Metropolitan Council's Best Practices for Street Sweeping

How can local governments find better ways to provide services and cut costs when their reduced staffs can barely keep up with basic service needs? That was one question local governments asked the Metropolitan Council in a 1992 study on local government cooperation. In response, the Council has found a cost-effective way to assist cities in addressing that challenge. Here is a summary of findings from a small demonstration project that identifies a total of 66 "best practices" in street sweeping by public works departments in the Twin Cities metropolitan area.

• Best practices were defined for this project in terms of what was found to be logical and supportable variations on standard practice that improve the quality of the service or reduce program costs.

• Street sweeping costs vary widely throughout the region. The Council initially assumed the cost of sweeping a mile of street would vary among cities perhaps as much as 5 to 1. The findings show a much greater variation--in some cases, more than 10 to 1.

• Cities vary in how they provide the service. Some cities do it all themselves. Others contract with a neighboring city or with their county. Many cities contract with private firms. A few contract their major spring sweeping with private firms and then use their own equipment and workers for the rest of the year.

• Not all cities know how much their street sweeping actually costs them. Some cities keep detailed records. Others keep limited records, and a few do not separate street sweeping from their total street maintenance budget and thus are not aware of the separate costs.

• Disposing of the sweepings is a growing issue with environmental concerns. Cities reported an average usage of 19 tons of ice-control sand per mile last winter. While it costs only $2 to $4 per ton to buy sand locally, it costs from $6 to $11 per ton to dispose of it in a landfill, not including hauling costs. As more cities run out of publicly owned space to dump sweepings, disposal costs will increase. Some cities are recycling their spring sweepings, which may become the most cost-effective approach in the future.

• Many cities use more than a few of the 66 best practices identified, which suggests that cities can reduce program costs while increase the quality of street sweeping.

• Most cities have the potential to cut costs or improve quality by adopting some of the best street-sweeping practices. The report compares costs between standard practices and several best practices for a small, medium and large city. While these cities are hypothetical, the comparisons show potential savings, some as high as 20 percent.

• The region could save nearly $1 million a year if these practices were implemented. This estimate is based upon reports from 102 communities in the region, who altogether spend approximately $7 million per year on street sweeping, a conservative estimate.

• The Metropolitan Council encourages municipalities to adopt as many of these best practices as will fit their own street sweeping service. (The Council offers further assistance to municipalities by providing assistance to follow up on cost savings from adopting best practices documented in this report. See the form on page of the Appendix labeled Program Assistance Request.)

The Metropolitan Council Best Practices: Street Sweeping demonstration project was a collaborative effort of regional and local government to improve municipal services through technical and operational efficiencies to reduce costs. It outlines 66 "best practices" in street sweeping as provided by 102 communities in the metropolitan area. The best practices described in this report represent many, but not all, of the good ideas employed by local governments in the region.

This report is the first in a series the Council expects to produce, in cooperation with local communities, on improving quality and cutting costs of local government services. The report demonstrates a new approach that can be applied to any number of municipal services.

The 66 best practices described in this report on street sweeping address personnel, equipment, maintenance, operations and other work. The best practices are presented along with an overview of "standard" operating practices. Information comes from a questionnaire, 31 field interviews and 8 sub-regional meetings with city street superintendents and public works directors. See Figure 1 on page 28 that explains the process used to collect this information.

This report is designed primarily for public works administrators, city managers and other administrators in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area and provides practical information that city personnel can easily put into action. The report does not directly compare cities' street-sweeping costs and report differences. Instead, it advocates widespread use of the best street-sweeping practices currently used by metro area cities.

