HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 MOTION TO ACCEPT PROPOSAL FROM MERCURY ASSOCIATES, INC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE TRANSITION PLAN AND REVIEW OF THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $39,930.00.Mr�GauC �'d'+rt;�iect
Subject MOTION TO ACCEPT PROPOSAL FROM MERCURY
ASSOCIATES, INC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN
ELECTRIC VEHICLE TRANSITION PLANAND
REVIEW OF
FOR AN AMOUNT NOTTO EXCEED $39,930.00
Meeting February 1, 2022 - REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT
PROSPECT VILLAGE BOARD
Fiscal Impact
Dollar Amount $39,930.00
Budget Source Vehicle Maintenance Fund
Category CONSENT AGENDA
Type Action Item
On June 23, 2021, Public Works staff presented to the Finance Commission
general information on the alternative fuel vehicles market, the Village's current
experience with alternative fuel vehicles, and the Village's future plans for
increasing utilization of alternative fuel vehicles. Discussion ensued with both the
Finance Commission and staff endorsing a plan to explore development of an
electric vehicle (EV) implementation plan in 2022.
The Village previously completed an Alternative Fuel Study in 2015, which looked
at the possibility of reducing fuel expenditures and reducing the Village's
environmental impact by utilizing alternative fuels. Alternative fuels analyzed
included compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum, hybrid and plug-in electric.
However; electric vehicles were not readily available at the time and were not a
considerable focus of the study. This report was presented to the Village Board at
the July 14, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting. The market for alternative
fuels has changed significantly over the last six -plus years with hybrids, plug-in
hybrids, and plug-in electric vehicles becoming the dominant options for
alternative fuel vehicles.
1
Accordingly, Public Works staff contacted Mercury Associates (Mercury), the
consulting firm that previously completed the 2015 Alternative Fuel Study, about
updating the study and incorporating the prevalence of electric, or partially
electric, vehicles into the Village fleet.
Staff had several discussions with Mercury about developing an electric vehicle
(EV) implementation plan. In these discussions, it became obvious that the EV
implementation plan will need to include a review of the Village's current vehicle
replacement policy. This work is necessary to ensure that the Vehicle Replacement
Fund can finance future fleet replacement costs; including the incrementally
higher costs of replacing internal combustion engine vehicles with electric
vehicles. To develop a viable plan, Mercury will complete the following:
• Review the Village's vehicle replacement guidelines for each class of vehicle
and make recommendations for improvement.
• Develop a proposed Baseline Vehicle Replacement plan that projects the
replacement date and cost of each vehicle at the time of replacement.
• Develop a proposed EV Transition Plan incorporating specific EV purchase
dates and cost. Work includes identifying specific internal combustion engine
vehicles currently in the fleet that are operationally suitable for replacement
with an EV.
• Evaluate the Village's current vehicle lease payments and vehicle
replacement fund policies. Recommend modifications based on proposed EV
Transition Plan and fleet management industry best practices.
• Discuss environmental impacts of the EV platform including air quality
improvements, and battery disposal or recycling issues.
• The final deliverables will include a written report. In addition, Mercury staff
will be available to facilitate a public discussion, if desired.
The attached proposal from Mercury details this scope of work.
The Village has worked extensively with Mercury in the past. All of Mercury's
previous efforts were completed on time and within budget. All of their work has
exceeded expectations.
In addition, it is poignant to note that previously completed work, including cost
analyses, and vehicle utilization requirements, will be incorporated into the
proposed scope of work for this project; greatly reducing effort and cost.
It is the opinion of staff that Mercury is uniquely well qualified and experienced to
complete this project.
Mercury's proposed work effort includes 234 hours of labor and costs $39,930.00
2
($171/hour). It is the opinion of staff that this work effort is appropriate and the
fee is commensurate with the skills, experience, and resources necessary to
perform this type of specialized work.
