CITY OF LARKSPUR Staff Report. March 1, 2017 Council Meeting. Honorable Mayor Haroff and Members of the City Council

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM 7.2 CITY OF LARKSPUR Staff Report March 1, 2017 Council Meeting DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor Haroff and Members of the City Council Dan Schwarz, City Manager ESTABLISHING A VEHICLE IMPACT FEE ON REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES continued from February 1, 2017 ACTION REQUESTED Adopt attached resolution. SUMMARY The City of Larkspur maintains 35 miles of roadway within its jurisdiction. The funding for this maintenance comes from State gas tax money, congestion management/road impact fees and taxes. These revenues fall well short of the City s overall funding need. As a result, Larkspur s overall road quality is consistently rated as one of the worst in the Bay Area. In 2012, the City commissioned a study to measure the impact on its roads by refuse collection vehicles, and the Council determined that it was appropriate to create a fee for the use of Larkspur roads by the City s refuse collection franchise holder, Marin Sanitary Service (MSS). The analysis was performed by HF&H Consultants and concluded that refuse collection vehicles accounted for 30% of the impact on Larkspur roads. As is permissible by law, the City adopted a fee requiring MSS to pay the City 30% of its Average Annual Expenditures (for pavement related street maintenance net of gas tax apportionments) for the period of review (previous five years); this fee amounts to $389,000.

2 ESTABLISHING A VEHICLE IMPACT FEE ON REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES Page 2 Five years have now passed and the City has commissioned a new study of the impact of refuse vehicles. This study has determined that the refuse vehicles now account for 26.9% of the impact on Larkspur roads. A January draft of the attached study had determined that the refuse vehicle impact was 42.5%. Upon further review between HF&H Consultants, the authors of the study, and MSS, it was discovered that some of the fleet information in the study was incorrect. In addition, MSS is implementing some changes in its fleet that will result in smaller and lighter vehicles serving Larkspur. Once these variables were adjusted in the study, it was determined, and is reflected in the attached report, that the City can defend an annual RVIF of 26.9% of its Annual Average Expenditures, which would equate to $568,400. The law allows MSS to pass the RVIF through to Larkspur ratepayers. HF&H has determined that for each new $100,000 in RVIF, the approximate impact is an increase to collection rates of 2.4%. If the Council approves a RVIF equaling $568,400, rates will increase by approximately 4.31%. The Council is not required to increase the RVIF. The Council also has the option to increase the fee in phases of 2-3 years. However, Larkspur has many roads in need of repair and an increased fee will be a significant boost to the City s efforts. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed Refuse Collection VIF would generate $568,400 per fiscal year for roadway maintenance an increase of $179,400. The fee would be revisited in five years and could change significantly if the variables used to analyze vehicle impact change. This money would be restricted for use in maintaining and repairing roads (which includes related sidewalk and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements). DISCUSSION The City of Larkspur maintains 35 miles of roadway within its jurisdiction. Until 2012 and 2013, the primary funding source for this maintenance was State gas tax. In 2012 and 2013, the City generated two new revenue streams to apply toward road maintenance and repair the RVIF and the local ½-cent sales tax, Measure C. These revenue sources have empowered the City to a significant number of lane miles. Despite these gains, Larkspur road quality continues to rank in the bottom five among Bay Area municipalities. The City continues to evaluate all options available to it to generate money to repair roads.

3 ESTABLISHING A VEHICLE IMPACT FEE ON REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES Page 3 Marin Sanitary Service (MSS) provides refuse collection services to the several areas within Marin County through franchises with local agencies. Five of the agencies have a history of working collectively to review MSS s rate proposals; this franchisor group includes the cities of Larkspur, Ross, and San Rafael, the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, and the County of Marin (for certain unincorporated areas most notably portions of the Ross Valley). MSS serves the agencies within the franchisors group, as well as the Towns of Fairfax and San Anselmo. Of these franchisors, the City of San Rafael and the Town of Fairfax impose a RVIF on MSS. ANALYSIS The attached analysis by HF&H provides an overview of the vehicle impacts in Larkspur, as well as the methodology used to determine the distribution of those impacts to different vehicle categories. Tables 1-4 found on Pages 2-4 of the report provide a summary and breakdown of this analysis. Because 82.6% of the Larkspur road system consists of streets categorized as residential, this level of street plays a significant role in the overall analysis by HF&H. As seen in Table 2: Residential Street Impact Analysis (Page 2), refuse vehicles account for 48.1% of the impact on this level of street. A refuse vehicle impact fee is a regulatory fee for the use of government (public) property Larkspur roads. It should be emphasized that the proposed fee would be charged by the City to MSS. As a regulatory fee directly related to its service, MSS would have the option to pass it through to the ratepayers, which the Council should anticipate would occur. For the most residential customers, this pass-through would amount to an additional $4-5 per month if the Council adopts the $568,400 fee. For the average commercial customer, the pass-through would amount to less than $ per month. It should be noted that when taking the pass-through into account, Larkspur ratepayers would be paying the highest monthly charges within the franchisors group, and would be one of the highest rates in Marin. The proposed fee of $568,400 is the maximum defensible amount according to the HF&H analysis. The Council does have the option to set the amount at a figure below $568,400, or to phase the increase over a period of time. RECOMMENDATION