Project implementation took place in the latter half of 1993 and early 1994 (see Figure 1, page 28 for work plan). It began with a survey of all 138 metropolitan municipalities. The Council was assisted in the study by an advisory group consisting of two city managers and four staff representatives from counties and the state. A recently retired city engineer served as a consultant. The project included interviews with 31 municipal representatives, mostly street maintenance supervisors. In addition, one equipment supplier was interviewed for background information on types of equipment available. Several private contractors were interviewed to gain their perspective. Staff also contacted municipalities not interviewed to obtain additional information. Cost information from the questionnaire, when determined imperfect, was eliminated from the analysis. Following publication and distribution of the report to all 138 municipalities, eight meetings were held in the region for street maintenance professionals to discuss the findings and solicit additional best practices not originally identified in the 31 interviews. These meetings generated another 14 best practice ideas.

Several best practices are compared with standard practices for three hypothetical cities of different sizes. While real cities differ somewhat from those in the examples, differences are not great enough to negate these results. City officials may compare the results from these examples with costs for their own city and estimate their savings. Cost savings in these examples are estimates based on the available data.

The best practices for municipal street sweeping in this report are not the only ones in the region. In fact, the Council would like to learn about others not mentioned here. A form on page 49 of the Appendix is intended for this use. As other best practices are uncovered, they will be added to the list and mailed out as an addendum to this report.

Several information sheets designed to capture all the costs of street sweeping are also included for use by communities, on page 51 and 52 of the Appendix.

Local officials have shown interest in the best practices approach and plan to use new methods that would improve services and reduce costs. Based on cities' limited resources to find more efficient ways to deliver service, this approach seems to be a cost-effective alternative. The Metropolitan Council is interested in assisting municipalities that wish to adopt these best practices. For that reason, a FAX-BACK Assistance Request form is included on page 53 of the Appendix to start this activity.

As a first step, cities could start recording the total costs and performance outcomes of providing the street sweeping service, as well as costs of other services. Some cities have already begun doing this and know how much it costs to keep streets clean from year to year. A few cities, because they do not track costs specifically for street sweeping, are not aware of the total costs for the service.

Cities can increase service value by adopting best management practices, such as those in this report. These ideas offer cities a winning solution--improved service delivery and better management of personnel. Local officials can redirect savings to other pressing community needs.

This report contains four main sections. The first describes basic municipal street sweeping practices and the reasons for doing it. The second lists 66 "best practice" ideas found during this project, each used by some municipality in the Twin Cities area. The third section compares the cost of best practices with a "standard" set of street sweeping practices. The fourth provides background information on the best-practices method. An Appendix contains spreadsheet calculations for the best practice examples for readers interested in more detail. It also contains several recommended forms used by some municipalities for monitoring service performance and costs. It also contains a FAX-BACK form for municipalities interested in Council assistance to monitor cost savings and results by adopting these best practices. A summary of averages for selected survey questions and other data used in this report can be found on page 47 of the Appendix.

Another part of these costs is the high initial cost to purchase a street-sweeping vehicle, equipment that can range from $80,000 to $125,000, depending on make, model and equipment enhancements. Initially very costly, these machines also require high maintenance because of the dusty environment they work in. This environment creates havoc on moving parts and calls for daily maintenance from the operator or mechanic. Often, these machines experience part failures, which cause costly unscheduled maintenance and result in a critical piece of equipment being out of operation at key times.

Another part of cost is that sweeping is a slow process. Packed sand, dirt and other winter debris is difficult to pick up in spring. Vacuum-type sweepers are less efficient than mechanical brush and broom sweepers working on these materials. A sweeper's speed depends on the amount of winter debris to be picked up and the resulting quality. Average gutter-line speeds for the first sweep in spring can be as slow as two or three miles per hour.

Another cost is whether the city has a fall sweeping program to collect leaves for which residents are not responsible. The standard hopper of a typical sweeper, for example, an Elgin Pelican, is about 3.5 cubic yards. Sweeping certain streets in neighborhoods with mature trees could fill this hopper over a short distance and require numerous trucks with drivers to haul materials away. Added to this, the further away the debris has to be hauled, the higher the cost of the program.