Alternatives
1. Staff recommends that the Village Board authorize the execution of an
agreement for the development of an EV Transition Plan
2. Discretion of the Village Board
Staff recommends that the Village Board accept the proposal from Mercury
Associates, Inc for development of an electric vehicle transition plan and review of
the Village's vehicle replacement funding policy in an amount not to exceed
$39,930.00.
ATTACHMENTS:
Mercury Associates Inc. Proposal to Conduct a Fleet Replacement and Sustainability
Improvement Cost and Financing Study.pdf
KI
MERCURY
December 8, 2021
Mr. Jason Leib, Deputy Director
Public Works Department
Village of Mount Prospect
1700 West Central Road
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Mr. Leib:
Pursuant to our recent discussions, Mercury Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this
proposal to conduct an analysis of the Village of Mount Prospect's fleet replacement and
sustainability improvement costs and the reserve fund and charge -back rates that are
used to finance them. Our review of the Village's most recent Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report found that there probably was more cash in its Vehicle Replacement
Fund at the beginning of the current fiscal year (January 1, 2021) than is needed to
finance future fleet replacement costs, including the incrementally higher costs of
replacing some internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) with electric vehicles (EVs).
Whereas the aggregate original purchase price of the assets in the fleet was about $15.4
million, the amount of cash in the Fund totaled $11.6 million. While replacement fund
balances rise and fall over time depending on how much is spent to replace fleet assets
from year to year, we have found over more than 30 years of conducting municipal fleet
replacement studies that the cash balance in a properly managed reserve fund generally
should average about 30 percent of annual replacement costs. Based on the projected
future replacement costs of Mount Prospect's current fleet, this would result in an average
cash balance of around $4.3 million.
The goal of this project is to determine if the Village can rightsize the current unrestricted
Replacement Fund balance and to recommend a replacement rate development
methodology that ensures that the Village budgets and reserves the appropriate amount
of money to cover the costs of replacing its fleet assets in accordance with sound
replacement cycle guidelines. These analyses and recommendations will take into
account the projected costs of improving the sustainability of the fleet by beginning to
replace ICEVs with EVs.
Please do not hesitate to contact me (plauria@mercury-assoc.com) or Marc Canton
(mcanton@mercury-assoc.com) if we can answer any questions about this proposal. We
appreciate being given the opportunity to offer our services to the Village, and look
forward to working with you.
Very truly yours,
Paul T. Lauria
President
Mercury Associates, Inc.
7361 Calhoun Place, Suite 640 • Rockville, MD 20855 • 301 519 0535 • www.mercury-assoc.com
4
'CN�7'
Proposal to Evaluate
Fleet Replacement/Sustainability Costs and Vehicle Replacement Fund Rates
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ProposedWork Plan.......................................................................................................1
Task 1: Initiate and Manage the Project......................................................................1
Task 2: Gather Information..........................................................................................1
Task 3: Evaluate Replacement Cycle Guidelines........................................................2
Task 4: Evaluate Replacement Costs and Planning Process......................................3
Task 5: Evaluate Replacement Rates and Fund Management Practices....................7
Task 6: Present Findings and Recommendations....................................................... 8
ProjectTeam................................................................................................................... 9
ProposedFees.............................................................................................................. 10
5
'CN�7'
Proposal to Evaluate
Fleet Replacement/Sustainability Costs and Vehicle Replacement Fund Rates
PROPOSED WORK PLAN
TASK 1: INITIATE AND MANAGE THE PROJECT
We will start the project with a formal kick-off meeting whose primary objectives will be to
introduce the key members of the Village and Mercury Associates project teams to one
another and to confirm both parties' understanding of key study parameters including but
not necessarily limited to project goals and objectives, scope, timeline, critical success
factors, and deliverables.
A key ingredient of an effective project management approach is periodic written progress
reports. We want to ensure that the Village is afforded regular opportunities to discuss
the status of the project with us and to raise any questions or concerns relating to our
progress toward achieving its expected outcomes. To this end, we will submit a brief
progress report on a monthly basis, recapping the work accomplished to date. The written
progress reports will be integrated with our monthly invoices.