4 ESTABLISHING A VEHICLE IMPACT FEE ON REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES Page 4 It is recommended that the Council approve the attached resolution establishing a vehicle impact fee on refuse collection vehicles of 26.9% of the City s Average Annual Expenditures for pavement related street maintenance net of gas tax apportionments. Respectfully Submitted, Dan Schwarz Attachments 1) HF&H report 2) Resolution

5 201 N. Civic Drive, Suite 230 Robert D. Hilton, CMC Walnut Creek, California John W. Farnkopf, PE Telephone: 925/ Laith B. Ezzet, CMC consultants.com Richard J. Simonson, CMC Marva M. Sheehan, CPA Rob Hilton, CMC Mr. Dan Schwarz City Manager City of Larkspur 420 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, CA Sent via e mail Subject: Update to Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Cost Analysis FINAL REPORT Reference Number: S2025 Dear : HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) was engaged by the City of Larkspur (City) to update our 2012 analysis to determine the impact of Marin Sanitary Service s (Company) solid waste, recycling, and yard waste vehicles (Refuse Vehicles) on street maintenance costs (i.e., maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction costs) within the City s maintained road system. In our 2012 report to the City, HF&H identified approximately $389,000 per year in street impacts associated with the City s Refuse Vehicle traffic. In 2016, HF&H conducted an update of the analysis and the assumptions have been updated to reflect the current collection methodology, vehicles, and changes in the City s street maintenance funding levels. Our updated analysis has identified approximately $568,400 per year in street impacts associated with the City s Refuse Vehicle traffic. Most of the change in impacts results from a significant increase in pavement related expenditures by the City. Our analysis is based on available information related to street maintenance costs, funding sources, street design specifications, and vehicle profiles for the types of Refuse Vehicles providing service in the City, their weights, axle configurations, and service frequency. Should there be any future material changes to that information, or within five years regardless of such changes, the City should review the calculated impacts and any associated fees that might be established. Objectives The objectives of the engagement were to: 1. Update the calculation of the City s average annual expenditures for pavement related street maintenance net of gas tax apportionments based on Fiscal Years Ending (FYE) (Average Annual Expenditures); and, 2. Allocate the Average Annual Expenditures based on the percentage impact of Refuse Vehicles, other trucks, and automobiles on the City s streets; and,

6 Page 2 of 9 3. Estimate the projected Annual Expenditures based on two different funding scenarios from the City s 2014 Pavement Management Plan (PMP). Findings As shown in the following tables and based on the approach described below: 1. We calculate Average Annual Expenditures of $2,112,200 based on actual spending as demonstrated in the City s Streets and Roads Report to the State of California Controller s Office for Fiscal Years Ending (FYE) 2012 through 2016; 2. The PMP provides a Needs based pavement related funding scenario of $7,450,000 in additional Annual Expenditures; 3. Refuse Vehicles from the Company account for approximately 26.9% of the total impact that a typical street experiences; and, 4. Based on 26.9% attribution to Refuse Vehicles, the share of the Average Annual Expenditures attributable to Refuse Vehicles is $568,400 at current funding levels, and $2,573,500 at the Needs based funding level as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Summary Financial Impacts (Includes all street classifications) Vehicle Type Street Maintenance Cost Current Target Funding Percent of Total Impacts Residential Solid Waste Vehicles Residential Recycling Vehicles Residential Yard Waste Vehicles Commercial Solid Waste Vehicles Commercial Recycling Vehicles Commercial Organics Vehicles REFUSE VEHICLE SUBTOTAL $ 130,800 $ 592, % $ 282,900 $ 1,280, % $ 143,600 $ 650, % $ 6,900 $ 31, % $ 4,100 $ 18, % $ 100 $ % $ 568,400 $ 2,573, % ALL OTHER VEHICLES $ 1,543,800 $ 6,988, % TOTAL $ 2,112,200 $ 9,562, % Note: Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. If the City wishes to recover the amount attributable to the impact of the Company s Refuse Vehicles, it would assess the Company an annual Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee of: $568,400 for Scenario 1; or, $2,573,500 for Scenario 2. Tables two through four illustrate the impact of all vehicle types by each road classification, which combine