Most sweeping is limited to spring, summer and fall, when temperatures are above freezing. Municipalities sweep streets early in the spring because of sand on the streets and concern for citizen safety. Cities want to remove sand and other winter debris soon after the snow and ice have melted along the curb line and before the rains flush the debris into storm sewers and possibly clog them. Another reason is safety: loose sand on smooth streets can create a potentially dangerous condition for cars, bicyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians. For the metropolitan area, the usual period for the spring sweep is roughly from March 1 to June 1. Many cities also have a major fall sweeping program to remove fallen leaves to prevent them from entering the storm sewer system and to reduce dangerous street conditions caused by wet leaves.

Street maintenance personnel want to prevent as much sand and dirt as possible from entering the storm sewer system. Once in the sewers, sand and dirt must be removed at additional cost. But cleaning streets to remove unsafe sand, or cleaning it off before spring rains (or fire hydrant flushing) wash it into the storm sewers, also satisfies citizen interests for a safe and clean environment.

Water quality is becoming more of an environmental issue and street sweeping is often seen as a means of improving it. Many officials interviewed stated they have been contacted by lake improvement and other citizen groups concerned about water quality. In addition, some sweeper manufacturers and professional contract sweeper organizations are promoting sweeping, especially using vacuum models, as an answer to improving water quality. However, there is an unresolved debate over the impact of street sweeping on nonpoint water pollution, such as that from streets and storm sewers.

A considerable amount of research is available on this debate. In general, studies agree that sweeping does reduce amounts of larger debris and dirt, (in general 1/32 inch or greater) flowing into waterways. However, most of the more damaging chemicals, such as cadmium, lead, chromium, chlorides (including salt and calcium), phosphorus and nitrogen are too small to be picked up from street surfaces using standard mechanical sweepers. In fact, these studies show that sweeping a street usually loosens these materials, allowing subsequent rains to flush them into the storm sewer system. One recommendation is to limit the frequency of sweeping to a bare minimum. This research should be updated to determine whether technical improvements to sweeping equipment would justify more frequent sweeping to reduce the flow of these chemicals into waterways.

Dust control is another reason for sweeping. This is a greater problem in warmer and dryer climates, such as Arizona, New Mexico and southern California. In these areas, streets are cleaned more frequently and municipal equipment pools will probably list more vacuum machines.

Many practices can be categorized into more than one class--such as labor/operation, or equipment/operations. This is because when a piece of equipment or person doing the task differs from the standard, the way the task is done also may differ. The following is a list of the best practices discovered along with reasons for including them. There are probably other best practices currently in use. This is why the Council invites anyone who knows of other practices to complete the best practices form on page 49 of the Appendix, and return it to the Council. These additional best practices will be incorporated into an addendum and sent to you.

For several best practices listed below, a cost-saving example is included. For more detail about those cost-saving examples, see the Appendix for spreadsheets containing cost comparisons to standard operating practices for the small, medium and large-sized hypothetical cities.

Although comparing jurisdictions is not the primary purpose of this project, it was felt that some comparative information was necessary to illustrate the impact of the best practices found in this pilot study. To accomplish that, it was decided to develop characteristics of three "typical" cities based on information supplied through the questionnaire and field interviews. Using that information as a base, data is presented below for several best practices, comparing it to the standard practice for the three cities.

Note that two important issues are not examined in any detail in this report. The first is the issue of contracting versus doing the work in-house. The second is related--what is the amount of service required to justify the expense of owning one or more street sweeping machines? The answer to this question will help resolve whether to contract or do the work in-house, and would be unique for each city.

Although this report includes information such as cost per swept mile of road and per-capita costs, this does not take into consideration the "cost of money" or what economists refer to as "opportunity costs." One could ask: Is the expenditure obtaining the best (or maximum) services available for that amount? Let's assume a community's cost of providing street sweeping were about average--about $125 per mile swept and about $2.00 per capita. But say it takes no more than 15 days to sweep the entire city in either spring or fall. In this situation, officials might examine what the costs are to allow an expensive piece of equipment stand idle for a large portion of the year.