TASK 2: GATHER INFORMATION
One to two weeks prior to conducting the project kick-off meeting, we will develop and
furnish to the Village an MS Exce%based information request identifying data we will
require to perform the project. Our primary data requirement will be for an inventory of the
fleet containing information such as the following on each vehicle: year, make, model,
serial number (VIN), license plate number, class code, user agency name, in-service
date, original purchase price, recent odometer reading and reading date, utilization (in
miles or hours) during each of Fiscal Years 2019, 2020, and 2021 (YTD) and actual
replacement charges in each of these years.
A second data request will be for information needed to develop replacement rates for
use with the Vehicle Replacement Fund including, by vehicle type or class, target
replacement cycles, current purchase prices, and purchase price inflation rates.
6
'CN�7'
Proposal to Evaluate
Fleet Replacement/Sustainability Costs and Vehicle Replacement Fund Rates
TASK 3: EVALUATE REPLACEMENT CYCLE GUIDELINES
The economic principles of optimal
vehicle replacement are illustrated
graphically in the figure at right,
derived from an optimal replacement
cycle analysis we conducted for
single -axle dump trucks in the public
works fleet of a mid-size US city. As a
vehicle ages, its capital cost
diminishes and its operating costs
increase. The combination of these
two costs produces a U-shaped total
cost of ownership curve. Ideally, a
vehicle or piece of equipment should
be replaced at the age (or
accumulated miles or hours of use) at
WHICH the total cost of ownership is at
a minimum — that is, at the bottom of the
U-shaped curve.
The total cost curve is different for different types of vehicles and, indeed, for individual
vehicles of a given type. This variability is caused by differences in the design and
engineering of different types of vehicles, in operating environments, in the quality of care
vehicles receive, and a variety of other factors. In recognition of this fact, organizations
should develop recommended replacement cycles for particular classes or types of
vehicles which reflect the optimal replacement cycle as determined from actual cost data
on the units in that particular class. Historically this was most often accomplished in an
informal manner based on discussions with mechanics and drivers, a comparison of
replacement cycles with peer organizations, and historical replacement funding levels for
an entire fleet.
However, best -practice fleet management organizations develop these cycles empirically
using lifecycle cost analysis (LCA) techniques. This approach involves modeling the
stream of costs associated with acquiring, operating, and disposing of a particular type of
vehicle or piece of equipment over various replacement cycles, and then determining the
cycle that will result in the lowest total cost of ownership.
A sample optimal replacement cycle analysis for the type of dump truck whose costs are
illustrated graphically above is shown in the table on the following page. The analysis
results indicate that this type of truck's total cost of ownership is at a minimum under a
replacement cycle of 8 years. In contrast, if these vehicles were replaced every 12 years,
(which was this city's actual practice at the time we conducted this analysis), the annual
operating cost of these vehicles would be more roughly $8,000 higher per vehicle per
year (before adjusting for inflation). The second table below summarizes the findings of
such analyses for 10 types of vehicles which we conducted as part of a comprehensive
fleet replacement and modernization justification study for the State of New York.
2
7
'CN�7'
Proposal to Evaluate
Fleet Replacement/Sustainability Costs and Vehicle Replacement Fund Rates
We include this discussion here to remind the Village of Mercury's understanding of and
experience in the empirical validation of replacement cycle guidelines (which includes
having performed optimal replacement cycles analyses for certain types of vehicles in
Mount Prospect's fleet several years ago). Our proposed approach for this project is to
utilize this experience to assess the reasonableness of Mount Prospect's current
replacement cycle guidelines for each type or class of vehicle in its fleet. We will compare
the Village's current replacement cycle guidelines and its current "de facto" replacement
cycles (based on the current median age of, and other relevant statistics on, the vehicles
in the fleet) with replacement cycles we consider to be reasonable, and recommend
improvements to these guidelines where necessary.
TASK 4: EVALUATE REPLACEMENT COSTS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Once we have evaluated the appropriateness of current replacement cycle guidelines,
we will turn our attention to developing three multi-year replacement plans for the fleet.