7 Page 3 of 9 to the system wide values presented above in Table 1. It is worth noting that the vast majority of the impacts of Refuse Vehicles occur on the residential street type. Residential streets are designed to the lowest standard of all streets in the City. Their primary function is to provide access to individual residential properties for motorized vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The residential streets are not as well designed to accommodate the frequency and loading of a Refuse Vehicle relative to commercial and arterial roads, which are designed to accommodate higher frequencies of heavy vehicle traffic. A collector street is a lowto moderate capacity road that moves traffic from residential streets to arterials. These types of streets are designed to a higher standard than residential streets to accommodate larger vehicles and more volume. Arterial streets provide direct, relatively high speed service for longer trips and large traffic volumes and are designed to the highest standard. Vehicle Type Table 2: Residential Street Impact Analysis Total ESAL Loadings / Vehicle Type Street Maintenance Cost Impact per Current Target Funding Percent of Total Impacts Residential Solid Waste Vehicles Residential Recycling Vehicles Residential Yard Waste Vehicles REFUSE VEHICLE SUBTOTAL ALL OTHER VEHICLES TOTAL 808 $ 128,500 $ 581, % 1,747 $ 277,800 $ 1,257, % 887 $ 141,100 $ 638, % 3,442 $ 547,400 $ 2,478, % 3,719 $ 591,600 $ 2,678, % 7,161 $ 1,139,000 $ 5,156, % Vehicle Type Table 3: Collector Street Impact Analysis Total ESAL Loadings / Vehicle Type Street Maintenance Cost Impact per Current Target Funding Percent of Total Impacts Residential Solid Waste Vehicles Residential Recycling Vehicles Residential Yard Waste Vehicles Commercial Solid Waste Vehicles Commercial Recycling Vehicles Commercial Organics Vehicles REFUSE VEHICLE SUBTOTAL ALL OTHER VEHICLES TOTAL 808 $ 2,200 $ 10, % 1,747 $ 4,800 $ 21, % 887 $ 2,400 $ 11, % 2,381 $ 6,500 $ 29, % 1,414 $ 3,900 $ 17, % 26 $ 100 $ % 7,263 $ 19,900 $ 90, % 208,830 $ 572,500 $ 2,591, % 216,093 $ 592,400 $ 2,681, %

8 Page 4 of 9 Vehicle Type Table 4: Arterial Street Impact Analysis Total ESAL Loadings / Vehicle Type Street Maintenance Cost Impact per Current Target Funding Percent of Total Impacts Residential Solid Waste Vehicles Residential Recycling Vehicles Residential Yard Waste Vehicles Commercial Solid Waste Vehicles Commercial Recycling Vehicles Commercial Organics Vehicles REFUSE VEHICLE SUBTOTAL ALL OTHER VEHICLES 808 $ 100 $ % 1,747 $ 300 $ 1, % 887 $ 100 $ % 2,381 $ 400 $ 1, % 1,414 $ 200 $ 1, % 26 $ $ 0.0% 7,263 $ 1,100 $ 5, % 2,416,556 $ 379,700 $ 1,718, % Note: Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding It should be noted that reasonable ranges exist for various key assumptions used in our analysis, and that the analysis is highly sensitive to changes in certain key assumptions. A discussion of key assumptions and sensitivities is provided later in this report. In a number of cases, this report relied on representations of City staff and the Company (which we assumed to be informed and reliable). Overview TOTAL 2,423,819 $ 380,800 $ 1,723, % Road maintenance is based on deterioration. While roads will deteriorate if simply left unused, most deterioration is associated with use. The damage caused by vehicles increases much more than proportionately with size and weight. Hence, maintenance costs are greater for trips made by heavy vehicles. A single, large truck can cause as much damage as thousands of automobiles, and a truck s configuration can affect the amount of damage as well. If the load is spread over more axles, allowing for less weight on each wheel, then damage is reduced. 1 Refuse Vehicles are generally some of the heaviest vehicles regularly operating on City streets. Accordingly, these vehicles contribute significantly to the cost of maintaining those streets. The Company is aware of this issue and the City s concerns around it. In response to these concerns, the Company has provided trucks that will balance collection efficiencies with the impacts on City streets (e.g. using three axle trucks that distribute the load over a larger surface area). It is generally acknowledged that preventative maintenance is the single most important component of an effective pavement management program and that each dollar spent on preventative maintenance now can save as much as five dollars or more in future costs. The key is to maintain streets and roads in good condition (at a relatively low cost), rather than allowing pavement to deteriorate to the point where extensive 1 Rufolo, Cost Based Road Taxation, Cascade Policy Institute, Policy Perspective #5, November 1995.