Several factors need to be considered. They include interest paid out on the investment, its depreciation, and the alternative use of funds not spent acquiring the piece of equipment. If, for example, the service could be purchased without having to buy the equipment, what would be the difference? How would this difference (presumably in savings) be used? No general answer to this question is possible from the limited amount of information gathered for this project. However, it remains to be answered on an individual basis--especially for smaller cities like City 1 in Table 1 (see page 24 and 25).

Using the hypothetical cities from Table 1 as a base, several best practices are analyzed for relative cost savings. These examples represent only a few of the 66 best practices identified. The remaining best practices, while difficult to place a cost value on, also can potentially improve the quality of street sweeping or general operations.

Using some or all of these best practices could significantly reduce a city's street sweeping costs. Given that the 53 municipalities that do their own street sweeping provided conservative estimates of costs totaling more than $6 million in 1992, estimated savings from using these best practices for all 138 municipalities could be close to $1 million annually.

It should be noted that some best practices are easier to adopt than others. For example, purchasing a piece of equipment might be easier than changing certain personnel practices. Yet, the end result will reflect what each community values and is willing to support.

COST COMPARISONS

This section of the report provides information on cost comparisons of several of the "best practices" identified above. These comparisons are not between one city applying a "best practice" and another that is not, but rather a comparison between a standard set of operating practices and a "best practice" for three cities of different sizes. The results are reasonable estimates of costs when applying a "best practice" found in this project. This section begins with a description of standard operating practices that were uncovered through questions on a single page questionnaire, which was returned by 102 municipalities (out of 138 mailed), and through 31 field interviews with street maintenance supervisors or public works directors. The information on standard operations is then translated into figures for three cities of different sizes. Again, a city of these sizes would, on average, experience the performance and costs based on information given. Finally, costs for applying selected "best practices" are provided for each of the three cities. It should be noted that several of the 52 best practices not singled out for cost comparisons could actually save resources while also improving quality, but such determination would need to be carried out in a field study.

The following information has been summarized from the mailed questionnaire and supplemented by responses from the field interviews. The basic set of operating practices include methods, equipment and labor. While our initial survey questionnaire identified four different methods of providing municipal street sweeping, for brevity only the municipal-provided (the "Do-it-yourselfers") method will be used in these examples. (See Appendix for summary averages for selected items from the questionnaire and other data sources.)

METHODS OF PROVIDING THE SERVICE

The most common approach to street sweeping is the "Do-It-Yourselfers." Of the 102 survey returns that indicated they provided the service, 53 respondents indicated the city did all the sweeping. These municipalities owned a total of 110 sweepers, most only one, while Minneapolis and St. Paul indicated they owned 19 and 20, respectively.

The second-most frequent method (30 responses) was for cities that contracted with private sweepers. There are approximately four major providers of this service to municipalities in the Metropolitan Area. These cities are typically very small, with an average of fewer than 30 miles of streets, which are usually swept only once a year, and never more than twice.

The third-most frequent method was the combination of the above two methods. Eleven of the 102 municipalities indicated they combined some private contract service with some of their own sweeping. These cities are generally much larger than those that contract all sweeping, and most of these own only a single machine.

The least-frequent method was contracting with another public sector provider, either a county (four cases) or another city (also four cases). These cities were some of the smallest in the region in terms of miles of streets (less than 20 miles).

EQUIPMENT

One public works director stated that over the past 15 years, his city had increased the number of roads by 50 percent and park acreage by 35 percent, yet his department has remained the same size. The main reason, he stated, was improved equipment.

According to the American Public Works Association, the current equipment technology used to sweep streets has been in existence for several decades. The primary technology uses a cylindrical main broom that sweeps the debris into a hopper. Gutter brooms on the side (or sides) of the vehicle direct the debris inward toward the main broom. Debris is brushed by the main broom onto a wide conveyor-type belt and carried to a hopper. Some vehicles have the capacity to extend and tilt the hopper from the body so it can dump directly into a dump truck. (This is the most popular choice based on reported numbers on the questionnaire and interviews.) On the other hand, some manufacturers still make a vehicle that dumps only onto the ground. This requires the sweeper to dump the load on the street, or on some other property, and then another operation to load the sweepings into a dump truck to be hauled to a disposal site.