The first two plans will allow us to determine the soundness not only of current
replacement planning practices, but of actual replacement spending levels, and
replacement rate development and reserve fund management practices. The third plan
will identify the incremental capital costs of replacing some of the ICEVs in the fleet with
EVs, and assess the ability of the Vehicle Replacement Fund to finance these higher fleet
replacement costs.
We will develop these plans using Mercury's proprietary CARCAPTM (Capital Asset
Replacement Cost Analysis ProgramTM) software, a program designed specifically to
conduct these types of analyses (including the development of replacement rates for use
with a revolving fund). We will use the program to first develop two replacement plans for
the fleet which will project the future replacement dates and costs of each individual asset
in the fleet over a period of several years. We will then use CARCAP to model future
replacement reserve fund cash flows and the starting fund balance and asset -specific
replacement rates required to finance projected future fleet replacement costs and
maintain a reasonable but not excessive amount of working capital in the Replacement
Fund.
We will use the fleet inventory data obtained in Task 2 as our point of departure. To the
extent that the Village has not already established an appropriate classification scheme
for its fleet, we will develop a list of recommended vehicle class codes that will be used
as the basis for populating a Planning Parameter Table in CARCAP, and work with
appropriate officials to identify (if, necessary to define) the parameters (i.e., assumptions)
needed to develop the multi-year replacement plans. These parameters include, by
vehicle class, recommended replacement cycle in age (months) and usage (miles),
purchase price in today's dollars, and purchase price inflation rate. We will use the
recommended replacement cycles identified in the previous task.
3
8
Fm
v
LL
r
Q
N E
m
Q
Y X
as
'C
V
UN
Ac 0
W 2
E u-
♦ai =
V
E
Q c
4 L
>
d C
^v �
i C
_> •_
C O
O 0)
A,
_W
E
ch CO
G
1.6
rn
O
N
N
r
O
rl-
W
M
O
W
N
LO
L(7
0g0
O
r
cl�
W
Ii
r-
O
N
(D
O)
V
O
co
�
7
N
N
7
M
I:
O
6)
Ln
Zt
V
N
N�
M
CO
N
V
I-
N
N
O_
LO
M
A
Ef>
(f3
fA
1-
fl -T
Ef3
ER
H>
H>
Ef3
Ef3
EA
6
C
OO
N
N
V>
N
Or--
M
cc
Ln
Ln
I�
cc
M
Ln
O
V
c
c
O
oc
�
I-
c
C
C
N
N
U
U
�_
M
Ln
U
U
I-
U
O
N
CL)
m
N
N
N
Efi
EA
Efl
N
N
{A
EA
Efl
Q
Q
ER
EA
Ela
Q
Q
N
N
f�
r.--
O
(n
Il-
O
(0
V
V
N
LO
_ EO
co
Ln
Ln
Ln
oc
O
M
V
N
•
(O
I�
M
7
O
EO
Co
CA
N
N
O
M
Cl)
Lf)
't
Ln
O
O
m
V
N
M
N
M�
NN
N
N
N_
(D
Ef}
fl>
H>
EA
Ef3
EA
Efl
Ef3
El>
6%
Ela
Ela
69
EA
Ln
LO
N
(N
V
LO
c0
00
LO
�
0"
O
In
O
co
OM
M
co
co
V
CO
V
N
N
CO
O)
(D
M
—
CO
O
N
co
In
