As far as natural disasters go, this was not a FEMA declared event, but nevertheless having all the componenets of execution, it was paramount to the success of the recovery of event that the elements of process were in play. This briefing/debriefing addressed several of the issues including the debris removal analysis, that which had never been seen by the waste haulers before, and thereby causing a shift in deployment of resoutces ensuring a more efficient result.

1. December 2013
Ice Storm Event
Debriefing Update
1

2. December 2013
Ice Storm Event
2

3. Ice Storm 2013
• December 5-8, 2013
• News media referred to it as “Icemaggedon”
• Impacts of regional significance were felt
throughout DFW
3

4. Rowlett Immediate
Impacts
• 14 lift stations OUT OF SERVICE
• 8 traffic signals OUT OF SERVICE
• 1 elevated water storage tank OUT OF SERVICE
• Numerous iced roadways and bridges
• Numerous downed trees and limbs
• 7000 without power
4

5. On-Going Operations
• December 9th – WM inspected & assessed the City
• December 10th – Declaration of Local State of
Disaster by Mayor
• The City enacted Section 27 – Disaster or Storm
Event Services
• Initially we had WM supplying 6-8 trucks on the
special pick up days (Wed & Sat)
• All costs were being tracked for potential
reimbursement – which ultimately was not
approved for the region by FEMA
5

6. Waste Management Plan
• The City triggered the disaster management clause
of the WM contract
• WM is a partner in the clean up operation and we
rely on their expertise!
• A schedule for pick up of storm debris was
implemented as advised by WM
• Wednesdays and Saturdays was implemented with
WM committing 8 trucks
• As a cost savings to this initiative, the City
negotiated better rate at Garland land fill to
shorten travel times and reduce costs to WM and
the City
6

7. Waste Management Plan
• The original plan by WM was:
o Large brush piles are to be placed in front
o Smaller piles in alleys to be addressed by regular weekly pick-up where
possible
o No special calls are required for pick up
o Regular schedule areas were being addressed by garbage pick up days
• Citizens were to utilize the Hinton Landfill – passes
were available at City Secretary’s office, Public
Works, and Utility Billing
7

8. Issues & Challenges
Encountered
• Increasing piles in neighborhoods
• Debris was drying posing a fire hazard potential
• Parked cars were impeding progress
• Progress was not sufficient to meet community
expectations
• Mixed loads (other debris & trash not related was
becoming a problem)
• Holiday delays
• Communications with citizens needed to be
enhanced
8

9. Inspection & Damage
Assessment
• In response to increasing public concern, the City
staff commenced and completed an inspection to
assess current conditions in early January
• Maps were developed showing the conditions,
mapping the progress, and identifying the areas to
be addressed that may have been missed or were
of growing concern
9

10. Planned Improved
Operations
• Augment WM efforts with several approaches to
accelerate results
o Use of City staff (Parks & PW)
o Use of roll off dumpsters for Sundays and those who wanted to haul their
own debris to a convenient location (Miller water tower on PGBT)
o Use of staging areas for City crews
o Chipping/shredding materials
o Temporary labor to sort mixed debris piles
• City staff enhanced communications to address
specific issues that were impeding clean up efforts
• At the recommendation of WM and approval of
City Council, the City engaged WM to initiate
“Storm Chasers” to augment and accelerate the
process
10

11. Communications
• Web site enhancements
• An internet form to provide centralized standard
responses and requests for service outside of normal
process was set up to provide locations and
volumes estimates that were mapped to the GIS
11

12. Communications
• An email address for inquiries and questions that
provided a feedback loop for citizens that resulted
in 300 citizen contacts.
stormdebris@rowlett.com
• Notices to citizens through several means occurred:
o Blackboard connect messages were sent
o Door knockers were used
o Notices provided to move vehicles, separate trash, and project deadline
• Posted progress maps on the web site
• Established and posted FAQs on the web site
12