9 Page 5 of 9 rehabilitation or reconstruction becomes necessary. The unit of measure used to rate the condition of pavement is the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which rates pavements on a score of 0 to 100. Local roads within the Bay Area have an average PCI of 65. The City has reported that its streets have an average PCI of 42, which falls in the category of Poor. Pavements in this range are significantly deteriorated and require immediate attention, including reconstruction and rehabilitative work. Rapid deterioration of pavement typically occurs after roadways drop to a PCI score of 60 or lower; 2 therefore, assuring adequate funding for an effective pavement management program for the City s streets is critical and is one of the most financially prudent steps the City can take. Delays in preventative maintenance increase the quantity and severity of pavement defects, and result in higher costs during pavement life. Consequently, using only a routine and reactive approach will considerably increase the life cycle costs of the pavement. 3 Background The Company provides solid waste, recycling, and yard waste services in the City. Residential solid waste and yard waste services are provided weekly with rear loading vehicles. Residential recycling services are provided weekly with side loading vehicles. These vehicles generally make a single pass down each side of a street to provide service for each material type collected (i.e., each truck services one side of the street on each pass). Commercial solid waste, recycling, and organics services are provided in varying frequencies to customers by front loading, rear loading, and small rear loading vehicles, respectively. Based on customer subscription information provided by the Company, HF&H has calculated that these vehicles service the average commercial solid waste, recycling, and organics containers approximately 2.6, 3, and 1.2 times per week, respectively. Approach Our analysis is based on the City s projected Average Annual Expenditures and allocates the Average Annual Expenditures attributed to the impacts of Refuse Vehicles on the City s streets. The basis for allocating the Average Annual Expenditures is made by calculating the Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) of each type of vehicle traveling on the City s streets, as described below. The underlying premise for the analysis is similar to that of the 2012 Refuse Vehicle impact analysis. The weight and loading of Refuse Vehicles imposes a particular, specific, and quantifiable impact on City streets. The analysis is based on the fact that the City s streets are designed to handle a certain amount of vehicle traffic (loading) over their design life. That loading is a function of both the number and weight of vehicles. The lifetime vehicle loading that a street can accommodate can be expressed as the total number of ESALs. Each vehicle type (e.g., Refuse Vehicles, other trucks, and automobiles) can be converted into an associated ESAL, based on the vehicle s weight and its distribution among the vehicle s axles. By projecting the type and number of vehicles that will travel on a street over its design life, the total number of ESALs can be calculated, and the street designed to handle that projected loading. Similarly, the relative impact of each type of vehicle 2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Current Issues in Pavement Maintenance and Management. July A Pavement Preventative Maintenance Program; Larry Galehouse, P.E., L.S.; Michigan Department of Transportation.

