments were based.
1 4
3-47
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Table 5 -Summary of UWS' Fee Payments to the City
Period Collector Fee Em inmmental Ren clino . ,..,
Fee Rebate
July 2010 -June 2011 $37,149 $9,287 $16,000
July 2011 -June 2012 $38,025 $9,506 $16,000
July 2012 -June 2013 $37,803 $9,451 $8,000
July 2013 -December 2013 $22,490 $5,622 NA
4.3 MONTHLY RECYCLING CREDITS
Background
As discussed above, in January 2013, UWS began adding a monthly recycling credit from
customers' standard rates in lieu of paying the Recycling Rebate directly to the City. The
amount of the Recycling Rebate is $1.31 per unit per month (or $3.93 per quarter).
Objective #13
Confirm that UWS has accurately accounted for the customers' recycling credit.
Procedures
We reviewed the billing download we obtained from UWS, tabulated the number of customers
that had received the monthly recycling credit, and calculated the annual reduction in UWS'
revenue due to the monthly recycling credit. We compared this annual amount to the annual
amount that UWS had previously paid directly to the City.
Findings
We found that UWS had under-credited its customers by approximately $327, or approximately
2.0% of the previous annual Recycling Rebate paid to the City. A comparison of the annual
amount of the recycling rebate credited to customers with the annual amount of the Recycling
Rebate paid to the City is shown on the following page in Table 6.
1 5
3-48
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit
Table 6 -Recycling Credit to Customers
Compared to Recycling Rebate Paid to City
Description
Total Recycling Rebate Credited to Ratepayers
Amount of Previous Annual Recycling Rebate Paid tQ City
Amount Under-credited to Ratepayers
Under-credit as% of Total
SCS ENGINEERS
Annual
Amount
($15,657)
$16,000
($327)
-2.0%
The amount under-credited to ratepayers is primarily due to the actual number of active units
being less than the projected number of total units that were used when the monthly credit
amount was originally calculated. The number of units used to calculate the monthly recycling
rebate was 1,017, and the actual number of active units to which the rebate was applied was
997 5 • This difference in the amount of projected and actual number of units is due to normal
fluctuations in the occupancy rate of the City's residential dwelling units.
4.4 RATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-2014
Background
The Agreement required UWS to match EDCO's rates for automated curbside service effective
July 1, 2010. Thereafter, the Agreement sets forth a rate adjustment method by which UWS may
annually adjust the maximum rates that it charges its Backyard, Multi-family, and Manure
customers. This method is similar to the one used to adjust EDCO's rates. It is based on
changes in certain economic indices, and changes in the cost of disposal tipping fees. Rates are
adjusted each year effective July 1st. Since its automated cart rates were harmonized with
EDCO's on July 1, 2010, UWS' Backyard, Multi-family, and Manure rates have been adjusted
three times. The percent increases in UWS' rates since July 1, 2010 are shown below in Table 7.
Table 7 -Historic Rate Adjustments
Customer T~ pc Percent Increase Effecth e: -----Backyard, Multi-family and Manure Service 2.5% 1.7% 0.4%
Automated Cart Service6 3.7% 2.3% 1.2%
5 The 997 active units represent 542 active single-family units plus 455 active multi-family units.
6 Per the Agreement, UWS' automated cart service rate adjustments are based on EDCO' s rate adjustments for Service Area
1.
1 6
3-49
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Objective #14
Confirm that UWS' annual rate adjustments have been correctly calculated.
Procedures
MSW Consultants reviewed the accuracy of the calculations supporting the three adjustments to
UWS' Backyard, Multi-family, and Manure rates. This review consisted of an examination of
the formulas used in calculating the rate adjustment percentages to ensure that they were
consistent with the method outlined in the Agreement, a review of the tonnages, tipping fees, and
economic indicators used in the calculations, a verification of the mathematical accuracy of the
calculations, and a review of the resulting adjusted customer rates.
Findings
Based on its review, MSW Consultants found that the adjustments to UWS' rates were accurate
and calculated in accordance with the method set forth in the Agreement.
4.5 INSURANCE, BOND, AND LETTER OF CREDIT
Background
UWS is required to obtain and maintain insurance coverage, a performance bond, and a letter of
credit in relation to the services it provides to the City. Section 9 .4 of the Agreement requires
UWS to obtain the insurance coverage shown below in Table 8.
Table 8 -Required Insurance Coverage
$7 million
Per Occurrence $5 million
Auto Liability
Per Occurrence $5 million
Workers Comp Aggre ate As required by
i--~~~~~~~-t
Per Occurrence State law
Section 9.5 of the Agreement requires UWS to furnish and maintain during the contract term a
performance bond in the amount of $250,000. The purpose of the performance bond is to
guarantee UWS' performance of its obligations under the Agreement.
Section 9.6 of the Agreement requires UWS to furnish and maintain during the contract term an
irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $250,000. The purpose of the letter of credit is to
provide the City with a more liquid form of surety to guarantee UWS' performance of its
contractual obligations.
1 7
3-50
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
Although the final executed Agreement required UWS to furnish a performance bond for
$250,000 and a letter of credit of $250,000, the staff report that accompanied the City Council's
approval ofUWS' Agreement on May 5, 2009 states that the Company would provide:
"$30,000 Performance Bond (renewed annually), plus $30,000 Letter of Credit7"
Additionally, based on correspondence among City staff, consultants, and UWS, it appears that
the parties informally agreed that the Company should furnish a $30,000 performance bond and
a $30,000 letter of credit.
The Agreement specifically requires UWS to furnish a performance bond and letter of credit
each in the amount of $250,000. However, based on the statement in the May 2009 staff report,
and based on the correspondence among the City, consultants, and the Company, it appears that
UWS ha4 a reasonable expectation that it would be allowed to furnish a performance bond and
letter of credit each in the amount of $30,000. This would have represented a combined level of
financial assurance equal to $60,000. In its previous agreement with the City, UWS was
required to furnish a $60,000 performance bond. It was not required to furnish a letter of credit
under its previous agreement.
Objective #15
Confirm that UWS has obtained and maintained the insurance coverage, the performance bond,
and letter of credit as required in the Agreement.
Procedures
We obtained and reviewed copies of the insurance certificates, and performance bond that UWS
had provided to the City.
Findings
We found that UWS had furnished and maintained a performance bond in the amount of $60,000
and that it had not furnished a letter of credit. Although UWS had provided a level of fmancial
assurance that was commensurate with its informal agreement with the City, it had not provided
a letter of credit, and it had not furnished a performance bond or letter of credit in the amount
required in the Agreement.
UWS has represented that it is willing to provide a performance bond and letter of credit that are
acceptable to the City.
7 May 5, 2009 City Council meeting staff report (agenda item #15), Attachment 1, Item #31.
1 8
3-51
Final Report-UWS Performance Audit SCS ENGINEERS
5.0 CONCLUSION
In summary, other than one incorrectly billed account, the omission of 28.14 tons of reported
2013 diversion tonnage, and the exception of the financial assurance requirements, we found
nothing to indicate that UWS had not satisfactorily fulfilled its contractual requirements.
1 9
3-52