13. Results & Outcomes
• The project was completed as planned and normal
operations resumed February 3, 2014
• Over 2200 tons of debris were removed and hauled
to Garland landfill by WM and City forces
• 1664 trucking hours expended by WM forces
• 819 trucking hours expended by City forces
• $58,700 total charges for landfill tipping fees
o (WM - $50,100; City - $8,600)
• $225,500 trucking expense charges for WM
• $30,000 trucking expense for City staff (i.e.; salaries
expense)
13

14. Financial Impact &
Surcharge
• The refuse fund does not typically carry reserve
funds. It is a pass through account for receiving
revenue and paying the WM expenses and the
alley repair expenses.
• City Council enacted a surcharge to recoup the
expenses incurred from the event.
• The surcharge will be $3.02 per month for 5 months
to recoup approximately $300,000 in this fiscal year.
14

15. Debriefing Process
• Staff met to debrief the event asking key questions
to analyze the results
o What went well?
o What went poorly (if anything)?
o What could have gone better?
o What did we learn from this event?
o What action items have we identified for the future?
15

16. Debriefing Process
• Generally speaking much of the discussions revolved around
the positive outcomes and attributes of the event specific to
team work, methods, and results achieved.
• The response during the storm event went very well and the
initial recovery phase was completed with good results,
inclusive of no injuries, and what was believed to be quick and
efficient processes.
• The reality was the recovery dealing with debris removal was
fair at best.
• Expectations were high for WM services to be sufficient,
however this clearly was not the result.
• Reliance on the expertise of WM was clearly an expectation
that ultimately yielded insufficient results, requiring City forces
and WM (Storm Chasers) efforts to get the desired outcomes.
16

17. Debriefing Process
• FINANCIAL IMPACTS & EXPENSES
• WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
• OPERATIONAL CAPACITIES/EFFICIENCIES
• REVENUE RECOVERY OPTIONS
• FEMA COMPLIANCE
• DEBRIS MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
• SUPPLY CONTRACTS
• DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING
• SCHEDULING
• EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ISSUES
• STAFF TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
• ASSIGNMENT OF KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL
• REGIONAL AWARENESS/INVOLVMENT
17

18. Debriefing Process
• FINANCIAL IMPACTS & EXPENSES
• WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
• OPERATIONAL CAPACITIES/EFFICIENCIES
• REVENUE RECOVERY OPTIONS
• FEMA COMPLIANCE
• DEBRIS MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
• SUPPLY CONTRACTS
• DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING
• SCHEDULING
• EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ISSUES
• STAFF TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
• ASSIGNMENT OF KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL
• REGIONAL AWARENESS/INVOLVMENT
18

19. City Expectations
• There is an explicit reliance on WM to be the subject
matter experts with regards to solid waste disposal in the
City of Rowlett.
• The City is not and has not been in recent history the
operator of a solid waste operation organization.
• It is for this reason the City chooses to enter into a full
service contract with a solid waste professional.
• There is not only a strong reliance, but a firm expectation
that while the City has made financial decisions with
regard to this action, there is that expectation that WM
would initiate the most efficient means by which to
service the needs of the City of Rowlett.
19

20. Data
DEBRIS REMOVAL EFFORT TOTAL HOURS
TOTAL
HAULING
EXPENSE
TOTAL TRUCK
LOADS
COST PER
TRUCK LOAD
CUBIC YARDS
PER LOAD
(AVERAGE
TRUCK
CAPACITY)
ESTIMATED
TOTAL CUBIC
YARDS
AVERAGE
COST PER
CUBIC YARD
HOURS PER
TRUCK LOAD
DELIVERED
Dallas Rearload 519.50 $ 64,937.50 77 $ 843.34 25 1925 $ 33.73 6.75
WM Rolloff Brush Loads 8.00 $ 1,000.00 5 $ 200.00 40 200 $ 5.00 1.60
Dallas Brush Truck 150.81 $ 22,621.50 45 $ 502.70 40 1800 $ 12.57 3.35
Fort Worth Brush Truck 435.80 $ 54,475.00 97 $ 561.60 40 3880 $ 14.04 4.49
Waste Management Total 1114.11 $ 143,034.00 224 $ 638.54 N/A 7805 $ 18.33 4.97
Storm Chasers 550.00 $ 82,500.00 225 $ 366.67 50 11250 $ 7.33 2.44
Waste Management Total W/SC 1664.11 $ 225,534.00 449 $ 502.30 N/A 19055 $ 11.84 3.71
City of Rowlett PWD Trucks 819.00 $ 94,511.23 304 $ 310.89 16.42 4992 $ 18.93 2.69
20