10 Page 6 of 9 on that street can be calculated, based on the percentage of the total ESALs attributed to each vehicle type. Methodology The methodology used to project the impact of Refuse Vehicles can be summarized as follows: Determine Design Standard HF&H worked with the City to review the pavement design standards and the number of average daily vehicle trips by vehicle type (Refuse Vehicles, other trucks, and automobiles) on City roads used in our analysis. For the purposes of this study, residential streets are assumed to be designed to a traffic index (TI) of 5.0 or 7,161 ESALs. Collector streets are assumed to be designed to a TI of 7.5 or 216,093 ESALs. Arterial streets are designed to a TI of 10.0 or 2,423,819 ESALs. Determine the Impact of Each Vehicle Type HF&H collected from the Company and through independent investigation, vehicle weights and profiles for the various vehicles being studied in this analysis. Each vehicle type was modeled based on weight, vehicle specifications, axle profile, and average payload. This modeling produced an average ESAL for each vehicle type, which was then used to assess the direct impact of each vehicle trip by each vehicle type. Project Maintenance Costs Associated with Each Vehicle Type The City provided its annual Streets and Roads Report data for the period FYE 2012 through FYE HF&H worked with the City to correct for one time expenditures and ensure that the financial basis used in the study reflected only the City s expected ongoing expenditures. These annual costs were escalated by the five year average of the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco to bring the costs into current 2016 dollars. This data was used to calculate the percentage of funding that was dedicated to pavement versus non pavement related activities. This calculation was used as the basis for the Average Annual Expenditures at the current spending level; The City provided its 2014 Pavement Management Program Update. This data was used to establish the pavement related maintenance expenditures associated with the Needs based funding scenario mentioned above. This was used as the basis for the Annual Expenditures at that funding scenario; The Average Annual Expenditures and projected expenditures were allocated among residential, collector, and arterial streets in proportion to the pavement square feet for each of those street classifications; and, The residential, collector, and arterial street portions of the Average Annual Expenditures and projected expenditures were allocated among the various vehicle types in proportion to the calculated impact of each vehicle type, as determined above. Key Assumptions/Inputs The analysis relied in part on the following key assumptions, provided largely by the City and Company and supplemented with data from other sources as noted: Residential streets account for approximately 54% of the total residential, collector, and arterial

11 Page 7 of 9 pavement square feet in the City; Collector streets account for approximately 28% of the total residential, collector, and arterial pavement square feet in the City; Arterial streets account for approximately 18% of the total residential, collector, and arterial pavement square feet in the City; Residential solid waste, recycling, and yard waste services are provided weekly; Residential solid waste payloads are 12,000 pounds per load on average; Residential recycling payloads are 8,000 pounds per load on average; Residential organic payloads are 16,000 pounds per load on average; Commercial solid waste payloads are 12,000 pounds per load on average; Commercial recycling payloads are 6,000 pounds per load on average; Commercial organic payloads are 3,000 pounds per load on average; Residential streets are designed to a TI of 5.0; Collector streets are designed to a TI of 7.5; Arterial streets are designed to a TI of 10.0; Refuse Vehicles servicing residential containers typically travel on each residential street segment twice to provide service (i.e., they service one side of the street on a single pass); 4 Commercial Refuse Vehicles service the average account for solid waste 2.55 times per week and make one pass for each account for a total of 2.55 trips per week; Commercial recycling collection vehicles service the average account for solid waste 3.05 times per week and make one pass for each account for a total of 3.05 trips per week; Commercial organic collection vehicles service the average account for solid waste 1.2 times per week and make one pass for each account for a total of 1.2 trips per week; Refuse Vehicle tare weight and payload weight data was provided by MSS and was based on actual data for a representative vehicle from their total fleet for each of the truck types; Refuse Vehicle axle weight distribution profiles were based on data provided by vehicle manufacturers for the same or similar vehicle types; Axle weight data for other trucks and automobiles was based on data compiled from a variety of sources including vehicle manufacturers and industry publications; and The City s Average Annual Expenditures are approximately $2,112, The analysis does not account for any additional passes due to vehicle routing (e.g., dead heading over a previously serviced street).