Besides differentiating how the hopper is emptied, manufacturers provide either a tricycle model, with turning wheels in the rear, or a more standard four-wheeled model. Typically, the four-wheeled model can move at higher speeds on the roadway, while the three-wheeler is limited to speeds customary for city streets, but has greater maneuverability around corners and parked cars. Many street superintendents interviewed preferred the tricycle machine.

Vacuum is another technology available for street cleaning machines. Several private contractors use this type of machine primarily for cleaning private parking lots and driveways, e.g. shopping centers, parking ramps, etc. Cottage Grove was the only city interviewed that owned a sweeper equipped with a vacuum device. This model had two gutter brooms and a smaller cylindrical main broom. All debris was then funneled toward the vacuum head, which was about 18 inches wide. Other models of vacuums are available that utilize a combination of forced air and vacuum technology. Many of the officials interviewed stated that these machines were too noisy and were less efficient for cleaning heavy spring debris, and therefore were not the machine of choice. No recent comparative information on these two types of technology was found, so their relative effectiveness is unknown. However, a vacuum appears to be more effective in warm and dry climates, and the heavy-duty broom-type sweeper more effective in wetter, snowier and colder climates.

Although some sweeper models have the capability to wet the pavement to reduce dust, many superintendents said it was not adequate. There are three reasons for this. First, the spray bar mounted on the sweeper is just a few feet in front of the broom, which allows little time for the water to work itself into the debris on the road--perhaps only two or three seconds. Second, the holding capacity of the water tank on the sweeper is small, thus requiring frequent stops to refill. Third, the 180 gallons of water increases the vehicle's weight by 1,440 pounds, to 14,940 pounds net vehicle weight. In spring, this weight increase puts more stress on some roadways, especially those without curbs and gutters.

Many cities use a flusher prior to sweeping to saturate the debris just enough so that dust is reduced. The reasoning is that less dust will (a) reduce wear on the moving parts of the machine, lengthen its effectiveness, and reduce maintenance costs, and (b) limit complaints about the large amount of dust created by the sweeping operation. Some street maintenance personnel believe the water also acts as a lubricant and assists in the sweeping process. Although there may be some truth to this claim, no literature was found to substantiate it.

Once debris is swept from the street it must be disposed of. Noting that the hopper of a standard Pelican model sweeper is about 3.5 cubic yards, the vehicle needs to be emptied frequently. The standard practice is for a sweeper to dump directly into a truck (if the sweeper has that capability). Most cities use 5 to 6 cubic-yard single-axle trucks, while a few use 12.5 cubic-yard tandems. The drivers deliver the sweepings to designated sites, which vary from city to city.

Some cities use sweeping equipment that cannot dump directly into a dump truck, but rather have to dump onto the ground. In such cases, additional equipment is required to move the debris off city streets or other property. In some cases, a city might use a front-end loader and dump truck combination, and, in other cases, a city might use what is called a "load-all." This is a dump truck with a special bucket attachment similar to that used on a front-end loader. In either case, additional labor is required to do hand-work to remove leftover debris.

Minneapolis and St. Paul, with their high concentration of vehicles parked on streets, use a pick-up truck to post and remove "No Parking" signs. Such sign posting is necessary to do an adequate job of cleaning. It is also required by law if vehicles are to be tagged and towed for sweeping purposes.

The basic equipment for most cities includes one mechanical sweeper, one flusher, and a dump truck. Larger cities use more equipment and different combinations of it to suit their needs and operating practices.