21. Comparison Matrix
PRODUCITY COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS
COMPARISON TO
STORMCHASERS -
COST PER TRUCK
LOAD
COMPARISON TO
STORMCHASERS -
COST PER CUBIC
YARD
COMPARISON TO
STORMCHASERS -
HOURS PER LOAD
DELIVERED
COMPARISON TO
DALLAS BRUSH
TRUCKS - COST
PER TRUCK LOAD
COMPARISON
TO DALLAS
BRUSH TRUCKS -
COST PER CUBIC
YARD
COMPARISON
TO DALLAS
BRUSH TRUCKS
- HOURS PER
LOAD
DELIVERED
Dallas Rearload 2.30 4.60 2.76 1.68 2.68 2.01
WM Rolloff Brush Loads 0.55 0.68 0.65 0.40 0.40 0.48
Dallas Brush Truck 1.37 1.71 1.37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fort Worth Brush Truck 1.53 1.91 1.84 1.12 1.12 1.34
Waste Management Total 1.74 2.50 2.03 1.27 1.46 1.48
Storm Chasers 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.58 0.73
Waste Management Total W/SC 1.37 1.61 1.52 1.00 0.94 1.11
City of Rowlett Public Works 0.85 2.58 1.10 0.62 1.51 0.80
21

22. Productivity Analysis
Debris Removal Effort Hours Per Truck Load
WM Dallas Rear Load 6.75
WM Fort Worth Brush Trucks 4.49
WM Dallas Brush Trucks 3.35
Storm Chasers 2.44
City of Rowlett 2.69
Debris Removal Effort Cost Per Truck Load
WM Dallas Rear Load $843.34
WM Fort Worth Brush Trucks $561.60
WM Dallas Brush Trucks $502.70
Storm Chasers $366.67
City of Rowlett $310.89
22

23. Recommendation
• Cost recovery based upon assumptions:
o City reliance on Waste Management to be the subject matter expert with
regards to solid waste disposal
o Waste Management brush trucks as the reasonable basis; we
acknowledge that agreed to this level of service
o Waste Management rear loaders have inherent inefficiencies for this type
of work ($150/40 cu.yd. as compared to $125/25 cu.yd.)
o Ft. Worth brush trucks should be equal in expense to Dallas brush trucks
(regardless of cause for inefficiency)
o It is the City’s assertion, predictable inefficiencies on behalf of Waste
Management resulted in higher expenses to the City in hours wasted to
which the City was charged
o Financial recovery of funds is reasonable under these assumptions
23

24. Recommendation
Cost Basis
Dallas Brush Truck as Basis
Ft Worth Brush Truck Hourly Cycle 4.49
Dallas Brush Truck Hourly Cycle 3.35
Difference in Hours Per Load 1.14
Ft. Worth Loads 97
Calculated Overage Hours 110.72
Calculated Overage Cost $ 16,608.10
Dallas Rear Load Hourly Cycle 6.75
Dallas Brush Truck Hourly Cycle 3.35
Difference in Hours Per Load 3.40
Dallas Rear Load Truck Loads 77
Calculated Overage Hours 261.45
Calculated Overage Cost $ 39,217.10
Calculated Overpayment Total $ 55,825.20
This equals approximately one month of the adopted surcharge!
24

25. Questions?
25