co
M
N
N
N
CO
f�
cc
O
C
_O
M
613
64
E9
V
V
—
-
Efl
LL)
-
-
-
O
(f>
H>
N_
N
Ef3
M
It
co
M
LO
V
M
LO
O
V
O
ll,
N
N
co
M
6)
LQ
N
co
O
O-
r�
r
r
K}
Efl
K>
't
(n
Qf
EH
EA
In
6
K>
ELT
Ef)
bS
V>
O
N
N
Ef>
Ef>
Ef>
N
V
LO
co
O
W
(n
L(
•
O
O
O
LLC)
W
�
I -ON
N
N
M
co
O
LO
O
N
M
M
M
Ln
V
N
r
N
N
(D
NT
O
V
N
N
Ef3
fl>
EA
(O
I-_
d>
EH
ER
c0
f-
Ef3
(f3
Efi
W
N
N
co
C)
M
CND
Cl
(C)
In
O
M
ti
OW
(T
CO
CMO
CY
((0
W
•
co
CA
N
N
co
N
(D
O)
CA
O
N
M
cca
(n
m
>
Efl
EA
Efl
>a
ER
ER
b4
ER
EA
EA
cu
>
(3)
O
CD
L
d
coo
N
M
r
W
a^0
I�
000
O
LO
m
O
co
M
cc
7
O
a
7
7
g
N
N
Ln
O
N
V
Q
(6
(6
L)
U
U
2
L
w
Lo
E>
p
c
d
p
EA
fA
EA
d
p
p
ff3
ff3
ER
U
ff>
6%
EA
2
2
v
o
,
°2
ooc
m
LUn
cc
Ln
V
V
N
V
N
W
N_
7
Ef3
EH
EA
V3
Efi
Eq
(y
07
Efl
(
co
m
Om)
Ln
LLO
N
n
M
N
M
O
—
Ln
O
(D
U)In
O
N
N
LO
Cl
co00
N
M
N
O
M
Ln
EA
69
En
U3
El}
ER
Eli
-C,M
--_
O
In
N
N
(O
O
N
N
�
(NO
L
lam()
7
(f1
7
O
LL
OI-
r
r
N
M
r
lLn
N
Ef>
Ef3
Q3
163
GS
ER
Ef>
(iT
Eli
LO
f�
N
N
O
M
O
O
OW
W
LO
LOO
Mco
Lij
—
N
(O
M
—7
N_
N_
N
N
LO
7
7
n
Efi
(!>
Ef>
ER
64
b9
Gq
ER
H>
O
Co
0
v
v
v
v
v
v
U
N
CL
'O
N
h
N
LL
@
H
H
C
0
7E
0
N
Q,...
-6
D
C
CL
7
7
Q
ZI
co
c
O
h
C
c
C
C
c
Q
7
h
>
E
h..
.O
(0
oJ'
C
Q
Q
N
3
a
H
W
s
W
°
~
U
~
' E
m
o
Q
Q
Z
rn
O
r
O
W
O
M
0g0
• N
Ln
M
Ii
r-
c0
r-
O
O
�
N
r
Ln
6)
V
M
N�
M
CO
N
V
I-
N
M
c0
LO
M
A
N
N
(0
1-
6,3,
H>
H>
H>
H>
v>
6
C
•
V>
N
M
Ef>
EA
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
C
c
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
CL)
CD
N
N
N
(U
(U
N
N
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
0-
f�
r.--
O
(n
Il-
O
(0
V
V
N
•
O
M
I,-
Lf)
't
O
M
O
m
V
N
M
N
M�
NN
N
N
N_
(D
Ef}
fl>
H>
EA
Efl
Efl
Efl
Ef3
O
Ef3
�
•
Ln
0
CO
V
O
CO
O)
O
tT(0
N
O
N
N
In
M
M
N
N
N
CO
f�
cc
O
O
V
M
M
V
V
V
V
Ln
V
I-
LL)
b4
b4
b4
ER
(f>
H>
(f>
Ef3
Ef3
•
LQ
LQ"-
M
O
O-
r�
r
M
M
't
(n
-t
In
Cfl
In
6
(O
Ef)
bS
V>
Ef>
Ef>
EA
Ef>
Ef>
Ef>
N
•
O
N
m
N
M
M
Ln
V
N
r
N
N
(D
NT
r-
V
N
N
(C)
co
(O
I-_
U-)
co
f-_
c0
f-
m
I�
r
M
M
M
M
O
M
CO
V
M
N
N
t0
cca
m
>
>a
U)
cu
>
(3)
O
Co
L
d
D
c
>
W
N
a
a
Y
g
Q
(6
(6
L)
U
U
2
L
w
c
E>
p
c
d
p
U
p
a
p
d
p
d
p
p
p
0
U
J
2
2
rn
'CN�7'
Proposal to Evaluate
Fleet Replacement/Sustainability Costs and Vehicle Replacement Fund Rates
Next, we will use these inputs to develop a preliminary or Baseline Replacement Plan
that projects the replacement date and cost of each vehicle in the fleet each time it meets
the recommended criteria for replacement over the next 20 years. A sample baseline fleet
replacement plan we developed for the 1,000 -unit fleet of a local government jurisdiction
in California for a fleet replacement cost, replacement reserve fund, and replacement rate
study like the one we are proposing to perform for Mount Prospect, is shown in the
following exhibit.