12 Page 8 of 9 Using the assumptions noted above, the portion of the City s Average Annual Expenditures associated with Refuse Vehicles was calculated following the previously described methodology. Sensitivity Analysis As noted in the Limitations section below, our analysis is based on a number of key assumptions, and changes to those assumptions may have a material impact on the resulting findings. The following information provides an overview of the relative impact of changes in certain key assumptions on the projected impacts associated with Refuse Vehicles. Average Annual Non-Discretionary Funding Shortfall Our analysis is based on Average Annual Expenditures of approximately $2,112,000. Changes to that amount would have a proportionate effect on the amount allocated to Refuse Vehicles, provided that the allocation of the Average Annual Expenditures to each functional classification of streets remains the same (e.g., a change in the Average Annual Expenditures amount of 10% would result in a 10% change in the amount of costs allocated to Refuse Vehicles). Refuse Vehicle Trips Changing the number of trips assumed for Refuse Vehicles has a direct effect on the projected impacts (e.g., the calculated impact for a Refuse Vehicle making two passes down each street segment is twice that of a Refuse Vehicle making only one pass). While the current number of trips associated with Refuse Vehicles is well established, changes to the collection methods (e.g., switching from two pass fully automated side loader solid waste collection to one pass semi automated side or rear loader collection) would impact the number of Refuse Vehicle trips and the associated impact. Total Vehicle Trips and Percentage of Vehicle Types Changing the number of total vehicle trips (without changing the number of Refuse Vehicle trips) affects the projected impacts in roughly inverse proportion (e.g., doubling the number of total vehicle trips reduces the calculated impact of Refuse Vehicles by about half, while halving the number of total vehicle trips roughly doubles the calculated impact). Changing the percentage of total vehicles assumed to be trucks has a material impact on the analysis. The impact of trucks is substantial; therefore, as the percentage of trucks increases, their relative impact increases, while the relative impact of Refuse Vehicles decreases. There is a similar relationship with automobiles; however, that impact is not as significant due to the lesser relative impact of automobiles. Equivalent Single Axle Loadings (ESAL) Changing the assumed ESAL for Refuse Vehicles has a roughly proportionate effect on the calculated impact. If we double the associated ESAL, the impact roughly doubles. Similarly, if we reduce the assumed ESAL by half, the impact is reduced by about half. While we have attempted to estimate the ESALs for Refuse Vehicles as accurately as possible, those calculations are highly sensitive to assumed vehicle weights (both loaded and unloaded) and the distribution of that weight among the vehicles axles. The assumptions regarding the ESALs of each vehicle type affect the calculated impacts associated with each

13 Page 9 of 9 other vehicle type. Changes in the assumed ESALs of other trucks and automobiles have an inverse effect on the calculated impact of Refuse Vehicles (i.e., as the assumed ESAL of other trucks and/or automobiles increases, the calculated impact of Refuse Vehicles decreases and vice versa). Limitations Our analysis does not account for the potential impact of any non vehicle related factors (e.g., repair and maintenance of underground utilities). To the extent any such factors affect street maintenance and rehabilitation costs, the impact attributed to the different vehicle types would be affected. Our analysis is based on the various assumptions noted, including the total number of vehicle trips and average ESALs associated with the various vehicle types. Changes to these assumptions may have a material impact on the analysis. Annual street maintenance costs can vary widely, both in total and specific to pavement and nonpavement related expenses as well as the amount spent on residential versus collector and arterial streets. Our analysis is based on the City s street maintenance cost and funding data for FYE 2012 through 2016 and the noted assumptions regarding those factors. Changes to those assumptions may have a material impact on the associated calculations. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please do not hesitate to call me directly at (925) Sincerely, HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC Rob Hilton, CMC Vice President cc: Marva Sheehan, HF&H Kim Erwin, HF&H

14 CITY OF LARKSPUR RESOLUTION No.14/17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LARKSPUR ESTABLISHING A VEHICLE IMPACT FEE ON REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES WHEREAS, the City Council may adopt impact fees for which there is a nexus to the use of public property or goods; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a vehicle impact fee on refuse collection vehicles in 2012; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on Wednesday, January 18, 2017 for the purpose of considering a revised vehicle impact fee on refuse collection vehicles; WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued to February 1, 2017 and then to March 1, 2017 to allow the refuse collection franchise operator, Marin Sanitary Service, additional time to review the underlying study for the fee; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed an analysis demonstrating that twentysix and nine-tenths percent (26.9%) of the vehicle impact to roads within its jurisdiction can be attributed to refuse vehicles; WHEREAS, many jurisdictions establish refuse vehicle impact fees that require the refuse collection service provider(s) to pay a proportional share of the City s average annual expenditures for pavement related street maintenance net of gas tax apportionments; WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the City s independently commissioned analysis that the real dollar amount of a refuse vehicle impact fee be calculated every five years based on the City s average annual expenditures for pavement related street maintenance net of gas tax apportionments; and WHEREAS, the City s average annual expenditures for pavement related street maintenance net of gas tax apportionments for the past five years is $2,122,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Larkspur hereby establishes a Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee of twenty-six and ninetenths percent (26.9%) of the City s average annual expenditures for pavement related street maintenance net of gas tax apportionments. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee for the period commencing with the adoption of this resolution is determined to be $568,400 annually.

15 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall review the Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee five years subsequent to the adoption of this fee. * * * * * * * IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Larkspur City Council held on the 1 st day of March, 2017 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: COUNCILMEMBER: COUNCILMEMBER: COUNCILMEMBER: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK