No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 15355 (Marin Sanitary Service Rates and Amendments for 2025)1 RESOLUTION NO. 15355 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING MAXIMUM RATES COLLECTED BY MARIN SANITARY SERVICE FOR REFUSE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIAL COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2025, AND ADOPTING A CITY COST OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES FEE, REFUSE VEHICLE IMPACT FEE, AND FRANCHISE FEE FOR THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY IN THE PROVISION OF SOLID WASTE RELATED SERVICES. WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael and Marin Sanitary Service have entered into an “Amendment and Restatement of Collection Agreement of the City of San Rafael and Marin Sanitary Service,” dated September 4, 2001 and amended by a written first amendment dated March 1, 2005, a written second amendment dated November 14, 2012, a written third amendment dated February 25, 2019, a written fourth amendment approved by the City Council on December 6, 2021, and a written fifth amendment approved by the City Council on November 4, 2024 (hereafter the “Franchise Agreement”); and WHEREAS, Section 3 (B) of the Franchise Agreement provides for maximum rates allowed to be collected by Marin Sanitary Service, to be authorized from time to time by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Exhibit "C" of the Franchise Agreement provides rate schedules, to be authorized by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Marin Sanitary Service has submitted a rate application request for 2025 using the methodology outlined under Section 3 (A) of the Franchise Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael has conducted a review of said rate application based on a formula determined by Marin Sanitary Service’s actual cost of service and produced a report concurring with Marin Sanitary Service’s rate and fee adjustments; and WHEREAS, Section II(B)(6)(d) of Exhibit B of the Franchise Agreement authorizes the City to establish and impose fees or charges for benefits conferred, privileges granted, or services or products provided to the Company, or for the City’s reasonable regulatory costs, related to or involving Marin Sanitary Services’ responsibilities under the Franchise Agreement; and WHEREAS, Section II(B)(9) of Exhibit B of the Franchise Agreement authorizes the City to set a franchise fee at any amount equal to or less than the reasonable market value of the City property, as determined by the parties and set forth in the Franchise Agreement, used by Marin Sanitary Services, for solid waste-related services; and WHEREAS, R3 Consulting Group produced a Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report, dated December 6, 2023 (“Franchise Fee Study” attached hereto as Exhibit A), which determined 2 the reasonable fees the City could impose, pursuant to Article XIII C, Section 1 of the California Constitution, to recover its costs of providing specific benefits or privileges, services, and/or products to Marin Sanitary Service for the provision of solid waste-related services, the fees the City could charge to recover its reasonable regulatory costs related to solid waste services, and the reasonable value of City property used by Marin Sanitary Service in its provision of solid waste- related services; and WHEREAS, The City Council accepted and adopted the Franchise Fee Study, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and found and determined that the City’s franchise fees and Refuse Vehicle Impact Fees complied with Article XIII C of the California Constitution and were justified by the City’s costs of providing solid waste-related services, reasonable charges for the use of City property for solid waste services, and the City’s costs of addressing the impacts of solid waste refuse vehicles, when it adopted Resolution No. 15265 on December 18, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael previously adopted a resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule to increase the Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee in order to pay for the increased costs of addressing the impacts of refuse vehicles on City streets; and WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt a Cost of Service Fee, an updated Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee, and an updated Franchise Fee, pursuant to the Franchise Agreement and in amounts that are justified by the Franchise Fee Study; and WHEREAS, the Cost of Service Fee does not exceed the City’s reasonable costs for providing services or products, and/or the City’s reasonable regulatory costs, related to Marin Sanitary Services’ provision of solid waste-related services; and WHEREAS, the Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee does not exceed the City’s reasonable costs of addressing the refuse vehicle impacts caused by Marin Sanitary Services in its provision of solid waste-related services; and WHEREAS, the Franchise Fee does not exceed the fair market value of the City property used by Marin Sanitary Services in the provision of solid waste-related services, as negotiated by the parties and demonstrated by the Franchise Fee Study; and WHEREAS, the rates for solid waste service are set and imposed by Marin Sanitary Service and the City’s Cost of Service Fee, Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee, and Franchise Fee are set by the Franchise Agreement and are the exclusive obligation of Marin Sanitary Service. By adopting this resolution, the City does not intend to impose any rates, fees, or charges on solid waste customers. However, to the extent that the adoption of this resolution results in the City’s imposition of any fees, rates, or charges, on solid waste customers, for services or facilities in connection with a solid waste 3 system, including the franchise fees or the Refuse Vehicle Impact Fees, those charges are adopted pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 5471; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the rate application request and receive public testimony thereon; and WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael has determined that such rate and fee adjustments are proper, in the best interest of all citizens, and will promote public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), this action is not a project under CEQA because the City’s rate approval relates to the funding mechanism of on-going solid waste collection services, which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Section 2. The City adopts the Cost of Service Fee, Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee, and Franchise Fee set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The fees set forth in Exhibit B shall be incorporated into the Master Fee Schedule and are intended to supersede and replace any previously adopted fees. Section 3. The schedule of maximum rates and fees attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved to be collected by Marin Sanitary Service for refuse and recyclable material collection and disposal services, at an increased rate of 5.24% over 2024 rates, to be effective January 1, 2025. Said “Exhibit C” shall be incorporated as the revised Exhibit "C" to the Franchise Agreement. Section 4. To the extent the provisions of this resolution conflict with any prior resolutions, the provisions of this resolution shall control. I, Lindsay Lara, City Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Rafael, held on Monday, the 4th of November 2024, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Hill, Kertz, Llorens Gulati & Mayor Kate NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None 4 LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk 1512 Eureka Road, Suite 220, Roseville, CA 95661 | p 916.782.7821 | f 916.782.7824 | www.r3cgi.com December 6, 2023 Ms. Cristine Alilovich City Manager City of San Rafael submitted via email: Cristine.Alilovich@cityofsanrafael.org SUBJECT: Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report Dear Ms. Alilovich, R3 Consulting Group, Inc. (R3) is pleased to submit the attached Report of Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study (Study) to the City of San Rafael (City). This Report presents our analytical methodology, results and findings, and recommendations regarding the solid waste Franchise Fee and Vehicle Impact Fee paid by the City’s contracted solid waste collection service provider, Marin Sanitary Service (Contractor), per the Refuse and Recyclable Material Collection and Disposal Services Agreement (Agreement) between the City and the Contractor. The purpose of this Study was to comprehensively analyze and calculate the following: City’s Costs: The annual costs to the City for performing its management, administration, regulatory compliance and enforcement, solid waste collection and clean-up, and other obligations associated with the Contractor’s Agreement and the sanitation system. Property Use Charges: The annual use charge to the Contractor for its special and lasting access to use government property in the public right-of-way for placement of solid waste containers and collection of the solid waste contents. Pavement Impacts: The annualized costs for pavement repair, maintenance and rehabilitation resulting from the unique impacts to City street pavement caused by the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles during the course of providing sanitation service. We then compared the calculated values for each component to the annual Franchise Fee and Vehicle Impact Fee paid by the Contractor to the City per the Agreement. We found that the City’s current and projected Franchise Fee revenues are less than the sum of the City’s Costs and government Property Use Charges calculated in this Study. We also found that the City’s current Vehicle Impact Fee is less than the costs for Pavement Impacts calculated in this Study. Based on these results, we conclude that the City’s fee amounts are not more than necessary to cover the City’s reasonable costs in managing and administering the Agreement and the sanitation system plus the reasonable value of the Contractor’s use of the public right-of-way. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City. If you have any questions regarding this Report or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Garth Schultz | Principal R3 Consulting Group, Inc. 510.292.0853 | gschultz@r3cgi.com r) ~ CONSULTING GROUP, INC. K___...-1 RESOURCES· RESPECT· RESPONSIBILITY >> » » TABLE OF CONTENTS City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report toc - i 1. Executive Summary page 1 2. Methodology and Calculations page 4 3. Findings and Conclusions page 19 4. Recommendations page 20 1. Executive Summary City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 1 of 20 Background The City’s Agreement with the Contractor is for the collection, processing, and disposal of solid waste from covered waste generators in the City. The Agreement provides the Contractor with the exclusive right to provide critical aspects of the City’s sanitation system including solid waste collection and the other services and programs included in the Agreement. The Agreement specifies that the Contractor will charge solid waste service subscribers, with the Contractor billing and collecting revenues from subscribers and the City authorizing the maximum rates that the Contractor may charge pursuant to the rate adjustment methodology included in the Agreement. Per the Agreement, the Contractor pays the City a Franchise Fee to cover the costs incurred by the City in managing, administering, enforcing, and supplementing the services provided in the Agreement, as well as the reasonable charge for the use of the public right-of-way for the special and lasting access to use it for set-out and collection of solid waste containers. The Agreement also provides that the Contractor pays the City a Vehicle Impact Fee to cover the proportionate costs of the unique impacts to pavement caused by the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles during the course of providing sanitation service. Purpose The purpose of this Study is to prove that the Franchise Fee and Vehicle Impact Fee paid by the Contractor to the City are exempt from consideration as taxes per Article XIII C, Section 1(e) of the California Constitution (“Proposition 26”) and are not higher than necessary to cover the City’s reasonable costs plus the reasonable value of the Contractor’s use of the public right-of- way. There are three primary exceptions to the Proposition 26 definition of tax that are relevant to this Study: Exception 1: “A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.” Exception 2: “A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.” Exception 4: “A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.” The Franchise Fee is a legal fee with two components. The first component includes the City’s reasonable and proportionate costs (City’s Costs) and is a legal fee per Exception 2. The second component includes the reasonable and proportionate and reasonable charges for the Contractor’s use of the public right-of-way (Property Use Charges) and is a legal fee per Exception 4. The Vehicle Impact Fee includes the City’s reasonable and proportionate costs associated with pavement impacts (Pavement Impacts) and is a legal fee per Exception 1. Methodology and Findings To complete this Study, R3 reviewed and analyzed information provided by the City and the Contractor pertaining to the City’s Costs, Property Use Charges, and impacts on pavement. Using that information, we then calculated the reasonable and proportionate amounts necessary to cover the City’s costs, including staffing and other costs, use of government property in the )) )) )) Executive Summary City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 2 of 20 public right-of-way, and pavement repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs caused by the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles during the course of providing sanitation service. All calculated amounts in this Study are in current Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 dollars and are rounded to the nearest $1,000. City’s Costs The annual costs to the City for management, administration, regulatory compliance and enforcement, solid waste collection and clean-up, and other obligations associated with the Contractor’s Agreement and the sanitation system includes: staffing salary and benefits, contracted services, capital and equipment depreciation, operations and maintenance, supplies, and overhead for distributed costs including but not limited to property, utilities, insurance, human resources, payroll administration, accounts payable and receivable, and other finance functions. Staffing costs are calculated based on estimated time allocations (based on historical experience) and other costs are calculated based on estimated share allocations associated with the sanitation system, with distributed overhead applied to both. The calculation results are $1,513,000 in staffing costs and $391,000 in other costs for annual proportionate City’s Costs totaling $1,904,000. Property Use Charges The annual charge to the Contractor for use of government property in the public right-of-way is calculated as a function of estimates for the number of solid waste accounts setting out solid waste collection containers in the right-of-way, the set-out area used, the amount of time it is used, and the reasonable market value for the per square foot use of the public right-of-way. The calculation result for the use of the public right-of-way is a proportionate annual total Property Use Charge of $1,173,000. Pavement Impacts The annualized costs for pavement repair, maintenance and rehabilitation is calculated based on the proportionate impact to pavement from solid waste collection vehicles compared to other sources of impacts. This calculation accounts for the City’s annual repair costs, five-year projections for capital improvement costs, and five-year projections for growth in deferred maintenance. The calculation also accounts for the high loading and slow speed impacts on pavement associated with solid waste collection vehicles. The calculation result for the proportionate Pavement Impacts caused by Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles during the course of providing sanitation service is an annualized total repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation cost of $1,838,000. Conclusions Franchise Fee The FY 2022-23 Franchise Fee paid Contractor to the City was $2,757,168 and the projection for FY 2023-24 is $2,929,000. The sum of FY 2023-24 annual City’s Costs and amounts for Property Use Charges calculated in this Study is $3,077,000 which is $148,000 (5%) higher than the projected FY 2023-24 Franchise Fee payments. )) )) )) Executive Summary City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 3 of 20 The amount of the Franchise Fee is therefore not more than necessary to cover the City’s reasonable costs incurred in managing and administering the Agreement and the sanitation system plus the reasonable value of the Contractor’s use of the public right-of-way. Vehicle Impact Fee The Vehicle Impact Fee paid to the City annually is $1,480,600. The amount of Pavement Impacts calculated in this Study is $1,868,000 which is $387,400 (26%) higher than the Vehicle Impact Fee. The amount of Vehicle Impact Fee is therefore not more than necessary to cover the City’s reasonable costs incurred for repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation of pavement made necessary by the impacts of Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles used in providing sanitation services in the City. Reasonableness of Estimates and Assumptions In performing calculations, it was necessary to estimate certain values for which information could not be attained, and for which reasonable ranges exist. Where assumptions were necessary for completing calculations, our objective was to apply assumptions on the lower end of the reasonable range. Had we used other higher assumptions, the results of this Study would have been higher calculated Franchise Fee and Vehicle Impact Fee amounts. Therefore, we conclude that the calculated fee amounts are not higher than necessary to cover the City’s reasonable costs plus the reasonable value of the Contractor’s use of the public right-of-way. Limitations This Study relies on information provided by the City and the Contractor, which we have reviewed and analyzed for reasonableness and accuracy but did not independently audit or verify. As stated above, it was necessary to estimate certain values for which information could not be attained, and for which reasonable ranges are known to exist. Though, changes to estimates and other underlying assumptions may materially change the calculations, we have elected to apply estimates on the low end of reasonable ranges, thus minimizing the potential that changes in calculations would result in different findings. We have reviewed all estimates and assumptions with City staff and legal counsel and have mutual concurrence on applicability and reasonableness of all such values in this Study. Finally, the methodology employed by this Study calculates the reasonable values for the Franchise Fee and Vehicle Impact Fee within the context of current laws, regulations, and court rulings. Changes in the legal framework may require revisions to the methodology and findings contained in this Study. )) )) 2. Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 4 of 20 City’s Costs Methodology R3 reviewed and analyzed information provided by the City pertaining to the General Fund costs incurred for management, administration, regulatory compliance and enforcement, solid waste collection and clean-up, and other obligations associated with the Contractor’s Agreement and the sanitation system. These costs include any may not be limited to: Staffing costs, including salaries and benefits. Contracted services. Capital and equipment depreciation. Capital and equipment operations and maintenance. Supplies and materials. Overhead for distributed costs such as property, utilities, insurance, human resources, payroll administration, accounts payable and receivable, and other finance functions. Using the total annual salary, benefit and other cost information provided by the City we estimated the proportion of costs associated with management and administration of the agreement and the sanitation system. We then calculated the proportionate totals and categorized them by the functions listed in the sections below. Variables, Estimates and Assumptions Staffing Costs Variables associated with salaries and benefits include the allocation of time that positions are dedicated to management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system (including time supervising others with primary responsibility for these duties), the amount by which funding of salaries and benefits is paid by the General Fund, and the applicable amount of General Fund overhead. The estimated time allocation by position category used in this Study (and based on historical experience) is shown in Table 1, below, along with the explanation for the allocation values. Table 1 – Allocations of Staffing Time by Position Positions Time Allocation Explanation City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant City Attorney, City Clerk, Deputy City Clerk, Public Works Director, Deputy Public Works Director, Management Analyst, Operations and Maintenance Manager, Sr. Code Enforcement Supervisor, Code Enforcement Supervisor, Police Lieutenant, Police Sergeant (2), Police Officer. 4.9% Calculated allocation based on the percentage of City’s Costs plus Property Use Charges plus Pavement Impacts divided by FY 2023-24 General Fund Budget. Code Enforcement Official I and II. 10% Estimated allocation based on solid waste code enforcement obligations. )) )) )) )) )) )) Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 5 of 20 Positions Time Allocation Explanation Sustainability Program Manager. 25% Estimated allocation based on job duties for management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system. Public Works Maintenance Crews responsible for Street Sweeping, Catch Basin Waste Removal, and Illegal Dumping Clean-up. 80% Estimated allocation based on proportion of waste generation in City. R3 verified with City staff that the salaries and benefits included in this Study are paid by the General Fund – any non-General Fund portions of positions included in Table 1 have been excluded from the calculations. A General Fund overhead rate of 10.6% (provided by the City’s Finance Director) is also applied to the total allocated costs. Other Costs Variables associated with the City’s other (i.e., non-salary and benefit) costs include the proportionate allocation of those costs that are for management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system, the amount by which these costs are paid by the General Fund, and the applicable amount of General Fund overhead. The estimated time allocation by cost category used in this Study is shown in Table 2, below, along with the explanation for the allocation values. Table 2 –Allocations of Other Costs by Category Cost Category Cost Allocation Explanation Public Works Maintenance Crews responsible for Street Sweeping, Catch Basin Waste Removal, and Illegal Dumping Clean-up. 80% Estimated allocation based on proportion of waste generation in City. Consulting costs for direct management and administration of Agreement and sanitation system. 100% All these costs are directly associated with management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system. R3 verified with City staff that the other costs included in this Study are paid by the General Fund – any non-General Fund portions of these costs as included in Table 2 have been excluded from the calculations. A General Fund overhead rate of 10.6% (provided by the City’s Finance Director) is also applied to the total allocated costs. Analysis Direct Management and Administration This category includes City staffing and consulting costs for direct management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system. Staffing costs include allocated costs for the City’s Public Works Director, Deputy Public Works Director, Sustainably Program Manager, Management Analyst, and Operations and Maintenance Manager, for a calculated $116,000 in annual staffing costs. Other costs include solid waste consulting services provided Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 6 of 20 by R3, for $7,000 in annualized consulting costs. The total calculated cost for this category is $123,000. Indirect Management and Administration This category includes City staffing costs for indirect management and administration, including supervision of those responsible for direct management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system and associated responsibilities. Allocated costs for the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant City Attorney, City Clerk, and Deputy City Clerk are calculated for total annual costs in this category of $111,000. CalRecycle and SB 1383 Compliance This category would include City staff costs and other costs for various activities associated with the City’s need to implement Senate Bill 1383 (Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Act) as well as annual reporting to the State agency, CalRecycle. No costs for these activities are included in this Study as these costs are not funded by the City’s General Fund. Code Enforcement This category includes City staffing costs for enforcing the solid waste provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, which includes illegal solid waste accumulations, illegal dumping, littering, improper waste collection setouts, nuisances, and the associated investigations, warnings, notices of violation, and administration of penalties. Staffing costs include allocated costs for the City’s Code Enforcement Supervisors and Officials and Police Officer, Sergeants, and Lieutenant for calculated total annual costs in this category of $107,000. Street Sweeping When the Contractor or individual waste generators do not properly manage the collection of solid waste, that mismanaged solid waste tends to end up in the public right-of-way and on streets, where it must be removed by the City. Street sweeping captures solid waste that ends up in public streets because of improper collection. Most if not all of the solid waste that ends up in the streets is generated by properties that receive solid waste collection services from the Contractor. For the purposes of this Study, we do not assume that all mismanaged solid waste that ends up on the City’s streets is generated by properties receiving solid waste services. Rather, because there is the possibility that some solid waste collected by street sweeping operations was originally generated by other sources, this Study estimates that only 80% of the solid waste collected by street sweepers was generated by properties receiving solid waste services. This assumption is consistent with other studies conducted by R3 (for the cities of Garden Grove and San Bruno) wherein street sweeping activities were allocated between 77.4% and 90% to the sanitation system. This category includes City staffing, capital equipment, and operations and maintenance costs for the City’s street sweeping operations. Allocated staffing costs for the Public Works maintenance crews are calculated to be $229,000 annually. The allocated and annualized costs for capital equipment and operations and maintenance costs are calculated to be $57,000 annually, for a calculated total in this category of $286,000. Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 7 of 20 Catch Basin Waste Removal As with street sweeping, solid waste that is not properly managed by waste generators or the Contractor, and not otherwise captured by street sweeping operations, accumulates in catch basins and other trash capture devices in the City’s storm drain system. As with the street sweeping category, we do not assume that all mismanaged solid waste that ends up in catch basins or trash capture devices is generated by properties that receive solid waste services; the 80% estimate used for street sweeping costs is also applied here, and for the same reasons. This category includes City staffing, capital equipment, and operations and maintenance costs for the City’s catch basin waste removal operations. Allocated staffing costs for the Public Works maintenance crews are calculated to be $844,000 annually. The allocated and annualized costs for capital equipment and operations and maintenance costs are calculated to be $136,000 annually, for a calculated total in this category of $980,000. Illegal Dumping Clean-up The City’s Public Works maintenance crews also clean up solid waste materials that are illegally dumped throughout the City. As with street sweeping and catch basin waste removal, an 80% waste generation allocation is applied. This category includes City staffing costs for illegal dumping clean-up as well as costs for outside contractors and service providers for clean-up of un-housed encampments. Allocated staffing costs for the Public Works maintenance crews are calculated to be $106,000 annually. The allocated costs for clean-up of un-housed encampments along with the allocated costs for equipment maintenance and fuel are calculated to be $191,000 annually, and the for a calculated total in this category of $297,000. Public Waste Containers This category would include City staff costs and other costs for collection of waste deposited in public waste containers in the public right-of-way and other public locations in the City. No costs for these activities were identified by the City and thus none of the costs associated with category are included in this Study. Waste Collection at City Events This category would include City staff costs and other costs for collection of waste generated and disposed of at City public events. No costs for these activities were identified by the City and thus none of the costs associated with category are included in this Study. Tree Trimming for Vehicle Access to Public Right-of-Way This category would include City staff costs and other costs for trimming of the City’s street trees to provide safe clearance for collection vehicles to collect solid waste from the public right- of-way. No costs for these activities were identified by the City and thus none of the costs associated with category are included in this Study. Annual Total of City’s Costs Table 3, following page, shows the total of the City’s Costs for management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system as calculated in this Study, by category. Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 8 of 20 Table 3 – Annual City’s Costs by Category and in Total Category Staffing Costs Other Costs Total Direct Management and Administration $116,000 $7,000 $123,000 Indirect Management and Administration $111,000 N/A $111,000 Code Enforcement $107,000 N/A $107,000 Street Sweeping $229,000 $57,000 $286,000 Catch Basin Waste Removal $844,000 $136,000 $980,000 Illegal Dumping Clean- up $106,000 $191,000 $297,000 Total Annual City’s Costs $1,513,000 $391,000 $1,904,000 Property Use Charges Methodology R3 reviewed and analyzed information provided by the City and the Contractor pertaining to Property Use Charges for Contractor’s use of the public right-of-way for collection of solid waste collection containers. When then calculated the annual Property Use Charges based on: The setout area used for collection of solid waste containers (in square feet). The amount of time that the area is used. The reasonable market value for use of the public right-of-way (in dollars per square foot). The number of solid waste subscribers setting out collection containers in the public right-of- way. Using these values, we calculated the reasonable market value for the Contractor’s use of government property in the City. Variables, Estimates and Assumptions Setout Area Standard residential solid waste collection setouts include three solid waste collection containers, usually carts with wheels and lids, with one each for garbage, recycling, and organics waste streams. The setout area needed for placement of these containers is inclusive )) )) )) )) Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 9 of 20 of the width of each container (typically two feet) as well as minimum required space between the containers and other objects such as cars (minimum of one feet). The set-out area also takes up available parking space and is thus assumed to extend six feet out from the curb. It should be noted that the Contractor’s service guide shows two feet between containers and five feet between containers and other objects, which requires a much larger area than the amounts estimated in this Study. Thus, our estimated average setout area is likely low, and is therefore conservative. Taken altogether, the area for residential setouts is calculated as three containers that are each two feet wide, plus one foot between each container and other objects, for a total area ten feet wide times six feet in depth. The result is 60 square feet of setout area used for collection of solid waste containers in residential areas. The amount of area used for commercial setouts (in this Study, use of the term commercial also always includes multi-family) can vary widely, as there is no standard commercial subscription size profile – each commercial solid waste subscriber can select from a range of container sizes, with most of them being larger than the containers used in residential areas. Given this complexity, this Study assumes that the average commercial setout area is twice that of the residential setout area, for 120 square feet. This estimate is likely lower than the average setout area needed in commercial areas and is therefore conservative. Setout Time Usage Standard residential solid waste collection is performed once weekly. Most residential containers are set out the evening prior to collection and are removed from the public right-of- way the following afternoon. Thus, for the purposes of this Study, we assume that collection containers are in the public right-of-way for an average of 18 hours per day, one day per week, which amounts to approximately 10.71% of the time (18 hours divided by 24 per day divided by 7 days per week). Commercial solid waste subscription setout times can vary widely – just as there is no standard commercial subscription size profile, likewise there is no standard collection frequency. Commercial solid waste subscribers can select collection frequency between once and six times per week, and with different frequencies for different waste streams. Given this complexity, this Study assumes that the average commercial collection frequently is twice weekly, for 12.42% of the time. As with the setout area, this estimate is likely lower than the average commercial collection frequency and is therefore conservative. Reasonable Market Value for Use of Public Right-of-Way The City’s “Streatery” Program established a use charge for the use of the public-right-of way of $3,600 annually. That amount is for the use of an area equivalent to one parking space, which the typical parking space being 24 feet wide by 8 feet deep for an area of 192 square feet. Therefore, the City’s established annual use charge for the use of the public right-of-way is $3,600 divided by 192, for a resultant $18.75 per square foot. Other cities in the Bay Area have also established use charges for use of the public right-of-way, like the City’s program. Other Marin County communities including Fairfax, Larkspur, and San Anselmo also have similar use charges, as do other communities including Healdsburg, Oakland, Torrance, and Windsor. The minimum annual use charge per square foot in these communities is $5.21 (Fairfax and Oakland) and the largest is $30.00 (Windsor). The average annual per square foot use charge, including the City, is $15.67. To be conservative in our calculations, we use the average annual value of $15.67 per square foot rather than the higher City-specific value of $18.75. Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 10 of 20 Number of Subscriptions Setting Out Containers The Contractor reports that there are 12,385 residential and 2,529 commercial solid waste service subscribers in the City. However, not all subscribers set out their containers in the public right-of-way for collection all the time. To account for non-setouts (either because subscribers don’t have waste materials to set out or because they receive on-premises service) we assume that only 90% of residential solid waste subscribers set out containers on a regular basis, for a resulting total of 11,146 average residential setouts. It is also understood that most commercial subscribers do not set out containers in the public right-of-way, and therefore we conservatively assume that only 5% of commercial subscribers set out containers on a regular basis, for a resulting total of 126 average commercial setouts. Analysis and Total Annual Property Use Charges Calculating the total annual Property Use Charges using the variables, estimates and assumptions from the prior section is a function of multiplication, as shown in Table 4, below. Table 4 – Calculation of Total Annual Property Use Charges Variable Category Residential Commercial Grand Total Annual Property Use Charge Setout Area 60 SF 120 SF Setout Time Usage 10.71% 21.42% Annual Use Charge $15.67 per SF $15.67 per SF Number of Setouts 11,146 126 Total Annual Property Use Charges $1,122,000 $51,000 $1,173,000 Pavement Impacts Methodology R3 reviewed and analyzed information provided by the City pertaining to Pavement Impacts from the Contractors solid waste collection vehicles. We then calculated estimates of the proportionate share of the average annual pavement repair, maintenance and rehabilitation costs associated with solid waste collection vehicles based on the proportionate impact to pavement from solid waste collection vehicle compared to other sources of impacts. The calculation accounts for the City’s annual repair costs, five-year projections for capital improvement costs, and five-year projections for annualized growth in deferred maintenance. The calculation also accounts for the high loading and slow speed impacts on pavement associated with solid waste collection vehicles. The calculation proportionately allocates the average annual pavement management costs to solid waste vehicles based on: The equivalent single-axle load and proportionate impacts from speed for those vehicles compared to other vehicles. The number of vehicle trips on City streets. )) )) Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 11 of 20 The proportion of vehicle trips that are made by trucks versus automobiles.1 Variables, Estimates and Assumptions The weight, loading, slow speed, and frequent stops that characterize solid waste collection vehicle operations impose unique and quantifiable impacts on the City’s street pavement. It is important to understand that, while calculation of vehicle impacts to pavement can be precise for individual vehicles, out of necessity we made certain assumptions about overall blended pavement impacts associated with several categories of vehicle types for the purposes of this Study. This is because we sought to calculate estimated impacts to all street pavement in the City, covering all vehicle uses, and precise traffic information at that scale is not currently available. Thus, we make informed assumptions regarding several variables necessary for this Study. For each of these variables, there is a range of potentially reasonable values that may be used. We have selected values at the low end of the reasonable range to present findings that conservatively calculate estimated values of the pavement impacts associated with the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles during the course of providing sanitation service. Assumptions used are described in the following subsections, which reference sources supporting the summary provided here. We must note that changes in assumptions may result in material changes in calculation results and findings. Factors Impacting Pavement Conditions Street pavement repair, maintenance and rehabilitation needs and their resulting costs are affected by several factors including vehicle usage and trench cuts and subsurface activities related to underground utilities. Environmental conditions such as light and water also contribute to pavement repair, maintenance and rehabilitation needs in combination with the primary impacts from vehicles, trench cuts, and subsurface activities. This Study only focuses on the impacts to street pavement from vehicles, and the proportion of those impacts that are attributable to the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles as they perform sanitation service. City’s Costs for Pavement Repair, Maintenance and Rehabilitation The City regularly projects its costs for repair, maintenance and rehabilitation of pavement resulting from degradation due to use. These projections, and the basis for them, are documented in Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) reports which the City commissions with engineering consultants.2 Per the City’s April 26, 2023, P-TAP report, the City’s projected average annual pavement maintenance and rehabilitation costs from 2023 through 2027 for its entire street network, are approximately $4.2 million. Also, per the P-TAP, deferred 1 Our analysis accounts for the distribution of vehicles among the 13 Federal Highway Administration vehicle classifications, which include passenger cars, SUVs/pick-ups, buses, and multiple truck and truck/trailer axle combinations. 2 The City’s current P-TAP report dated April 26, 2023, was prepared by Adhara Systems, Inc., a consulting firm with expertise in pavement engineering. Broadly speaking, a P-TAP is designed to provide objective information and useful data for analysis so that managers can make more consistent, cost-effective, and defensible decisions related to the preservation of a pavement network. )) Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 12 of 20 pavement maintenance on the City’s streets3 (which is the result of degrading pavement conditions associated with the impacts of vehicles) is projected to increase by $15.3 million between 2023 and 2027.4 Axle Loading Our methodology for calculating the proportionate amount of pavement maintenance and rehabilitation impacts for the Contractor’s vehicles is grounded in the fact that all vehicles, including solid waste collection vehicles, degrade pavement during use. Measurement of that impact – also known as “vehicle loading” – can be estimated, quantified, and expressed as an Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL), which is a function of the vehicle’s weight and the distribution of that weight over the vehicle’s axles. It is important to note that heavier vehicles have more impacts on pavement and have a higher vehicle loading ESAL value. It is also important to note that ESAL values are associated with vehicle loading only, and not the speed of the vehicle; it is therefore assumed that relative ESAL values between vehicle types are based on vehicles travelling at the same rate of speed. For this analysis, R3 used the vehicle categories and average ESAL values shown in Table 5, below. Table 5 explains and cites supporting information for how the ESAL for each vehicle type was determined. Table 5 – ESAL Value Assumptions by Vehicle Type Vehicle Type ESAL Value Source Automobiles (Passenger Cars) 0.0008 AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) Design Guide with ESALs by Vehicle Type (Attachment 1) Average of All Other Trucks 5 0.0171 Calculated Value Using AASHTO Design Guide with ESALs by Vehicle Type (Attachment 1), Federal Highway Administration ESALs by Vehicle Type (Attachment 2), Comparative Traffic Counts (Attachment 3) Solid Waste Vehicle (Garbage) 1.0000 Calculated Values by Type (Attachment 4) Using Example Axle Weights (Attachment 5) and AASHTO Axle Load Equivalency Factors (Attachment 6) Solid Waste Vehicle (Organics) 1.0000 Solid Waste Vehicle (Recycling) 0.7500 Given the assumed ESAL values in Table 5, a solid waste vehicle collecting garbage has 1,250 times the impact of an automobile. We are aware of other research concluding that the impacts 3 Deferred maintenance is planned maintenance that gets delayed and backlogged because of a lack of funding. Deferred maintenance costs remain on the books until they are funded and the work is completed and recategorized in the City’s P-TAP. 4 Our analysis assumes funding based on the City’s budgeted pavement maintenance costs as presented in the P- TAP under Scenario 2 “Maintaining PCI 62”. 5 “All other trucks” means all vehicles with high loading and impact on street pavement other than solid waste vehicles. Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 13 of 20 of solid waste collection vehicles may be as high as 8,000-9,000 times the impact of passenger cars; thus, our assumed ESAL of “1” for garbage collection vehicles is on the low end of the reasonable range of ESALs for such vehicles. Speed Impact Impacts to flexible pavements (which are typical for residential streets) are also influenced by vehicle speeds, with impacts being exponentially higher when a load carrying vehicle is moving at a very slow speed.6 This is demonstrated in Chart 1, below. Chart 1 – Exponential Relationship Between Speed and Pavement Impacts Unlike typical traffic on residential streets, which tends to travel at or near the posted speed limit (25 miles per hour [mph] in the City), solid waste vehicles slow and stop for collection in front of each household, averaging approximately 4 mph to 8 mph.7 At these low speeds, and as shown in Chart 1, vehicles have approximately 2.2 to 2.6 times the impact to the pavement than they would travelling only at the 25 mph speed limit. In this Study we conservatively assume that solid waste vehicles in the City may be travelling at a faster 10 mph average speed, and we thus assume that the relative impact of speed is a factor of 2, not the higher 2.2 to 2.6 factors corresponding with slower speeds as noted above. We apply this speed factor of 2 as a multiplier to the ESAL loading for solid waste collection vehicles in our analysis of impacts to residential streets only; the factor is not applied to the ESAL loading for arterial and collector streets, as those streets are not typically comprised of flexible pavements, solid waste collection vehicles stop less frequently on those streets (and thus have a higher average speed). Vehicle Passes Per Day By estimating the number and type of vehicles (i.e., solid waste collection vehicles, automobiles, and all other trucks) that travel on a street, and the average pavement impacts (measured in 6 Effect of truck speed on the response of flexible pavement systems to traffic loading; International Journal of Pavement Engineering, July 2020; Michael R. S. Mshali and Wynand JvdM. Steyn. 7 Real-world activity, fuel use, and emissions of heavy-duty compressed natural gas refuse trucks; Science of the Total Environment 761, 2021; Gurdas S. Sandhu, H. Christopher Frey, Shannon Bartelt-Hunt, Elizabeth Jones. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Re l a t i v e I m p a c t Average Speed (MPH) T r ·······e. .. ········e. .. •••••••••••••• ········• ....... •• •• ........................................ . I Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 14 of 20 ESAL loading) associated with each vehicle type (described in the prior subsection), the total impacts that the pavement will experience can be estimated in a mathematical calculation. Our analysis makes informed assumptions about the number of vehicle passes (meaning trips down streets) by type for the two major types of streets identified by the City in its P-TAP. Those two types of streets are: high traffic volume streets (namely arterial and collector streets) and low traffic volume streets (residential streets). Specific data for the City relating to the number of vehicle passes per day and the proportion of those passes that are comprised of trucks was not available for this Study. For the low traffic residential streets, we used an estimate of 1,500 vehicle passes per day, which is larger than the 750 passes per day previously estimated by the City in the 2020 Vehicle Impact Fee Study. Using the higher figure of 1,500 passes per day reduces the proportionate impact from the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles and is thus more conservative than the calculation using 750 passes per day. We also estimated that 5% of residential traffic trips were made by trucks, and that value is higher than the 2% used in the prior study. While the prior 2% figure was validated by City Engineer, for the purposes of this study we use the higher 5% because it is more conversative than the 2% figure in that it also reduces the proportionate impacts from the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles. For arterial and collector streets, we used an estimate of 15,000 passes per day, which is the same value used in the prior study. For the percentage of those trips that are trucks, we used a calculated value based on comparative traffic counts from the City of Torrance in 2023 (Attachment 3) and which is the same dataset that we used to estimate the average ESAL for “All other trucks” in Table 5. Attachment 3 calculates the average daily traffic counts for all vehicles on commercial streets in that city, with 87.7% of the average daily traffic count being comprised of passenger cars and motorcycles and the remaining 12.3% being comprised of trucks. For the purposes of this Study, we have assumed an even higher percentage of arterial and collector street traffic being trucks, at 15% of the average daily traffic. As with the prior assumptions, this value is conservative in that it returns a low proportionate value for the impacts to streets from the Contractor’s solid waste vehicles. Table 6, below, is a summary of the average daily vehicles passes and the percentage that are trucks assumptions used in this Study. Table 6 – Vehicle Passes Per Day by Street Type Street Type Vehicle Passes Per Day Percentage of Vehicle Passes That Are Trucks Residential 1,500 5% Arterial and Collector 15,000 15% Vehicle Passes By Vehicle Type The variables described in the prior subsection provide the overall number of vehicle passes per day, and the percentage of those passes that are trucks. To isolate the vehicle loading impacts to pavement associated with solid waste collection vehicles we need to determine the number of passes that those vehicles make per day. This is a relatively simple calculation based on the weekly schedule of collections for solid waste collection services. For the low traffic residential streets, solid waste collection operations are on a weekly schedule. Since weekly collections are on both sides of the street, each street is driven twice (once in each direction) by a minimum of Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 15 of 20 one of each type of solid waste collection vehicle. For the purposes of this Study, we assume that each solid waste collection and vehicle makes two passes per week, or 0.286 passes per day on residential streets. This value does not account for the fact that some streets are driven on during non-route days so that collection vehicles can access streets on a given route, meaning that the actual average passes per week in the City must be higher than stated above. Using the lower passes per week is conservative in that it returns a lower result for the street impacts from the Contractor’s solid waste vehicles. For the high traffic arterial and collector streets, which are primarily commercial, the schedule for solid waste collection can vary. Solid waste collection services may be provided up to five or six times a week for larger waste generators and may be as low as weekly for smaller generators. Additionally, because solid waste generators in commercial areas are not all on the same collection schedules as residential accounts are, vehicles in commercial areas pass over the same streets multiple times to serve accounts with different collection schedules. For the purposes of this Study, for arterial and collector streets, we assume that solid waste collection vehicles collecting garbage for landfill disposal pass over each street two times per day (once in each direction), while solid waste collection vehicles for organics and recycling pass over each street once per day (one half in each direction). Total passes for organics and recycling collection vehicles are less because it is generally the case that service levels for garbage are at least twice those of the corresponding organics or recycling service level. As with the number of passes on residential streets, this value does not account for the fact that some streets are driven on during non-route days so that collection vehicles can access streets on a given route, meaning that the actual average passes per week in the City must be higher than stated above. Using the lower passes per week is conservative in that it returns a lower result for the pavement impacts from the Contractor’s solid waste vehicles. The number of passes per day for the remaining vehicle types – automobiles and other trucks – are simply calculated as a function of the total number of daily passes, the total number of those that are trucks (based on the percentages discussed in the prior section), and the number of passes for solid waste collection vehicles. For example, for the City’s residential streets, given the assumed 1,500 passes per day and 5% (75) of those being trucks, there are 1,425 automobile passes per day (1,500 x 95%). With three types of solid waste collection vehicles each passing 0.286 times per day (as described above), the total passes per day are 0.857 (3 x 0.286). The number of passes for all other trucks is 74.143 (150 minus 0.857). Table 7, below, provides a summary of vehicle passes per day by street type. Table 7 – Vehicle Passes Per Day by Vehicle Type and Street Type Vehicle Type Residential Streets Arterial and Collector Streets Automobiles (Passenger Cars) 1,425.000 12,750.000 Average of All Other Trucks 74.143 2,247.143 Solid Waste Vehicle (Garbage) 0.286 1.429 Solid Waste Vehicle (Organics) 0.286 0.714 Solid Waste Vehicle (Recycling) 0.286 0.714 Total 1,500 15,000 Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 16 of 20 Percentage of Streets by Type A final variable that needs to be addressed in the percentage of streets by type. This information is included in the City’s P-TAP, including the relative area by street type, as shown in Table 8, below. Table 8 – Percentage of Streets by Type Street Type Area (Square Yards) Percentage of Area Residential 1,740,000 58.5% Arterial 666,700 22.4% Collector 568,000 19.1% Total 2,974,700 100% Analysis Percentage Impact for Solid Waste and Street Sweeping Vehicles by Street Type With the variables for ESAL by vehicle type, the multiplication factor for the relative impacts of speed for solid waste collection vehicles on residential streets, and the number of passes by vehicle type established, we then calculate the relative percentage impact associated with each vehicle type. This is calculated as a function of ESAL multiplied by speed factor (residential streets only) multiplied by the number of weekly passes, multiplied by ESAL, with the product being the total vehicle loading pavement impact by vehicle type per week. Totaling the weekly total vehicle loading by vehicle types yields the total estimated loading experienced by each street type (residential vs. arterial and collector). From there, we calculate the percentage contribution to total vehicle loading for solid waste collection vehicles, which is the total weekly ESAL loading associated with solid waste collection vehicles divided by the total ESAL loading for the street. Table 9, below, and Table 10, on the following page, show these calculations and the results. Table 9 – Calculation of Solid Waste Pavement Impacts – Residential Streets A B C D E F Vehicle Type Average ESAL / Vehicle (Per Table 5) Relative Impact from Speed Passes / Day / Vehicle Type (Per Table 7) Passes / Week / Vehicle Type (C x 7) Total Weekly ESAL Loading (A x B x D) Percent of Total ESAL Loading (E / 27.85) Automobiles 0.0008 1x 1,425.000 9,975 7.98 28.65% All Other Trucks 0.0171 1x 74.143 519 8.87 31.86% Garbage Vehicles 1.0000 2x 0.286 2 4.00 14.36% Organic Material Vehicles 1.0000 2x 0.286 2 4.00 14.36% Recycling Vehicles 0.7500 2x 0.286 2 3.00 10.77% Total 1,500 10,500 27.85 100% Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 17 of 20 As shown in Table 9, for the City’s residential streets we calculated the percentage impacts for solid waste vehicles to be 39.49% of total impacts to residential street pavement (14.36% times 2 plus 10.77%) Table 10 – Calculation of Solid Waste Vehicle Impacts – Arterial and Collector Streets A B C E F Vehicle Type Average ESAL / Vehicle (Per Table 5) Passes / Day / Vehicle Type (Per Table 7) Passes / Week / Vehicle Type (B x 7) Total Weekly ESAL Loading (A x C) Percent of Total ESAL Loading (E / 359.13) Automobiles 0.0008 12,750.000 89,250 71.40 19.88% All Other Trucks 0.0171 2,247.143 15,730 268.98 74.90% Garbage Vehicles 1.0000 1.429 10 10.00 2.78% Organic Material Vehicles 1.0000 0.714 5 5.00 1.39% Recycling Vehicles 0.7500 0.714 5 3.75 1.04% Total 15,000 105,000 359.13 100% For the City’s arterial and collector streets, Table 10 calculates the percentage impact from solid waste vehicles to be 5.22% of the total impacts (2.78% plus 1.39% plus 1.04%). Average Annual Pavement Expenses Per the P-TAP report, the City is projected to spend $4.2 million per year on pavement repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation. Additionally, the City spends approximately $187,000 annually for spot repair work not included in the P-TAP. Therefore, the total annual estimated City costs for pavement repair are $4,387,000. Average Annualized Deferred Maintenance In addition to contributing to annual pavement maintenance and rehabilitation costs, solid waste vehicles also contribute to deferred maintenance. The P-TAP report projects that deferred maintenance will increase by $15.3 million from 2023 to 2027, which is $3,830,500 annually. Reduction for Pavement Subsurface Impacts Expenditures for pavement maintenance repair impacts to pavement caused by vehicles, trench cutting and subsurface activities, as well as the environmental impacts associated with those same sources of primary impacts. We roughly estimate the impacts of trench cutting and subsurface activities on the City’s streets to be 10% of all pavement repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs. This leaves 90% of the average annual pavement management costs and average annualized deferred maintenance needs associated with vehicle impacts. This is demonstrated in Table 11, on the following page. Methodology and Calculations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 18 of 20 Table 11 – Average Annual Pavement Impacts from Vehicles Category Amount of Impacts from All Sources Reduction for Subsurface Activities Amount of Pavement Impacts from Vehicles Average Annual Pavement Expenses $4,387,000 -10% $3,948,000 Average Annualized Deferred Maintenance $3,830,000 -10% $3,447,000 Total $8,217,000 -10% $7,395,000 Table 12 shows the breakdown of the average annual pavement impacts from all vehicles by street type, using the total from Table 11 above. Table 12 –Total Pavement Impacts from Vehicles by Street Type Variable Residential Arterial and Collector Total Percentage of Streets by Type (From Table 8) 58.5% 41.5% 100% Annual Pavement Impacts from Vehicles $4,326,000 $3,069,000 $7,395,000 Total Annual Pavement Impacts Calculating the total annual Pavement Impacts using the variables, estimates and assumptions from the prior section is a function of multiplication, as shown in Table 13, below. Table 13 – Calculation of Total Pavement Impacts from Contractor’s Vehicles Variables Residential Arterial and Collector Grand Total Annual Pavement Impacts from Vehicles (From Table 12) $4,326,000 $3,069,000 Percentage Impacts from Contractor’s Vehicles (From Tables 9 and 10) 39.49% 5.22% Total $1,708,000 $160,000 $1,868,000 3. Findings and Conclusions City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 19 of 20 Franchise Fee The FY 2022-23 Franchise Fee paid to the City was $2,757,168 and the projection for FY 2023-24 is $2,929,000. R3 calculated reasonable estimates of the City’s Costs and Property Use Charges based on actual and estimated cost information provided by the City, and with reasonable and conversative assumptions for estimated values. The sum of FY 2023-24 annual City’s Costs ($1,904,000) and Property Use Charges ($1,173,000) amounts calculated in this Study is $3,077,000. The calculated amounts bear a reasonable relationship to the Contractor’s burdens on the City resulting from the management and administration of the Agreement and the sanitation system, and the reasonable value of the Contractor’s use of the public right-of-way. The City’s Costs have been reviewed and confirmed by City staff as being representative of the actual time and costs incurred for these activities. Amounts of Property Use Charges are proportionately allocated to the Contractor with due recognition of the realities of the Contractor’s operations. The amounts calculated in this Study are $148,000 (5%) higher than the projected FY 2023- 24 Franchise Fee payments. It is highly unlikely, given the justification provided herein, that FY 2023-24 Franchise Fee payments will exceed the amounts calculated in this Study. The projected FY 2023-24 Franchise Fee is less than would be justified by the calculations in this Study. The Franchise Fee therefore is not more than necessary to cover the City’s reasonable costs incurred in managing and administering the Agreement and the sanitation system plus the reasonable value of the Contractor’s use of the public right-of-way. Vehicle Impact Fee The Vehicle Impact Fee paid to the City annually is $1,480,600. R3 calculated reasonable estimates of the Pavement Impacts from Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles based on quantifiable impacts from such vehicles. The amount of Pavement Impacts calculated in this Study is $1,868,000. The amount calculated Pavement Impacts bear a reasonable relationship to the Contractor’s burdens on the City resulting from the pavement impacts caused by Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles. Calculations of Pavement Impacts have been proportionately allocated to the Contractor with due recognition of the impacts from loading, speed, number of trips, and other causes of pavement repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation needs. The amounts calculated in this Study are $387,400 (26%) higher than the Vehicle Impact Fee. The Vehicle Impact Fee is less than would be justified by the calculations in this Study. The Vehicle Impact Fee there is not more than necessary to cover the City’s reasonable costs incurred for repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation of pavement. )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) 4. Recommendations City of San Rafael | Solid Waste Franchise Fee Study Report 20 of 20 Annual Adjustments All values calculated in this Study are in current FY 2023-24 dollars. Given that the City’s Costs, Property Use Charges, and Pavement Impacts will all tend to change over time in response to changing staffing, benefits, and other costs, it would be appropriate for the City to implement an annual adjustment to the Franchise Fee and Vehicle Impact Fee. We recommend that the City consider including an automatic annual adjustment that would change the fees in proportion to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). We recommend the CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the San Francisco Bay Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics series ID: CUURS49BSA0). Sources and Uses Accounting Currently, the City’s Costs and Property Use Charges are not tied to Franchise Fee revenues in the City’s accounting system. The City could implement project code accounting and/or enterprise fund accounting for the Franchise Fee to better track source revenues and their uses. In either case, allocated and/or direct staffing and other costs could be tied to source revenues, while the Property Use Charges could be transferred out for general use. We recommend that the City consider implementing sources and uses accounting practices for Franchise Fee revenues, City’s Costs, and Property Use Charges.8 Periodic Recalculation Over time, the City’s Costs associated with the Agreement and the sanitation system, the value of Property Use Charges for use of the public right-of-way, and the annualized costs associated with Pavement Impacts from the Contractor’s solid waste collection vehicles may change in ways that vary from the annual change in the CPI. Additionally, changes in City policies, programs, procedures, organization, geopolitical boundaries, laws, regulations, court rulings, and/or other factors may also trigger a need for recalculating fees. We recommend that the City consider updating this Study periodically (e.g., every five years) or more frequently if needed to recalculate fees in response to other factors. 8 The Vehicle Impact Fee is recorded as revenue in the Gas Tax fund, from which pavement repair, maintenance and rehabilitation costs are paid. )) )) )) Attachment 1 City of San Rafael Franchise Fee Study 12-4-2023 Appendix D D-25 Tobie D.21. Worksheet for Calculating 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) Applications Location ____ E_xam_.;;..p_le_l ___ _ Analysis Period = __ 2_0 __ Years 911 Assumed SN or D = ____ _ Current Growth Design E.S.A.L. pesign Traffic Factors Traffic Factor E.S.A.L. Vehicle Types (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) 2% Passenger Cars 5,925 24.30 52,551,787 .0008 42,041 Buses 35 24.30 310,433 .6806 211,280 Panel and Pickup Trucks 1,135 24.30 10,066,882 .0122 122 ,816 Other 2-Axle/4-Tire Trucks 3 24.30 26,609 .0052 138 2-Axle/6-Tire Trucks 372 24.30 3,299,454 .1890 623,597 3 or More Axle Trucks 34 24.30 301,563 .1303 39,294 All Single Unit Trucks 3 Axle Tractor Semi -Trailers 19 24.30 168,521 .8646 145,703 4 Axle Tractor Semi-Trailers 49 24.30 434,606 .6560 285,101 5 + Axle Tractor Semi-Trailers 1,880 24.30 16,674,660 2.3719 39,550,626 All Tractor Semi-Trailers 5 Axle Double Trailers 103 24.30 913,559 2.3187 2,118,268 6 + Axle Double Trailers 0 24.30 All Double Trailer Combos 3 Axle Truck-Trailers 208 24.30 1,844,856 .0152 28,042 4 Axle Truck-Trailers 305 24.30 2,705 ,198 .0152 41,119 5 + Axle Truck-Trailers 125 24.30 1,108,688 .5317 589,489 All Truck-Trailer Combos All Vehicles 10,193 90,406,816 Design 43,772,314 E.S.A.L. Attachment 2 City of San Rafael Franchise Fee Study 12-4-2023 FHWA Truck Classes Class Type I EALF 1 Motorcycles negligible 2 Passenger Cars negligible 3 Other Two-Axle , Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles negligible 4 Buses 0.57 5 Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single Unit Trucks 0 .26 6 Three-Axle Single Unit Trucks 0.42 7 Four or More Axle Single Unit Trucks 0 .42 8 Four or Less Axle Single Trailer Trucks 0.30 9 Five-Axle Single Trailer Trucks 1.20 10 Six or More Axle Single Trailer Trucks 0.93 11 Five or Less Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks 0.82 12 Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks 1.06 13 Seven or More Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks 1.39 Attachment 2 City of San Rafael Franchise Fee Study 12-4-2023 FHW A s 13 ehicle Category Clas ification Motorcycles Four or more 1----------------------ax le, single unit Class l Passenger cars Class 3 Four tire, single unit Class 4 Buses Class 5 Two axle, six tire, sin gle unit Class 6 Three axle, single unit t-------------- 1----------- t-------------- - Class 8 Four or le ss axle , s in g I e trailer Class 9 5-Axle tractor s em it ra ii er Class 10 Six or more axle , s in g I e trailer Class 11 Five or less axle , mu lti trailer Class 11 1-----------Six axle , multi- trailer Class 13 Seven or more axle. multi-trailer ource : Federal Highway Admini tration (TMG 2013). lllt-llllllt IIIIJlllllla 2.. 1 23 4 5 6 9 10 13 14 17 18 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 49 50 52 53 57 58 61 62 63 64 66 67 69 70 71 72 74 75 87 88 90 91 94 95 98 99 111 112 114 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 147 148 149 150 151 152 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTU Street Name From Location To Location Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13 Torrance Blvd Victor St Anza Ave 29796 04/2018 1262 50% 79 26526 2054 152 866 67 5 21 260000 29796 0% 89% 7% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Torrance Blvd Madrona Ave Maple Ave 32572 04/2018 1486 51% 45 28713 2362 159 1166 61 16 26 240000 32572 0% 88% 7% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Torrance Blvd Arlington Ave Cabrillo Ave 29267 05/2018 1203 50% 62 26131 1574 111 625 505 49 53 48 5 32 40 32 29267 0% 89% 5% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%100% Crenshaw Blvd Redondo Beach BlvArtesia Blvd 32648 04/2018 1318 50% 61 29104 2563 110 726 37 5 14 280000 32648 0% 89% 8% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Crenshaw Blvd Artesia Blvd 182nd St 33944 04/2018 1475 54% 62 29796 2588 122 1258 69 7 18 240000 33944 0% 88% 8% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Crenshaw Blvd 182nd St 190th St 54327 04/2018 2186 52% 55 47269 4235 113 2415 47 5 99 890000 54327 0% 87% 8% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Crenshaw Blvd 190th St Del Amo Blvd 49516 04/2018 1931 51% 49 42896 3828 108 2162 128 0 123 2220000 49516 0% 87% 8% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Crenshaw Blvd Del Amo Blvd Dominguez St 47718 04/2018 2074 53% 54 41416 3749 125 2165 36 0 62 1110000 47718 0% 87% 8% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Crenshaw Blvd Torrance Blvd El Dorado St 45215 04/2018 1835 52% 59 39890 3489 87 1465 27 4 102 920000 45215 0% 88% 8% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Crenshaw Blvd Carson St Sepulveda Blvd 44936 04/2018 1770 51% 61 38281 4119 97 2043 80 8 130 1170000 44936 0% 85% 9% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Crenshaw Blvd Sepulveda Blvd 235th St 50785 04/2018 2004 51% 46 43831 4455 120 1949 65 1 118 2000000 50785 0% 86% 9% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Crenshaw Blvd Lomita Blvd Skypark Dr 41290 04/2018 1846 55% 62 35390 3650 122 1761 51 7 130 1170000 41290 0% 86% 9% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Crenshaw Blvd Pacific Coast Hwy South City Limit 33219 04/2018 1546 55% 91 28665 3297 56 1049 40 0 6 150000 33219 0% 86% 10% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Del Amo Blvd Victor St Anza Ave 21330 04/2018 1040 56% 80 18735 1880 47 545 20 8 1140000 21330 0% 88% 9% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Del Amo Blvd Maple Ave Crenshaw Blvd 28001 04/2018 1336 57% 48 23933 2202 176 1386 73 22 100 51 10 0 0 0 28001 0% 85% 8% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%100% Artesia Blvd Hawthorne Blvd Prairie Ave 34571 05/2018 1270 50% 122 30839 1595 233 711 635 158 22 111 25 14 50 56 34571 0% 89% 5% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%100% Artesia Blvd Ainsworth Ave Yukon Ave 32714 06/2018 1592 66% 149 27864 2889 79 1836 160920000 32844 0% 85% 9% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Artesia Blvd Crenshaw Blvd Van Ness Ave 32897 05/2018 1366 59% 535 28709 1571 110 903 601 192 35 103 22 28 104 74 32987 2% 87% 5% 0% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%100% Redondo Beach BlvHawthorne Blvd Prairie Ave 24076 06/2018 8963 56% 20 21007 1944 111 950 217880000 24076 0% 87% 8% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Redondo Beach BlvPrairie Ave Yukon Ave 32187 05/2018 1334 54% 33 29927 1279 120 402 261 22 47 22 2 32 23 17 32187 0% 93% 4% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%100% Redondo Beach BlvCrenshaw Blvd Van Ness Ave 31183 06/2018 1485 59% 48 27555 2483 111 864 36 3 15 680000 31183 0% 88% 8% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Hawthorne Blvd Pacific Coast Hwy South City Limit 35335 06/2018 1634 61% 45 30266 2981 116 1201 120 26 164 311 2 103 0 0 35335 0% 86% 8% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%100% Sepulveda Blvd Palos Verdes Blvd Anza Ave 25198 05/2018 1142 58% 67 22574 1546 50 525 329 41 13 18 3 11 12 9 25198 0% 90% 6% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%100% Sepulveda Blvd Madrona Ave Maple Ave 45820 04/2018 2109 58% 79 41604 2602 140 1362 183624000 45820 0% 91% 6% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Sepulveda Blvd Arlington Ave Cabrillo Ave 48933 04/2018 2339 64% 47 43059 3813 116 1845 33 2 8 100000 48933 0% 88% 8% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Palos Verdes Blvd Sepulveda Blvd Prospect Ave 15126 06/2018 798 57% 13 12696 1614 9 761 16 3 1130000 15126 0% 84% 11% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Palos Verdes Blvd Catalina Ave Calle Miramar 27158 04/2018 1304 61% 49 23375 2580 52 1067 15 0 6 140000 27158 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13 TOTALS 2121 840051 72942 2952 34008 3407 594 1357 1840 73 220 229 188 959982 PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL 0.2% 87.5% 7.6% 0.3% 3.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%100% PERCENT OF TRAFFIC FOR "ALL OTHER TRUCKS" 12.27% ESAL SOURCE Load Factor - 0.0008 0.0122 0.5700 0.2600 0.4200 0.4200 0.3000 1.2000 0.9300 0.8200 1.0600 1.3900 Weighted Load Factor - 0.0007 0.0009 0.0018 0.0092 0.0015 0.0003 0.0004 0.0023 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 TOTAL WEIGHTED ESAL FOR "ALL OTHER TRUCKS" Other Truck Weighted Load Factor 0.0009 0.0018 0.0092 0.0015 0.0003 0.0004 0.0023 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0171 AASHTO Federal Highway Administration CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED ESAL FOR "ALL OTHER TRUCKS" ADT (or AADT) by Vehicle Classification HPMS Traffic Data Sought - City of Torrance 5/19/2023 Section Identification Current Traffic Data ADT (or AADT) by Vehicle Classification ADT Month & Year of Traffic Count (MM/YYYY) Peak Hour Volume D Factor https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/2023 FRANCHISE FEE STUDIES/Anaheim/+ Expert Witness Files/REPORT ATTACHMENTS/3 - Attachment Z - All Other Truck Average ESAL / Torrance Data Attachment 3 City of San Rafael Franchise Fee Study 12-4-2023 - - - - - -I I I I I -I I I I I I -I I I I I I - - -I - - - I - - ESAL Calc RESIDENTIAL ESAL CALCS SOLID WASTE MODEL AXLE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTIONS Front 50% Front 35.8% Front 43% Rear 50% Rear 64.2% Rear 57% MODEL AXLE WEIGHTS Empty Payload Total Weight 32,620 Total Weight 48,700 Total Weight 40,660 Front 16,276 Front 17,420 Front 16,848 Rear 16,344 Rear 31,280 Rear 23,812 32,620 48,700 40,660 16,080 8.04 DETERMINE SAE OF SOLID WASTE VEHICLES Gross Axle Weight Single Axle Double Axle Triple Axle 6,000 0.010 0.001 0.0003 8,000 0.034 0.003 0.001 10,000 0.088 0.007 0.002 Empty 12,000 0.189 0.014 0.003 Single Front Double Rear 14,000 0.360 0.027 0.006 weight 16,276 weight 16,344 16,000 0.623 0.047 0.011 SAE 0.675 SAE 0.052 Total SAE= 0.727 18,000 1.000 0.077 0.017 20,000 1.510 0.121 0.027 Full 22,000 2.180 0.180 0.04 Single Front Double Rear 24,000 3.030 0.260 0.057 weight 17,420 weight 31,280 26,000 4.090 0.364 0.08 SAE 0.891 SAE 0.771 Total SAE= 1.662 28,000 5.390 0.495 0.109 30,000 6.970 0.658 0.145 Average = 1.195 32,000 8.880 0.857 0.191 34,000 11.180 1.095 0.246 Half Full 36,000 13.930 1.380 0.313 Single Front Double Rear 38,000 17.200 1.700 0.393 weight 16,848 weight 23,812 40,000 21.080 2.080 0.487 SAE 0.783 SAE 0.252 Total SAE = 1.035 42,000 25.640 2.510 0.597 RESIDENTIAL ESAL CALCS RECYCLABLES MODEL AXLE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTIONS Front 50% Front 41.5% Front 46% Rear 50% Rear 58.5% Rear 54% MODEL AXLE WEIGHTS Empty Payload Total Weight 32,620 Total Weight 40,640 Total Weight 36,630 Front 16,276 Front 16,847 Front 16,561 Rear 16,344 Rear 23,793 Rear 20,069 32,620 40,640 36,630 8,020 4.01 SAE Equivalents Empty Full (Average Payload)Half Full Full (Average Payload)Half Full Empty Full (Average Payload)Half Full Full (Average Payload)Half Full https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/2023 FRANCHISE FEE STUDIES/Anaheim/+ Expert Witness Files/REPORT ATTACHMENTS/4 - Refuse Vehicle ESAL calcs / ESAL Calc Attachment 4 Cit\ of San Rafael Franchise Fee Stud\ 2-4-2023 I I I I I I I ESAL Calc DETERMINE SAE OF RECYCLING VEHICLES Gross Axle Weight Single Axle Double Axle Triple Axle 6,000 0.010 0.001 0.0003 8,000 0.034 0.003 0.001 10,000 0.088 0.007 0.002 Empty 12,000 0.189 0.014 0.003 Single Front Double Rear 14,000 0.360 0.027 0.006 weight 16,276 weight 16,344 16,000 0.623 0.047 0.011 SAE 0.675 SAE 0.052 Total SAE= 0.727 18,000 1.000 0.077 0.017 20,000 1.510 0.121 0.027 Full 22,000 2.180 0.180 0.04 Single Front Double Rear 24,000 3.030 0.260 0.057 weight 16,847 weight 23,793 26,000 4.090 0.364 0.08 SAE 0.783 SAE 0.252 Total SAE= 1.034 28,000 5.390 0.495 0.109 30,000 6.970 0.658 0.145 Average = 0.881 32,000 8.880 0.857 0.191 34,000 11.180 1.095 0.246 Half Full 36,000 13.930 1.380 0.313 Single Front Double Rear 38,000 17.200 1.700 0.393 weight 16,561 weight 20,069 40,000 21.080 2.080 0.487 SAE 0.729 SAE 0.056 Total SAE = 0.784 42,000 25.640 2.510 0.597 RESIDENTIAL ESAL CALCS GREEN WASTE MODEL AXLE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTIONS Front 50% Front 35.8% Front 43% Rear 50% Rear 64.2% Rear 57% MODEL AXLE WEIGHTS Empty Payload Total Weight 32,620 Total Weight 47,100 Total Weight 39,860 Front 16,276 Front 17,306 Front 16,791 Rear 16,344 Rear 29,794 Rear 23,069 32,620 47,100 39,860 14,480 8.04 DETERMINE SAE OF YARD WASTE VEHICLES Gross Axle Weight Single Axle Double Axle Triple Axle 6,000 0.010 0.001 0.0003 8,000 0.034 0.003 0.001 10,000 0.088 0.007 0.002 Empty 12,000 0.189 0.014 0.003 Single Front Double Rear 14,000 0.360 0.027 0.006 weight 16,276 weight 16,344 16,000 0.623 0.047 0.011 SAE 0.675 SAE 0.052 Total SAE= 0.727 18,000 1.000 0.077 0.017 20,000 1.510 0.121 0.027 Full 22,000 2.180 0.180 0.04 Single Front Double Rear 24,000 3.030 0.260 0.057 weight 17,306 weight 29,794 26,000 4.090 0.364 0.08 SAE 0.869 SAE 0.641 Total SAE= 1.510 28,000 5.390 0.495 0.109 30,000 6.970 0.658 0.145 Average = 1.119 32,000 8.880 0.857 0.191 SAE Equivalents SAE Equivalents Empty Full (Average Payload)Half Full Full (Average Payload)Half Full https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/2023 FRANCHISE FEE STUDIES/Anaheim/+ Expert Witness Files/REPORT ATTACHMENTS/4 - Refuse Vehicle ESAL calcs / ESAL Calc Attachment 4 Cit\ of San Rafael Franchise Fee Stud\ 2-4-2023 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ESAL Calc 34,000 11.180 1.095 0.246 Half Full 36,000 13.930 1.380 0.313 Single Front Double Rear 38,000 17.200 1.700 0.393 weight 16,791 weight 23,069 40,000 21.080 2.080 0.487 SAE 0.772 SAE 0.223 Total SAE = 0.995 42,000 25.640 2.510 0.597 https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/2023 FRANCHISE FEE STUDIES/Anaheim/+ Expert Witness Files/REPORT ATTACHMENTS/4 - Refuse Vehicle ESAL calcs / ESAL Cal Attachment 4 Cit\ of San Rafael Franchise Fee Stud\ 2-4-2023 Attachment 5 City of San Rafael Franchise Fee Study 12-4-2023• • • !:l·l6SSIS.JNEQBM6.llilli MAKE: 4wev,~ MODEL: cee WHEELBASE:-~- USABLE C/T~l 84 ---17-l'a.r------~I noo - EB MODEL: ~&.....z,:-===-.c.- CAPACI -M',___ .. PAYLOAD : /. #/YO. PAYLOAD C/G ~ \ t::_/L ~ 0 (,...A.L~l ~~A'l+-l ___ .,,. A= 51; C,00 /U IJ-';4- J::e_.J.,. ,8v:Jp:a. f,. U . U {~~ -1 E A \J\IS~ 1cfn,\ i-----~WB=Zoq1----~ C c f"i ft.e.J/"4 CHASSIS-· --- BODY -~ ·.:__ LIFT AXLE . _;_ - TARE --· -...:.__ PAYLOAD--- LIFT AXLE UP - LIFT AXLE DOWN'- GAWR-·. FRONT f3(l)0 7 721) PUSHER ----- ~-__ ·--r===----......ji--ii-----1 TOLERANCES UNl.£SS OTHEn""SE SPECIF1E01 N O Tl CE 01"1SION Thl11 print la lh• properly of lit• 4 2 C HEIL Co, end I• recallable ol any 1--....1 time. It muel not tie coplad or CODE ... I ' --------1.:..---1---i 'UNEAR .JO( • :t ,08 -------+----+---l .xxx .. :t .030 , ----''---1----1----1 ANQA.AR • * 1" u1111d detrimentally lo the Inter-M 11101• of lhe HEIL Cc,. DAID 07 /18 94 SCAlL: N/ A , ______ .w,-.s __ __.__oA_TE___._1::_co_N_o.,L._ _______ _ TANDEM ,5.s/Jo crogo /4~0 2048D 5~ TAG 'TOTAL /¢.:za l6&a:> • 3/«JO ZoooO .Sloe>o . THE W~Ol1 CO. llll£: DRAIWII O\'; JHB CHATTANOOGA, TN WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION FRONT. LOADER PMT No. 701A7539 'Tl • ID l:f N 0 0 I\) 0 w .. :c 0 C lll cf 0 :J A'.) QI ct .... ID a. °' II -"' I\) w I (X) (II (II I OJ w -"' 0 ,, . w Attachment 5 City of Anaheim Sanitation Utility Pavement Impact Study .... .... (SJ .... I m 1/) .... 'st 0 u f---z: I...J E: Q_ H => 0 w g: ([ ll. ([ ~ .... .... (\J .... Q_ , 144 27 YO LEACH CtJRBTa«R, RJlL . EJECT, 0:F SET ARM CN WHITE EXPEDIT0R C.G. l.OAO 8 1------03--- ------·r--1:le---------- c .o. e..-n eoov l---------,eo---------+---1 1---~--------t--·~1---.....,..-----------:---~ J-----------:----r------211--------------,-1 209-----------, ~--------------350 .FA(.t4f f!EAn TOTM.. CHASS[S 10.HZ 6417 16759 OOOY 5290 OOJO IJ.520 LOAO 766 192.J4. ioooo tOf;t'-16JOO JJ6-~I YXJ19 .. IA ~ IO,o42 6,417 lb,'7 5 q 5, 2c;o 15,0:iC l°?, ~2,.0 '76(; 19,2..'1°3 -z..c,cco lb, ?q<t> ~~.6'61 50,079 ;/ ·c ------'.,.. c::-= -~ .,, -= -.. --... --.. It .. ,. Attachment 6 City of San Rafael Franchise Fee Study 12-4-2023 PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS Attachment 6 City of San Rafael Franchise Fee Study 12-4-2023 D-6 Design of Pa1·e,. Table D.4. Axle Load Equivalency Factors for Flexible Pavements,i._8jngle Axles and p1 .Axle Load Pavement Structural Number (SN) (kips) 1 2 3 4 2 .0004 .0004 .0003 .0002 .0002 4 .003 .004 .004 .003 02_ 6 .011 .017 .017 .013 .0lO v' 8 .032 .047 .051 .041 .034 IO .078 .102 .118 .102 .088 12 .168 . 198 .229 .213 .189 14 .328 .358 .399 .388 .360 16 .591 .613 .646 .645 .623 18 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1.61 1.57 1.49 1.47 l 1.51 22 2.48 2.38 2.17 2.09 2. 18 24 3.69 3.49 3.09 2.89 3.03 26 5.33 4.99 4.31 3.91 4.09 28 7.49 6.98 5.90 5.21 5.39 30 10.3 9 .5 7.9 6 .8 7.0 32 13 .9 12.8 10.5 8 .8 8.9 34 18.4 16.9 13.7 11.3 11.2 36 24.0 22.0 17.7 14.4 13.9 38 30.9 28.3 22.6 18.1 , 17.2 40 39.3 35.9 28.5 22.5 21.1 42 49.3 45.0 35.6 27.8 _25.6 44 -6T_f ___ 55.9 44.0 34.0 31.0 46 75.5 68.8 54.0 41.4 37.2 48 92.2 83 .9 65.7 50.1 44.5 50 112 . 102. 79 . 60. 53. Attachment 6 City of San Rafael Franchise Fee Study 12-4-2023 D-7 .. D.S. Axle Load Equivalency Factors for Flexible Pavements, Tandem les and Pt of 2.5 Pavement Structural Number (SN) 1 2 3 4 s 6 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0005 .0005 .0004 .0003 .0003 .0002 .002 .002 .002 .001 .001 ✓ .001 .004 .006 .005 .004 .003 .003 .008 .013 .011 .009 .007 .006 .015 .024 .023 .018 .014 .013 .026 .041 .042 .033 .027 .024 .044 .065 .070 .057 .047 .043 .070 .097 .109 .092 .077 .070 .107 .141 .162 .141 .121 .llO .160 .198 .229 .207 .180 .166 .231 .273 .3 15 .292 .260 .242 .327 .370 .420 .401 .364 .342 .451 .493 .548 .534 .495 .470 .611 .648 .703 .695 .658 .633 .813 .843 .889 .887 .857 .834 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.11 1.09 1.08 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.75 1.73 1.69 1.68 1.70 1.73 2.21 2.16 2.06 2.03 ' 2.08 2.14 2.76 2.67 2.49 2.43 2.51 2.61 3.4 1 3.27 2.99 2.88 3.00 3.16 4.18 3.98 3.58 3.40 3.55 3 .79 5.08 4.80 4.25 3.98 4 .17 4.49 6.12 5.76 5.03 4.64 4.86 5.28 7.33 6 .87 5.93 5.38 5.63 6.17 8.72 8.14 6.95 6.22 6.47 7 .15 10.3 9 .6 8.1 7 .2 7.4 8.2 12.1 11.3 9.4 8.2 8.4 9.4 14.2 13.1 10.9 9.4 9.6 10.7 16 .5 15.3 12.6 10.7 10.8 12.1 19.1 17.6 14.5 12.2 12.2 13.7 22.1 20.3 16.6 13.8 13.7 15.4 25.3 23 .3 18.9 15.6 15.4 17.2 29.0 26.6 21.5 17.6 17.2 19.2 33.0 30.3 24.4 19.8 19.2 21.3 37.5 34.4 27.6 22.2 21.3 23.6 42.5 38.9 3 1.1 24.8 23.7 26.1 48.0 43.9 35.0 27.8 26.2 28.8 54.0 49.4 39.2 30.9 29.0 31.7 60.6 55.4 43.9 34.4 32.0 34.8 67.8 61.9 49.0 38.2 35.3 38. I 75.7 69 .1 54.5 42.3 38.8 41.7 84.3 76.9 60.6 46 .8 42.6 45.6 93.7 85.4 67.1 51.7 46.8 49.7 Exhibit B - Cost of Service Fee, Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee, and Franchise Fee The City adopts the Cost of Service Fee, Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee, and Franchise Fee set forth below. Amounts shown are annual calendar year figures effective January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Cost of Service Fee - $1,945,401 Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee - $1,480,601 Franchise Fee - $1,216,000 Effective January 1, 2026, and annually every January 1st thereafter, the Cost of Service Fee and the Franchise Fee shall be adjusted in proportion to the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the San Francisco Bay Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics series ID: CUURS49BSA0). The Vehicle Impact Fee is not subject to annual adjustment. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL EXHIBIT C - SCHEDULE OF RATES RESIDENTIAL REFUSE COLLECTION RATES Rate increase: 5.24% Effective date: 01/01/2025 Weekly Service Rates (Billed Quarterly) Monthly Rate Quarterly Rate Monthly Rate Quarterly Rate 20 gallon cart $47.69 $143.07 $54.00 $162.00 32 gallon cart $56.10 $168.30 $63.55 $190.65 64 gallon cart $112.20 $336.60 $127.10 $381.30 96 gallon cart $168.30 $504.90 $190.65 $571.95 Low income - 20 gal* cart $38.15 $114.45 $43.20 $129.60 Low income - 32 gal* cart $44.88 $134.64 $50.84 $152.52 Low income - 64 gal* cart $89.76 $269.28 $101.68 $305.04 Low income - 96 gal* cart $134.64 $403.92 $152.52 $457.56 Senior rate**Discontinued $39.60 $118.80 $50.43 $151.29 Additional Organics Cart Rental $3.00 $9.00 $3.00 $9.00 (35 or 64 gallon cart) Additional Split Cart Rental $3.00 $9.00 $3.00 $9.00 (64 or 96 gallon cart) Additional Monthly Charges Monthly Fee Quarterly Fee (per cart, each way) Distance 0' - 50'$7.27 $21.81 Distance Over 50'$14.74 $44.22 Additional Service Fees per Occurrence Fee Return Fees - Off day $25.00 Return Fees - Same day $10.00 Resume Service/Late Fee $35.00 Contamination (cart) any size cart $30.00 Overload/Overweight (cart)$25.00 Extra bag garbage $15.00 Extra bag yard waste $10.00 Steam Clean (cart)$15.00 Special Collection $35.00 Special Handling (Bulky items)$30.00 Bulky item fees per item Fees Vary Cart Strap Set-up Admin Fee $25.00 20 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $55.00 32 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $60.00 64 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $65.00 96 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $75.00 64 Gal Split Cart Replacement Fee $90.00 96 Gal Split Cart Replacement Fee $100.00 *Must meet PG&E CARE program eligibility requirements. **Customers with these rates prior to 2005 will keep the existing rate type. No new customers will be added with this rate type. ON E T I M E S E R V I C E F E E S R E O C C U R I N G C H A R G E S Residential Service (Bundled service includes 1 landfill (garbage) cart, 1 organics cart, & 1 recycling split cart ) Flat rate Hill Rate NOTE: We may not be able to accommodate any collection requests NOT at the curb due to a variety of factors including safety, accessibility, and efficiency. Requests to be assessed and approved by Route Manager. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL EXHIBIT C - SCHEDULE OF RATES COMMERCIAL REFUSE MONTHLY COLLECTION RATES Rate increase: 5.24% Effective date: 01/01/2025 COMMERCIAL CARTS, BINS, ROLL-OFFS Garbage 1 23456 20 gallon cart*$47.69 $95.38 $143.07 $190.76 $238.45 $286.14 $11.01 32 gallon cart $55.72 $111.44 $167.16 $222.88 $278.60 $334.32 $12.86 64 gallon cart $111.44 $222.88 $334.32 $445.76 $557.20 $668.64 $25.72 96 gallon cart $167.16 $334.32 $501.48 $668.64 $835.80 $1,002.96 $38.58 1 yard bin $362.16 $731.28 $1,107.34 $1,490.46 $1,880.43 $2,277.35 $83.58 2 yard bin $532.49 $1,223.43 $1,856.00 $2,502.48 $3,162.89 $3,837.21 $122.88 3 yard bin $693.10 $1,290.65 $1,967.38 $2,664.85 $3,383.30 $4,122.60 $159.95 4 yard bin $988.77 $1,827.85 $2,783.44 $3,766.97 $4,511.10 $5,817.49 $228.18 5 yard bin $1,069.58 $2,151.10 $3,278.97 $4,441.45 $5,638.89 $6,871.00 $246.83 6 yard bin $1,269.78 $2,581.32 $3,934.73 $5,329.80 $6,766.61 $8,245.22 $293.03 10 yard roll-off $1,789.69 $3,662.49 $5,620.67 $7,661.30 $9,785.51 $11,993.15 $413.01 18 yard roll-off $3,214.47 $6,579.40 $10,094.58 $13,760.08 $17,575.90 $21,542.11 $741.80 20 yard roll-off $3,571.75 $7,310.42 $11,216.17 $15,288.94 $19,528.78 $23,935.63 $824.25 25 yard roll-off $4,996.30 $10,226.48 $15,075.71 $20,549.69 $26,248.43 $32,171.73 $1,152.99 Organics (F2E or Compost)1 23456 Additional One Time Empty/On Call 32 gallon $23.11 $46.22 $69.33 $92.44 $115.55 $138.66 $5.33 64 gallon $46.22 $92.44 $138.66 $184.88 $231.10 $277.32 $10.67 1 yard $161.72 $323.44 $485.16 $646.88 $808.60 $970.32 $37.32 2 yard $323.44 $646.88 $970.32 $1,293.76 $1,617.20 $1,940.64 $74.64 3 yard $485.16 $970.32 $1,455.48 $1,940.64 $2,425.80 $2,910.96 $111.96 10 yard roll-off $1,252.78 $2,505.56 $3,758.34 $5,011.12 $6,263.90 $7,516.68 $289.10 18 yard roll-off $2,255.00 $4,510.00 $6,765.00 $9,020.00 $11,275.00 $13,530.00 $520.38 20 yard roll-off $2,505.56 $5,011.12 $7,516.68 $10,022.24 $12,527.80 $15,033.36 $578.21 25 yard roll-off $3,131.95 $6,263.90 $9,395.85 $12,527.80 $15,659.75 $18,791.70 $722.76 Garbage Compactors (Per empty) Roll-off Compactor Tipping fee per ton $153.82 Roll-off Compactor Hauling charge $345.73 Stationary FL (Per Compacted Yard) $133.58 Roll-off Compactor Special handling Rates Vary Service Fee Details Lock $25.00 Monthly fee per collection and commodity Box rental Fees Vary Minimum Bimonthly fee Minimum Load ML Fees Vary Distance < 50ft $7.27 Monthly fee per cart, each way Distance > 50ft $14.74 Monthly fee per cart, each way On Call rate only available with approval from Route Manager Commercial Service Fees Fee Return Fee - BIN $75.00 Return Fee - CART -same day $10.00 Return Fee - CART -off day $25.00 Late Fee/Resume Service Fee $35.00 Contamination (BIN) $50.00 Contamination (CART) $30.00 Overload/Compaction (BIN) $60.00 Overload/Compaction (CART) $25.00 Additional Empty/Bag Garbage $15.00 Additional Empty BIN Fees vary Extra Bag Yard Waste $15.00 Steam Clean (1-6 yard BIN) $95.00 Steam Clean (CART) $15.00 Steam Clean (COMPACTOR/ROLL-OFF) $225.00 Lock Set-up Admin Fee $25.00 Lock Single Use Fee $5.00 Lock Purchase Fee $20.00 Lock Bar Bin Set-up Fee $75.00 Overweight Charge Per Ton* $205.00 20 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $55.00 32 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $60.00 64 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $65.00 96 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $75.00 64 Gal Split Cart Replacement Fee $90.00 96 Gal Split Cart Replacement Fee $100.00 Bin Repair/Replacement Fee** Fees vary *(Boxes exceeding 300lbs/yard) **Fees vary by size up to $1,200, not to exceed current replacement value. NOTE: All container types and sizes may not be available at all locations depending on a variety of factors including safety, accessibility, and efficiency. Requests to be assessed and approved by Route Manager. ON E T I M E S E R V I C E F E E S R E O C C U R I N G C H A R G E S Collections per Week Monthly fee Additional One Time Empty/On Call Other Charges * Customers must have a sufficient level of service for the volume of material generated. Requests for 20gal carts require assessment and approval of a Route Manager. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL EXHIBIT C - SCHEDULE OF RATES MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING REFUSE MONTHLY COLLECTION RATES Rate increase: 5.24% Effective date: 01/01/2025 MFD CARTS, BINS, ROLL-OFFS Garbage 1 23456 20 gallon cart* $47.69 $95.38 $143.07 $190.76 $238.45 $286.14 $11.01 32 gallon cart $56.10 $112.20 $168.30 $224.40 $280.50 $336.60 $12.95 64 gallon cart $112.20 $224.40 $336.60 $448.80 $561.00 $673.20 $25.89 96 gallon cart $168.30 $336.60 $504.90 $673.20 $841.50 $1,009.80 $38.84 32 gallon - hill $63.55 $127.10 $190.65 $254.20 $317.75 $381.30 $14.67 64 gallon - hill $127.10 $254.20 $381.30 $508.40 $635.50 $762.60 $29.33 96 gallon - hill $190.65 $381.30 $571.95 $762.60 $953.25 $1,143.90 $44.00 1 yard bin $348.99 $703.53 $1,063.71 $1,429.43 $1,800.69 $2,177.49 $80.54 2 yard bin $532.49 $1,220.62 $1,847.65 $2,485.76 $3,135.07 $3,795.47 $122.88 3 yard bin $693.10 $1,270.28 $1,930.51 $2,607.42 $3,301.00 $4,011.23 $159.95 4 yard bin $988.77 $1,822.30 $2,766.69 $3,733.54 $4,636.04 $5,733.94 $228.18 5 yard bin $1,069.58 $2,117.14 $3,217.45 $4,345.58 $5,501.60 $6,685.46 $246.83 6 yard bin $1,253.58 $2,540.59 $3,860.94 $5,214.72 $6,601.92 $8,022.49 $289.29 10 yard roll-off $1,789.69 $3,662.49 $5,620.67 $7,661.30 $9,785.51 $11,993.15 $413.01 18 yard roll-off $3,214.47 $6,579.40 $10,094.58 $13,760.08 $17,575.90 $21,542.11 $741.80 20 yard roll-off $3,571.75 $7,310.42 $11,216.17 $15,288.94 $19,528.78 $23,935.63 $824.25 25 yard roll-off $4,996.30 $10,226.48 $15,075.71 $20,549.69 $26,248.43 $32,171.73 $1,152.99 Organics 1 23456 Additional One Time Empty/ on Call Additional Organics Cart Rental $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 NA (35 gallon cart) after 4 TOTAL carts per cart per month Additional Organics Cart Rental $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $12.00 $15.00 $18.00 NA (64 gallon cart) after 4 TOTAL carts per cart per month. 1 yard $161.72 $323.44 $485.16 $646.88 $808.60 $970.32 $37.32 2 yard $323.44 $646.88 $970.32 $1,293.76 $1,617.20 $1,940.64 $74.64 3 yard $485.16 $970.32 $1,455.48 $1,940.64 $2,425.80 $2,910.96 $111.96 Garbage Compactors (Per empty) Roll-off Compactor Tipping fee per ton $153.82 Roll-off Compactor Hauling charge $345.73 Stationary FL (Per Compacted Yard) $133.58 Roll-off Compactor Special handling Rates Vary Service Fee Details Lock $25.00 Monthly fee per collection and commodity Box rental Fees Vary Minimum Bimonthly fee Minimum Load ML Fees Vary Distance < 50ft $7.27 Monthly fee per cart, each way Distance > 50ft $14.74 Monthly fee per cart, each way On Call rate only available with approval from Route Manager MFD One Time Service Fees Fee Return Fee - BIN $75.00 Return Fee - CART -same day $10.00 Return Fee - CART -off day $25.00 Late Fee/Resume Service Fee $35.00 Contamination (BIN) Per Yard $50.00 Contamination (CART) $30.00 Overload/Compaction (BIN) $60.00 Overload/Compaction (CART) $25.00 Additional Empty/Bag Garbage $15.00 Extra Bag Yard Waste $10.00 Additional Empty Garbage Fees vary Steam Clean (BIN) $95.00 Steam Clean (CART) $15.00 Steam Clean (COMPACTOR/ROLL-OFF) $225.00 Lock Set-up Admin Fee $25.00 Lock Single Use Fee $5.00 Lock Purchase Fee $20.00 Lock Bar Bin Set-up Fee $75.00 Overweight Charge Per Ton*$205.00 20 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $55.00 32 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $60.00 64 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $65.00 96 Gal Cart Replacement Fee $75.00 64 Gal Split Cart Replacement Fee $90.00 96 Gal Split Cart Replacement Fee $100.00 Bin Repair/Replacement Fee**Fees vary by size up to $1,200 *(Boxes exceeding 300lbs/yard) **Fees vary by size not to exceed current replacement value. NOTE: All container types and sizes may not be available depending on a variety of factors including safety, accessibility, and efficiency. Requests to be assessed and approved by Route Manager. NOTE: Minimum service level is 32 gallons per unit or equivalent volume. Decrease to 20 gallon per unit is subject to company review and approval. NOTE: Up to four (4) Organics carts provided at no additional charge. Additional carts may be rented for a nominal monthly fee. RE O C C U R I N G C H A R G E S Collections per Week Additional One Time Empty/On Call Other Charges ON E T I M E S E R V I C E F E E S Monthly fee