LABOR

Many public works directors or street maintenance supervisors indicated they have very lean departments in terms of staff. For most municipalities, street maintenance workers were not a separate public works division. Often this staff handles street patching and seal-coating, park maintenance, storm and sanitary sewers, tree trimming, snow plowing and one city even handles its natural gas utility. In these cities, workers are full time, year-round employees, and most are supplemented by a few full-time, summer help. Minneapolis and St. Paul have limited full-time, annual staff as well as some full-time, seasonal workers. This latter group works most of the year full-time, except in late fall. During the winter and early spring, they may be called in for snow removal.

The standard work crew for a medium-sized city consists of a sweeper operator, usually classified as a "heavy equipment operator," and a truck driver and flusher driver, both classified as "light equipment operators." Minneapolis and St. Paul add two more personnel to post and remove "No Parking" signs in areas where they are sweeping. Signs for the next day's sweeping are posted in the morning, and yesterday's signs are removed in the afternoon. In addition, a street maintenance supervisor, as part of their daily responsibility, may monitor progress and work quality of the sweeping crew.

Three different sized cities are described in the following table and will be used to demonstrate cost savings by adopting selected best practices. The cities do not represent any specific city in the Metropolitan Area but are composites that closely resemble many cities of their population.

Information sources for entries in Table 1 are as follows. City characteristics are based on questionnaire surveys and interviews. Crew size and sweeping speed are from the 31 interviews. Salary figures are from the 1993 DCA Stanton Report Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Salary Survey, Vol. 1. Benefits and overhead are low estimates of figures supplied by public finance officers who were knowledgeable in that area.

Information in Table 1 assumes that the city streets are swept curb-to-curb in spring with flushing for dust control prior to sweeping. In the fall, only the gutter line is swept (approximately a 10 foot-wide path), and the flusher truck is not used (except in example of best practice No. 7).

Sweeper costs include all operating expenses such as gas, oil, maintenance, as well as fixed expenses such as depreciation (life duration of 10 years), replacement, licenses, and insurance but does not include operator costs. Depreciation and replacement costs are based on 350 hours per year for 10 years.

Costs for the single-axle dump truck and flusher truck, both at $20.00/hour, include the same expenses as those listed for the sweeper, above.

It is assumed there is no cost in dumping the sweepings but that hauling costs to a local city-owned site are part of the hourly truck cost.

Mechanic and supervisor wages are prorated at 10 percent and 5 percent respectively of the amount of time the sweeper is used.

THE BEST PRACTICES METHOD

A key goal of the project is to evaluate a method of determining best practices, used successfully in Britain for over a decade, to see if it can be used in our region. Municipal street sweeping is used for this study because it represents a small, well-defined local service that nearly all municipalities provide. The method seeks to identify as many "best management practices" within the service as possible.

For the last 11 years, an organization in England called the British Audit Commission has studied various government programs, searching for better and more cost-effective ways of doing government business. The Commission has identified over $2 billion in potential savings for local governments just by uncovering the best management practices for local services. The Commission noted that, while a single service provider may be applying two or three "best practices," there may be two or even 32 other such practices for the same service. The problem is that service providers seldom have a way to learn about all the possible best practices. The Commission also learned that communities implementing those best practices found them to be very practical.

In the Metropolitan Council's demonstration project, "standard" street-sweeping practices are documented through 102 returned survey questionnaires, and 31 field interviews with public works and street maintenance personnel. (See Figure 1 for process used to gather this information.) Following the publication and distribution of the original final report, eight meetings were held throughout the seven county region to discuss the findings with street maintenance personnel. Based on that information, the project identified 66 management practices not widely used that hold promise for savings or improved quality. While it is recognized that although some cities do not use these practices for a variety of reasons, they represent the best ideas in the region's street-sweeping services. Some reasons for not using them are the result of circumstances beyond the control of the city, while others are the result of deliberate choices of city officials.

Of the 31 separate interviews conducted for this study, perhaps only half were fruitful in identifying a different way of doing some aspect of street sweeping. Furthermore, among municipalities doing many of these best practices, usually only a few cities can boast that they use one or two of them. While there are many better ways of doing some aspect of the whole job of street sweeping, there does not appear to be an extensive sharing of these cost-saving and improved methods across city boundaries in the Metropolitan Area.

Information from the questionnaire indicates who provides the service and how. However, because of inconsistency in how cities report their costs, comparisons among communities are not possible. Instead, this report focuses on the practices currently being used in municipalities within the seven-county metropolitan area.

The project is based on several assumptions that apply to any number of services, not only street sweeping. They are:

CONSULTANT'S STATEMENT

The Metropolitan Council selected "street sweeping" as the service to be used in a demonstration project to examine various ways and means that municipalities deliver this service. The goal of the project is to find better and perhaps more cost efficient ways of providing this service.

The following process was developed to obtain the information necessary to evaluate this selected service.

I provided consultant services from August to November 1993 and March 1994, and provided assistance on steps 3 through 10, above. As a public works consultant for this project, it is my opinion that the process used provided the information needed to evaluate the practice of street sweeping and determine a substantial number of "best practices" currently being used.

The 66 items listed as "best practices" may not be usable by all municipalities because of various circumstances. However, there are many from that list that can be used or tried by all cities.

The Metropolitan Council's "best practices" program is an excellent vehicle to assist government jurisdictions in sharing good ideas by assembling and re-distributing them.

Based on 35 years working in public works for the cities of St. Paul, North St. Paul and South St. Paul, I endorse this report and its findings, and encourage local governments to seriously work to incorporate these best practices into their operations.

Robert Simon, P.E.

Based on preliminary data from Bloomington and capacity information from screen manufacturer the following capacities and costs for Bloomington in 1993 are presented.

Recycling costs for Bloomington in 1993

Location of Disposal Costs per Ton Total Disposal Cost

Local public or private site $0 $0

Regular Landfill Tip Fees** $6 to $11 (WICA only) $37,320 to $68,420

Hazardous Waste Site** $220 (WICA only) $1,368,400

* Costs for regular landfill were provided by several communities in the study. Hazardous waste disposal costs provided by the Solid Waste Division of the Metropolitan Council.

** Total costs would need to include hauling costs (truck and operator, benefits and overhead).

ADDITIONAL BEST PRACTICES

Please use this sheet to describe other cost effective and/or quality enhancement practices that are not part of this report.

1. Description of Practice:

2. Area (personnel, equipment, operation, etc.)

3. Personnel usage:

4. Equipment usage:

5. Expected results of this practice:

6. Your name, title and organization:

Please complete and send to: Terry Kayser, Office of Local Assistance, Metropolitan Council, 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101. Alternatively, this form may be FAX-ed to the above at 291-6464.

E-Mail TFKAYSER@METC.STATE.MN.US

1 Includes gas, oil, parts in-house and contract maintenance. 2 Includes depreciation and replacement, insurance, license fees, etc. (See Equipment Depreciation Work Sheet on page 48.)

1) Vehicle Identification _______________________________________________________

2) Make and Model _______________________________________________________

3) Year of manufacture _______________________________________________________

4) Use or function of vehicle _______________________________________________________

5) Initial gross cost (list) _______________________________________________________

* Assumes cost increase at ___ percent per year

# Assumes costs would increase at ___ percent per year and any major repair would occur at mid-point of the expected vehicle life.

Please indicate source of information for above entries. p personal estimate, g garage estimate, h history from this vehicle, c computer print out, o history of other similar vehicle.

** Used with permission from Roseville Department of Public Works

MUNICIPAL STREET SWEEPING

PROGRAM ASSISTANCE REQUEST

Yes, I want to try these best practices in 1994 and would like further assistance from Metropolitan Council staff.

Municipality______________________________________ Your Name__________________________

Phone Number _____________________________________ Your Position _____________________

Best time to call ________________________________

FAX-BACK Please fax your request to Council staff, Terry Kayser at 291-6442. For other information, call on 291-6356.