Sample Baseline Replacement Plan
This exhibit is merely a graphical representation of the replacement plan, with each
column showing the total annual cost of replacing all assets that meet or exceed their
recommended replacement cycle in that year. The graph is based on a detailed
spreadsheet which shows the projected replacement cost for each vehicle each time it
meets the user -defined replacement cycle during the 20 -year planning period. All cost
amounts shown are in nominal dollars.
As this exhibit suggests, we almost always find peaks and valleys in future spending
requirements when we develop a baseline fleet replacement plan for a client. Even in the
most homogeneous of fleets, the confluence of replacement dates of vehicles with
different rates of utilization and replacement costs rarely results in an equal number of
vehicles becoming eligible for replacement each year. Needless to say, in a mixed -
application fleet like the one Mount Prospect owns, such convergences typically result in
fluctuations in annual replacement costs. Moreover, backlogs of replacement needs,
signified by the large projected fleet replacement cost in the first year of the plan shown
above, are a characteristic of many fleet operations that do not employ an effective
replacement planning and financing process.
5
10
'CN�7'
Proposal to Evaluate
Fleet Replacement/Sustainability Costs and Vehicle Replacement Fund Rates
We will review the details of the baseline plan with appropriate Village officials and make
needed adjustments to the timing of the replacement of individual vehicles, if necessary,
to reduce to a manageable level any backlog of replacement spending needs that may
currently exist. CARCAP has functionality for doing this, including a replacement
prioritization scoring system and a replacement plan "smoothing" feature that allows the
user to systematically adjust planned replacement dates for individual assets in the fleet
to accommodate near and long-term budget realities. A Smoothed Replacement Plan for
the 1,000 -unit fleet shown above can be seen in the following exhibit.
Sample Smoothed Replacement Plan
Next, we will work with the Village to identify specific internal combustion engine vehicles
(ICEVs) currently in the fleet that are operationally suitable for replacement with an
electric vehicle (EV). To be clear, this step will not include performing rigorous electric
vehicle suitability analysis (EVSA) for specific vehicles in the fleet, but will instead rely on
our experience developing fleet electrification plans for numerous other government
clients, coupled with the Village's first-hand knowledge of its customers' vehicle needs
and operating and usage practices. Since electric variants of medium and heavy trucks
are not commercially available at present, we will limit the scope of this analysis to
passenger vehicles.
As necessary, we will collect information on the purchase price, grant funding availability,
and target replacement cycle for each type of EV currently commercially available for
purchase and integration into the Mount Prospect fleet. We will use this information to
project these vehicles' future capital costs — that is, to develop a third and final EV
Transition Plan which will be a modified version of the Smoothed Plan incorporating
specific future EV purchase dates and costs.
6
11
'CN�7'
Proposal to Evaluate
Fleet Replacement/Sustainability Costs and Vehicle Replacement Fund Rates
We will use the Smoothed Replacement Plan as the basis for assessing the adequacy of
the Village's past replacement spending levels, and identify any significant differences
that exist between the average annual amount that should be spent to replace vehicles
in accordance with recommended replacement cycles (which may or may not be the
same as the Village's current guidelines) with the average annual amount (adjusted for
inflation) that it actually has spent over the last five or so fiscal years. We will use the EV
Transition Plan to identify the incremental capital costs of integrating EVs into the fleet.
TASK 5: EVALUATE REPLACEMENT RATES AND FUND MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
The final step in this task is to use the Smoothed Replacement Plan as the basis for
evaluating the Village's current replacement rate development practices and replacement
rates, and those aspects of its Revolving Fund management practices related to using
reserves to finance fleet replacement costs.
Our replacement planning program CARCAP is designed to calculate funding
requirements, by vehicle and by year for each year of a 20 -year analysis period, under
each of several capital financing methods, including outright cash purchase, a
replacement reserve fund and charge -back system, and debt financing. This includes the
ability to develop asset -specific replacement rates for use with, and to model long-term
cash flows and year-end fund balances for, a replacement reserve fund. We will use the
program to 1) determine the appropriateness of the Village's current replacement rate
development methodology and resulting future Vehicle Replacement Fund cash flows
(year -by -year replacement purchase costs less used asset sales proceeds, replacement
charge -back revenues, and interest earnings); and 2) assess the appropriateness of the
size of the current reserve fund balance given these future cash flow requirements
(bearing in mind that future increases in fleet size and integrations of EVs should not be
paid for entirely with replacement reserves accumulated for vehicles already in the fleet).
We will do this by developing replacement rates for use with, and a full cash flow model
for, the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Our replacement rate development methodology has
been developed and used over a period of some 30 years in conducting fleet replacement
consulting and cost charge -back rate development projects for public and private -sector
clients. It calculates rates that clearly distinguish between the amount of money that
needs to be charged to a fleet user to recoup the full cost of each vehicle in a fleet today,
and the additional working capital required to ensure that there is enough money in the
reserve fund to purchase a replacement for each vehicle in the future.
The replacement analysis we conducted recently for the 1,000 -unit fleet in California
whose Baseline and Smoothed replacement plans are shown in the exhibits above
included exactly this type of analysis. Future reserve fund expenditures, replacement
charge revenues, and year-end reserve fund balances (with properly calculated
replacement rates and a "rightsized" starting fund balance) for that client's fleet are
illustrated in the exhibit below.
7
12
'CN�7'
Proposal to Evaluate
Fleet Replacement/Sustainability Costs and Vehicle Replacement Fund Rates
Sample Replacement Rate and Reserve Fund Balance Analysis
We will use the results of this analysis to assess the adequacy of current replacement
rate development and Vehicle Replacement Fund management practices in terms of 1)
facilitating adherence to recommended replacement cycles; 2) minimizing unexpected or
other budgetary impacts that may adversely affect future replacement spending levels
and fleet age (especially with regard to reducing any replacement spending backlog which
currently exists; and 3) minimizing net present value fleet replacement costs.
We will perform the same analysis a second time using the EV Transition Plan in order to
assess the capacity of current Replacement Fund cash reserves to accommodate the
higher replacement costs of EVs relative to those of ICEVs. This will include, again,
developing vehicle -specific replacement rates that would be needed to fund the increased
costs of replacing some ICEVs with EVs over the next several years, allowing us to show
the Village the impact of fleet sustainability improvement on future replacement funding
requirements.
As necessary, we will recommend improvements to the current replacement planning
(including vehicle procurement cost and salvage or residual value forecasting),
replacement rate development, reserve fund management, and vehicle -specific
replacement expense and charge -back revenue reconciliation practices employed by the
Village.
TASK 6: PRESENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We will present our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a detailed MS
PowerPoint presentation. We will submit the presentation to the Village in draft form for
review and comment and make revisions, as necessary, based on written feedback
8
si K3
'CN�7'
Proposal to Evaluate
Fleet Replacement/Sustainability Costs and Vehicle Replacement Fund Rates
received. We will then deliver the presentation in a face-to-face and/or Web -based
meeting (not all team members would participate in an on -sire meeting) to appropriate
Village management officials and other stakeholders.
We also will provide all detailed replacement analysis inputs and outputs from the study
to the Village in an annotated MS Excel workbook. This includes all details of the 20 -year
replacement plan, the asset class -based parameters used to develop the plan, the
reserve fund cash flow analysis, and asset -by -asset replacement rates recommended for
use in the first year of the plan (we presume FY 2022). Please note that updating these
analyses and rates for future years would require purchasing a license for CARCAP or
retaining Mercury to perform the updates, as a number of our clients have elected to do.
PROJECT TEAM
Paul Lauria, the President of Mercury Associates, will serve as project director. During
his 37 -year consulting career, he has worked with a wide array of organizations in the
public and private sectors touching on virtually every facet of fleet management and
operation, but is particularly well known for his expertise in the areas of vehicle life cycle
cost analysis, optimal replacement cycle determination, and fleet replacement planning
and financing. He has directed consulting assignments for many small and mid-sized
cities in the US and Canada, including Alexandria, VA; Annapolis, MD; Boulder, CO;
Glendale, CA; Kingman, AZ; Maricopa, AZ; Montgomery, AL; Oak Brook, IL; Olympia,
WA; Palo Alto, CA; Palm Springs, CA; Prince George, BC; Stratford, CT; Twin Falls, ID;
Waterloo, ON; and West Des Moines, IA.
Prior to co-founding Mercury Associates in 2002, Paul held positions as Vice President
and Director of Fleet Management Consulting Services for Maximus, Inc.; Senior
Manager in the National Transportation Consulting Group of EY; and transportation
program analyst with the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Durham (NC)
Transit. He holds a Master's Degree in Transportation Planning from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Marc Canton is a Senior Manager with Mercury Associates with 22 years of experience
in transportation and fleet management. He will serve as project manager. Prior to joining
Mercury in 2017, he was transportation director for Fordham University, a position he held
for 12 years. His experience includes technology and software implementation, the
development of driver/staff training modules and curricula, fleet management policy,
vendor management, strategic planning, and process reengineering. At Mercury, Marc
directs our Data Analytics Team and also directs or participates in fleet management
practices reviews, fleet rightsizing studies, and other fleet management process
improvement projects. He is a National Safety Council certified defensive driving
instructor, and holds an MBA in Market Management and post -MBA certificates in
Advanced Analytics and Executive Leadership from Fordham University.
Kristi Amaker is a Senior Consultant with Mercury who focuses on transportation and
fleet program cost and performance, utilization, and replacement data analysis. She has
9
14
Proposal to Evaluate
Fleet Replacement/Sustainability Costs and Vehicle Replacement Fund Rates
served a wide array of clients in the areas of transportation operations improvement, bell
time change analysis (for student transportation programs), vehicle routing optimization,
fleet utilization analysis and rightsizing, and fleet replacement planning and alternative
capital financing analysis. Prior to joining Mercury, Kristi was a data analyst for School
Bus Consultants. She holds a master's degree in Data Analytics from Slippery Rock
University (PA), and a Base Programmer Certification from the SAS Institute.
PROPOSED FEES
Our proposed fees for this study are shown in the following table. Travel expenses, if any,
are extra and would be billed at actual cost.
1
DescriptionTask
Initiate and Manage the Project
4
$
900
8
$ 1,560
$ -
12
Total
$
2,460
2
Gather Information
$
-
4
$ 600
4
$
600
3
Evaluate Replacement Cycle Guidelines
2
$
450
2
$ 390
8
$ 1,200
12
$
2,040
4
Evaluate Replacement Costs and Planning Process
2
$
450
32
$ 6,240
80
$12,000
114
$
18,690
5
Evaluate Replacement Rates and Fund Management Practices
4
$
900
8
$ 1,560
16
$ 2,400
28
$
4,860
6
Total
Present Findings and Recommendations
8
20
$
$
1,800
4,500
24
74
$ 4,680
$14,430
32
140
$ 4,800
$21,000
64
234
$
$
11,280
39,930
1
15